Sitting of 13 March 2000

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

    Immigration Advisers
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: What progress he has made in curbing the activities of unscrupulous immigration advisers. [112572]
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to curb the activities of unscrupulous immigration advisers. [112582]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Under part V of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the provision of immigration advice or services will be prohibited unless a person is registered with the immigration services commissioner; authorised to practise by a designated professional body; or exempt under the terms of the scheme.
    2
    We are in the process of appointing the immigration services commissioner, who will lead the body that administers the scheme.
    Mr. Gerrard: May I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and encourage her to take a tough line with some of the people who currently give advice? In particular, will she ensure that solicitors are included in the scheme? I still come across far too many cases involving solicitors who give the most appalling advice at extortionate cost. Recently, a solicitor advised one of my constituents from Jamaica to apply for asylum, when that person had a straightforward application for a student visa. Of course, my constituent did not take the advice. Will my hon. Friend ensure that solicitors are covered and that nothing in the scheme has a damaging effect on the advice that is sometimes well given by small community groups?
    Mrs. Roche: I am extremely well aware of the problem, both as a Minister and as a constituency Member of Parliament. I assure my hon. Friend that, since January, all legal aid work has had to be undertaken by quality-assured suppliers. I know that the Law Society has that in mind—it is one of the professional bodies included in the scheme.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in 1992, the Select Committee on Home Affairs drew attention to unscrupulous immigration advisers? The Conservative Government had five years to do something about the problem, but they did nothing. What does my hon. Friend say about that?
    Mrs. Roche: I certainly do recall that matter, because I was a member of the Committee; indeed, I was a member of its Sub-Committee. That Select Committee was chaired by a Conservative Member and recommended that the then Conservative Government should do something about the problem. They completely failed to do so, which resulted in the delay and has led to

    3
    unscrupulous asylum cases. Who was the Minister at the time? None other than the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not the situation far too serious for such cheap jibes? Is it not true that monstrous profiteering, at the expense of the vulnerable and gullible, has to be stopped? People are gravely anxious about the steady increase in the number of bogus asylum seekers. The situation in many London boroughs is intolerable; there are neither the housing nor the schools necessary to cope. Will the hon. Lady give us hope that there will be some effective curb on unscrupulous advisers and that she will get a grip on her Department and bring the inflow to a halt?
    Mrs. Roche: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to say something about unscrupulous immigration advisers, because the situation is deplorable; they serve nobody. However, the hon. Gentleman was a Member when the Conservative Government, whom he supported, were in power. They introduced the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary moved amendments to that measure when we were in opposition to do exactly what we are doing at present. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman supported my right hon. Friend's amendments, but I welcome a late convert to the cause.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Is not the Minister ashamed of the fact that, owing to the Government's incompetence, the asylum application backlog has doubled to more than 100,000 since May 1997?
    Mrs. Roche: One of the facts that the hon. Gentleman might like to consider is that the average time, when the previous Government—
    Mr. Ruffley: Is she ashamed?
    Mrs. Roche: If the hon. Gentleman would keep quiet for a moment, he might be interested in my answer. He asked a question and I shall answer it; what he is about to hear may be uncomfortable for him. First, there is the backlog left by his Government. Secondly, under that Government, the average time to determine an asylum application was 20 months; under the Labour Government, the time has gone down to 13 months—and it will go down even further.

    Licensing Hours
    Mr. David Watts: What plans he has to change the licensing hours for public houses and clubs. [112573]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We have been looking at licensing hours as part of our review of licensing law. We shall shortly publish a White Paper setting out our legislative proposals for reform of the licensing system as a whole.
    Mr. Watts: I thank the Minister for his reply. May I draw his attention to the fact that several private
    4
    members' clubs are worried about the implications of the proposals? Would he meet a delegation from that group to try to resolve their concerns?
    Mr. O'Brien: I have already met some representatives of private members' clubs to discuss their concerns. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall take on board the points that they made. When the White Paper is published, they will see that we have taken cognisance of their concerns.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: As the media appear to have been briefed that it is in the Government's mind to introduce 24-hour licensing, will the Minister ensure that in his White Paper he sets out very clearly the measures that the Government propose to take to protect those private householders who live near pubs and clubs and who need to sleep between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am?
    Mr. O'Brien: We think that there is a good case for greater flexibility in opening hours, but we need to take care that the new laws, which may well in due course come forward, take account of the interests of people who live near licensed premises as well as of those who would seek to use them. I certainly hope that, in due course, when we bring forward our proposals, there will be a proper balance between the interests of those who live near public houses or other licensed premises and want to ensure that they are not disturbed by unnecessary nuisance or disorder, and the interests of those who wish to use licensed premises in order, quite properly, to enjoy themselves.

    Voting (New Technology)
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What steps he is taking to enable new technology to be used for voting in national and local elections. [112574]
    Jane Griffiths: What steps he is taking to enable new technology to be used in national and local elections. [112584]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Representation of the People Bill includes provisions to allow local authorities to pilot innovative electoral procedures, such as electronic voting and electronic counting. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been able to give provisional approval to six such schemes to be piloted at this May's local elections.
    Mr. Chapman: While I welcome the piloting of electronic voting at the local government elections this year, if we are to make voting as accessible as possible, do we not have to go much further and consider all-postal ballots, mobile balloting and more flexible times and dates for voting?
    Mr. O'Brien: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we need to consider all those things. I hope that, under the provisions of the Bill, we shall be able to pilot many of them and ensure that there is greater access to

    5
    enable all those who have the right to vote to do so more easily. I hope that that will increase the number of people who participate in our democracy.
    Jane Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of democracy, we should all be concerned about the declining turnout at elections? Does he also agree that people will not understand the continuing Conservative opposition to measures to make voting easier and more accessible?
    Mr. O'Brien: We have had varying degrees of support from the Opposition for our legislation. I believe that all Members of the House should be in favour of encouraging more people to go to the polling station and vote. It was with regret that we encountered some opposition to particular aspects of this legislation that could have encouraged people to exercise their proper democratic right to vote.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: While I welcome new technologies, does the Minister agree that some people—such as my mother, who lives in Lichfield—are quite nervous about using things like automated teller machine cards? My mother likes writing out cheques, and I am quite sure that she would like to be able to do the old-fashioned tick on the box—hopefully against my name. Does the Minister accept that, in this ruthless drive for new technology, he may well alienate older people who are frightened of using electronic devices? Or will this new initiative be as effective as the initiative announced in the first three months of the new Labour Government, when they said that they were going to introduce new electronic dispatch boxes? Like so many other promises, it has come to nought.
    Mr. O'Brien: I think the hon. Gentleman is at least guaranteed one vote—or is he?—and, by the way, we normally put Xs, not ticks, on ballot papers. We certainly aim to encourage all people to vote, and we have taken precautions, in the legislation and in shaping the role of the Electoral Commission, to ensure that any spread of the types of pilot scheme that we shall now consider will be of the sort that will encourage people, especially the elderly, to feel comfortable with going into polling stations and casting their ballot. Therefore, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he is to get only one vote, we shall want his mother to be able to vote.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Minister put my mind at rest by reassuring me that voting will continue in person, that voting electronically will not be open to fraud and that it will be deliverable in villages and market towns such as Easingwold, Thirsk, Bedale and Boroughbridge in north Yorkshire?
    Mr. O'Brien: We certainly want to ensure that the new pilot schemes will be safe from abuse by any of those who might seek improperly to use them. None of the applications being piloted this year involves systems such as internet voting, but we hope that, in future years, we shall consider pilot scheme applications that involve such innovations. However, we will want to be reassured that, even when we pilot them, they are secure in terms of the operation of voting and that we do not have problems with personation, improper voting procedures and electoral
    6
    abuse. We want to be very careful and we hope that the Electoral Commission's role in considering the pilot schemes will assist us in ensuring that things are done properly.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What will the checks be against electoral fraud when votes are exercised and counted electronically? At present, the parties can send their people to the counts to keep an eye on the votes and to see how they are stacking up. What will the equivalent system be so that the representatives of the parties can ensure that we do not have a fiddled franchise?
    Mr. O'Brien: We certainly want to ensure that there is no fiddled franchise and that we have a system that operates in a secure manner. If we receive any applications—I must tell my hon. Friend that we have received none as yet—we will want to ensure that the checks that are carried out provide safeguards. I cannot give him a list of the safeguards that we might have to put in place, because we have received no applications yet. I suspect that electronic and internet systems are not suitable at the moment for carrying out such operations. However, we will not close our mind to such systems in the years ahead.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). In many ways, he has been the parent of many of the very good ideas for a rolling register that are being introduced in legislation.

    Probation Service
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on his plans to change the name of the Probation Service. [112575]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to announce that we have listened to the representations of members of the House and others. Community punishment and rehabilitation will still be included in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, but in its aims for the service rather than as a name. We intend that the new unified service will be called the National Probation Service of England and Wales.
    Mr. Bercow: My joy at that reply is literally boundless. May I tell the Minister that, in the light of the 87 objections to his proposals that have already been publicly expressed, I was minded to ask him whether he would be willing today to concede gracefully, to withdraw his silly plan and to earn the shower of plaudits that an omission of error would bring? He has done so, and I warmly congratulate him—at the risk of inflicting the gravest possible damage on his future political career.
    Mr. Boateng: I am delighted to have brought a little joy into the hon. Gentleman's life.
    Ms Oona King: I, too, was surprised at my right hon. Friend's response. I wondered whether rehabilitation within the community punishment service could not be called "Recompense", which seemed better than CRAPS, CARPS or the other alternatives.
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has made her point.

    Police Manpower
    Mr. Graham Brady: What forecast he has made of the total number of police officers in England and Wales at 31 March. [112576]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Following the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, the number of police officers at any one time is a matter for the chief constable of an area to determine within available resources. At the end of September 1999, there were 125,404 officers in post. Audited information on police numbers for 31 March of this year should be available at the end of June.
    Under the crime fighting fund, funding is being made available from April 2000 to pay for the recruitment of an additional 5,000 officers over and above the number who would otherwise have been recruited. Pressures on police funding and their possible impact on police numbers are also being considered in the 2000 spending review.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply. Given that in Greater Manchester we now have 120 police officers fewer than we had at the last general election, and that in the past year the figures for recorded crime in Greater Manchester have risen by 10,000, is it not obvious that the Government are failing to deliver on their promise to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime? Now that we know that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was only joking when he said that there would be no more selection in schools, will the Home Secretary tell us whether he was only joking when he said that he would be tough on crime?
    Mr. Straw: We most certainly are delivering on our promises. I am not clear about the figures for rising crime which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because the figures that I have show that there was an increase in Greater Manchester, but it was a very small one of 0.2 per cent., or 754 offences, and not 10,000.
    As to police numbers, the hon. Gentleman will know that between 1993 and 1998, under budgets for which the Administration whom he supported were responsible, police numbers fell significantly. Unfortunately, they have continued to fall, not least because of budgets that we set at the level that the previous Administration had suggested. However, I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of allocations that we have made under the crime fighting fund, police numbers in Greater Manchester will rise by 378, and I hope that he will applaud that.
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increases proposed for Essex county under the Government's crime fighting fund, which mean that there will be 23 extra officers next year, 40 the year after and 40 the year after that? Will he explain to both Opposition parties what increases and reductions mean? Will he also explain further to those parties the programme of civilianisation, because Essex police officers are having a job trying to explain it to Opposition Members?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he says, over the next three years, we have provided
    8
    allocations for an increase of 103 officers in the Essex police force. On the variations that take place in particular areas, I can do no better, so far as Essex is concerned, than to quote the Colchester divisional commander, Superintendent Julian Field. He says that police numbers
    fluctuate up and down all the time. Sometimes people are attached to us for a little while and sometimes people are seconded.
    As for the loss of 12 officers—a policy that the previous Administration at one stage applauded—he said:
    That is because of a programme of civilianisation of officers who performed a range of jobs like crime prevention and licensing.
    Before Opposition Members make too much of the reduction in police numbers, I remind them that it was a deliberate policy of the previous Administration, which was flagged up in their 1992 manifesto, that many jobs previously undertaken by police officers should in future be undertaken by civilians.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary is often very straight with the House. Will he be straight with the House about police numbers? Is not the truth that although he has been consistent on the figure of 5,000 extra officers which he announced at the Labour party conference, that is extra to a number of recruits, which has now changed three times? The total figure for extra recruits over the next three years is now 17,500. The projections show that 16,800 officers are likely to leave, which means that the net figure of extra officers is 700, and we are already 1,600 down since the last election.
    Would not the Home Secretary's promise be as hollow as the one that he has accused the Tories of making if he were now to say that, at the end of this Parliament, the Government will have delivered more police officers than there were at the beginning? Are we not likely to have at least 1,000 fewer officers and, if so, what will he do about that?
    Mr. Straw: Precisely because the previous Administration passed into law the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act, which transferred the power over police numbers from the Home Secretary of the day to chief police officers, I made no promises about the total number of police officers before the election, at the election or since. I do not believe, as the Conservative party does, in pretending to the public that it is possible for the Home Secretary to deliver something that no Home Secretary can, within the current law, deliver.
    I have, however, promised, and will deliver, the money to provide for 5,000 additional recruits over and above those that the police service was otherwise going to recruit. We have set out in full the projections on which those bids have been based.
    I have said that I hope that police numbers will be above those at the previous election, but I cannot in any way guarantee that—not least because the level depends not only on the number of recruits but on the level of wastage. We—particularly the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—are working to see whether there are ways

    9
    in which we may suggest that officers should not leave the police service prematurely, as well as ensuring money for the 5,000 additional officers.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although total numbers are obviously important, their use in the police force and how forces use their resources is equally important? There is still wide variation between the best and worst force in the country, and it is a priority to ensure that resources and numbers available are better used.
    Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The same message applies to the police service as applies to the health and education services: inputs are no guarantees of outputs. My hon. Friend and I know that Lancashire police service, with no better resources than any other, has been able to deliver significantly better results, with a record reduction in crime of 10 per cent. over last year, owing to more effective management and better strategies than some other services.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: How much confidence can people who live in London have in the Home Secretary's stewardship when they have borne the hugest—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hugest?"]—rise in the decline of police numbers? Is he aware that the Metropolitan police alone accounts for 792 officers lost, and the City of London another 114 officers lost, since his term of office began? Before he resorts to the answer of "civilianisation", as he did in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), is he aware that the number of civilian staff in the Met has fallen from 11,390 to 10,791 under his stewardship?
    Mr. Straw: The latter arises as a result of an outsourcing contract, under which people who were previously in the public sector are now in the private sector. As for the number of officers in the Metropolitan police service, I can guarantee to the right hon. Lady and the Conservative party—I absolutely guarantee this—that our record from 1997 to 2002 will be infinitely better than hers over the previous five years. Has she forgotten the record cut in staffing at officer level in the Metropolitan police service of 1,773 in the six years from 1993-98? She should hang her head in shame at her record on the Metropolitan police service.
    Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, just for the record, how many police constables there were in the Met when he took over and how many there are now?
    Mr. Straw: As police constables have to be supervised by sergeants, inspectors and other officers—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes, they do. Without that supervision, there is poor management, which in the past has been a major problem in the Met. I tell the right hon. Lady that, in 1993—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The excuses and explanations should be coming from the Conservative party, given its record on the Metropolitan police service. In 1993—[Laughter.] The right hon. Lady laughs at the decline in the Metropolitan police service that took place under her Administration. In 1993—
    Mr. David Lidington: Labour is in charge now.
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's party was in charge in 1993, when there were 27,867 police officers. By 1998, under the last Budget set by the Conservative Administration, there were only just over 26,000. That was the Conservative record.
    Miss Widdecombe: I was laughing not at crime, but at the Home Secretary. He seems to imagine that the past two and a half years have not happened; that the decline of more than 792 in the number of Met officers has not happened; that the decline of more than 2,000 in the number of officers right across the country has not happened; that the fall in the number of police constables has not happened; that the first rise in crime for six years has not happened; and that the revolving doors prison policy has not happened. The right hon. Gentleman is in charge. Let him take responsibility.
    Mr. Straw: I am happy to debate the issue of police numbers, but the last people in the world to protest their own record are members of the Administration who held office between 1992 and 1997, and the very last people in the world to call for more money to be spent on the police service are the Conservative Opposition.
    I remind the right hon. Lady that the money that we are putting into the police service—the £1.24 billion over these three years, and the £400 million for crime reduction—has been condemned as reckless by her and her party. We had further evidence of what would happen if a Conservative Government were ever elected from the comments made on 1 March by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), shadow Treasury spokesman. Speaking with the authority of the shadow Chancellor, which the right hon. Lady certainly does not do, the hon. Member for West Dorset promised spending on critical public services. He said:
    By those, I mean health and education
    but only
    possibly … the police and defence.—[Official Report, 1 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 493.]
    That is what we can expect from the Conservatives—just the possibility of a little additional spending on the police service, whereas the spending by us is regarded as reckless.

    Paedophile Crime
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What recent initiatives he has taken to reduce the incidence of paedophile crime; and if he will make a statement. [112577]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The Government attach great importance to protecting children from sex offenders. We are introducing legislation this Session to create a comprehensive scheme to prevent unsuitable people, including sex offenders, from gaining access to children through working with them. We are establishing a criminal records bureau. We are also investing in the Prison Service sex offender treatment programmes. Sex offender orders and extended sentences for sexual and violent offenders are now available to the courts. In police

    11
    terms, we are focusing on the international paedophile networks through the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which will be helped by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill that is now being considered by the House. The Association of Chief Police Officers has established a register of sex offenders, which contains more than 10,000 names.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the efforts being made by him and his colleagues to ensure that no danger is posed by sex offenders. I realise that the Sex Offenders Act 1997 is a valuable tool for the police in tracking sex offenders. In the Horbury community in my constituency recently, there was great concern about the fact that a registered paedophile had been seen around schools and with children due to assemble. It seems that further regulations are needed, or instructions to the police with regard to the tracking of sex offenders. Another problem involving young offenders—10, 11 and 12-year-olds who offend against small children—needs to be examined by the Department. Will my hon. Friend take note of the concerns that I express on behalf of my constituents, who are troubled by the presence of sex offenders in the community?
    Mr. Clarke: I note the points that my hon. Friend makes. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the police, who, under the Sex Offenders Act 1997, have achieved through the police national computer almost 97 per cent. compliance by those required to register. That is a tribute to police work on this type of crime. My hon. Friend suggests an initiative to track sex offenders; that technique is used and can be further developed.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Did the Minister see the exhibition of literature sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) that was on display in Committee Room 18 on Thursday last week? If he has not seen that exhibition, may I commend it to him? The production of such literature for influencing children at school—presumably after the abolition of section 28—constitutes in itself a sexual offence against children.
    Mr. Clarke: I did not see the exhibition in Committee Room 18 to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Much work is being done through the education service and schools throughout the country to make children aware of the dangers that they may experience. In the context of the section 28 debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has issued substantial and strong guidelines to help schools to guide their children effectively.
    Mr. John Heppell: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the police, the probation service and the Prison Service in Nottingham on the undoubted success of the special unit at Nottingham prison, where two of the most notorious paedophiles have been housed for six months without incident or any risk to children in the area?
    Mr. Clarke: I am happy to congratulate the police, especially the Nottinghamshire police. The Prison Service has made a major effort to improve our ability to
    12
    rehabilitate and deal with some of the most persistent offenders. I am sure that the House would want to congratulate Nottingham prison on its work.

    Intelligence Services
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the procedure for supervising the activities of the intelligence services. [112578]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 provide that the security and intelligence agencies are under the Secretary of State's authority. The head of each agency controls its operations. The Acts also establish tribunals.
    The 1994 Act established the Intelligence and Security Committee, which comprises hon. Members and Members of the other place. It examines the expenditure, administration and policy of the agencies. It reports annually to the Prime Minister, who lays a copy of the report, excluding matters that may prejudice the discharge of the agencies' functions, before Parliament.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Home Secretary re-examine the case of Mr. Peter Bleach, who is currently in prison in India? He has argued in detail that he is in prison because of unfair treatment, and inaccurate information that the intelligence service provided to the court. If it is not possible for the Home Secretary to re-examine the case, will he at least make representations to the Government of India to ask them to review their legislation to enable Mr. Bleach to serve his penalty in the United Kingdom? That facility is available in many other countries.
    Mr. Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am happy to meet him to discuss the case, but any question of an appeal, and the admissibility of evidence in the case, has to be a matter for the appeal courts in India. Neither I nor any other Minister have any locus in the case.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, there is an agreement between the United Kingdom and India to secure the mutual repatriation of prisoners who are sentenced in those countries. However, its implementation is being held up by the absence of legislation to effect it in India. I am happy to make representations to the Indian Government to secure its early implementation.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Home Secretary reflect on the fact that, uniquely among western democratic countries, we have the least parliamentary oversight of our security services? Not only is that an embarrassment to us as a democratic country: it flies in the face of our human rights obligations. Former presidents of the National Union of Students might be content with current arrangements, but some of us are not. Our security services have no accountability in this place. They are out

    13
    of control and it is time that the Government—a Labour Government—applied themselves to remedying that wrong.
    Mr. Straw: I do not accept the assumption behind my hon. Friend's question that our agencies are subject to less parliamentary oversight than those of any other European country.
    Mr. Mackinlay: There is none.
    Mr. Straw: There is considerable oversight by parliamentarians. If my hon. Friend is making the nice point that the Intelligence and Security Committee is not appointed by the House, I accept that. However, any hon. Member who has appeared before the Committee knows that it is composed entirely of parliamentarians and that it does its job thoroughly and effectively. It is one of many ways in which the agencies are under control and accountable to the House.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Home Secretary agree that no intelligence service can operate effectively if its former employees break their lifelong obligation of confidentiality? Given that the Government are pursuing relentlessly the egomaniac ex-officer of MI5, David Shayler, will the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that some of the criticisms that the Labour party made of the previous Conservative Government when they pursued the egomaniac ex-officer Peter Wright were less than justified?
    Mr. Straw: The House will excuse me if I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman down the path that he invites me to take, except to say that I confirm that there is a lifelong obligation expected of staff, and I am glad to have the support of both sides of the House for the fact that that obligation should properly be enforced.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, may I say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), that there is accountability to Parliament through the Committee, and that its members are diligent in the way in which we carry out our duties? However, my hon. Friend has a case. I agree with him that the Committee should be a Committee of Parliament.
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming the reality of the accountability from, as it were, the other side of the table. I am sure that he will confirm also that Secretaries of State, heads of the agencies and many others who are examined by the Committee on which he sits are subject, as they should be. to extremely thorough scrutiny, and that in due course a report is made to the House.
    It is in the nature of the business of the agencies that whether the Committee is or is not a Select Committee, its reports would have to be extremely carefully edited and that operational details could not be made public. I understand the case that is made for the Committee to be a Select Committee, but I do not think that it would or could operate in a significantly or substantively different
    14
    way in that form. As my hon. Friend will know from the report which was published recently, we keep this matter under review.

    Jury Trial
    Mr. David Heath: If he will postpone his plans to change the right to jury trial until after the publication of the review of criminal justice under the chairmanship of Sir Robin Auld. [112579]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): No. This measure is part of the Government's programme to modernise the criminal justice system to make it more responsive to the needs of the victims of crime, of the public, and of defendants alike. This issue has been considered extensively over the past seven years, not least by the royal commission on criminal justice in 1993. On each occasion the conclusion has been the same—that reform is required. Lord Justice Auld is aware of our intention to legislate and will, no doubt, take this into account in conducting his review. However, the Lord Chief Justice has already made it clear that our measure has his support and that of an overwhelming number of the senior judiciary.
    Mr. Heath: At the risk of being accused of being a Hampstead liberal, and a bearded one at that, may I suggest to the Home Secretary that those who oppose the measure do so not because they are weak on crime or because they wish to preserve the salaries of lawyers but because they have a real interest in British justice?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has failed to persuade many Labour Members who have not yet subsided into acquiescence? Will he consider again whether there is a case for an independent and considered view to be taken before he proceeds with legislation, which in any event will fail in another place?
    Mr. Straw: On independent and thorough review, this issue has been considered time without number by senior and independent people, including the members of the royal commission on criminal justice, who came to a unanimous view that the proposed change was needed in the interests of justice. On that basis, it is needed both in respect of victims and defendants. I am aware that there was some anxiety and concern among Members on both sides of the House, but I am delighted to say that there was a majority of 126 on Second Reading, and that only one Labour Member voted against the Bill at that stage.
    Helen Jones: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the research that shows that the majority of defendants who opt for Crown court trial in an either-way case plead guilty once they reach the Crown court. Those of us who have worked in magistrates courts are aware that putting off the evil day is a powerful motive for defendants. Does he agree that this approach imposes an intolerable stress on the victims of crime and prevents other defendants who are awaiting trial in the Crown court from having their cases dealt with

    15
    expeditiously? Will he take that into account in proceeding with his proposals, so as to ensure that other defendants are given an equal hearing in any discussions?
    Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings considerable experience to the issue. The truth is that these are cases in which, typically, the defendant will plead guilty anyway, and knows that he or she will do so, and the amounts involved—a can of Tennents lager may have been stolen—are relatively small. They string the system out in the vain hope that they will get a shorter sentence when, in practice, they get a longer one. The Conservative party, having originally supported the proposal, has to explain why it is contributing to substantial extra delays in serious cases coming before the Crown court that could and should be tried only by the Crown court.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Home Secretary must recognise that he has considerable lack of conviction on this matter, having attacked the proposals—which were not supported by Conservative Members as he suggests, but put forward for consultation—when they were made by the royal commission. In view of that attack, it is a bit rich to tell the House and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) of the royal commission's support. When, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, the Home Secretary's Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is thrown out by the other place, like the (No. 1) Bill, and as he failed to convince some 29 of his own Back Benchers in last week's debate, will he recognise that, as the proposal was no part of the Labour manifesto at the last general election, he would be entirely wrong to try to force it through the other place after a defeat? Will he then lick his wounds and crawl away?
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is being a touch economical with his recollection of the position of the previous Administration. We had it confirmed by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) only last week that, had the Conservatives won the last general election and had he been in office, he would have introduced the measure. It was not put out for consultation, but for deliberation and for decision. As for the position of the other place, I hope that it will recognise that this is the elected House and that the will of the elected House must take precedence. If the hon. Gentleman is offering the alternative suggestion, I have to tell him that having any truck with it is dangerous for the future of the Conservative party.

    Reparation Orders
    Mr. Paul Goggins: How many reparation orders have been made since September 1998. [112581]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): A total of 1,110 reparation orders were made across the five pilot areas from 30 September 1998 to 31 January 2000. The reparation order requires young offenders to face up to the consequences of their offence for their victims and the wider community. The order will be implemented nationally on 1 June.
    Mr. Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and assure him that there is widespread support for
    16
    reparation orders, not least as a measure of restoration to the victims of crime. What assessment has he made of the effectiveness of the orders that have been made so far and what steps is he taking to ensure that the courts make maximum use of the orders when they become available nationally later this year?
    Mr. Clarke: We are analysing carefully the effects of the various schemes in the five pilot areas: the London boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and the City of Westminster; Hampshire, Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight; Wolverhampton; Sheffield; and Blackburn. The general impression—I have seen a number of the schemes myself—is extremely optimistic and we are encouraged by the extent to which people are taking part. Our assessment of the courts' willingness to use the orders is that they are positive and enthusiastic because they recognise the major advantages of reparation as a means of dealing with young offenders.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: How many of those who have received reparation orders have committed further crimes?
    Mr. Clarke: I cannot answer that question, but I can say that 5.1 per cent. of all reparation orders made in the period have been breached compared with 13 per cent. of probation orders. Generally, there has been less breaching and we believe that there has been less return to crime.

    DNA Tests (Norfolk)
    Dr. Ian Gibson: How many DNA tests his Department has carried out in Norfolk in the last two years; and with what results. [112583]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Between April 1998 and December 1999, the Forensic Science Service received from Norfolk 8,425 criminal justice samples taken from suspects charged, reported, cautioned or convicted of a recordable offence, and 719 samples from stains left at scenes of crime. From those samples, the FSS reported 871 matches on the national DNA database between criminal justice samples and samples from crime scene stains, and 61 matches on the database between stains from different crime scenes.
    Dr. Gibson: Clearly, the Norfolk service is using the new DNA technology to great effect. Is my hon. Friend aware that the technology is in some disrepute in some quarters in the United States, because some commercialised labs have misinterpreted and miscalculated the data? Will he ensure that, as we build up the national DNA database, we use the best and most up-to-date DNA technology, and that the information that is fed into it is accurate and independent?
    Mr. Clarke: I can give the House those assurances. During the process, we shall introduce more up-to-date methods of sampling DNA. As my hon. Friend is aware, I know the force in Norfolk very well. It is one of the forces that has been leading in the use of DNA technology. What is most impressive is that a crime stain loaded on the database has a 40 per cent. chance—a four in 10 chance—of being matched against a potential

    17
    suspect. Approximately 500 matches are reported to the police for investigation each week. It is a substantial means of attacking crime.

    Prison Service
    Mr. David Chaytor: What steps he is taking to reduce absence through sickness in the Prison Service. [112585]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): We have targeted staff days lost and introduced an annual key performance indicator to measure success in reducing staff absence through sickness. We have taken steps to improve data collection so as to provide managers with better quality information, and have introduced new guidance for managing and reducing days lost through sickness.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, and congratulate him on his firm, thorough and systematic approach to this difficult problem. Does he share the views expressed in last year's report of the Public Accounts Committee that certain prisons are vulnerable to unrest as a result of the high level of sickness absence?
    Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to the Prison Officers Association and the National Audit Office for their work in this area. There is no doubt that excessive staff absences due to sickness have an adverse impact not only on good order and discipline, but on our capacity to deliver programmes to reduce reoffending. We are determined to bear down on those absences to stamp out bad practice. We also want to celebrate good practice, because prison managers, in conjunction with staff and their unions, are doing excellent work to get a grip of this problem.

    Asylum Statistics
    Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement about the asylum statistics for 1999. [112586]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): There were 71,000 applications made and 32 decisions taken during 1999. As a result of the Government's investment in the asylum process, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of decisions taken so far this year. The total number of decisions taken during January 2000 was 4,000, and the early indications are that the figure for the past four weeks is likely to be more than 8,000. In the first week of this month alone, more than 2,200 initial decisions were made. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the numbers of decisions taken are now at record levels. The average time taken for an initial decision in December 1999 was 13 months compared with 20 months in April 1997.
    Mr. Gray: Although I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply, it sounded a little glib and complacent. In an earlier response, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), suggested that the number of applications pending was due to the backlog left over from the previous Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman
    18
    admit that about 104,000 applications are outstanding? His complacent reply that the number of decisions has gone up to 4,000 from 32 last year shows that he misunderstands the problem. More importantly. will he also admit that the number of applications has doubled since the Government came to power. that it is rising and that they are doing nothing about it?
    Mr. Straw: I am not in the least complacent about the situation: indeed, I am very concerned about it. Had I been complacent, I would not have put any provisions in place to deal with the problems caused by the Siemens contract, which was signed indelibly in 1996 by the previous Administration and has caused such severe problems ever since. It is a mark of our concern about the system that we have significantly invested in the asylum and immigration process. The investment is now showing signs of paying off: as I have said, 8,000 asylum applications were decided in the past four weeks.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: My right hon. Friend has taken welcome action to relieve pressure on communities in Kent and London from those seeking asylum, but will he ensure that local authorities outside London receive information and advice as quickly as possible about the extra assistance that may be available to them, so that they can plan ahead carefully to receive asylum seekers?
    Mr. Straw: We are doing everything that we can to ensure that local authorities are fully informed in respect of asylum seekers who are being dispersed to their areas. I have asked that arrangements be made to inform hon. Members so far as is possible when there are significant developments with regard to asylum seekers in their constituencies.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What response is the Home Secretary giving to local authorities such as mine in London, where the cost in the next financial year of accommodating asylum-seeker families will be about £25 on the average council tax? When precisely do the Government intend to assume financial responsibility for a national problem, as they have undertaken to do in principle?
    Mr. Straw: On the funding that is directly the responsibility of my Department, I have arranged that we meet additionally an £8 million shortfall for 1999–2000, so that local authorities are compensated in full for their costs, as I believe they should be. There has been a particular problem in respect of unaccompanied minors who claim asylum, which is, at the moment, the responsibility of the Department of Health. I am in discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and hope for a satisfactory outcome for local authorities. All of us recognise that the arrangements have placed a considerable burden on local authorities. We recognise the strength of their case to be compensated properly for that.
    Mr. David Lidington: What target did the Home Secretary set the national asylum support service on the units of accommodation to be secured by 1 April this year and on the introduction of the new support system? How many units of accommodation has it been

    19
    able to secure for that date? What is the shortfall in the Government's figures? Will he finally admit to the House that the new asylum seeker support system, about which he has been boasting for so long, is turning out in practice to be a complete and utter shambles?
    Mr. Straw: I would be happy to provide the details that the hon. Gentleman sought by letter. We determined that there was adequate accommodation to start phasing in the national asylum support scheme, so that we could end the entitlement to cash social security benefits for all new applicants from 3 April 2000. The availability of cash social security benefits, which was instituted and confirmed by the previous Administration, has been one of the major pull factors in this country being seen as more attractive than others. It is we who are bringing that to an end for new applicants from 3 April. Far from supporting that, the Conservative party—following a pledge by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—would have maintained the availability of cash benefits not only for existing applicants, but for all new applicants, at a cost of £500 million per annum.

    Clandestine Immigrants
    Mr. Robin Corbett: What recent estimate he has made of the number of clandestine immigrants brought into the United Kingdom in heavy goods vehicles. [112587]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Immigration and nationality directorate records show that 11,500 clandestine entrants to the United Kingdom were identified between July and December 1999.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank the Minister for the proper, responsible manner in which she is tackling the issue. Does she find it extraordinary that Conservative Members should line up with those who make vast sums from smuggling people illegally into the United Kingdom, rather than backing the measures that the Government have proposed to extend carrier liability to the owners of lorries, buses and coaches? Will she say what progress is being made with the industry in working out a code of practice to assist in better deterring and detecting clandestine entrants arriving in the backs of lorries?
    Mrs. Roche: We have consulted widely with the industry, and we have tabled the draft code of practice. I have also announced that, on 3 April, we shall introduce the civil penalty provisions. We have repeatedly given the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and other Conservative Members opportunities to join and back the Government on the issue, but they have completely refused to do so. Criminal acts are clearly being committed, and it would be nice to have the support of the right hon. Lady and other Conservative Members in trying to do something about them.

ECHR Judgment (Thompson and Venables)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw):With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thompson and Venables, who were convicted of the murder of James Bulger. This statement follows my oral statement to the House, on 16 December 1999, which was the day on which the judgment was given. I said then that the Government accepted our obligations under the European convention on human rights to abide by the Court's findings, but that I would need to study the detail and would report back to Parliament as soon as possible.
My statement today relates to England and Wales. Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers have been considering what action will be necessary there, and announcements will be made in due course.
First, I offer my profound sympathy to the family of James Bulger, whose grief at that terrible murder is compounded by what must appear to them to be a never-ending cycle of court judgments on their son's murderers. Although I know that it will be of no comfort to them, the European convention on human rights has been an international obligation of the United Kingdom for 50 years, and successive Governments have been bound to give effect to the judgments of its Court. That Court, as the House will recall, is an institution of the Council of Europe and not of the European Union. From 2 October 2000, the convention itself will be incorporated into our domestic law, under the Human Rights Act 1998, which was welcomed and supported by all parties in the House.
The Court's judgment in the case of Thompson and Venables concerned both the law on sentencing and court practice and procedures. It therefore has to be dealt with through a mixture of legal and administrative changes. I have consulted the Lord Chief Justice about the conduct of Crown court trials. On 16 February, he issued a practice direction to judges on the trial of children and young persons in the Crown court. A copy of the direction has been placed in the Library. The direction is a key part of the response to the judgment.
The first issue on which the Court found against the United Kingdom was in respect of article 6(1), on the right to a fair trial. The Court said that, although special arrangements had been made in the Crown court, the two youths—then aged 11—were highly unlikely to have felt able to follow the proceedings properly or to pass information to their lawyers.
The European Court did not conclude that young people should not be tried in the Crown court. For our part, the Government believe that serious crimes with serious penalties continue to need a high-level judicial process, before a judge and jury. Rather, it is necessary to ensure that those trials take account of the particular circumstances of young people, although that must never undermine the seriousness of the proceedings or make it more difficult to convict the guilty.
If justice is not open, it cannot be seen to be fair. Therefore, juvenile trials for serious crimes must be held in open court. However, to avoid an unnecessarily
22
overbearing atmosphere in the courtroom, the Lord Chief Justice's practice direction makes it clear that, although the proceedings must be in open court, judges should be prepared to restrict attendance of the public at the trial to a relatively small number.
On facilities for the press, courts already have discretion to limit the number of press representatives in court, taking account of the public's right to be informed about trials. The Lord Chief Justice has advised that limits on press numbers should, as necessary, be coupled with arrangements for audio and, if possible, closed-circuit television feed to another room in the courthouse.
As to reporting cases in the media, the practice direction also makes it clear that the courts already have powers to order that nothing should be reported that would lead to the identification of juvenile defendants, but, as now, the detail of the case and the arguments made in court should still be fully reported.
Given the Court's judgment, I have considered whether any legislative changes are needed on media attendance and reporting. I have concluded that they are not, although I know that the House will expect me to keep the implementation of the practice direction under review, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice.
The practice direction requires courts to take positive steps to ensure that a juvenile defendant understands court procedure and that, where practicable, all the participants in the courtroom should be on the same level. The Government will be inviting Lord Justice Auld, in his review of the working of the criminal courts, to look in more detail at working of juvenile trials in the Crown court.
On the sentencing of juveniles convicted of murder, following a separate European Court of Human Rights decision in February 1996, which was accepted by the previous Administration, a provision in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 ended the Home Secretary's role in determining the final release date of those detained at Her Majesty's pleasure and passed that function to the parole board.
This latest European Court of Human Rights decision covers the other end of the sentencing process—the initial procedure for setting the tariff, which is the minimum period that a juvenile convicted of murder should serve in custody. Until now, that has been set by the Home Secretary of the day. However, in this case, the Court found against the United Kingdom under article 6(1), concluding that Ministers, as members of the Executive, should not set tariffs for juveniles sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Given that clear Court decision, I am bound to bring forward legislation, which will be in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill this Session, to provide for tariffs to be set by the trial judge in open court, in the same way as they are currently set for adults subject to discretionary life sentences, which apply to any offenders apart from those sentenced for murder. The tariff will be appealable either by the offender or by the Attorney-General if he believes it to be unduly lenient. I also plan to ensure that the views of the victims and their relatives are better taken into account. I shall announce our proposals in due course.
About 250 people, sentenced as juveniles, are currently detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, and fresh cases continue to go through the courts. For new cases, pending the necessary change in the law which I have announced,

23
I shall set any tariffs in line with the recommendation that the Lord Chief Justice makes to me in each case. For existing cases, I propose a fresh review of tariffs in line with the principles in the judgment. I shall be inviting representations from those whose tariffs have not yet expired.
Where no representations are received, the tariff will be set in accordance with the original recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice in that case. Where acceptance of the Lord Chief Justice's original recommendation would mean that the tariff had now expired, I shall refer those cases to the parole board immediately. Where the original recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice was higher than the tariff set by Ministers, the tariff would not be increased.
Where existing detainees wish to make representations, they can be made to the present Lord Chief Justice, who will then make a recommendation to me. I will then adopt his recommendation on what the tariff should be.
I now come to the question of the tariffs of Thompson and Venables. Part of the history of this is well known, but some of it is not. The trial judge recommended a minimum of eight years—the tariff. The then Lord Chief Justice recommended 10 years. My predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), decided in 1994 to set the tariff at 15 years. However, that tariff was quashed as unlawful by a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on 12 June 1997. There is, therefore, no tariff for either offender in this case at present.
The decision of the European Court and the requirements of the general law mean that I have to treat the process in this case, as in any other case, in line with the procedures that I have just outlined. Representations have already been received from Thompson and Venables: they will be referred to the Lord Chief Justice for his recommendations to be made—which, as I have explained, I am bound to accept.
I appreciate that this continuing uncertainty will be distressing to James Bulger's parents and relations in particular. I hope that the process can be concluded as quickly as possible but they, and the wider public, may take some reassurance from the fact that the tariff set is a minimum for the requirements of retribution and deterrence. An offender, once his tariff has expired, is released only if the parole board, after a very thorough consideration, is satisfied that there is no unacceptable risk to the public.
The processes that I have outlined in this statement replace the tariff-setting and review arrangements for cases involving detention at Her Majesty's pleasure. Those were set out in the written answer of 10 November 1997, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) about the implementation of the House of Lords judgment in the Thompson and Venables case.
The murder of young James Bulger was horrific. It is seared into the memory not just of his family but of the public as a whole. What I have sought to do is ensure that the binding decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are implemented in a way that secures that young people who commit dreadful crimes are properly brought
24
to justice in an environment that is as open as possible, and that the interests of victims and their families are properly taken into account.
3.42 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the Home Secretary for that statement and for his usual courtesy in letting me have an early sight of it. I am less pleased that much of it—although not all—appeared to be widely trailed in the press and media yesterday. In a case of such seriousness, it would have been more appropriate if the statement had come first.
I join the Home Secretary in extending to the relatives of Jamie Bulger the sympathy that all hon. Members feel for them. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the continual reopening of the case must have made their suffering worse. I understand that Jamie Bulger would have celebrated his 10th birthday this week. This further reopening of the case must be causing his relatives considerable distress yet again.
I also welcome the Home Secretary's statement that, in future, more account will be taken of the views of victims and their relatives.
As regards the detail of some of the right hon. Gentleman's other announcements, we will reserve our position pending further examination, but we accept that he could not have defied the ruling that he received. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman had no alternative but to comply with it.
However, that said, I am sure that the ruling will cause great disappointment and offence to many people in this country. I personally believe that 15 years was an appropriate tariff, given the severity of the crime, and that this ruling is a most unwarranted interference in a system that was working well.
The Home Secretary said that he would review tariffs, and that he would set them at the level recommended by the Lord Chief Justice. Has the right hon. Gentleman made an estimate—if not, perhaps he will write to me—of the number of cases in which that could involve a lower tariff? What would be the greatest reduction involved?
The Home Secretary said that, when the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice would mean that the tariff had expired, he would refer the cases to the parole board immediately. Will there be any consequences for people being detained who, under the new system, should not be detained, in terms of any legal action that might be taken, or any suits that might be made for compensation? Again, if the Home Secretary cannot give me the details now I shall be happy for him to write to me.
Will the Home Secretary now answer the questions that I asked him following his statement on 16 December, which—quite properly, given that he had reached no conclusions about his response to the judgment—he was reluctant to answer then?
Should not a tariff reflect simply the circumstances of the crime, and the penalty that is appropriate for retribution and deterrence? Does the Home Secretary agree that, in the setting of a tariff, account should not be taken of whether individuals will transfer to other parts of the prison system during their sentences? There has been considerable speculation that it was because Thompson and Venables would have to transfer into the adult system that a lower tariff was recommended to avoid their having

25
to do so. Does the Home Secretary agree that that should not be a relevant consideration? Does he agree that, in the setting of a tariff, the only considerations should be reflecting the circumstances of the crime, and setting a suitable time to be served to satisfy the requirements for retribution and deterrence?
Will the Home Secretary confirm that, in 1996, the Court of Appeal upheld the Home Secretary's right to adopt the same policy for young offenders as for adults, and that the power to increase tariffs has been used hundreds of times without challenge? Will he also confirm that, notwithstanding the verdict of the Court that a fair trial was not received, it is still the case that the original verdict of guilt is unassailable, and that, even if the trial had been conducted under the new arrangements that he seeks to introduce, the result would have been the same?
Finally, may I ask the Home Secretary this? Does he not consider it an essential part of rehabilitation to accept the consequences of what one has done? Does he not agree that it is not in the interests of the perpetrators for them to regard themselves as victims of the system, and that, instead, they should regard themselves as perpetrators of an unthinkable crime? Is it not that with which they should come to terms, rather than their being encouraged to think that they have received unfair treatment?
Mr. Straw: I share the right hon. Lady's regret about the fact that the matter was widely trailed in the media. I do not suggest in any way that this was the source, but we felt it necessary to warn the representatives of the families a week ago—the family of the victim, and, of course, the legal representatives of Thompson and Venables—that a statement was likely to be made some time this week. We also warned them on Friday that the statement would probably be made today. I think it will be well understood that it would have been unconscionable to make a statement without warning the Bulger parents. I hope the House will also acknowledge that I try very hard to ensure that the House learns first of any decisions that are made.
I am glad the right hon. Lady accepts that, given the European Court's ruling, we cannot defy that ruling. She said, however, that the European Court's decision represented an unwarranted interference. What she described as an unwarranted interference arises from an entirely voluntary decision—made successively over the past 50 years, by her party as much as by mine—to accept the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and also from her party's endorsement of the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the European convention on human rights in British domestic law. That being so, there will be occasions when the European Court makes decisions which, individually, we do not like. I have made no secret of the fact that I did not wish the Court to make the decision in this case. It was precisely because I believed that the previous system was correct that I ensured that the United Kingdom Government vigorously defended the action that had begun under the previous Administration. However, the decision of the Court was made, and certain consequences have followed from it.
The right hon. Lady asked me about the number of people who are detained who could expect a lower tariff. I am told that there are 12 detainees with unexpired tariffs
26
whose recommendation from the Lord Chief Justice was higher than the tariff set by Ministers. She asked whether a court action could follow for some of those who are tariff-expired at a tariff set by the Lord Chief Justice. I do not believe that there are any grounds for claims for compensation, which I think is what the right hon. Lady had in mind. It is perfectly possible, given the ingenuity of English lawyers, that one or two may try that, and it is a matter for the courts whether they are accepted.
The right hon. Lady asked me about the way in which the tariff should be set. We shall be able to discuss that in greater detail during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. I understand her point, but in setting a tariff for juveniles, account has been taken not only of the crime and its circumstances but of the relative age of the offenders.
The right hon. Lady's last point concerned the victims of the system. Of course I accept that we should take full account, always, of the interests of the victims of crime. That is what we have been seeking to do, and I intend to bring forward proposals on that in due course.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that it will reflect no credit on anyone, either in this House or among the red-top tabloids, if they seek to turn the case of Thompson and Venables into the same kind of vendetta that is being pursued against Myra Hindley? Will he none the less make it clear, and repeat, that when the time comes for Venables and Thompson to be considered for parole, that is all that that means, and there is no automatic entitlement to release? Will he also make it clear that if and when they are released, they can be called back to prison if they reoffend or show any signs of doing so?
Mr. Straw: I am glad to have the opportunity to put that point on record. It may provide some reassurance for members of the public as well as Members of the House to know that in respect of adult lifers, whose release dates I have to determine, the majority of the cases that I consider are those of people whose tariff has expired at least a year before, and in some cases many years before. The criteria for determining release for juvenile offenders, as for adults, has to be whether it is safe to release such individuals once they have served their minimum term. Once they are released, they remain on life licence should they attempt to reoffend.
Mr. Simon Hughes: May I first associate Liberal Democrat Members with the sentiments of the Home Secretary that no right-minded person could think other than that this was the most shocking crime? We continue to want to show the family of James Bulger sympathy and solidarity. One way in which we can respect their wishes is to join with the Home Secretary, across parties, to ensure that in future the law takes more account, as the right hon. Gentleman intends that it should, of victims before and after trial. We are happy to assist him in seeking to formulate a way that meets to the maximum the demand for that to happen.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite right to accept the judgment. The judgment was quite right that there should be a system for trying young people that is seen to do justice to everybody, and that the setting of minimum sentence—the tariff—should be separated from political decisions and handed over to judges. That must be right, and we are happy to support that proposition.

27
To reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), may I ask that the minimum sentence should remain a minimum? Can the Home Secretary confirm whether defendants who have been convicted as juveniles but who are now adults will, in addition to the assessment of risk when the tariff period runs out and as part of the process, have to accept and understand the reality of what they have done, and, as it were, apologise for it? That would be right for all juveniles who are convicted, however serious their crime, because it is proper to give them the chance of a new start.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for my approach. However, there is plainly a difference between his approach and the Government's on one important point. On the merits of which system should operate, I should make it clear—as I think my statement did—that but for the ECHR's decision, which is binding on the Government, we should not have been minded to change the existing system. Given the extensive judicial supervision that already takes place of decisions made by the Secretary of State, I feel that the system was working satisfactorily and with a high level of public confidence.
Mr. Michael Howard: I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement. I remain of the view that 15 years is the minimum period for which Thompson and Venables should be detained, but I, too, accept that the Court has tied the Home Secretary's hands.
Can the Home Secretary make any sense of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Wynne that it is not a breach of human rights for the Home Secretary to set a tariff in the cases of adult murderers and the decision that it is a breach of human rights for the Home Secretary to set a tariff in the case of juvenile murderers? Will he renew the efforts made by the previous Government to increase the respect shown by the ECHR for national courts, so as to ensure that it intervenes much less often in their decisions?
Mr. Straw: I find it difficult to follow a clear line of logic in the two cases to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers. Buried in the dense text of the judgment, there is some elucidation of the point—although perhaps not much illumination. On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point, I think, and the view is widely shared, that the United Kingdom has suffered from the fact that the European convention had not been incorporated into our law—paradoxically, given that the convention was drafted by English jurists—so that we have not had the margin of appreciation, as it is called, that many other countries have enjoyed.
I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about our need better to educate jurists in Strasbourg about the nature of our common law system. A fundamental problem is that most of those jurists were brought up in the Roman tradition, which differs in many respects, and which I would suggest is not a better tradition. As our courts begin to implement the
28
jurisprudence of Strasbourg, we shall benefit more in the future from that margin of appreciation than we could have in the past.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I deny that I am making a cheap, yah-boo point at the expense of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but should politicians, even if they are Queen's counsel, alter tariffs at all? Some of us were extremely uncomfortable about the former Home Secretary's decision, feeling that he should not have done such things. What is the view of the current Home Secretary?
Mr. Straw: My view is that the system that existed before the Court judgment was working satisfactorily. I make final decisions about the release of those sentenced to life for murder. In practice, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) makes the decisions about the setting of tariffs, except in respect of those for whom a whole life tariff may be appropriate, or in terrorist cases. The system commands public confidence; it is operated fairly. Furthermore, because the decisions are made in a quasi-judicial way, the process that is followed isrightly—the subject of intense judicial scrutiny.
I have already referred to the Court of Appeal judgment in the summer of 1997. The decision of the previous Secretary of State in respect of the 15-year tariff was quashed as unlawful. The tariff of 15 years was not quashed as unlawful; it was the process by which the right hon. and learned Gentleman achieved the decision that was quashed. However, as I recall, no judgment was made by the Court as to the merits of that tariff. That is water under the bridge as far as juveniles are concerned; the Court has made its decision—it is our job to implement it.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: In future such cases, from whom will the Home Secretary seek advice on whether the state should offer new identities to prisoners when they are at the point of release? Has the right hon. Gentleman decided to offer new identities in this case?
Mr. Straw: There are standard arrangements for the offer of new identities in exceptional cases. I can recall seeing no papers on the question of identities for the prisoners in this case.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman may know that, subject to the authority of the then Home Secretary, I was responsible for setting tariffs for two years or so. The impending legislation is an opportunity to consider the tariff-setting for adult offenders on whom a mandatory life sentence has been imposed. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my anxiety about any involvement of Ministers at all? Does he agree that there is a strong argument for leaving the question of tariffs exclusively to the courts—not to the Lord Chief Justice—subject only to the right of the Home Secretary to apply to the court for an extended order subsequently, if it appears that the offender is likely to pose a danger to the public
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider abolishing the mandatory life sentence entirely and enabling a trial judge to impose a determinate sentence?
Mr. Straw: I am completely opposed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second proposal. The regime

29
that has operated in this country in respect of murderers has worked satisfactorily, and has ensured public confidence. Murder is the worst possible crime in the criminal calendar. There is some connection between the exceptional care we take over the sentencing of murderers and the fact that our murder rate is one of the lowest in the western world, despite the fact that other crime rates—for acquisitive crime—are relatively high. I do not want to disturb that regime.
The fact that someone who has committed a murder is on a life licence—however long he or she may be out of custody—is extremely important in ensuring the safety of the public, and in ensuring that the person goes on to lead a law-abiding life. Happily, most such people do so. That cannot be said of the majority of those released from prison after determinate sentences.
As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, I am not persuaded of the case that he makes—to say the least. However, I dare say that he will make that case during the Committee or Report stage of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.
Sir Peter Lloyd: Will the Home Secretary explain why the public reaction to the horrific child murder committed by the child Mary Bell a generation ago was apparently so much more mature and less crudely vengeful than much of the reaction has appeared to be in the case of Thompson and Venables?
Mr. Straw: I am not sure that I share the right hon. Gentleman's recollection of what happened in the Mary Bell case. The only two observations that I would make are, first, that it took place many years before the terrible murder of James Bulger, and secondly, that the parents of the victims of Mary Bell were not put through the judicial mill as the parents of James Bulger have been. Of course everyone, including prisoners, has their rights and I understand why continual court appeals have been made, but, as I said at the outset, we must all have the profoundest sympathy with the parents of James Bulger and their relatives and friends, given the constant resurfacing of the case.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In his first two and a half years as Home Secretary—until the
30
Court's ruling in December—on how many occasions did the Home Secretary find it necessary to change the tariff set by his predecessors?
Mr. Straw: I do not think that I ever changed a tariff, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman if that is the case.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Home Secretary agree that it was hardly fair of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett)—who, unfortunately, is no longer in his place—to refer to "a vendetta" by the press and the public against Myra Hindley? Surely what happens in these terrible cases is that even the popular press gets it right by reflecting the horror that the public feel when terrible murders are carried out, whether by adults or by children.
Does the Home Secretary also accept that there have been a number of cases of murders involving young people as perpetrators where the influence of violent films and videos has been directly traced, although not necessarily in this case? Given those data, will he consider reviewing the admissibility of violent content in films and videos, which takes a great part of the responsibility for depraving the moral standards of young people where crime is concerned?
Mr. Straw: In response to the hon. Gentleman's first point, each of us is responsible for the language that we use in the House or outside. All these terrible cases must be approached in a judicious, as well as a judicial, manner, but when approaching them in that manner we must take full account of the appalling trauma suffered by the parents and others close to victims of such crimes—distress to a degree that few of us could possibly even imagine, still less undergo—and the much wider public revulsion at the nature of such crimes.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I believe that the whole House accepts the need for proper controls of such violent and depraved videos. It will be a matter of note that the Court of Appeal is shortly to hear an appeal in which the parties will be the British Board of Film Classification and the Video Appeals Committee, concerning the powers of the BBFC in relation to that matter.

Points of Order
Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that there is growing concern in the country about the marginalisation of Parliament and the inability of the House to hold the Executive to account. Could you ensure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry comes to the House to explain the fact that £530 million-worth of public money is to be lent under the launch aid provision to BAe Systems for the development of the Airbus 3XX? Many of us may be in support of the project—I am—but it is a huge amount of public money. I believe that it is the biggest industrial investment of loan capital of its kind in years, and we really should be able to question the rationale that gave rise to that decision.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that an opportunity will arise for the Secretary of State to be questioned, even if it is only at Trade and Industry questions. If I remember rightly, there is a written question on the Order Paper today. That, quite understandably, does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that there will be opportunities to question the Secretary of State on that issue.
Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order of which I tried to give you advance notice, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from the Prime Minister to make a statement about the role of Lord Levy, an unpaid diplomat and the Prime Minister's personal envoy, who is acting on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf in the negotiations to further the peace process in the middle east? I gather that there is concern in the House and among the diplomatic corps that an undrawn line may have been breached: a diplomat is performing a role on behalf of the Prime Minister, but he is not accountable to Parliament because he is not paid. In addition, he is conducting business deals while he works on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady has not given me any notice of her point of order, but I am not aware that a statement is to be made on that issue today—or at any other time for that matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of that fact that communications are even more difficult than in neighbouring Mozambique, has the Department for International
32
Development made a request to make a statement on the work that it is doing in the horrendous situation that has developed in Madagascar as a result of the cyclone?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that a Minister from any Department seeks to make a statement on that issue.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. Given the disgraceful description of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Friday of the Army's Household Division as containing lots of "chinless wonders", have you received any sign from the right hon. Gentleman that he intends to come to the House to issue a full apology for the widespread offence that his vicious and boneheaded remarks have caused?
Madam Speaker: I am not responsible for the comments of any Secretary of State. I have not been informed that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to come before the House on such a matter.
Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any indication that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is to come to the House to make a statement clarifying uncertainty over the Government's grammar schools policy? If a Secretary of State describes a previous policy statement as a joke, does he not at least owe it to the House and to the parents of Kent to come here to explain whether he will proceed with his unnecessary and divisive ballots?
Madam Speaker: All Members seeking statements need to do is to look at the annunciator screens at about midday. They announce what statements are to be made. However. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to others who are interested in these matters that they may table questions for the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to answer.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there any mechanism whereby we can further the purpose of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about the outrageous remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and summon the right hon. Gentleman to the Chamber? If he refuses to come we could at least then express our view: so far from the targets of his wrath being "chinless wonders", he will have exposed himself to the charge of being a gutless windbag.
Madam Speaker: I fear that they are becoming bogus points of order. We have more important business with which to deal.

Orders of the Day

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
  As amended in the Committee and the Standing Committee, considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely: New Clauses, amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 to 28, Schedule 3, Clauses 29 to 44, Schedule 4, Clauses 45 to 56, Schedule 5, Clauses 57 to 64, Schedule 6, Clause 65, Schedule 7, Clauses 66 to 72, Schedule 8, Clauses 73 to 87, Schedule 9, Clause 88, Schedule 10, Clauses 89 to 103, Schedule 11, Clause 104, Schedule 12, Clauses 105 to 111, Schedule 13, Clause 112, Schedule 14, Clause 113 to 123, Schedule 15, Clauses 124 to 128, Schedule 16, Clause 129, Schedule 17, Clause 130, Schedule 18, Clauses 131 to 138, Schedule 19, Clauses 139 to 149, Schedules 20 and 21, New Schedules.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
    New Clause 1

      INVOLVEMENT OF COMMISSION IN CHANGES IN ELECTORAL PROCEDURES
      —(1) The Commission—

      (a) may participate with any relevant local authority in the joint submission of proposals falling within section 10(1) of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (pilotschemes); and

      (b) shall have such other functions in relation to—

      (i) orders and schemes under section 10 of that Act, and

      (ii) orders under section 11 of that Act (revision of procedures in the light of pilot schemes),

      as are conferred on the Commission by those sections.
      (2) Where any scheme under section 10 of that Act falls to be implemented following the approval by the Secretary of State of proposals jointly submitted by the Commission and a relevant local authority as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above, the Commission may, in connection with the implementation of the scheme, provide that authority with such assistance (except financial assistance) as the Commission think fit.
      (3) In this section "relevant local authority" has the same meaning as in section 10 of that Act.'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.14 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 131.
      Mr. O'Brien: New clause 1 and amendment No. 131 will extend the functions of the Electoral Commission so as to include a role in relation to pilot schemes. Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 makes provision for local authorities to bring forward proposals for pilot schemes for the purpose of testing electoral innovations such as early voting and electronic voting at local government elections. Section 11 of that Act also provides for the Secretary of State, in the light of the success of such pilots, to apply such electoral innovations to local government elections generally.
      34
      It is clearly right that the Electoral Commission should have a role here. The Bill already provides the commission with a broad remit in relation to electoral law and with a role in providing advice and assistance to other authorities in relation to electoral matters. It will also have an important role in promoting public participation in the democratic process.
      Those functions clearly dovetail with the rationale behind the arrangements for the conduct of pilot schemes, and it would be a serious omission not to provide the commission with a clear role. Amendment No. 131 will amend sections 10 and 11 of the Representation of the People Act so as to spell out the commission's role. New clause 1 will add to the commission's functions under part I a power to participate with a local authority in the joint submission of proposals for a pilot scheme and to provide assistance to that authority in conducting the pilot.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is there any way in which an individual or organisation can appeal if a local authority is refusing to undertake a pilot scheme in particular areas? I have it in mind that certain areas may have a heavy Labour or heavy Conservative vote. What is to stop the party that does not control the council making representations that the pilot area should be extended to other areas of the council?
      Mr. O'Brien: We have not yet been able to approve pilot schemes, but we shall consult local authorities this week. The orders are being drafted, and I hope to be able to lay them before Parliament on Thursday, when we will be able to announce which pilots we are approving. We have, however, considered the provisional pilots and, where we have been informed of a substantive disagreement within various councils, such as Conservatives disagreeing with a Labour-controlled council, we have in most cases decided not to proceed with the application. I have had a few discussions through the usual channels to find out whether there are any particular problems.
      At present, there are no means by which someone can introduce a proposal to extend the remit of a pilot scheme but, if the new clause is accepted, an obvious way to do so would be to ask the Electoral Commission to make the proposal and discuss it with the local authority so that, hopefully, the authority would then agree with the commission that it was worth approving the pilot.
      Any scheme would then have to be fully evaluated to see whether it prevented personation and ensured that more people participated. If the Electoral Commission felt that it could endorse the scheme, it might then be rolled out nationally in local government elections only. As will become clear, our view is that any roll-out for parliamentary elections would have to be done by legislation.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister referred to UK general elections. Although we are dealing primarily here with local government, how will the legislation interface with the National Assembly for Wales, with regard to the Assembly's involvement with local government, which is obviously directly relevant, or with any wish by the Assembly to develop pilot schemes that are particularly relevant in Wales?
      Mr. O'Brien: We would want to proceed with changes in the operation of electoral procedures in local government, or indeed in national Government, only after

      35
      full discussion and consultation with the Welsh Assembly and Executive. Throughout consideration of the Representation of the People Act and this Bill, which deals with the organisation of political parties, we have sought to ensure that the views of parties in the Welsh Assembly are considered. We have also had several discussions with the Executive at different stages to ensure that, although our proposals might not have universal approval, they are at least broadly supported by parties in Wales.
      I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to write to him about exactly how the procedures for local government elections will operate in Wales and to set out clearly how the measures will apply.
      Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if a local authority proceeds with a pilot scheme and decides that it is beneficial but subsequently changes its mind, its initial decision would be revocable?
      Mr. O'Brien: A local authority could decide to undertake a pilot scheme and undertake it, but it would then have to submit a report on the scheme and, before it was able to repeat the exercise, receive the consent of the Electoral Commission—indeed, the Home Office would have to approve the scheme. Therefore, in the sense that the local authority could not undertake another pilot scheme if we were dissatisfied with the way in which the first one was conducted, its initial decision is revocable. The fact that an authority has decided to undertake a pilot scheme once does not mean that it would be able to do so in subsequent years.
      Mr. Bercow: Or would have to?
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
      Where the commission does not co-sponsor a pilot scheme, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the commission before making an order providing for the implementation of a pilot scheme proposed only by a local authority.
      During the passage of the Representation of the People Act, several hon. Members, both here and in another place, stressed the need to provide for the independent and objective evaluation of the pilot schemes. For the first wave of pilot schemes in May, the task of evaluating such schemes will fall to the relevant local authority.
      However, during debate of the Representation of the People Bill on Report in another place on 29 February, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary said that the Electoral Commission would have an important role in evaluating the operation of pilot schemes. Indeed, we envisage that, in future, such evaluation would fall to the commission. Amendment No. 131 would amend section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 to that end.
      The commission would be expected to work closely with the relevant local authority, which would also be required to provide the commission with appropriate assistance in preparing the report. That assistance might, for example, take the form of seeking the views of voters, parties and electoral staff on the success of the scheme,
      36
      and of providing information on the cost of the pilot scheme. The local authority would also be required to publish the commission's report in its area.
      Evaluation of the outcomes of pilot schemes leads naturally to the question of the roll-out of successful innovations to local government elections generally. Section 11(1) of the Representation of the People Act provides for successful pilots to be rolled out by order of the Secretary of State. As recommended by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in another place, amendment No. 135 would amend section 11(1) so that the order-making power may be exercised only on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission. Our intention is that that new requirement will apply to innovations piloted this May, as well as to those successfully piloted in subsequent elections. It will therefore provide safeguards which I hope will satisfy all in the House. The new clause and amendment No. 135 will provide the independent Electoral Commission with a decisive role in the conduct, evaluation and wider application of pilot schemes.
      Amendment No. 6 responds to the point raised in Committee by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who made the case for the Electoral Commission's reports under clause 5 to be published at the same time as they were submitted to the Home Secretary. In Committee, we said that we had no difficulty with the broad thrust of his argument, but that the question of publication should be left in the hands of the Electoral Commission.
      Any reports produced by the commission under the provisions of clause 5 would, in effect, constitute expert advice to the Government of the day from an independent statutory authority. The commission will have ownership of that advice, and it should rightly be for the commission to publish it in the manner that it sees fit. The amendment makes the position clear. I should add that I would fully expect the commission to publish its reports in parallel to submitting them to the Home Secretary for consideration.
      Amendment No. 7 adds to the list of delegated powers in relation to elections that may be exercised only by the relevant Secretary of State after consultation with the Electoral Commission. The Representation of the People Act inserted a new section 17A into the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Subsection (3) of it contains a power to prescribe, by order, the arrangements for a free mailshot during future GLA elections. There is already a requirement, under new section 17A(6), on the Secretary of State to consult with such bodies as he considers appropriate before making an order, but it is as well to recognise the particular role that the Electoral Commission will have as the principal source of advice on electoral matters.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. The Government amendments show the efficacy of proper scrutiny of legislation, whether in Committee or on the Floor of the House. Last week, by contrast, a guillotine was imposed on discussion of the Representation of the People Bill. The quality of legislation may suffer as a consequence of the quantity, but I hope that we shall make progress on the present Bill in the next two days.
      We welcome the fact that the Government recognise the importance of the electoral process remaining untarnished by perceived or actual rigging of elections by party politicians. Amendments to the Representation of

      37
      the People Act 2000 relate to the rolling out of the Secretary of State's powers in regard to future parliamentary elections.
      I am delighted that the Government have taken the initial steps on a journey that we have been enticing them to make, both in this place and in another place, but there is still some way to go. It is a journey well worth making, as I hope the Minister will agree.
      On 9 February, the Select Committee on Deregulation issued a report that proposed that changes to electoral law be made in consultation with the new Electoral Commission. The Government also accepted the recommendation that other sweeping powers relating to electoral changes to parliamentary elections require primary legislation. That was enshrined in the Representation of the People Act 2000, and we thank the Government for those changes.
      The Neill report in October 1998 called for the establishment of the Electoral Commission and for the commission to be given a wide remit, including the review within six months of major elections and referendums. Recommendation 72 proposes that
      the Government should consult the Commission before making or proposing any changes relating to electoral law and administration.
      With regard to the commission and to electoral law and administration, I have some questions about the Government's new clauses and amendments.
      We have enormous reservations about the make-up of the Electoral Commission, in view of the powers that it is to be given. We know that it will comprise between five and nine members, as recommended by the Neill committee. The Neill report further recommended that the commission should include no party politicians. That is a sound recommendation. The Speaker's Committee is to be established, on which politicians will serve. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent past or present party politicians being members of the Electoral Commission, and we hope that the Government will reconsider its composition.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) will comment on the timetable for the establishment of the commission and the pilots due to take place in May. Problems may arise because of the time lapse between the pilots and the setting up of the Electoral Commission and the appointment of the chief executive.
      It is important that the changes are made and seen to be made by an independent body. A number of pilots have already been approved by the Secretary of State, and the new body must be given sight of the local authority reports when the pilots take place. Can the Minister say what will happen to those reports, given the time lag? I believe that the Home Secretary told our shadow Home Secretary in a letter that the commission will be up and running in November. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. If that is the case, we hope that the reports will be made available in November.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: We will use our best endeavours, but I cannot provide a complete reassurance that everything will be in place by that date. However, we are doing our best to get things moving.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that response. The Minister knows why we are worried about the matter.
      38
      My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire will also refer to the powers of the new chief executive, who will be appointed before the chairman of the Electoral Commission.
      We have other anxieties. Several pilots will be up and running throughout the country and, when the new commission is established, it will not only have the power—indeed, the obligation—to consider their efficacy, but it will have to deal with representations from several other local authorities, which want to introduce pilots next year. The Electoral Commission will thus have a lot of work in its initial stages. We want to ensure that it will be an absolute success. Will the Minister therefore explain the way in which he envisages the Electoral Commission working, and comment on the fact that it will begin its work long after the first pilot schemes have been established?
      Will the Minister also confirm that the Electoral Commission may also want to investigate the London mayoral elections, or will it have no power to examine them? After the rigged referendum in Wales, the Neill committee presented important recommendations on the publication of literature by the Government. The Electoral Commission may want to consider what happened in that referendum to ensure that future referendums are not rigged. It may also want to present proposals on the London mayoral elections.
      As the Minister knows, the list of pilots was made available to bodies outside the House before the House knew about them. We have received written answers about that from him, and he has given explanations at the Dispatch Box. However, in the next roll-out in 2001, the Electoral Commission and local authorities will work together, and we are keen to ensure that the House will be informed of the pilots before the Press Association or any other bodies. We should be told at least at the same time as local authorities.
      Let us consider Government amendment No. 7. There has been much controversy about the literature for the Greater London Authority elections. First, we were told that it would be impossible for any free literature to be made available to the electorate. We were then told that the costs of doing that would be prohibitive. However, we are now told that it is not only possible to produce such literature, but that the costs have shrunk dramatically. A hard-fought victory for democracy was won by the unelected House of Lords.
      We know why the Government were not keen initially on free mailshots for the London mayoral elections. However, they will now be provided. Even Dafydd Elis-Thomas was heard to remark in the House of Lords that politics was a funny business, and that he never thought that he would vote in the same Lobby as Margaret Thatcher in defence of Ken Livingstone.
      Why do the Government wish to retain power over future mailshots? A mailshot is assured only for the first Londonwide elections. Why cannot the commission have the same powers for mailshots as it has for rolling out further reforms for pilot elections? The Secretary of State no longer has the power unilaterally to introduce changes to elections; he has to do that on the commission's recommendation.
      There is a suspicion that the Government want to retain at least a reserve power to stop mailshots, and act in cahoots with a more compliant second Chamber in future.

      39
      The Minister may call me cynical, but my cynicism is bred from the stench of rigging and control freakery of which the former Soviet Union would be proud.
      Will the Minister allay the House's suspicions and agree to reconsider whether the commission should introduce recommendations for future mailshots in London mayoral elections? If so, we will be reassured that the Government are not continuing to try to rig elections.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked me about the composition of the Electoral Commission. We believe that, essentially, members of the commission should be above party politics. Generally, that would mean those who were not recently actively engaged in the party political process. We would want to be sure that those who were appointed to the commission had the broad support of all the political parties in the House. We would not wish it to be thought that an attempt was being made to put in place a group of party political hacks, who might try to manipulate the situation to their own advantage. That is not the way in which the Neill report envisaged the commission operating, and it is not the way in which the Government want it to operate. I trust that we shall have the Opposition's support in ensuring that the process takes place in a way that is seen as above the fray.
      Mr. Evans: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I will clarify the matter and then give way.
      We have already discussed whether someone who had been involved in politics by standing as a candidate some time ago would be excluded from the commission. I would not necessarily exclude such a person, but it is not our intention to include him or her in the process. We do not have a particular view on who will be on the commission but, in due course, we shall be starting the examination of possible candidates. We hope that they will be of the great and good, but not too political.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that reassurance. Will the Minister therefore confirm that no current Member of the House of Lords will be eligible for membership of the commission? Given the number of hereditary peers who have left the House of Lords, does he envisage some of them being used for the commission? I hear what he says about consultation with leaders of political parties that are represented in this place by two or more Members. Will each political leader have a black ball to put against any names that come forward if he is unhappy about those people?
      Mr. O'Brien: I hope that these things can be done by consensus rather than black balls. We do not want to get into black balls—that approach leads to the situation where one side blackballs, followed by the other. We want there to be a number of individuals who are seen to be above the party political fray, whom broadly everyone can accept.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me whether any Member of the House of Lords might be included in the process. Law Lords are able to sit in another place, and I would not
      40
      wish to exclude individuals of that calibre from the commission. We need to ensure that we have a commission with which all parties with two or more Members sitting in the House are broadly satisfied. I hope that other political parties will be able to go along with that, to ensure that the members of the commission are of a high calibre and the sort of people who can be relied upon to reach independent and fair judgments.
      Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: I am not getting very far in responding to the debate, but I shall give way.
      Mr. Stunell: Perhaps I might tempt the Minister to go a little further. The debate in Committee on this matter focused not only on where potential members of the commission might come from but on where they might go. The hon. Gentleman will remember that I moved some amendments to prevent members continuing in office if they were going to take up political activity. We should have some poachers becoming gamekeepers, but not gamekeepers becoming poachers.
      Mr. O'Brien: I do not envisage these people subsequently deciding to become involved in politics. I suspect that those who are likely to sit on that body would not be likely to get involved in partisan politics or to put themselves into the fray but, if they did so, questions would have to be asked about whether they would continue in that role. We would want to be very careful about the types of individual who were members of the Electoral Commission and avoid that problem arising in the first place.
      Let me answer some of the other points raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. In terms of the pilots, there will be a time lapse before the Electoral Commission is in place. Subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent by summer, we aim to establish the commission in November 2000, and its priority will be to put in place the arrangements for the reporting of donations and the controls on electoral campaign spending. We will therefore need to discuss with the commission the extent to which it can be involved in pilot schemes at the May 2001 elections. Any roll-out of such schemes to local government elections generally will be on the commission's recommendation.
      A number of pilot schemes will be tested this year and we shall evaluate those tests, but I should be surprised if we were able to roll them out before the next election—although that would not be impossible, were there no controversy—and the time scale will probably be slightly longer. We would hope to have the Electoral Commission in place by then. We would also hope that it would be in a position at least to examine some of the possible pilots for next year. If we were to set up the commission in November, evaluation would probably have to take place in December and the time scales for the pilots for May 2001 would become very tight. We could leave the decision late, as we have done for parliamentary reasons this year, but that would not be desirable. We would like to tell the local authorities the pilots to which we had agreed before that.
      The Electoral Commission's role would, to some extent, depend on its ability to deliver an evaluation. We would want it to be involved, but in the interim we would

      41
      deal with these matters by ensuring that there was proper consultation between the political parties and a way of evaluating each scheme. We would not proceed where there were serious political objections, particularly during the next year. There is lots of speculation about various things that might happen next year and we would be particularly cautious about the way in which we proceeded with pilots then.
      We would be able to evaluate those schemes. If we were disposed, without any great controversy, to agree to some extension of the electoral arrangements, that would be done by affirmative order. It would be fully debated in the House. Again, it would be in no one's interests—certainly not the Government's—to put electoral arrangements that are a matter of party political dispute before the people of this country. We are trying to move forward by consensus.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Electoral Commission would consider the mayoral elections, but they might have taken place a year previously by the time it got round to holding an inquiry, and it would have to consider party donations and perhaps evaluate some of the pilots before doing so. I cannot preclude that, and there may be good reasons for making such a decision-1 do not know—but that would be essentially a matter for the commission. It seems to me that the time scale does not easily lend itself to such an inquiry.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about the announcement of provisional pilots. I hope that there would be more publicity about which pilots were being considered. I have been concerned that there has not been the lead-in time to enable some Members of Parliament to be fully consulted by their local authorities because of the way in which things have been done over the year, because of delays with the Bill and because of a number of issues in respect of which authorities would introduce pilots. Indeed, I pulled at least one pilot because Members of Parliament said not only that they had not been consulted, but that they would have disagreed if they had been. We did not want to get into a controversy even if it were internal and involved one political party, as in this case, rather than inter-party.
      4.45 pm
      The best way to carry out these pilots is for them to be as uncontroversial as possible, so that there is broad support. We should evaluate them properly, and the House should decide in due course whether to go further. Before we proceed on a broader basis, we should consider the recommendation of the Electoral Commission.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked about postage and payment for the distribution of electoral addresses for the Greater London Assembly elections. That brings us back to the debate that we had last week. The Conservatives want the distribution of their election addresses to be subsidised by the taxpayer. The Conservative party has financial problems owing to its lack of support in the country. The hon. Gentleman tries our patience by arguing that decisions on whether taxpayers' money should be spent on subsidising political parties in elections should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons and given to the Electoral Commission. I am not easily convinced by that argument.
      I suspect that, when the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have considered the proposal, they will not be able to endorse it. The House has always jealously
      42
      guarded decisions on the expenditure of taxpayers' money. I suspect that most Tories would not endorse handing them over to an entirely independent and unelected body.
      The Electoral Commission may, in certain circumstances, be prepared to express a view on that issue, which the House could consider seriously, but the decision on expenditure should always rest with the House.
      Mr. Evans: Our view has nothing to do with the Conservative party wanting money to distribute our publications, but everything to do with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—and everyone knows that, so the Minister's point is a smokescreen. It was a hard-won victory in the other place. We are keen to ensure that the Government take the Electoral Commission's views seriously if it says that it is vital to have free postage to ensure that the electorate are fully informed of the various merits and policies of the candidates.
      I understand what the Minister says about giving another body responsibility for the expenditure of taxpayers' money, but he must accept that, for the full workings of democracy, it is important that all candidates can avail themselves of the opportunity to have their publications delivered to every house in London.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am not sure whether this new clause is the appropriate place to debate that issue. I was a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this was nothing to do with the Conservative party, and everything to do with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). The Conservative party's advocacy of this proposal now seems to have everything to do with its support for the hon. Member for Brent, East. I suspect that Steven Norris would be a little chagrined by the hon. Gentleman's view. The Conservatives moved from supporting Lord Archer to Steven Norris, and now they are supporting the hon. Member for Brent, East. That is a surprise.
      The hon. Gentleman may recall that the Conservative party advocated this measure before the hon. Member for Brent, East indicated his intention to stand as an independent candidate in the London mayoral elections. I find his suggestion that this has nothing to do with the finances of the Tory party difficult to believe. In any event, I am grateful to him for his broad support for the Government's new clauses and amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      PAYMENTS ETC. WHICH ARE (OR ARE NOT) TO BE TREATED AS DONATIONS BY PERMISSIBLE DONORS
      '.—(1) The following provisions have effect for the purposes of this Part.
      (2) Any payment out of public funds received by a registered party shall (subject to section 46(1)(a) and (b)) be regarded as a donation received by the party from a permissible donor.
      (3) Any donation received by a registered party shall (if it would not otherwise fall to be so regarded) be regarded as a donation received by the party from a permissible donor if and to the extent that—

      (a) the purpose of the donation is to meet qualifying costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with a visit by any member or officer of the party to a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and

      43

      (b) the amount of the donation does not exceed a reasonable amount in respect of such costs.

      (4) In subsection (3) "qualifying costs", in relation to any member or officer of the party, means costs relating to that person in respect of—

      (a) travelling between the United Kingdom and the country or territory in question, or

      (b) travelling, accommodation or subsistence while within that country or territory.

      (5) Any donation received by a registered party from a trustee of any property (in his capacity as such) which does not constitute a donation transmitted by the trustee to the party—

      (a) on behalf of a person who, at the time of its receipt by the party, is a permissible donor, or

      (b) in pursuance of a bequest made by such a person as is mentioned in section 48(3),

      shall be regarded as a donation received by the party from a person who is not a permissible donor.'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 15, 90 to 93, 96, 23, 97 to 100, 103 to 106, 111 and 114.
      Mr. Robert Walter: I am intrigued that the Minister is not speaking to what is a large group of amendments. When we discussed the Bill in the Standing Committee, I was delighted that the Government promised to revisit on Report the two important aspects that are covered in the amendments. One concerns the international links that our various political parties have. Under the Bill as drafted, there is a danger that we may cut ourselves off from the outside world to prevent any money flowing through the international links that our parties have. It is clear that a modern political party should be able to deal with its sister parties overseas.
      The second important strand deals with the power of trustees and bequests. Government amendments Nos. 15, 111 and 114 essentially seek to delete the paragraph which states that
      any donation received by a registered party by way of a donation by a trustee, in his capacity as such, shall be regarded as a donation received by the party from a person who is not a permissible donor.
      That was at variance with Neill. Although Neill was fairly specific about blind trusts, that paragraph would have covered open trusts. Neill's recommendation 22 was that open trusts should be permitted, and it was my understanding that the Government had accepted that. Paragraph 3.37 of their White Paper states:
      In recommendations 22 and 23 of their report, the Neill committee addressed the wider issue of donations to individual members of political parties or to unofficial groups within a party, as distinct from donations to political parties as such. The Government sympathises with the view that the principles of openness and accountability should apply equally to such donations.
      Consider the case of a trust that was set up as a result of a bequest, the purpose of which was to donate funds for political purposes. To suggest, as the clause does, that that would not be a permissible source flies in the face of Neill and in the face of what I regard as natural justice.
      44
      I hope not to die too soon, but, if I were to leave a bequest that was managed by trustees on my part and my will said that I would like the trustees at their discretion to make occasional donations to the Conservative party, I would expect my wishes to be carried out. Subsection (4) would mean that trustees would not be able to carry out my wishes; it would not be permissible to make such a donation.
      In Committee, the Opposition made it clear that we saw little purpose in banning such donations. I welcome the Government's acceptance of that, as I welcome their acceptance that international links should be preserved and that the money necessary to preserve those links should be allowed to flow.
      Mr. Andrew Stunell: For my part, I welcome the direction in which the new clause is going. The discussion in Committee covered many of the points, and I echo what the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) has said.
      One or two loose ends remain. May I ask the Minister to say something on the role of trustees of property? I have done my best to comprehend precisely what the Minister believes he has achieved in that area. I am still not sure that the Government have achieved what hon. Members want them to achieve.
      I ask the Minister to say a little more about subsection (5) and how it will be applied, especially as the words used in the subsection are used in many other parts of the Bill. Broadly, however, I welcome new clause 2, and Liberal Democrat Members will support it.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members who have supported this group of amendments, which give effect to the prohibition on foreign and anonymous donations.
      The Bill currently prevents political parties and other regulated bodies and persons from accepting donations from sources other than permissible donors. One effect of that provision is to prevent not only hon. Members, but party members and party officers from undertaking overseas visits at the expense of an overseas Government or body. That was not our direct intention. As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) has rightly said, it is important that we maintain our international links with parties of a similar philosophical view. Such links both add to knowledge abroad of this country, and enable us to maintain very important relationships with other countries that benefit the United Kingdom not only politically, but in many other spheres.
      Hon. Members undertake many and varied overseas visits in pursuance of their proper parliamentary duties. Such visits are invaluable in promoting hon. Members' understanding of a wide variety of issues, and thereby better equip them to discharge their duties as parliamentarians. A quick glance through the Register of Members' Interests reveals visits paid for by overseas Governments, overseas territories, overseas Parliaments and a variety of political foundations, such as the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The main point is that, in the Bill as it stands, not all those sponsors would constitute a permissible donor.
      The issue is not confined to Members of Parliament. We have had representations from the Green party and other groups about their arrangements, and they have sought the type of changes proposed in this group of

      45
      amendments. New clause 2 and the raft of amendments grouped with it are directed primarily at addressing that issue. The key provisions are in subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause, which applies to donations to political parties.
      Government amendment No. 100 makes identical provisions for party members, members of associations and holders of elected office.
      I very much hope that the House will accept this group of amendments. From the broad support that hon. Members have demonstrated for the provisions, it seems that they will be accepted.
      A subsidiary purpose of this group of amendments is, in certain very limited cases, to allow donations from trustees. Clause 48(4)(b) currently provides that a donation received by a registered party from a trustee acting in his capacity as such is to be treated as a donation
      from a person who is not a permissible donor.
      That provision sits uncomfortably with clause 48(3), on donations made in the form of a bequest.
      Clearly, when a person's will includes a bequest of money or property to a political party, the trustees of the will should be able to give effect to that bequest. Reckless as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) may be to want to give money to the party that he mentioned, I think that he should have every right to do so. Provided that the deceased was on the electoral register at the time of his or her death, the registered party named in the will should be able to accept the bequest.
      There may be other cases in which a trustee is simply acting as an agent in passing money or property. Again, it would be legitimate for a party to accept a donation of property provided that the person on whose behalf the trustee is acting is a permissible—that is, registered—donor. In such circumstances, clause 48(7) would apply, and the trustee would be acting as an agent for another person. That other person would be recorded as the donor.
      I hope that, now that those points have been dealt with, the House will be able to give strong support to the new clause and amendments in this group.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      TRANSFER TO COMMISSION OF FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND
      —(1) The Scottish Parliament may by order make provision for the transfer to the Commission of any one or more functions of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland (in this section referred to as "the Scottish Commission").
      (2) The Commission shall make arrangements for functions transferred to them by an order under subsection (1) to be exercised by the Boundary Commission for Scotland.
      (3) Where each of the functions of the Scottish Commission is transferred by an order under subsection (1), the Scottish Parliament may by order make provision for the abolition of the Scottish Commission.
      (4) An order under subsection (1) or (3) may include provision for the transfer to the Commission.
      46

      (a) of the staff of the Scottish Commission, and

      (b) of any property, rights and liabilities to which the Scottish Commission are entitled or subject;

      and an order which contains provision such as is mentioned in paragraph (b) may in particular provide for the order to have effect despite any provision (of whatever nature) which would prevent or restrict the transfer of the property, rights or liabilities otherwise than by the order.
      (5) An order under subsection (3) may include provision for the abolition of any duty in compliance with which the Scottish Commission was established or constituted.
      (6) An order under this section may contain any appropriate consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions or savings (including provisions amending, repealing or revoking enactments).
      (7) Any power of the Scottish Parliament to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
      (8) The expenditure of the Commission, so far as attributable to the exercise of any functions transferred by an order under subsection (1), shall be met by the Scottish Parliament.'.—[Mr. Grieve.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5 pm
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 140, in schedule 1, page 99, line 21, at end insert—
      'or by the Scottish Parliament in pursuance of section [Transfer to Commission of functions of Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland] (8)'.
      No. 141, in clause 5, page 4, line 7, after "however", insert—
      'save with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly (as the case may be)'.
      No. 142, in page 4, line 26, at end insert—
      '(iv) local government elections in Scotland (with the consent of the Scottish Parliament); and'.
      No. 143, in clause 8, page 6, line 31, at end insert—
      'unless the Scottish Parliament requests otherwise'.
      No. 144, in clause 11, page 8, line 16, after "Scotland", insert—
      'except with the consent of the Scottish Parliament'.
      Mr. Grieve: We are revisiting an issue that was touched on in Committee. There appeared to be a possible problem that the House could help to solve.
      As a result of the Scotland Act 1998, all responsibility over local government in Scotland is given to the Scottish Parliament. It is for the Scottish Parliament to determine how local government is to be run, what alterations might be made to its structure and to boundaries and, in particular, how elections might be conducted. I emphasise that we have no problem with that.
      However, as we looked through the Bill, it became apparent that there are many areas in which the Electoral Commission might—I emphasise that word—be of benefit to the Scottish Parliament and Executive. We are setting up a structure with responsibilities for England and for certain devolved matters in Wales. Our concern was that if the Scottish Parliament and Executive wished to avail themselves of the services of the Electoral Commission,

      47
      they should be in a position to do so. I emphasise that we are not seeking to tell the Scottish Parliament how they should go about their own business. That applies to the ability of the Electoral Commission to provide input and advice to the boundary commission. Scotland has a distinctive, small commission that deals only with local government boundaries. The services of the Electoral Commission may be wanted for that purpose.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: It may assist the hon. Gentleman to know that he does not have to convince me in principle. We are having discussions with the Scottish Executive on how to move forward. We may well be able to table amendments in another place in due course.
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister. I knew that the matter appeared to be of some interest to the Government when we raised it previously and I am grateful for a progress report. We were waiting for the Report stage to see how matters were progressing. In those circumstances, I do not intend to take up more of the time of the House.
      Having re-read the new clause, I should emphasise that, if the boundary commission for local government matters in Scotland were subsumed into the Electoral Commission, that commission should then report to the Scottish Parliament and Executive and not here. Otherwise, there would be a suggestion that we were trying to ratchet those powers back. I flag that up because I am the first to accept that the phrasing of the new clause might be capable of improvement. Subject to those comments and to the Minister's helpful remarks, I shall ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should give the Minister an opportunity to reply before he does so.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked me for an update. 1 thought that I might not have a chance to give one.
      We are considering similar proposals and we are sympathetic to the broad principles that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office said on 14 February, we are discussing with the Scottish Executive whether they wish to include provisions along the lines of the new clause and associated amendments. The Scottish Parliament and Executive have said that they would welcome an order-making power exercisable by Scottish Ministers to enable the functions of the local government boundary commission for Scotland to be transferred to the Electoral Commission. They have also agreed that there should be a similar enabling power to extend, to local government elections in Scotland, with the agreement of the Scottish Executive and Parliament, the Electoral Commission's remit under clause 8(3)(a) and clause 11. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield is right that the commission would then have to report to the Scottish Parliament.
      In the light of this agreement, I am ready to accept in principle the new clause and amendments Nos. 140, 143 and 144. The Government will table amendments along similar lines when the Bill reaches another place.
      48
      We propose that those amendments will provide that the various functions in relation to local government boundaries and elections may be transferred to the Electoral Commission by an order made by a member of the Scottish Executive. Any such order would be subject to the equivalent of the affirmative resolution procedure in the Scottish Parliament.
      I should add that we see no need for provisions along the lines of amendments Nos. 141 or 142. Under clause 8(1) the commission may, at the request of any relevant body, provide that body with advice and assistance in respect of any matter in which the commission has skill and experience. The definition of a "relevant body" in clause 8(6) includes the Scottish Parliament and Executive, and the National Assembly for Wales. It would therefore be open to the Scottish Parliament to request, for example, that the commission undertake a review of electoral law in relation to local government elections, or for the National Assembly to ask the commission to review the conduct of a poll held under section 36 of the Government of Wales Act 1998.
      Given that clause 8(1) essentially has the same effect as amendments Nos. 141 and 142, I am pleased that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is disposed to withdraw them.
      Mr. Wigley: I am sorry to have had to rush in for this debate, which I had not expected to start so early. I am aware that the debate applies to Scotland, but the Minister has referred to Wales. Some parts of the electoral law in Wales come under the Home Office, and others come under what used to be the Welsh Office and the National Assembly. To what extent are the Minister's comments about Scotland applicable to Wales?
      Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman will know that he has to be quick in this House, and I am pleased that he managed to get here for the debate. However, I am not sure of the focus of his question. The Government would always seek to consult the Welsh Executive and the Welsh Assembly if there were to be any change to the way that things were done in Wales. We would also hope that the Welsh Assembly would let us know how it wanted to proceed in relation to any matters with which it deals.
      So far, dealing with devolved matters has proved remarkably easy. Good relationships are being developed, and plenty of discussions are being held between the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Executive here in London. I hope that we will be able to ensure that the procedures that we use will be acceptable to all parties.
      Mr. Wigley: I agree that, where good will exists, the system can be made to work. However, I seek some clarification from the Minister. Orders may occasionally need to be made, and I was asking about the facility that exists to enable the National Assembly for Wales to make them. Given that the local government legislation has transferred powers to the Assembly, will provisions equivalent to those that apply to Scotland be made?
      Mr. O'Brien: The Government do not at present propose to transfer to the Welsh Assembly matters relating to council elections. They are not devolved matters, but there is no reason why the Welsh Assembly should not refer a matter to the Electoral Commission for

      49
      advice. I am not sure that I have got the drift of the right hon. Gentleman's point—or perhaps I have and have answered it.
      Mr. Wigley: I shall try and clarify my question. On several occasions, order-making facilities have been added to Bills going through Westminster, with the result that the National Assembly is able to undertake extra functions. Will the Minister bear in mind the possibility of making such provision for Wales in future, where it seems appropriate that orders should come from the Assembly?
      Mr. O'Brien: I certainly agree to bear that in mind. If matters are best dealt with in Wales, it is appropriate that they are dealt with there, just as it is right that matters best dealt with here are dealt with here. There may well be occasions in the future when we will be able to act as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Mr. Grieve: I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was seeking to curtail the debate. Opposition Members are usually accused of trying to spin out debate on their amendments for longer than is justified.
      I thank the Minister for his comments. I note that the Scottish National party is not represented here today, and assume from that that its members felt reassured by comments that they had heard previously that the new clause would not fetter the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for giving us the Welsh dimension.
      I look forward to seeing what progress has been made when the Bill eventually returns here from the other place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4
      Tax relief for donations to political parties
      '.—The following shall be inserted after section 379 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (interpretation of sections 369 to 378)—

      Relief for donations to political parties
      379AA.—(1) Tax relief shall be available to an individual (the donor) in accordance with this section on qualifying political donations made by him of up to £500 in any year of assessment.
      (2) A donation is a qualifying political donation for the purposes of this section if it is made to an eligible political party and—

      (a) it takes the form of the payment of a sum of money,

      (b) it is not subject to a condition as to repayment,

      (c) it is not conditional on or associated with, or part of an arrangement involving, the acquisition of property by the political party, otherwise than by way of gift, from the donor or a person connected with him, and

      (d) the donor is resident in the United Kingdom at the time the donation is made.

      (3) For the purposes of this section a political party is an eligible political party if, at the last general election preceding the donation in question—

      (a) two members of that party were elected to the House of Commons, or

      50

      (b) one member of that party was elected to the House of Commons and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.

      (4) If an individual makes a qualifying donation he shall be entitled, on making the payment, to deduct and retain out of it a sum equal to basic rate tax thereon.
      (5) Where a sum is deducted under subsection (4) above the sum deducted shall be treated as income tax paid by the person to whom the payment is made.
      (6) Any person by whom a qualifying donation is received shall be entitled to recover from the Board, in accordance with regulations, an amount which by virtue of subsection (5) above is treated as income tax paid by him; and any amount so recovered shall he treated for the purposes of the Tax Acts in like manner as the qualifying political donation to which it relates.
      (7) The following provisions of the Management Act, namely—

      (a) section 29(1)(c) (excessive relief) as it has effect apart from section 29(2) to (10) of that Act,

      (b) section 30 (tax repaid in error, etc) apart from subsection (1B),

      (c) section 86 (interest), and

      (d) section 95 (incorrect return or accounts),

      shall apply in relation to an amount which is paid to any person by the Board as an amount recoverable in accordance with regulations made by virtue of subsection (6) above but to which that person is not entitled as if it were income tax which ought not to have been repaid and, where that amount was claimed by that person, as if it had been repaid as respects a chargeable period as a relief which was not due.
      (8) In the application of section 86 of the Management Act by virtue of section (7) above in relation to sums due and payable by virtue of an assessment made for the whole or part of a year of assessment ('the relevant year of assessment') under section 29(1)(c) or 30 of that Act, as applied by that subsection, the relevant date—

      (a) is 1 January in the relevant year of assessment in a case where the person falling within subsection (5) above has made a relevant interim claim; and

      (b) in any other case is the later of the following dates, that is to say—

      (i) 1 January in the relevant year of assessment; or

      (ii) the date of the making of the payment by the Board which gives rise to the assessment.

      (9) The Board may by regulations make provision—

      (a) for the purposes of any provision of this section which relates to any matter or thing to be specified by or done in accordance with regulations;

      (b) with respect to the furnishing of information by donors or recipients, including, in the case of recipients, the inspection of books, documents and other records on behalf of the Board; and

      (c) generally for giving effect to this section.

      (10) In this section—
      'financial year' in relation to any person means a financial year of that person for the purposes of the relevant regulations;
      'interim claim' means an interim claim within the meaning of the relevant regulations;
      'relevant interim claim' means, in relation to an assessment made for a period coterminous with, or falling wholly within, a person's financial year, an interim claim made for a period falling wholly or partly within that financial year; and
      'the relevant regulations' means regulations made under subsection (9) above.
      (11) Section 839 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section to determine whether one person is connected with another".'.—[Mr. Walter.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Walter: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We consider this proposal important, because it goes to the heart of our democratic process and the party system. It would introduce a tax relief at the basic rate of tax on political donations up to £500 a year. The wording is based on the mortgage interest relief at source—MIRAS—scheme and the charities gift aid schemes, so it has some tax precedents.
      Opposition Members have never believed that we should cherry-pick the Neill recommendations. We think that, as far as possible, they should be implemented in full, and that is what the new clause would bring about. We must make what is, perhaps, a philosophical choice about whether we want our political parties to be directly funded by taxpayers—I know some hon. Members would sympathise with that view—or whether we want to implement a procedure to encourage more voluntary donations to political parties. The new clause would encourage voluntary donations.
      In evidence to the Neill committee, the Conservative party said:
      Rather than call for state funding we would welcome the Committee's views about how more individuals could be encouraged to donate. We note that in some countries individuals are offered tax relief for political donations, elsewhere tax credits or matching grants are provided. We believe that the Committee should give serious consideration to the practicalities of these approaches in the context of the United Kingdom's voluntary system.
      The Neill committee's recommendations are set out in our new clause. It is important, in the interests of democracy, for the funding of political parties to be as broadly based as possible. The Neill report cites evidence from Germany about a system of tax relief introduced in 1974, under which the pattern of donations to political parties has changed from significantly large donations to many small ones. That is in keeping with the spirit of the new clause and, we believe, with the Bill.
      The new clause is identical to a proposal tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 22 June last year in the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill. It would amend section 379 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 by inserting a new section 379AA.
      Lord Neill's recommendation 38 states:
      Tax relief by deduction at source should be introduced, limited to the basic rate, on donations of up to £500 a year to eligible registered political parties.
      Recommendation 39 states:
      Political parties should be eligible to claim under the tax relief scheme if at the last general election two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons or one member was elected and the party won at least 150,000 votes.
      5.15 pm
      Why do we feel that it would be appropriate to include what seems to be a taxation measure in the Bill? The then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) said in response to my hon. Friend's amendment to the Finance Bill being considered in Committee in June 1999:
      52
      The Government do not believe that that is the appropriate way to respond to the Neill committee, which proposed a package of recommendations that should be considered together. That is why I shall ask the Committee to reject the new clause.
      The question of whether there should be tax relief for donations to political parties—and, if so, how it should operate—must be considered alongside all the proposed measures that we intend to publish in the draft Bill before the summer.
      That draft Bill has now become the Bill before us. The hon. Lady went on:
      We should not try to deal with this one aspect in isolation.
      She continued:
      It is also necessary to consider the issue of tax relief for donations to political parties alongside the review of tax relief for charitable donations—something that we are already working on with the charitable sector. It would be most unfortunate if the system appeared to be more generous in relation to smaller donations to political parties than in relation to smaller donations to charities.
      The new clause takes note of that. The then Economic Secetary concluded:
      I urge hon. Members to await publication of our draft Bill on donations to political parties and campaign expenditure. I hope that, in the spirit of fraternity … the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will agree to withdraw the new clause.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 June 1999; c.778.]
      It is therefore the Treasury's view that the new clause should be considered as part of this Bill, not in isolation and not as part of a Finance Bill. That is why, although the new clause was tabled in the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill last year, it was felt that it should be considered alongside this Bill.
      As the Minister will be aware, given arguments for and against tax relief, Lord Neill concludes in favour of a system of tax relief. In his evidence to the Neill committee, Lord Razzall, the treasurer of the Liberal Democrats, saw benefit in the tax relief system. He said:
      I think that as a weapon for the political parties to build up their membership base in particular … as part of that armoury as long as it was structured in a way that was designed to benefit the small donations, I wouldn't be against it.
      Lord Parkinson, giving evidence on behalf of the Conservative party, said:
      I think that this is a very attractive idea. I think anything that encourages people to participate in a political process, to get involved in political parties, to broaden the base of their membership is to be welcomed because I think politics is a very honourable profession and supporting a political party is a very worthwhile way of spending one's time and money.
      It would be wrong to say that there were no arguments against the measure. In his evidence, the finance director of the Labour party, Mr. David Pitt-Watson, said:
      Tax relief is of value only to people who pay tax—
      That is true—
      and where the donations given are of significant size. It would be of little value to the Labour Party, which has 400,000 members who are paying an average of £20 each to the Labour Party's coffers. It would be of enormous value to our opponents.
      As well as those who give the Labour party an average of £20, many donors give much more. I say with some sadness that I know for a fact that the Labour party has more donors giving more than £5,000 than the Conservative party. I imagine that some of those donors might value a small tax concession. We are aiming not at those who give £20, nor at those who donate £5,000, but at those who want to make a contribution that is significant in their terms. I refer to those on middle

      53
      incomes who consider that making a substantial donation to a political party is a worthwhile way of spending their money.
      I offer the example of my Conservative association in North Dorset, which has a successful patrons' club. Members donate £200 and are content to do so without the benefit of tax relief. We should be in a much healthier state, however, if tax relief applied, because more people might be inclined to make such a donation to the party. The Liberal Democrats would benefit, as would the Labour party.
      The new clause would bring many small to medium-sized donors into the political process. It is not concerned with those who pay basic subscriptions, or with those who can write cheques for £5,000 or even £1 million. Those people will make their contributions anyway, and the tax relief on, say, £500 would be of minimal benefit to them. We want to aim for people who already make charitable donations of up to £500 using the gift aid scheme and who are encouraged to do so by the tax relief granted on their donations.
      We could enable political parties to broaden the base of their finances so that they are less reliant on large donors of more than £5,000, not to mention those who can donate £1 million or more. We want the financing of political parties to become more broadly based, which was one of the major themes of the Neill report. Such a scheme would constitute a great fillip for democracy and would be of minimal cost to the Treasury. I say that advisedly, having examined the costs of other political parties and compared the figure with the cost of special advisers alone, which is a burden on the taxpayer.
      This modest money measure would add an entirely appropriate new clause in the Bill, and I commend it.
      Mr. John MacGregor: As I was a member of the Neill committee, which drew up the original recommendations, hon. Members will be unsurprised to know that I warmly support the new clause. We should understand from the outset the important difference between tax relief and public funding. Neill did not recommend public funding for general party political purposes, nor is there any stomach in the country for such a proposal. Tax relief, however, depends on individual donors deciding where they want their money to go and making a direct contribution accordingly.
      The Neill committee took the unanimous view that tax relief should be included as part of the package. "Package" is the relevant word—the committee saw all its recommendations hanging together, and I regret that this is the major element of those recommendations so far left out of the Government's proposals.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) correctly explained the principle behind the Neill committee's proposal. We envisaged that donations from traditional sources to political parties would drop off as a result of our recommendations. We saw tax relief as a means of ensuring that sufficient funds to serve our democratic purposes were attracted to political parties. In particular, if corporate and trade union donations to political parties drop off, making the parties more reliant on donations from wealthy individuals, it would be important to move towards small donations from many people rather than large donations from a few. In an era in which we wish to encourage many more people to
      54
      participate in our democratic political process—by and large, they must do so through political parties—we can do so by encouraging them to make financial contributions.
      We have heard that the proposed tax reliefs are similar to those for charities. The House will recall that not long ago there was a leak—this time directly from the Chancellor—to the effect that the Budget would include a new charitable aid package. He gave as one of the reasons the need to encourage people to make that voluntary contribution to important parts of our national life. I believe that nothing in our national life is more important than the democratic process and the work done by political parties in that regard. If there is to be another major package of charitable aid in the Budget, this provision would be only a small addition to it.
      My final point in favour of the new clause will be brief, because the matter has been debated on other occasions: the principle has already been accepted in the tax system. The Inheritance Tax Act 1984 accepted the principle of tax relief for political donations through inheritance taxes and it is now part of our fiscal law.
      Several objections have been made to the new clause. The first is that it would help parties that were more likely to receive donations from richer individuals. There are three answers to that point. First, a cap of £500 is proposed. Secondly, the tax relief proposed would be at the basic rate, not at the higher rate or at the marginal rate of the individual; it would thus be the same for every donation.
      The third answer relates to the argument that the new clause would favour parties that did not rely on large numbers of small donations from people on low incomes—the treasurer of the Labour party may have had that point in mind when he gave evidence to the Neill committee. However, if we consider the current donations to the Labour party, it seems unlikely that many donors are not paying tax. With personal allowances relief at a little more than £4,000, it is unlikely that many people could make a decent contribution to a political party on that amount of income. We all know—because of the frequent new Labour boast—that the Labour party now has a broad spread of membership and donors. There would be no difference between the parties as to the extent to which they benefited.
      Mr. Martin Linton: I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the marginal rate and the limitation on the amount of tax relief. Does he agree that he and his colleagues on the Neill committee would have been better advised to recommend a tax credit, such as the system they observed in Canada? That would ensure not only that the marginal rate was the same, but that the amount of subsidy would be the same for everyone, regardless of their rate of tax or how much they paid.
      Mr. MacGregor: That is similar to our proposal. There would be a difference for those who pay no tax at all. However, as I have pointed out, few people who pay no tax would be likely to make a contribution to a political party.
      We did indeed examine tax credits and we carefully considered the Canadian system. We concluded that the British tax system is not appropriate for that system. The proposal that we recommended, and which is in the

      55
      new clause, is much more relevant to the British system and has a precedent in charitable tax relief—that is why we came down on that side. We asked the Inland Revenue to consider the implications of a tax relief system and what would be most appropriate for the UK. We received a memorandum from the Revenue that made it clear that the proposed system was right for the UK. Furthermore, it would be easy to administer in the UK system. That is why we came down in favour of it.
      A second objection to the new clause is that it would create a precedent for other forms of tax relief—for example, for certain lobby organisations that were allied to a political view. The answer to that objection is that the inheritance tax reliefs introduced in the 1984 Act have not been extended beyond political parties, so there is no reason why that should be regarded as a precedent for such an extension under the definition in the new clause. The definition in the new clause is the same as the one in inheritance tax legislation.
      The third objection was the administrative cost of the proposal. In previous debates, the Government have tended to rely on that objection.
      I believe that the administrative cost would be very light. If the scheme were operated in the way that the scheme for charitable contributions operates, it would be for the political parties to make the claim for tax relief. Therefore, from the Inland Revenue's viewpoint, very few organisations would submit applications for tax relief—far fewer than the number of charities that do so. There would be an administrative burden on political parties, and it would be for them to judge whether they wished to make applications and whether the benefits outweighed the costs, but the cost to the Inland Revenue would be much less than the cost of existing forms of charitable tax relief. Therefore, I do not believe that that objection is a strong argument against the proposal.
      5.30 pm
      Finally, there is the objection that there would be a small cost to pay in terms of the tax forgone—the tax relief allowed. By any calculation, that amount would be small. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset suggested that it would be less than the cost to taxpayers of special advisers. Certainly, it would not be very different from that cost. It would be entirely up to political parties to try to take the maximum advantage of the tax relief by encouraging an increasing number of people who do not currently subscribe to political parties to do so. As I have said, it is one of the main purposes of the proposal to encourage that wider participation in the political process.
      I believe that the objections, which we did consider very carefully in the Neill committee, do not have sufficient force. That is why we came unanimously to the view that this proposal was a very important part of the overall package. I therefore hope that the Government, now that they have had time to consider all the arguments, will accept, either through this Bill or the Finance Bill, that this proposal is to the benefit of all political parties and does not unfairly benefit one as against another.
      Mr. Stunell: I, too, support the new clause, although perhaps not with as much warmth and enthusiasm as
      56
      others have expressed. I feel that it is an important step forward. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the principle, which has been well outlined and has a pedigree that makes it worthy of support and careful consideration.
      I do not want to focus my remarks on the direct advantages to political parties of this proposal. Instead, I want to discuss the overall effect that the legislation will have on the funding of political activity in this country. I shall ask the simple question, where will the money to fund political parties come from if the Bill becomes law in its present form?
      Obviously, in future, overseas donations will not be made to political parties—and a good thing too, many of us believe. I and many observers believe that there will be a strong tendency for the level of commercial support for political parties to reduce. The requirements for transparency and disclosure and the need to get decisions past shareholders will tend to inhibit the inflow of money from that source. There will be a similar effect on private large donors, who may not want to be exposed to the full glare of publicity. All those changes may be beneficial—I believe that they will be—and it is quite proper for us to bring such matters out into the open and for them to be matters of public debate and public knowledge. Sponsors of party political conferences and so on will face similar inhibitions.
      The Bill has one or two unintended side effects, which have been discussed in Committee elsewhere. In certain circumstances, bequests will not now be able to be fulfilled in the way that the testator wanted. There has been a limited relaxation today, which I welcome. However, in Committee I moved an amendment drawing attention to the fact that, especially in the last year or two of a person's life, it is commonplace for them to move—perhaps into residential care or to live with carers elsewhere—and no longer to appear on the register. Those people will be cut out of the situation.
      Another unintended consequence of the Bill as it stands relates to the complexity of accounting for even quite small donations. It is quite proper and appropriate that the Bill should require such accounting, but I point out to the Minister that every one of the things that I have mentioned will result in less money coming into the province of voluntary support for political parties in this country.
      Neill certainly believed that it was appropriate to give incentives to broaden the financial base on which political parties operate. I can probably speak from a fairly neutral viewpoint because, at the moment, the Liberal Democrats are supported almost exclusively by small donations. I regret that—I wish that we received large donations, but we do not seem able to attract them. I do not know whether my party would benefit from the proposal.
      The proposal's value is not that it would necessarily create a broader base for a political party. I doubt that whole categories of people want to donate to a political party, but are just waiting for tax relief to become available so that they can do so. Providing tax relief is a means of enhancing income from what is probably a static base of donors. Nevertheless, tax relief would be welcome.
      The proposal is not about encouraging participation, but about encouraging activity. What do the Government think would happen if, as a result of the Bill becoming law, political parties had less to spend on campaigning

      57
      and on getting people elected? Would that be likely to increase the turnout and the level of political competition? Would that be likely to develop and extend democracy, or would it, on the whole, lead to more apathy and less interest, with politicians and political parties having less impact on the communities that they try to serve?
      Although my support for the new clause is not as warm and enthusiastic as that of other hon. Members, I want to draw attention to the fact that the Bill—deliberately in some cases and accidentally in others—will result in less money being available to political parties. That means less political activity, which is not good for the body politic in this country. If that happens, surely the Government must consider a countervailing mechanism that would allow political parties, in a legitimate, fair and transparent way, to conduct the activity that we are all quite good at, which is campaigning and motivating electors to support us.
      Mr. Martin Bell: I shall speak briefly on behalf of the Independents in the House. As we have just doubled our number, I think that we have a contribution to make.
      I have a slightly questionable declaration of interest to make. My cousin is a prominent member of the constituency association of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). I do not want her to bankrupt herself raising money for that association.
      Small contributions, with tax relief, would be entirely appropriate. If there is a flaw in the Bill—and there is a flaw—it is the high ceiling of £19.77 million that the main parties will be allowed to raise and spend at the next election. They will spend more money than they can safely raise and, in their different ways, the Ecclestone and the Ashcroft cases have reminded us of that. It would be infinitely preferable if contributions were made to parties and, in exceptional cases, to non-parties, such as my own, with tax relief. That would encourage the little people to get involved in politics, which would help our democracy and make it much healthier.
      Mr. Robert Syms: I am pleased to support new clause 4, which was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter).
      The Neill committee report was a job well done. I was very surprised that the Government did not take up the proposals for tax relief. Everyone in the House realises that the days of large donors and, perhaps, of trade unions donating as much as they did in the past are over. If political parties want to thrive, they must get many more people donating reasonable sums of money. I am thinking in terms of hundreds of pounds rather than the £15 or £20 that they receive from ordinary party members. We all realise that that is the future.
      The new clause would set a cultural environment in which people would think that it was a good thing to donate to political parties. Tax relief would provide a seal of public acceptance. In our current culture, it is fine to give £20, but if one gives a large donation, people think that there is something wrong or that one is in it for something. New clause 4 would change the culture of our political process.
      The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) made a good point: most of us regard £20 million as a lot of money. All political parties face a hard task in raising that amount. We all know of the pressure to spend in the run-up to
      58
      elections and the campaign itself and to worry about raising the money another day, and all of us in politics will try to take a shortcut if we can, provided that it is legal. Tax relief would make a great difference.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) eloquently made the case for tax relief. A greater number of donors to all political parties would greatly improve our political process. The new clause is well drafted and contains safeguards, such as a political party having to have two Members and 150,000 votes. That would accommodate Independent Members if they formed, in effect, a political party.
      Even if the Government reject the new clause today, I urge them to return to the issue in future legislation. We have heard the case for special advisers, and we could consider other services on which a lot of money is spent. As my right hon. Friend said, this is not public funding, although there would be some cost to the Exchequer. A man or woman will make a personal decision to give money to a political party, and the state will give that decision its seal of approval. That is a good, healthy and honourable action, and it would lead to a much better political process.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who opened the debate, said that the new clause is important to him, but is it a priority for the people of this country for us to give tax relief on support for political parties? I suspect that they would rather we spent the money that is available directly on health or education or on tax relief such as allowances for children or lone parents, individual allowances or business allowances.
      We have calculated that the proposal would effectively cost the Exchequer about £5 billion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Billion?"] I apologise—I mean £5 million. That is £5 million of taxpayers' money that would go to political parties, but which could be spent in more desirable ways. The people of this country would not support that approach.
      Mr. MacGregor: If that is the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he wants to rest it on the basis of putting the question to the people of this country, does he not think that they would feel exactly the same about the big increases in funding for special advisers?
      Mr. O'Brien: Special advisers are a different issue. That is a question of whether Ministers should have advice from someone who is able to support them through contact with their local party and the people who elected them. A Minister making a decision therefore has not only the civil service view but an independent view from someone who has a different political perspective. That ensures good decision making and is effective expenditure of public money. It enables Ministers to hear more than one point of view and therefore to reach better judgments.
      We are talking about entirely different matters. I would certainly have no qualms about supporting the need for at least some expenditure on political advisers to Secretaries of State. That is well worth while and pays dividends to the public in efficiency and good-quality decisions. It is entirely different to subsidise—as we are being asked to do—unelected officers and full-time officials of political parties. I do not accept that that is a good way in which to spend taxpayers' money.

      59
      5.45 pm
      The Government have sought to implement the Neill committee's recommendations as a package, as the committee intended, but we are not persuaded of the case for tax relief on political donations, as the new clause proposes. Last week, the Conservatives sought aid for their candidates' leaflets; earlier, they were seeking further aid for that. This week, they want subsidies for the salaries of Conservative party officials. Public declarations by the Conservative party of opposition to state subsidies are being replaced by constant moves to secure more and more of them.
      The Liberal Democrats have always been entirely consistent in favouring state funding of political parties. The Conservative party has always said that it is opposed to such funding, but time and again in recent weeks Conservative Members have demanded in the House that the taxpayer should subsidise their politics. We are not convinced that that would be good expenditure of public money, and there are several reasons why.
      The Government acknowledge the desirability of broadening the base of contributors to political parties. In placing a ceiling on political parties' expenditure, the Bill will do much to reduce their need to seek large donations from wealthy individual donors. The Government have also increased the amount of public money made available to opposition parties in order to fulfil their role in Parliament. The Bill will also provide for the disbursement of up to £2 million in policy development grants to political parties. Now, the Conservative party says, "Give us another large amount"—whether it be £5 million or not.
      Against that background, we remain unpersuaded of the case for tax relief on donations. As the Government stated in their White Paper, we believe that such a scheme would amount to state aid by another route. Indeed, loss of revenue has been estimated to be between £4 million and £5 million. That must be considered in the light of our other expenditure priorities. I am not convinced that political parties are, in the broader scheme of things, a spending priority. Nor would it be desirable for them to become increasingly dependent on, in effect, public funding of their activities outside Parliament.
      I recognise that the new clause would give effect to one of the Neill committee's recommendations—the Government have sought wherever possible to adhere to its recommendations—but this is one issue on which the Government have concluded that we must depart from such recommendations. That is because we do not agree with it; we are unpersuaded of the need for it.
      The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that the Bill might result in fewer foreign donations, with which he would be pleased, and in fewer company donations, which to some extent he accepts. That might result in less of an arms race on funding. The new clause would fuel that arms race.
      The views on these matters of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) carry a great deal of weight because they particularly concern him and were some of the reasons why he stood for Parliament. He wanted to ensure improvement in the funding of political parties and the integrity of the political process. However, such tax relief would simply fuel the funding race that he fears the Bill will not control sufficiently.
      60
      The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said that he thought that the future lay in getting hundreds of political party members to make contributions of hundreds of pounds. There may be members of his political association who are able to contribute hundreds of pounds a year, but I can think of very few members of my political party who could contribute £100, never mind several hundred pounds, to the Labour party. The way in which—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), from a sedentary position, is starting to bandy about the names of certain individuals. We could both do that. He should be a little careful about mixing it. We could both mix it, more toughly than he intends.
      I shall deal with a more sensible comment from the hon. Member for Poole. There is a difference in wealth between individuals who might comprise particular political associations or parties. There would therefore be a disproportionate advantage to one political party compared with another or, I suspect, most of the others.
      I understand why the Conservatives have proposed the measure—they would benefit from it. They would get more public subsidy and probably more donations. However, I fail to see the public interest; indeed, I am not satisfied that there is a public interest. I am not satisfied that this is a purpose for which taxpayers in my constituency would want reliefs to be granted. Neither I nor the Government are prepared to recommend the new clause.
      Mr. Walter: Until we heard the Minister's contribution, I thought that a considerable consensus on our new clause was building up in the House.
      I am grateful for the valuable contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who was a member of the Neill committee, as he pointed out. Like hon. Members in all parts of the House, I regret that my right hon. Friend is not standing at the next election, and that we will not benefit from his contribution after that.
      My right hon. Friend summed up exceedingly well the basis of the Neill recommendations. As he said, the new clause is not a charter for those who write out large cheques. It states clearly that donations would be capped at £500 and relief would be granted at the basic rate of income tax. It would answer what my right hon. Friend considered spurious objections from the Labour party. Few donors to any political party are below the tax threshold, so donors to all parties are taxpayers. My right hon. Friend stated that Labour would benefit from the measure.
      As my right hon. Friend pointed out, because of the way in which our new clause is phrased, the administrative burden would fall on the political parties. It would not be a requirement on each taxpayer to reclaim the tax. Claims for tax relief would be made by the small number of political parties when they made their returns to the Inland Revenue. The administrative burden would fall not on the various inspectors of taxes, but on the party treasurers. In any case, the amount of tax forgone by the Treasury would be quite small.
      I was grateful for the support from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) posed the question of where the money would come from to fund the political process in the

      61
      future, as several categories of donors to our political parties are excluded by the Bill. He asked who would replace the overseas donors who could no longer contribute, the corporate donors who might in future have difficulty getting shareholder approval for their donations, and the large donors who valued their present state of anonymity but whose names would have to be published if they wrote cheques for more than £5,000. The hon. Gentleman's view was that the parties would have less money at their disposal, so an incentive scheme such as the one proposed would be of value to all political parties.
      I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). We all applaud his championing of the cause of the little people in politics. The measure is designed to govern the financing of political parties, so as an Independent, the hon. Gentleman unfortunately would not benefit from the provisions of the new clause. The Bill is quite specific in its definition of an "Independent".
      My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) spoke of the change in the cultural environment that would be brought about by the Bill. He argued that through legislation, we should make people aware that it was socially acceptable to give slightly larger sums to political parties—sums up to £500—in the same way as it is socially acceptable to give larger donations to charities, up to the same level. He thought that that should be encouraged by our political process.
      Finally, we heard the contribution from the Minister, who at the beginning had difficulty distinguishing his billions from his millions. I can reassure him that the figure that he was looking for was £5 million, not £5 billion. He later qualified that as £4 million to £5 million. In the context of Government expenditure, £5 million is quite small beer, considering the incentive effect of the new clause. We are discussing the incentive effect for parliamentary democracy, not state subsidies for political parties.
      The Minister accepts that we need to broaden the base of support for our political parties, but he believes that capping at just under £20 million the sum that a large political party can spend in a general election would broaden the base of our democracy.
      The Minister was entirely wrong about one thing: the new clause may have been tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who are all members of the Conservative party, but it is not a recommendation of the Conservative party alone; it is a recommendation of the Neill committee.
      Neill's recommendation 38 states:
      Tax relief by deduction at source should be introduced, limited to the basic rate, on donations of up to £500 a year to eligible registered political parties.
      Neill's recommendation 39 goes on:
      Political parties should be eligible to claim under the tax relief scheme if at the last general election two members of the party were elected to the House of Commons or one member was elected and the party won at least 150,000 votes.
      The Government must not cherry-pick the Neill report, which arose from an independent inquiry and is broadly supported in the House and very much supported in the country. The report is designed to bring a new level of financial propriety into our political process, and transparency into our political operations. Underlying the report is the view that we should broaden the base of political support and encourage more people to participate
      62
      in the political process, not just by voting at elections but by contributing to our political parties. If the Government do not accept the new clause, we will press the motion to a Division.
      6 pm
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 272.

      Division No. 102]

      [6 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hammond, Philip

      Allan, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Amess, David

      Hayes, John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Baldry, Tony

      Horam, John

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Bercow, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Body, Sir Richard

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Boswell, Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

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

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Brady, Graham

      Key, Robert

      Brake, Tom

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Brazier, Julian

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Burns, Simon

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Butterfill, John

      Lidington, David

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Chope, Christopher

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Clappison, James

      Loughton, Tim

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Cotter, Brian

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Cran, James

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Madel, Sir David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Maples, John

      Day, Stephen

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Duncan, Alan

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Evans, Nigel

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Faber, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fabricant, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Fallon, Michael

      Oaten, Mark

      Feam, Ronnie

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Flight, Howard

      Ottaway, Richard

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Paice, James

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Paterson, Owen

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Pickles, Eric

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Prior, David

      Fraser, Christopher

      Randall, John

      Gale, Roger

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Garnier, Edward

      Rendel, David

      Gibb, Nick

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gill, Christopher

      Robertson, Laurence

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Gray, James

      Ruffley, David

      Green, Damian

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Greenway, John

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Grieve, Dominic

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Shepherd, Richard

      63

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Wardle, Charles

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Webb, Steve

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Steen, Anthony

      Whittingdale, John

      Streeter Gary

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Swayne, Desmond

      Willetts, David

      Wilshire, David

      Syms, Robert

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Trend, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mr. Peter Luff and

      Walter, Robert

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Ainger, Nick

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cummings, John

      Allen, Graham

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Dalyell, Tam

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Austin, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Banks, Tony

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bayley, Hugh

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

      Beard, Nigel

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Doran, Frank

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Dowd, Jim

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Drew, David

      Benton, Joe

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Berry, Roger

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Best, Harold

      Edwards, Huw

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ennis, Jeff

      Borrow, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Flint, Caroline

      Browne, Desmond

      Flynn, Paul

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gapes, Mike

      Burden, Richard

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burgon, Colin

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Cann, Jamie

      Godsiff, Roger

      Casale, Roger

      Goggins, Paul

      Caton, Martin

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Gunnell, John

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clelland, David

      Hanson, David

      Clwyd, Ann

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Coaker, Vernon

      Healey, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Colman, Tony

      Heppell, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Corbett, Robin

      Hill, Keith

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoey, Kate

      Crausby, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      64

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Olner, Bill

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hurst, Alan

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hutton, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pike, Peter L

      Illsley, Eric

      Plaskitt, James

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Pond, Chris

      Jamieson, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Purchase, Ken

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Rammell, Bill

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Rapson, Syd

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Rooney, Terry

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kemp, Fraser

      Roy, Frank

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ruane, Chris

      Kidney, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Salter, Martin

      Laxton, Bob

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lepper, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Leslie, Christopher

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Levitt, Tom

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Linton, Martin

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lock, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Love, Andrew

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McCabe, Steve

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Soley, Clive

      Macdonald, Calum

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      McDonnell, John

      Spellar, John

      McFall, John

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      McIsaac, Shona

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Stevenson, George

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      McNulty, Tony

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      MacShane, Denis

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      McWalter, Tony

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      McWilliam, John

      Stringer, Graham

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Merron, Gillian

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Miller, Andrew

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mitchell, Austin

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Timms, Stephen

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Todd, Mark

      Morley, Elliot

      Touhig, Don

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Mountford, Kali

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Mullin, Chris

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Tynan, Bill

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Norris, Dan

      Ward, Ms Claire

      65

      Wareing, Robert N

      Wise, Audrey

      Watts, David

      Wood, Mike

      White, Brian

      Woolas, Phil

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wyatt, Derek

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      ANNUAL REGISTRATION OF OVERSEAS VOTERS
      '.—(1) The Representation of the People Act 1985 (as amended by the Representation of the People Act 2000) is amended in accordance with this section.
      (2) In subsection (3) of section 1 (Extension of parliamentary franchise) leave out paragraph (c) and after paragraph (d) insert the words "and
      (dd) he makes a declaration under and in accordance with section 2 of this Act within five years ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom and he continues to register in each succeeding year.".
      (3) For subsection (4)(a) of section 1 (Extension of parliamentary franchise) substitute—
      "(a) he makes a declaration under and in accordance with section 2 of this Act within five years of ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom and he continues to register in each succeeding year,".'.—[Mr. Linton.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Linton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 6—Annual registration for overseas voters: peers—
      '.—(1) The Representation of the People Act 1985 (as amended by the Representation of the People Act 2000) is amended in accordance with this section.
      (2) In subsection (3) of section 3 (Extension of franchise for European Parliamentary elections) for paragraph (c) substitute—
      "(c) either that entry in the register was in force at any time falling within the period of 20 years ending immediately before the relevant date, or he makes a declaration under and in accordance with section 2 of this Act within five years of ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom and he continues to register in each succeeding year,"
      (3) In subsection (4) of section 3 (Extension of franchise for European Parliamentary elections) for paragraph (a) substitute—
      "(a) either he was last resident in the United Kingdom within the period of 20 years ending immediately before the relevant date, or he makes a declaration under and in accordance with section 2 of this Act within five years of ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom and he continues to register in each succeeding year".'.
      New clause 7—Extension of franchise for employees of international organisations—
      '.—(1) Subsection (1) of section 14 (Service qualification) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended in accordance with this section.
      (2) In paragraph (c) the words "or an international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member" are inserted after the words "British Council".
      (3) After paragraph (e) the words "(f) is a person under the age of 25 who is resident with a parent qualifying under any paragraph (a) to (e) above," are inserted.'.
      New clause 8—Representation of the People Act 1985—
      '(1) The Representation of the People Act 1985 (as amended by the Representation of the People Act 2000) is amended as follows.
      (2) after subsection (5) of section 1 add:
      "(6)(a) Any person who was registered as an elector under this section at the end of the period of five years beginning with the date that he ceased to be resident in the United Kingdom and who registers in each succeeding year, shall be entitled to vote for the purposes of this section notwithstanding the fact that the period of time referred to in subsection 3(c) or subsection 4(a), as the case may be, has expired, provided that he satisfies the other relevant requirements of this section.
      (b) In respect of any person who by reason only of his age was incapable of being included in any register of parliamentary electors in force on the last day on which he was resident in the United Kingdom, the period of five years referred to in subsection (a) shall be taken as commencing on the day he ceased to be incapable of being so included by reason of his age.".
      (3) After subsection (9) of section 3 add:
      "(10)(a) Any person who was registered as an elector under this section at the end of the period of five years beginning with the date that he ceased to be resident in the United Kingdom and who registers in each succeeding year, shall be entitled to vote for the purposes of this section notwithstanding the fact that the period of time referred to in subsection 3(c) or subsection 4(a), as the case may be, has expired, provided that he satisfies the other relevant requirements of this section.
      (b) In respect of any person who by reason only of his age was incapable of being included in any register of local government electors in force on the last day on which he was resident in the United Kingdom, the period of five years referred to in subsection (a) shall be taken as commencing on the day he ceased to be incapable Of being so included by reason of his age.".'.
      Amendment No. 139, in clause 132, page 84, line 32, leave out "10" and insert "5".
      Amendment No. 180, in page 84, line 32, at end add
      ', except for employees of approved international institutions, where for "20 years" there shall be substituted "the whole of their period of employment with an approved international institution".
      (2) For the purpose of subsection (1) an approved international institution shall be any organisation set up pursuant to any treaty or convention of which the United Kingdom is for the time being a signatory.'.
      Amendment No. 176, in page 84, line 32, at end add—
      '(2) The substitution of "10 years" for "20 years" in subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of any person who, on the coming into force of this section, was registered as an overseas elector and who continues to register in each succeeding year.'.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Linton: I have moved the new clause, with which we shall consider other new clauses and amendments, because I believe that we still do not have a fully satisfactory compromise on overseas voting. The Government have effectively split the difference between 20 years, which is the current law, and nil, which was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and others in our original debate on the matter, and argued for cogently.
      New clauses 5 and 6 follow a different approach. They would reduce the qualifying period to five years and allow people who have claimed registration to continue claiming it every year. Different people approach the issue from different standpoints. Some take a liberal attitude and argue that anyone with a United Kingdom passport should be able to vote in a UK election regardless of where they

      67
      live, of whether they pay tax, of how long they have lived where they live or of whether they have any other passport.
      Others look for a more disciplined approach, including a commitment to the country in which someone wishes to vote. Other considerations are where people live and where they pay tax. Those who take that approach are opposed to giving votes to people who are effectively tax exiles, who have moved abroad to avoid paying tax in the UK. I have much sympathy with that second point of view, but I think that new clauses 5 and 6 represent a happy compromise.
      I pay tribute to the constructive way in which international organisations of all the parties have approached the issue. I find their arguments persuasive, and I think that those who live abroad deserve some certainty in their lives. There was no overseas vote until 1985. There was a five-year requirement until 1989, when it became 20 years. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has called for the requirement to be reduced to five years, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary suggests 10 years. Those living abroad would be within their rights if they complained that the situation was confused.
      Anyone who has lived in a foreign capital, as I have, knows that there are many British expatriates who do not work for the British embassy, for the British Council or for an international body, and who are not married to foreigners. Those people happen to live abroad but they remain completely British in their outlook and sense of identity. If such people live in the European Union, the Maastricht treaty guarantees them the right to vote in local and European elections and to stand as candidates, just as European citizens in this country can vote in local and European elections here.
      The Maastricht treaty applies only to local and European elections. As for national elections, it is assumed that people vote in the country of which they are a citizen. On that basis, it is fair to say that if a British national is living in a European Union capital, it is only right that they should have the chance to keep their vote. It is true that German, French, Spanish, Italian and Swedish citizens can keep their vote in national elections in their home country.
      The "use it or lose it" nature of the concession ensures that it will not be used by the half-hearted, by tax exiles, by dual nationals or by the rootless: it will be used and appreciated by those for whom it is intended—those who wish to maintain a strong commitment to the UK while they live abroad.
      New clause 7 would give automatic voting rights to those who work abroad for international organisations. It has nothing to do with whether they have lived in a certain place for five, 10 or 20 years. It will only affect people who work for organisations of which the UK is a member state. There have always been provisions for diplomats to vote abroad. There has long been a service vote, and more recently the staff of the British Council have been given the vote abroad. The foreign service vote has been extended to the civil service. I do not think that anyone would dispute that there is a strong case for extending the concession to those who work for the European Union.
      68
      Many people will have received a letter from four British officials of the EU, who I think have made the case very well. They give three reasons why they think that they should have an automatic right to a vote in UK elections. First, they say that they are public servants, working to serve the public in Britain as well as in other member states. Secondly, they say that they work for a transnational organisation of which Britain is a member and which represents Britain's interests. Thirdly, they argue that it is Government policy to try to increase the representation of British nationals in Brussels, on the basis that it is in the national interest to have as many British nationals as possible working in the EU so that its institutions can better reflect our culture and attitudes. They conclude by saying that they believe that their aim is reinforced by the need to ensure that those working inside EU institutions retain their connection with Britain, and that disfranchisement severs the link with British political life and risks weakening their ties.
      The demands of justice and of national interest do not always coincide so completely, but here we have justice represented by the call for equal treatment with domestic civil servants and the argument that it is in our national interest that those officials should retain a strong sense of British identity once they work in the EU. Not to make a concession to their case would not only be unjust but counter-productive, leaving them not only disfranchised but disenchanted. Many have accepted jobs since 1989 expecting their voting rights to be safeguarded for 20 years and, indeed, many may have been recruited on that understanding.
      The only hesitation that I can imagine holding the Minister back from agreement is whether there is any confusion surrounding the definition of an international organisation, but new clause 7 states that such an organisation is one
      of which the United Kingdom is a member …
      That clearly includes not only the EU institutions, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the United Nations and all its daughter organisations, the Council of Europe, the Western European Union and so on.
      We have come a long way from the days when Britain's only representatives abroad were diplomats and soldiers: in these days of globalisation, it is time we recognised that far more people fly the flag in other countries. They are not asking much when they say that, if they are to represent the interests of this country abroad, they would like to be guaranteed a say in how it is run. Increasingly, the political discourse in this country is about globalisation, and more and more people, as part of their careers in this country, work in other countries for extended periods. That is most obvious in Paris, Geneva, Rome and New York, but it takes place across the EU and farther afield.
      There are two sound reasons for accepting the new clause and extending the rights of overseas voters. The first is a simple recognition of the way the world is moving, and the second is political—a right, once granted, is difficult to remove. By depriving a small number of people of the automatic right to vote, we shall make completely unnecessary enemies. Annual registration serves, in practice, as a tough test of people's commitment to this country, by testing their determination to vote.
      I am appealing to hon. Members on both sides of the House. International organisations representing our three parties have already reached a high degree of consensus.

      69
      They have agreed the form of the "use it or lose it" new clause and the international organisation new clause, and it would be a good thing if their representatives in the Chamber also reached agreement. If we can show the Government that there is broad consensus not only among our parties' international organisations but among Members of the House, we may hear the Minister say that he is prepared to reconsider.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I hear what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) says about seeking a consensual approach and about the possibility of deals being done. We look to the Minister. I complimented the Labour party on taking some steps on the journey that we wish it to make, and feel that it could go a little further in this regard: the Government have to take a few more steps.
      Our amendment and new clause would correct the ignorance, prejudice and lack of consultation that have shrouded the whole overseas voter issue, and I hope that overseas voters will achieve some justice in an otherwise squalid measure. It would be far better if the Government dropped all this nonsense now, undertook a comprehensive consultation on their proposals and introduced sensible and fully thought through measures. That would be the best option on overseas voters. [Interruption.] Is the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) trying to intervene? There has been no consultation. I am bemused as to why speed is a necessity and why the consultation could not have taken place before measures were introduced. Why it all has to be so hurried, I simply do not know.
      As the Minister knows, my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary wrote to the Home Secretary on 25 November 1999 to say that she opposed these measures because there had been no full consultation. Let us bring some sense to what the Government are attempting to do. We have tabled new clause 8 and amendment No. 176. The Government have in mind the picture of a number of people who fled Britain and have little interest in this country—except that they have the ability to vote in our general elections every five years or so. That is an old-fashioned idea, and certainly one that cannot sit easily with new Labour. I do not want glibly to pass over the fact that the Bill takes the right to vote in British elections away from a number of people. We are trying to temper that, as the vote will otherwise be removed without consultation.
      We have heard all the arguments about whether there should be a cut-off of five, 10 or 20 years, or no limit at all. Some were rehearsed in Committee. If the Government are intent on introducing a Bill that would deny the vote to people who are currently able to vote, that is completely wrong. I hope that they will listen to what we have to say. I listened to the hon. Member for Battersea, and believe that his new clauses go some way in the right direction. People may have to go abroad for all sorts of reasons—I shall come to that later—and I see merit in dropping the figure to perhaps five years and allowing them to keep their vote provided that they show sufficient and continuous interest in what is going on in this country to go out of their way to register every year. However, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's new clauses are sufficient to meet the demands that we make in new clause 8—nor is the job description wide enough. We could go a little further.
      70
      The 10-year argument baffles me. We hear that 10 years is the compromise figure, but it is not a compromise between what we want, what the right hon. Member for Gorton wants and what the people who will lose the vote want. I hope that the Government can cut through the political agenda on this issue and introduce a more sensible measure. The new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea are insufficient because this country operates globally. The hon. Gentleman listed a number of organisations with which we are involved. We have also signed up to a number of international obligations and, moreover, British people work throughout the world. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the European Union and European institutions. Like other Members of the House, we received a letter from an individual, who also sent a copy to The Guardian. It would be completely wrong if people working on behalf of this country fell foul of the Bill. We must consider the fact that people who work in a global economy and who may be sent abroad suddenly, for whatever reason, to work in the commercial sector on behalf of their companies will run the risk of losing their vote after 10 years.
      6.30 pm
      The way things are going, people may go abroad and work for a company for five years and then be moved to another part of the world without coming back to the United Kingdom. They may have every intention of returning to the UK at some point, and may do so at a later stage when their company decides that it is right for them to come back. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has Vauxhall in his constituency, which is a global company and has plants throughout the world. Some of his constituents may be sent abroad.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: No.
      Mr. Evans: Employees of companies like Vauxhall may be sent abroad for some years. I believe that the five-year limit for public institutions or organisations with which we have signed treaty obligations is not sufficient. We must extend the provision to the commercial sector. It would be a big advance if the Minister considered that proposal.
      New clause 8 deals with youngsters who go abroad with their parents and then fall foul of this legislation. This matter was dealt with in Committee.
      Mr. Miller: We wrote it.
      Mr. Evans: Indeed, so Labour Members should support it. Many of our suggestions are common-sense measures which Back Benchers have proposed, so I hope that the Government will consider them. We want people aged 16 or 17 who are taken abroad and turn 18 while they are there to be able to register, and to vote in elections. We are trying to encourage as many young people as possible to vote. The thrust of the Representation of the People Act 2000, which was passed last week, was to encourage people to vote. It would help if the Government considered that anomaly more closely.
      Amendment No. 176 deals with the retrospective element.
      Mr. Bercow: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that there is a curious tension in the thinking of a number of

      71
      right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches? They seem anxious to do absolutely everything they can to assist certain persons, some of whom are too lazy to make any significant effort to vote and should apparently be assisted by the facility of pressing a button. However, they regard with hostility the people who have the sheer audacity, in pursuit of their commercial obligations, to go abroad to work when requested to do so. Is that not a curious—one might even say, troglodyte—view of the world?
      Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend speaks far better than I. He is better educated and able to come up with words like troglodyte, which I shall ensure is included in many of my speeches in future. He is absolutely right. It is ironical that the Representation of the People Act gives the vote to some people in mental institutions, which we agreed with and supported, and to remand prisoners, who may be on remand for various crimes. We thought that it was right to give them the vote as they have not gone before the courts, sentence has not been passed and they have not been convicted of any crime.
      My hon. Friend has encouraged me to consider amendment No. 139 tabled by the right hon. Member for Gorton. We are considering the proposal to take away the vote after five years: that is when the cruel guillotine will fall on those people, irrespective of the fact that they are in parts of the world earning money, possibly earning profits for this country, and paying tax in this country. I look forward to hearing what the right hon. Member for Gorton has to say as he tries to twist the knife even further into that group of people, who are doing this country a great service. That is wholly wrong. My only hope is that the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench treat his suggestions with as much disdain as I do, and as would the vast majority of people in this country.
      I have studied the Liberal Democrat amendments and amendment No. 180. Although we have some sympathy with them, they do not go far enough on the job descriptions. The hon. Member for Battersea wants a consensual approach. I hope that the Minister can give us some hope and assurance that some ground can be made on the issue of overseas voters. I do not believe that we should proceed with a measure out of spite and vindictiveness. It will remove the vote from many people who would wish to contribute to democracy in this country. We shall listen carefully to the Minister's comments before we decide whether to press our amendments to a vote.
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I intended to be rather gentle with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) until he accused me of disdain and heightened the temperature of this gentle and good-natured debate. Like his party, the hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the historical perspective of the franchise. He talks about taking votes away from people as though that was utterly unprecedented. The Attlee Government of 1945 rightly abolished the business vote and the university vote. They were perfectly right to abolish fancy franchises. We got on quite well with the extension of the franchise—the Wilson Government extended it to 18-year-olds—until the Conservative Government introduced a new fancy franchise.
      72
      The hon. Gentleman talks about lack of consultation and squalor, but he should look back to what happened when this franchise was introduced. I have reminded the House on a number of occasions that I was there. The very idea that there was consultation is an extraordinary sick joke. There was no consultation whatever. We had a serious disagreement when Leon Brittan decided to invent this franchise to benefit his own party. There was no attempt at consensus. It was a unilateral act by the Conservative party.
      The Conservatives wanted to increase the period to 25 years when my right honourable and noble Friend Lord Hattersley was in charge of these matters for the Labour party. They now say that there was consensus because the present Secretary of State for Social Security had been ready to settle for 20 years rather than 25. There was not: we were making the best of a bad job on a franchise that ought never to have been introduced. It was introduced against the wishes of the then principal Opposition party—which was a lot bigger than the present one—to suit the interests of the Conservative Government. We should be clear about the historical context in which this franchise was arranged.
      The hon. Gentleman talks about a political agenda. Unfortunately, the Government have less of a political agenda than I would like them to have. The Conservative party has the agenda. Having read the report of the Committee stage, I understand that the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). I would go along with them without any difficulty. To provide the right to a franchise for servants of this country overseas is an act of justice. It is a principle that servants of this country overseas are given a vote, whether they are diplomats or members of the armed forces. My hon. Friend's proposal fits in with that.
      Mr. Grieve: Persons who go abroad to serve international organisations—I have previously given the example of a person known to me—do not necessarily come back to this country afterwards. How does the right hon. Gentleman square that with the principles that he is trying to enunciate?
      Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea are too generous, I am ready to accept his strictures. When the Select Committee on National Heritage, as it then was, went to Barcelona, we found that our consul general intended to retire to that place. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, if that were his choice, he should not have the vote any more, I agree. I thank him for being so acute in his political perception.
      Mr. Grieve: It might be possible to argue that it should go the other way—that the distinctions that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to introduce between people working for international organisations and people who are abroad for business reasons are non-existent and that one should simply accept that those who wish to have the franchise when they are abroad should be allowed to have it.
      Mr. Kaufman: I was not trying to introduce any distinctions whatever. I was commenting on what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea had proposed.

      73
      My amendment is the purest, most straightforward and most logical amendment that anyone could possibly table. It changes one figure for another with no exemptions. I was saying that, because I am flexible, good-natured, helpful and basically wish good will to most of my fellow men, I am ready to entertain the principle on which my hon. Friend was operating, but my amendment is clear.
      I come—I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me—to an area where I disagree with him. Commendably, he has thought a great deal before introducing the "use it or lose it" concept, but that concept entrenches still further what I object to most about that franchise: it is a voluntary franchise, not a voluntary exercise of the franchise, which should be available to any citizen in a democracy. People choose whether to have it.
      All the rest of us in this country are committing an offence if we do not register to vote. We do not have to vote once we have registered, but we are committing an offence if we do not register.
      Mr. David Wilshire: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Does his argument about the voluntary franchise and the distinction between that and a compulsory one mean that he is in favour of making it compulsory to vote?
      Mr. Kaufman: Certainly not. I wish that it were compulsory to vote from one point of view: my puny majority of 17,000 would probably double. That is an attractive proposition, but I believe that democracy entitles people not to use the franchise, although I wish that they would, particularly if they are Labour voters. I am considering the fact that it is a voluntary franchise. People decide whether to take it up—they decide not whether to use it but whether to take up the right to have it.
      6.45 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has sensibly made himself scarce. When we debated the matter on the previous occasion, he added up the monumental millions whom we would punish by depriving them of the vote, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea pointed out in the Standing Committee—just as I did the last time we voted—the figure is 13,000. This huge subject revolves around 13,000 people: the number who have decided to take up that option.
      We are talking not about democracy as a right but about democracy as an option. I do not believe that the vote is an option. Either people are entitled to it or they are not. Although I disagree strongly with Conservative Members about the matter, there might be an argument that it should be granted in perpetuity, rather than being time-limited. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) talked about a compromise between 20 years and nil. I am not a compromiser on the issue. I want nil.
      My five is there to chop the period down still further. The reason why I propose five is that, except in unusual circumstances, it would mean that someone qualifying for the franchise would be able to exercise it once. I would be ready reluctantly to accept that, but the 10-year period, which the Government, with sentimental generosity, have decided to abide by, will allow someone to vote in three
      74
      general elections. There were three general elections between 1979 to 1987. That is a great deal more than is acceptable.
      I am not going to divide the House against the Government. They know that I will not do so because I am subservient to their wishes on most occasions, but I have to tell the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office that I am looking forward to a response in which he says that, on the basis of the way in which the measure operates, he will consider in a future Bill whether he can reduce the period to five years.
      I intend to stay in the House for a very long time. I assure my hon. Friend that, in Parliament after Parliament, I shall table amendments on the matter. I warned Ministers early in this Parliament that it was one of my obsessive interests. I do not let my obsessive interests rest, whether they be related to the film "Singin' in the Rain" or to the overseas franchise.
      Mr. Wilshire: I warm to a man of courage, conviction and principles. Why on this occasion is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to push his convictions, which he holds so strongly, to a vote, and to stand up for what he believes in?
      Mr. Kaufman: Before I finish—I have spoken for too long—I shall tell the House of a conversation that I had with Denis Healey. His full name is Denis Winston Healey. I asked him how he came to be called Winston. He said, "I was born during the first world war and my father was a great admirer of Winston Churchill, who was First Lord of the Admiralty. He gave me the name Winston because of his huge admiration for Winston Churchill. He did it as a gesture." I said, "But Denis, if your father admired Winston Churchill so much, why did he not call you Winston Healey?" He said, "Hell. A gesture is a gesture." That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Stunell: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
      I shall speak primarily in support of amendment No. 180, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), not Gorton, but I have added my name to two of the new clauses that have been proposed by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)—5 and 7—and I find myself in considerable sympathy with some of the others. That perhaps shows, as the hon. Gentleman said, that an all-party view that something needs to be done is at least beginning to emerge. The Government may take the view that some of the shells have landed somewhat randomly, but the fact that they have been bracketed by a variety of amendments shows perhaps that some progress could be made to the advantage of the Bill, as well as to the groups of British citizens about whom we are concerned.
      Amendment No. 180 was, in essence, drafted at the Committee stage, before it broke into the parallel universe of the new clauses created by the hon. Member for Battersea. To a large extent, it overlaps his new clauses. Without repeating all the arguments that he deployed, let me say that the intention is to ensure that we provide not

      75
      only a continuing benefit for those who work in international institutions, but a benefit to the UK. Amendment No. 180 defines such international institutions as
      any organisation set up pursuant to any treaty or convention of which the United Kingdom is for the time being a signatory.
      It would therefore remove doubt and ambiguity in defining such organisations and make the relevant definition sufficiently wide.
      The hon. Member for Battersea touched on the matter of the benefits that might accrue to the United Kingdom from extending the franchise to the employees of such organisations, but I should like to expand on those benefits. There are not only many such organisations but, in many cases, treaties require that United Kingdom citizens comprise part of those organisations' staff and provide support to those organisations.
      More to the point, there is a very strong UK interest in our playing an active part in those organisations. That interest is not only wide ranging, but potentially long lasting. Through our participation in them, we may gain not only diplomatic advantage but perhaps economic and even linguistic and cultural advantage. Those benefits should not be thrown away.
      As the hon. Member for Battersea said, we may lose those benefits in two ways. They might be lost, first, if we were to inhibit the participation of UK citizens in those bodies. People might be reluctant to play a part in those organisations if they were forced to forgo the wider benefits of United Kingdom citizenship.
      Secondly, the issue of disengagement from the United Kingdom could affect people currently working in such organisations and those who will one day work in them. The popular description of people who have been affected by disengagement is that they have "gone native". In many organisations, people can go native pretty quickly, and the Government might think that, for the general benefit of the United Kingdom, it is worthwhile trying to slow down that process.
      The case for amendment No. 180, therefore, is based not simply on the rights and obligations of citizens working for such organisations, but on the United Kingdom's pure self-interest as a player on the international stage. Such a realpolitik argument may appeal to the Government, even if other arguments fall on deaf ears.
      Some of the other amendments in this group address broader issues which Ministers should consider. It is sensible to allow family members of people working overseas to vote at 18, allowing them essentially to get on the bottom step of the escalator of our democratic process. Those people are expected to move, if not involuntarily, certainly without resistance. I should think that such a proposal could not be criticised on the basis that those people will subsequently become perfidious donators to United Kingdom political parties and undermine democracy in the United Kingdom. The issue is one of ensuring that they are able to develop roots in and links with the United Kingdom and to exercise their United Kingdom citizenship.
      Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept—in an attempt to further the consensual nature of our
      76
      proceedings—that, if we were to allow people to join a rolling register, to begin the process, there would have to be a transitional period of perhaps 12 months in which those who are currently abroad were allowed to register on such a rolling register?
      Mr. Stunell: It is always worth trying to push the limits in our debate. However, we really should consider whether the Bill's objective should be to include and continue on a register everyone overseas who is currently registered. That is one option in proceeding on the matter. Another option is to open registration to everyone who is currently overseas, even if they have not yet registered. That seemed to be what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting.
      If there were an amendment proposing the first option, the hon. Gentleman might be able to tempt me to support it. People in that category not only have taken the trouble to register, but, as the right hon. Member for Gorton said, comprise a small group. There are only six such people in my constituency, and that number may be typical of the number in other hon. Members' constituencies.
      I am less persuaded that we should throw open inclusion to everyone who is currently overseas. I do not think that hon. Members could be persuaded that those people have not registered because they have not been able to get round to it. I think that they have not registered because it is not an attractive proposition for them to do so.
      The intervention by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has served one purpose—to divert me from my thread of argument—and I appreciate the spirit in which it was done.
      New clause 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea and to which I put my name, introduces the "use it or lose it" concept. It also contains an element of self-regulation, which I hope Ministers will take on board if they are at all tempted to adopt such a provision.
      "Use it or lose it" is also the essence of amendment No. 176, which was tabled by Conservative Front Benchers. I think that, rather than providing a completely open-ended obligation or opportunity for those who live and work overseas, it would be appropriate to include a process of rolling re-registration.
      I hope that Ministers will have listened to this debate and appreciated the concerns expressed by hon. Members holding various views on the issue. However, each of those views goes to the same point. Overseas, there is a group of United Kingdom citizens who have, and should continue to have, a role to play in the United Kingdom democratic process. In coming decades, the size of that group of people may well grow.
      I do not overlook the fact that one of the reasons why the restrictions are being introduced is to stop the abuse of donations from overseas. I am well aware of that issue and of the fact that Ministers may feel that they should make only carefully judged and limited concessions on the issue. However, I ask Ministers not simply to shut the door on every overseas group and category, but to determine which amendments they are able to accept, or which specific provisions they might otherwise be able to import into the Bill. The amendments express feelings that are widespread in the House.
      Mr. Miller: When the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was appealing at the Dispatch Box for

      77
      consensus, he seemed to be defeating his own argument by adopting an aggressive style. I assure him that hon. Members who believe that the current principle is wrong—for the very reason outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—do not intend to extend it to include people from his ethnic grouping. Despite the fact that he comes from south Wales, the hon. Gentleman will keep the votes in Ribble Valley. [Interruption.] I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton was going to intervene, to say that the hon. Gentleman will not keep those votes, but he is merely going to speak to the Minister.
      I should like to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. He mentioned Vauxhall Motors UK, in my constituency, which is an important player in both the regional economy and the British economy. Some super people are leading that company, not only in Britain but in Europe. However, in the context of the franchise, their position—they are answerable to the parent company, which is registered in the United States—is different from that of people who work for institutions of which Britain is a member.
      7 pm
      We shall come to clause 48 later. In Committee, the Conservatives tabled an amendment that would not have allowed donations from companies incorporated in the European Union. They cannot have it both ways. They have recognised that we do not have the necessary transparency.
      My hon. Friend the Minister has a difficult judgment to make, because the line has to be drawn somewhere. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has a clear idea about where it should be drawn. Others have said, "Yes, but" in various ways. With the exception of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who, I think, would prefer the status quo to prevail, most of those involved in the debate want a consensus to be reached.
      Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman think it ironic that those of Italian or French descent who work for Vauxhall in his constituency are encouraged to vote in elections in France and Italy—the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) mentioned other countries as well—while we are going in the other direction?
      Mr. Miller: We are dealing with the franchise of those who work for Britain in institutions of which we are a member. There is some common ground. All of us, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, accept that diplomats, the armed forces and British Council staff are legitimately covered by the current legislation. However, other categories should fall within that broad definition. The facts that the mother of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is French, as we discovered in Committee, that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) lived in Finland, or that I happened to brought up in Malta are red herrings, although they made for a good debate in Committee.
      The essential principle relates to institutions of which Britain is a member. I appreciate that lines have to be drawn somewhere, but as we attempt to reach a consensus, it is not illogical to include those who work for institutions such as NATO within the ambit of existing
      78
      legislation, which incorporates the armed forces, diplomats and the British Council. It is ludicrous and unfair that a general or someone of diplomatic status in NATO is covered, but a civilian member of personnel is excluded.
      Mr. Grieve: I seek clarification of the hon. Gentleman's views. He is talking about new clause 7, but I think he will agree that it would be unnecessary if new clause 5 were agreed to, because all the categories would be covered by virtue of the ability of individuals to continue provided that they re-registered. Would not new clause 5 deal with his points?
      Mr. Miller: I am not a million miles from the hon. Gentleman. I accept that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley seemed to want it drawn too far from where most people in the country would regard as acceptable. If the principles that I am espousing were incorporated in the 10-year rule proposed by my hon. Friend the Minister or the five-year rule espoused by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, we could have a workable consensus.
      I appreciate that some Conservative Members would say that that would not go far enough. I understand their point, but they have to understand that a line has to be drawn somewhere in an attempt to arrive at a consensus. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look for ways in which the line can be drawn slightly away from his current proposal. I would have no objection if the base line was that espoused by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, so long as there was a mechanism by which those who work for legitimate organisations of which Britain is a member could continue to be enfranchised.
      Mr. Wilshire: Unlike the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who I am sorry to see has left the Chamber, I am very happy to support those on my Front Bench. I trust that they are suitably grateful. I note that a word about my enthusiasm is already going into the little blue book. I look forward to the result of that enthusiasm.
      New clause 8 and amendment No. 176 are necessary to meet my concerns and those of some of my hon. Friends—and, by the sound of it, of some Labour Members. The Government's plans to cut the time available worry me. As far as I can gather, no valid reasons for the change have been given. I hope that the Minister will give us some. There has been a spirit of compromise around and I am prepared to listen. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not give any reasons, but I shall give him the benefit of the doubt at least until he speaks.
      Given that the proposal was not in the Neill recommendations, the Minister needs to explain why the Government now think it so important. I have heard no evidence of abuse of the current arrangements, and the Government have offered none. Abuse would be the most important reason for change. If there is any evidence of abuse, perhaps the Minister could give it to us.
      As others have said, there are so few people registered abroad that I am at a loss to understand why the measure has become such a key part of a complicated Bill. This is a minor matter and there are many far better things to do,

      79
      such as finding the money to ensure that my hospital does not have its accident and emergency unit closed by the Government. There are so many other more important things than messing about with this change. It will clearly cost money and I would rather that that money was spent on preventing cuts to my hospital. Why are the Government worried about such a small group of people?
      I have tried to find out what research has been done. How many people will be affected? How many of the very few who register stay abroad beyond the period that the Minister is proposing? My guess is that only a minute number of people will be caught by the change. Why is the Minister making it? It is also important to know whether the Government have done any research on the sort of people who would lose their vote. That would allow us to see whether the proposal was even-handed, or whether an ulterior motive existed.
      Mr. Miller: Would that not be an abuse of the Government's power, as the outcome of such research might confer a party political advantage? Another Government—not this one—might be tempted to make decisions based on that outcome. Should we not be dealing with the principle?
      Mr. Wilshire: I do not see that objection at all. There is no need to ask people how they are going to vote. The questions will concern their reasons for living abroad, why they chose to register, and how long they propose to be abroad. That is the sort of fundamental research that any Government should undertake before bringing such proposals before the House.
      I would also be interested to know how many of the small number who register actually use their votes. That should not be too difficult to find out, as the marked register is available from every constituency. It would be relatively simple to go back as far as the previous two general elections, say, and find out how many overseas votes were exercised.
      My third worry is that the Government appear not to have consulted the people affected. If they have, I hope that the Minister will describe how the people who currently have votes were approached.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): There have been many representations from, and discussions with, the people affected.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister, but according to Home Office evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in 1998, the overwhelming majority of the representations being received at the time were requests for an extension to the period.
      Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that those who were consulted this time rather appreciated being able to keep the franchise.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who reinforces my point by reporting that that view is still held. I hope that the Government will give details of any research that has been carried out. How many people have
      80
      been contacted, how many have asked for a shorter period, and how many have asked for longer? That information would be useful.
      The Government have not explained why they have changed their mind since 1989, when the then Labour Opposition backed the 20-year proposal. I have heard it said in the debate that that was some sort of compromise but, even if the Government were not wedded to the principle, something must have happened to bring about a change of heart. Governments dislike having their U-turns exposed and having to justify them. However, that is another example of a U-turn by this Government. They are always doing it, and it would be nice to know why they have torn up their previous beliefs in favour of a new set.
      The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) offered a sensible and understandable way to adopt an approach based on the "use it or lose it" principle. I have no difficulty in accepting that people should have some link with the United Kingdom, but the hon. Gentleman's proposal is not the best way forward. However, it is not so dissimilar to new clause 8, for which I hope the hon. Gentleman's conviction about the importance of the "use it or lose it" principle will lead him to vote if the Government do not accept his new clause 5. He has argued strongly in favour of new clause 8, and I look forward to welcoming him into the Lobby in support of that new clause when the time comes.
      7.15 pm
      I commend new clause 8 to the hon. Member for Battersea on the basis that requiring people to register every year is quite a good way to ensure that links with the United Kingdom are kept up. Given the spirit of compromise and consensus in the debate, it is reasonable to accept the case for such links, but I am worried that the absence of a mechanism for continuing the present arrangements for as long as people had expected will be an impediment to those who feel strongly about their home country but who want to accept a posting overseas. It would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom if people were prevented from going abroad and doing a good job on our behalf because they would be disfranchised as a result.
      When he spoke about new clause 7, the hon. Member for Battersea referred to international organisations. I was not clear whether he was talking about formal organisations only, or whether he also meant non-governmental bodies. He referred to the European Union and NATO, and I agree that the people involved with those organisations constitute an important group. Similarly, however, there are people who work for non-governmental organisations such as charities who do not come within the definitions proposed for those working for the official organisations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that.
      A group of people not exempted by new clause 7 are those who work for British businesses. Big multinationals send some of their key employees abroad to run branches of the main business but, whereas diplomats come and go—and in any case return to London after a four-year posting—some business men and women are sent abroad for very long periods.
      However, because they work for British firms, they come back to head office regularly. Their companies are seriously affected by British legislation and the nature of

      81
      the British Government. Their futures and prospects are tied up with the fate of their companies in this country. If anyone is to be exempted, it should be those people.
      I hope that we do not go down the route of having two classes of people. The right hon. Member for Gorton argued that it was wrong to put voluntary franchises and compulsory franchises in opposition. In the same way, it would be wrong and an affront to democracy to divide British citizens abroad into two classes—those who are allowed to vote and those who are not. All British citizens abroad should have the right to vote.
      Mr. Stunell: Is there not an incongruity in the hon. Gentleman's view, given the different qualifications that apply to people in the diplomatic and military services, and to people working for the British Council? Does not the situation that he describes exist already?
      Mr. Wilshire: Yes, it does. However, the arrangements that I would prefer would render those distinctions unnecessary. The House must never try to create a democracy with two types of people in it. That would be very dangerous for the principle underlying how we run our country.
      Finally, I turn to amendment No. 176. Even if my arguments are ignored and the Government do not accept the proposals from my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, the legislation should not be made retrospective. People who live and work abroad on the understanding that they will have a vote for a particular length of time should not be penalised. It could be that they would not have gone abroad if they had known that they could not vote. Moreover, such people might find that, even though they wanted to keep their votes, they could not return home to make sure that they did.
      I really hate retrospective legislation, and I make a strong plea to the Minister to assure the House—even if he will accept no other argument—that, in the spirit of compromise, he will not go down the route of retrospective legislation.
      Mr. Denis MacShane: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has left the Chamber, because I wanted to tell him that, when I entered the House six years ago, I would have found two things inconceivable—first, that I could disagree with him on any subject under the sun; secondly, that I would be invited to reduce the franchise—to reduce the rights of British people to vote. There we are, however: alas, things move on.
      I shall be brief, but I want to tell the House about all the e-mails, letters, faxes and telephone calls that I have received from profoundly patriotic British citizens, and all the meetings that I have had with them—[Interruption.] I shall come to the Conservatives later. Anyway, those who have been to see me, or have contacted me in other ways, have said that they want to keep their right to vote. We are not the French Parliament, in which Members can represent far-flung sunny climes of the former empire and colonies; but I feel that it would be wrong not to record those people's dismay about what is being proposed tonight.
      I have three reasons for concern. First, it is a good principle of democracy for us to extend any franchise, rather than reduce it. Secondly, we should be proud of all
      82
      our citizens living and working overseas. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) mentioned the business community, but British citizens make a huge contribution to many voluntary and non-profit-making organisations, such as the World Council of Churches, trade union international organisations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and various non-governmental organisations.
      When I was travelling in on the tube today, I saw a moving advertisement for Voluntary Service Overseas, asking people to work for £400 a year and to risk malaria to fly the flag for Britain. Many VSO members subsequently remain in the international community because of a love of their country, and I do not think that their vote should be taken away.
      Thirdly, I feel that, in a global economy in which democracy needs to be preserved and extended, we should fly our flag for the democratic process and practice, rather than saying that people can exercise their democratic rights only if they reside in the United Kingdom. Conservative Members have made interesting and enjoyable speeches: I am delighted to observe that they seem to be discovering many hidden virtues in Europe that I do not recall their praying in aid before.
      Mr. Wilshire: Where? Where?
      Mr. MacShane: I am glad to note that the xenophobic beast is rising up again after his generous internationalist speech, but the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) spoke glowingly of Italy and of France. I hope that we shall observe the same at Prime Minister's Question Time and other events. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It appears that, as we expected, the Tories' love of Europe was instrumental only in so far as it might embarrass the Government.
      I have another reason for being unconvinced of the generosity of spirit involved in the Conservatives' arguments. Theirs is the party—a party for which hon. Members here may have voted—that introduced the poll tax, which removed between 1 million and 4 million British citizens from the electoral roll, deliberately, cynically and cold-bloodedly, to fix and rig elections.
      Furthermore—this will for ever place a mark of shame on the Conservatives' period of office—the Conservatives changed the terms of the immigration Act 1971 in the British Nationality Act 1981. They did so not in order to take away the right to vote—although that would have been a serious measure—but in order to take away the right to citizenship of the descendants of British citizens who lived overseas.
      There are many British citizens, to whom the hon. Member for Spelthorne referred, whose children are born overseas. If they marry foreigners and have their children overseas, that generation—the grandchildren of the people whom we have been discussing, who are living and working overseas—will lose the right to be British, save on the fiat, or at the discretion, of the Home Secretary. That was a shaming alteration of our nationality laws, which took away citizenship and has caused great hurt and concern to many British people overseas.
      However, I do not want to be polemical tonight. I think that the new clauses and amendments are sensible, and go in the right direction. The "use it or lose it" proposition that has emerged since the Bill was tabled reflects the

      83
      wishes of British citizens who actively wish to maintain a participatory voting link. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is not here now, and other Ministers have spent a great deal of time—perhaps, given that this is only a small part of a complicated Bill, more than we might have expected—meeting and talking to concerned citizens. I have attended those meetings, and I salute them for their generosity in finding time to do that. I do not know how, given the number of Home Office Bills, a Home Office Minister finds time to do anything other than keep us here all night.
      Mr. Grieve: It seems that we may be building on the chrysalis of consensus that emerged in Committee.
      Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the merits of the "use it or lose it" approach is that it removes the frequent complaint from some of his hon. Friends that people suddenly intervene in domestic politics, having shown no interest for some time?
      Mr. MacShane: I think that it offers a sense of continuity, rather than the ability to be "bought in"—not necessarily in a financial sense—to participate in an election.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has done remarkable and assiduous work, which has been warmly welcomed by many British citizens overseas—all of whom seem to vote Labour nowadays. I cannot bring myself massively to disagree with the Conservatives' new clause 8 either. In any event, I do not want to press this to a Division in order to record a vote. Perhaps when the Bill goes to another place, Ministers can examine the problems, because there is time for that to happen before it is enacted. Perhaps we can arrive at a conclusion that will deal with the many protests that I have received, and will honour the tradition that the House always seeks to extend rather than reduce the franchise.
      Mr. Tipping: It seems that clause 132 has become one of the most contentious parts of the Bill. I congratulate hon. Members in all parts of the House who have tabled ingenious and well-thought-out amendments, which deserve serious consideration and which I will consider and, indeed, already have considered.
      In the light of all those good ideas—shells, as they were called by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—the Government are inclined to look for a consensus. Such a consensus appears to be growing, and I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—who is not present now, but who will be back—and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who argued for consensus but whose language at times took us away from it, that we will consider what might be done.
      Clause 132 takes forward the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) is an influential member. He has changed his mind on the issue since the Select Committee report, but I do not criticise him for that. He has argued that we need to move away from the present 20-year period to the Home Affairs Committee's proposed five-year period—a view that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton retains.
      84
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked me a number of questions; let me deal with two. First, he asked about the principle behind the proposal. I think that the argument is fairly clear and straightforward. If a person chooses to live overseas for a long period, at some point—there is an argument about when that point is—they are distanced from the current political climate. They are, in a sense, fighting old battles with old ideas. We live in a period of modernisation in which we move forward and ideas develop.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: I am pleased that the Minister is viewing the new clauses in a consensual way. Could he give a little more thought to his use of the word "choose"? Some people, including voluntary workers and business people, could say that they will not be posted overseas. Their contract or their beliefs, however, lead them to live overseas, and I do not think that they should be caught.
      Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, and I will come to it in more detail in a few minutes. People in the voluntary sector and in the commercial sector, to which he referred in his speech, generally do not live abroad for 20 years, but come and go. However, we should acknowledge the importance of people in both the voluntary and commercial sectors, as well as public servants, who work overseas.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about consultation. The Select Committee on Home Affairs did some work on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), in his normal, generous way, pointed out that there had been a series of meetings on this issue. Perhaps there were more meetings about this than about any other part of the Bill. That is rather surprising, in the light of the fact that, at present, slightly more than 13,000 overseas voters are registered here. We do not have information about how many of those voted in the last election, or what kind of people they are.
      The central issue is how long someone needs to be overseas to become detached from the political process. It may be 20 years or it may, as the Home Affairs Committee recommended, be five years. There may be a middle way. The Government's preferred option is for a 10-year period. It is a compromise that will work in many ways. It allows people to be overseas for quite a long time—perhaps enough for two postings—yet remain on the register.
      A couple of other ways forward have been proposed. The one that seems to have captured the imagination of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber during this debate has been the "use it or lose it" option. That is a subtle way of countering the argument that, if people have been away from home for some time, they are out of touch. Registering within five years and continuing to register on a yearly basis shows a commitment to remaining in touch with the real issues.
      Mr. Evans: Will the Minister concede that, with new technology, the internet and satellite television, people who live abroad can keep up to date with current affairs in their countries of origin? Recurring registration seems to leave the way open for us all to agree.
      Mr. Tipping: New technology, information technology and the use of digital television certainly enable people to

      85
      keep in touch better. The question before the House is how long it is necessary for someone to have been away to lose touch. The hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that it is increasingly easy to remain in touch. I remember reading that, in the old days, it took 174 days for a letter to come from India reporting whether a battle had been lost or won. Today, such an event would be reported almost simultaneously.
      Mr. Evans: It is on CNN.
      Mr. Tipping: Absolutely.
      The question is whether we are right about how long people should live abroad—should it be for five, 10 or 20 years? Or is it better to support the "use it or lose it" option?
      A third option which has been discussed tonight is to extend the service conditions to make allowance for people who work for British organisations abroad. The telling point was made by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Spelthorne. What is the difference between a civil servant working in Brussels or for NATO, and someone working for an aid agency in Mozambique? What about the employee of Vauxhall Motors UK who works abroad but is still interested in British issues?
      The final issue concerns amendment No. 176 which, in a sense, maintains existing rights. There is a logic to that. The counter-argument is that, if the amendment were accepted, at the beginning of this year—before the legislation came into operation—people would be safeguarded for 20 years, but after these provisions were implemented, they would be safeguarded only for as long as we decided. Different classes of voters have been mentioned, and amendment No. 176 might not be the best way forward.
      The Government's preferred option is to have a simple rule and explanation that everyone can understand, and for that to command consensus across the political parties. There seems to have been a growing consensus in Committee and in the Chamber tonight, apart from the occasional burst of shelling. I believe that the "use it or lose it" option meets everybody's needs. It deals with all the points that have been discussed.
      Mr. Evans: I welcome the Minister's approach. Will he also take account of proposed new subsection (6)(b) of new clause 8, which deals with people who have not yet reached the age of majority, but will do so while they are abroad with their parents?
      Mr. Tipping: That, again, is a fair point, but a careful application of the "use it or lose it" principle would meet their needs too.
      I do not want to make false promises. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said throughout the Bill's proceedings, it is important that we take the political parties with us, and that a consensus emerges. It seems from this evening's discussion that we have not simply a kernel of a consensus but a wave that is beginning to roll out over "use it or lose it".
      I am well aware, having received representations and heard the views expressed in Committee and in the debate tonight that this argument will not go away. I simply say to those right hon. and hon. Members who tabled the new
      86
      clauses and amendments in this group that I guarantee to listen to the argument and reflect on it. Let me be clear on this: I make no guarantee that I will bring forward an amendment. However, if the consensus continues to build and develop across all the political parties, the "use it or lose it" option may become a real possibility. In that spirit of consensus, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea to withdraw new clause 5.
      Mr. Evans: Will the Minister clarify one point about the "use it or lose it" principle, no matter whether it is introduced under new clause 5 or new clause 8 or some amalgam of them? If someone registers within five years and continues to register every year, can they continue to do so for ever, or will there be some limit?
      Mr. Miller: It will be done by consensus.
      Mr. Tipping: I hear what my hon. Friend says: we would have to discuss that. There is a strong argument for a cut-off date, because a "use it or lose it" option would be more generous than the current provisions. However, I give no guarantee, except that, as the Home Secretary has said, if a consensus emerges and a model develops that has the consent of all the political parties, it will deserve serious consideration.
      Mr. Linton: We have had a debate on the nature of compromise and the way towards consensus. The Government's original attempt at consensus was to offer a mid point—a geometrical bisection between 20 years and nought, which was, of course, 10 years. The alternative that has emerged might be described as a non-linear compromise—five years, not 10, but with continuous registration. That proves that the middle way does not always mean reaching a mid point. I claim no credit for thinking of that solution; it came from the international organisations of the parties.
      I freely confess that I have, as the Minister said, changed my mind since the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee. As that recommendation was for five years, however, I have changed my mind not on the length of time required, but on the way in which the law may apply to those who are prepared to re-register year after year. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, our approach contains an important self-regulating feature, ensuring that the amendment would apply only to the small number of people who show determination to register. There are perhaps 3 million or 4 million British passport holders overseas, but we are talking about only 13,000 of them—just one in 300 are determined to keep their vote.
      New clause 7, on international organisations, was never meant as special pleading for those who work for public sector organisations. It was intended to be taken with new clause 5, on the "use it or lose it" principle, to create a double system by which people whose commitment to the UK is beyond doubt could be assured a continuing vote. Those who work in the public sector for organisations of which we are treaty members would receive an assurance. Those who do not would prove their good faith through registering year after year. In either case, the intention of the amendments is to set a test of people's continued commitment rather than opening up the vote to the millions who live abroad and who have British citizenship.

      87
      I am encouraged by what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. I understand that he offers no guarantee, but it is incumbent on all parties to seek the consensus that would persuade him to accept an amendment so that what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) called the chrysalis of consensus may burst into the butterfly of agreement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Schedule 1

    THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
    Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 98, line 30, at end insert—
    '(8) Until such time as the Commission may determine, the Commission's chief executive appointed under sub-paragraph (7) may incur expenditure and do other things in the name and on behalf of the Commission, whether or not the membership of the Commission has yet to be constituted in accordance with section 1.
    (9) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (8) shall be exercisable by that person subject to and in accordance with any directions given to him by the Secretary of State.'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 85.
    Mr. Tipping: As the Home Secretary stated on Second Reading, the Government intend to bring the Electoral Commission into being as a functioning body before the next general election. Whatever the timing of either Royal Assent or the election, we can be certain that the timetable for establishment of the commission will be tight. The Chamber has already discussed the demands and choices about priorities that the commission will face. It is essential that the groundwork for the rapid and smooth establishment of the commission as a going concern should be done as soon as possible. Once appointed, the commissioners should be able to devote their attention and energies to implementing the Bill's core provisions.
    7.45 pm
    Schedule 1(11)(7) provides for the Secretary of State to appoint a person to be interim chief executive of the commission pending the appointment of the electoral commissioners. The intention is to appoint an interim chief executive as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent so that he or she can take forward work both on logistical issues relating to the establishment of the commission, such as accommodation and recruitment of staff, and give thought to practical arrangements for implementing the controls on income and expenditure set out in the Bill.
    Our objective is to ensure that the commission will be in a position to discharge its functions as soon as possible following the appointment of the commissioners. In doing so, the interim chief executive will need to enter into contracts and incur expenditure and make other decisions relating to implementation of the commission's functions in the short term. Paragraph 11(8), introduced by amendment No. 85, would provide the interim chief executive with the authority necessary to incur
    88
    expenditure and to do other things in the name of and on behalf of the commissioners pending their appointment. We have already discussed that process.
    Paragraph 11(9) would require the interim chief executive to exercise that power only in conformity with directions given by the Secretary of State. Given the need to incur expenditure in advance of the appointment of the commissioners, it is also necessary to make provision for the appointment of an interim accounting officer until such time as the Speaker's Committee is able to do so under paragraph 19(1). Amendment No. 86 would therefore amend paragraph 19 to provide for the Secretary of State to appoint a member of the commission's staff, or some other person—for example, the interim chief executive—as the commission's accounting officer until an appointment is made.
    Quick progress is essential on the establishment of the commission. The Government—and I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House—believe that the commission should be up and running in time for the general election—whenever it comes. I hope that the House will accept that the amendments will facilitate that.
    Sir George Young: We should perhaps put a sleeping policeman in front of this juggernaut. Some important implications lie behind the amendment. The Minister explained that the commission wants to hit the ground running, adding that there was a tight timetable and a demanding schedule. To avoid delay, he wants to give powers to the chief executive to begin work before the commission is formally established.
    That seems innocuous, and if the Bill had been passed during the previous Session, we should not have been too concerned about it. However, this is probably the last full Session of the current Parliament, and the Bill may not receive Royal Assent until November, the month in which many of the Government's Bills from the past Session received it. There may be an election in May 2001—or even earlier.
    The amendment gives powers to an individual to act in the name of the Electoral Commission before the commissioners are appointed. If an election were called before the electoral commissioners had been appointed, or if key decisions have to be taken by the commission in order to meet the challenging timetable set for it, that chap would have to do the work. The amendment potentially undermines all the Bill's attempts to make the commission independent by allowing the Secretary of State to nominate a chief executive who then carries out the powers of the commission.
    Under paragraph 11(7) of schedule 1, we note that the chief executive may be appointed by the Secretary of State. It would be helpful to know what time scale the Minister envisages for that. Will it be done ahead of Royal Assent? Does he have anyone in mind? In view of the powers that the chief executive may have in the interval between his appointment and the appointment of the commission, does the Minister propose to consult Opposition parties as to who that chap may be?
    Amendment No. 84 gives the Secretary of State's appointee wide powers. He can act on behalf of the commission until
    such time as the commission may determine.

    89
    The commission's powers are very wide indeed. Paragraph 2 of the schedule provides that the commission
    may do anything (except borrow money) which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of any of their functions.
    Everything covered by clauses 1 to 11 could be undertaken by that appointee of the Secretary of State. He could deal with policy development grants; with education about electoral systems; and with party broadcasts. Indeed, he could even undertake chunks of part II. The only constraint on his activities is that they should be
    subject to and in accordance with any directions given to him by the Secretary of State.
    That does not give the Opposition enormous reassurance.
    It may take some time to appoint the electoral commissioners. The process is set out in clause 3. As I understand the matter, the commissioners cannot be appointed until the Speaker's Committee has been established. Its agreement must be secured before an Address from the House of Commons can be issued; then the electoral commissioners can be appointed. I assume that the Nolan committee process for public appointments will be used. That may take time. The people approached may not want to take up the job—or if they want to do so, they may not be able to for some time.
    In the meantime, the clock will be ticking. If we are to believe the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), the date has already been fixed. Progress will have to be made in the absence of the commissioners. Those crucial, independent decisions will be taken by someone appointed by the Secretary of State and subject to his direction. The general election could be called before any commissioners have been appointed and that chap will be in charge.
    Can that be right? Without the amendment, the chief executive cannot act on behalf of the commission—with it, he can. Without the amendment, there would at least be some incentive to appoint the commissioners promptly, so we would not need it. At a stroke, it could destroy the assembling of a visibly neutral body to oversee the next general election.
    The powers vested in the chief executive are enormous. I am not sure that any civil servant would want to discharge them. We have spent much time discussing those powers. It would be helpful if the Minister could take us through the timetable. When does the Secretary of State envisage appointing a person as the commission's chief executive? What is the time scale after Royal Assent for the appointment of the commissioners? When does the Minister expect that the commission will be able to operate and to take over all those responsibilities from the acting chief executive?
    If my understanding is correct, that acting chief executive may have to do some of the legwork that the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks. He referred to some logistical issues that would have to be addressed. We need to know a little more about which sensitive political decisions might have to be taken by that chief executive until such time as the commissioners can take over from him.
    Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made several important points. I recognise the sleeping policeman that he has placed in
    90
    the path of the Bill. However, he also noted that the clock would be ticking; although he appreciates the need to make progress, he rightly asks for checks and safeguards.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked about the timetable. The Government will use their best endeavours—I am sure that we shall have the support and help of this House and of the other place—to obtain Royal Assent before the summer recess. That may not be the case; as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, Bills have slipped in the past. However, we aim to have Royal Assent by the summer. At that time, we shall appoint an interim chief executive. Under the current timetable, the commissioners would be in place in the autumn. November has been mentioned, but that date is not set in stone.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked whether anyone was lined up for the post of interim chief executive. That is not the case. I envisage that the post will be filled by a civil servant, who will undertake purely logistical work—to set up the office and put systems in place. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the range of important functions—some political—that the commission will be asked to undertake, but, at that stage, the interim chief executive will work purely on logistical arrangements.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked how commissioners would be appointed and gave the answer himself: the Nolan rules will apply. We have already discussed the type of people who might be commissioners and what their background might be. The Government are determined—as are the Opposition—to ensure that the body is free from any accusation of vested interest or political partiality. That should be a point of reassurance for the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill is driven by a new determination—not only from the Government, but from all parties—to ensure that the commission is open, transparent and honest; that it is a body that all can trust for independent advice.
    There is no intention whatever that the interim chief executive will be involved in the more contentious parts of the work. I made it clear in my opening remarks and in my response; the interim chief executive will "hit the ground running", as the right hon. Gentleman said. He will ensure that the logistics of the operation are in place. The sooner we can move to the appointment—under Nolan rules—of a permanent chief executive, with commissioners also appointed under those rules, the better for all of us. With that reassurance, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be content for the amendments to be accepted.
    Sir George Young: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been as helpful as he can. However, will he confirm the following points? If the Bill received Royal Assent by the summer recess—the scenario that he outlined—and supposing that there was a dissolution of Parliament in October this year, would the election be fought under the rules envisaged in the Bill, which would then be an Act, or under the current rules, especially those that apply to expenditure limits?
    Under an alternative scenario, the measure might not receive Royal Assent by the summer recess. We have already heard that further amendments will be tabled; they will have to be considered in another place and, inevitably, they will return to the House. If the Minister does not hit his targets, and the timetable for the whole

    91
    system to be up and running is not achieved, will not the chief executive have to take decisions that are more than simply logistical?
    8 pm
    I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division, but I do want to express my belief that as the powers—which would not be constrained by amendment No. 84—given to the chief executive to
    incur expenditure and do other things in the name and on behalf of the Commission
    are not restricted to purely logistical matters, in some scenarios he may find himself taking some rather sensitive political decisions.
    Mr. Tipping: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) invites me to answer hypothetical questions, and I may find myself in the difficulty that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), did in speculating on the date of the general election. If we do not achieve Royal Assent by the summer, the sooner the general election is after Royal Assent the more obvious it becomes that the general election will have to be fought under current rules. However, much depends on the progress that we make. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire say, sotto voce, "That answers that".
    Sir George Young: I am afraid that the Minister's hearing is not as good as he thought it was. I said, "Even if the Bill becomes an Act, we shall fight the election under the old rules". I am not quite sure how one does that.
    Mr. Tipping: We would have to fight the election under the old rules because the commission would not be in place. If there were a general election in October and Royal Assent had not been achieved by then, the election would obviously take place under the old rules. I believe that, if Royal Assent is received at the end of July and the general election is in October, the logistics and the argument would be that it would not be possible to fight under the new rules and we would have to fight under the current rules. However, much depends on the speed of the Bill's passage; if sleeping policemen are not erected, we can make quick progress.
    If we are able to appoint an interim chief executive with logistical powers to set up the office and systems, the more progress we make, the more it becomes possible to put in place new arrangements for the general election. As I said earlier, that is what the Government desire and I believe that it is what all parties in the House now desire.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 85, in page 102, line 5, at end insert—
    '(6) The Secretary of State may designate any member of the Commission's staff or other person to be the Commission's accounting officer until such time as the first designation made under sub—paragraph (1) takes effect.'.—[Mr. Tipping.]

  Clause 2

    SPEAKER'S COMMITTEE
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
    'the Speaker of the House of Commons, who shall be the chairman of the Committee, and the following other members, namely'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 4, 86 to 89 and 5.
    Mr. O'Brien: In Committee, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) moved an amendment on much the same lines as amendment No. 3, which provides for the Speaker to chair the Speaker's Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), said then that we would discuss with Madam Speaker her views on the matter, and I am pleased to advise the House that she has agreed that the Speaker of the day should indeed chair the Speaker's Committee and take an active part in its work.
    With the Speaker in the Chair, amendment No. 4 reduces the number of ordinary members of the Committee that are appointed by the Speaker from six to five. The appointment of those five members will be entirely at the Speaker's discretion. In particular, there will be no requirement on the Speaker to ensure that the membership of the Committee as a whole reflects the balance of the parties in the House. Indeed, the Speaker has indicated that she intends to appoint one Government Back Bencher, three from the principal Opposition party and one from another opposition party. The result, taking into account the three ex officio members, will be a Speaker's Committee which is exactly balanced as between Government and Opposition Members.
    With the Speaker at the helm and a balanced membership, I hope that the House will be assured that the Speaker's Committee will discharge its functions in a non-partisan manner and, in doing so, will act as the guarantor of the independence of the Electoral Commission.
    Amendment No. 86 corrects a drafting error in paragraph 1(1) of schedule 2. The intended purpose of that provision is to require the Speaker's Committee to report periodically to the House of Commons on the exercise by the Committee of its own functions. As drafted, paragraph 1(1) erroneously required the Speaker's Committee to report on the exercise of the Electoral Commission's functions. I hope that the amendment will be endorsed by the House.
    I hope that, on that basis, the House will be able to agree to the amendments.
    Sir George Young: That was a very helpful speech. Amendment No. 3 incorporates part of amendment No. 17, which the Opposition moved in Committee, and it seems to me right that the Speaker's Committee should have the Speaker in it. We are delighted that our oratory was successful. I was pleased to hear of the consultations that have taken place with Madam Speaker, both on her views on appointment and on how the five members of

    93
    the House might be appointed. The original formula was somewhat vague about the overall composition of the Committee. It seemed to us that the fact that some members were specified created an inbuilt Government majority, and that the Speaker might then have used her discretion to put that right or she might have appointed the six from the House in proportion to the balance in the House. I was delighted to hear how the five appointments will be made. That information relieves our concern.
    The Minister has explained that amendment No. 86 resulted from a typing error. We accept that.
    Amendment No. 5 is reassuring. The Minister may recall amendment No. 20 tabled in Committee, because the Bill as drafted allowed the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee to agree to the appointment of the commissioners, even if everyone else on the Speaker's Committee disagreed. Putting the Speaker in as Chairman gets around that potential problem. Real progress has been made and we welcome the amendments.
    Mr. Stunell: I add my words of support for the revisions, which very much reflect the character of the previous debate. It is good to see the Minister reflecting that debate and returning to the House with proposals that will go a long way towards ensuring not just that the Committee behaves fairly, but that it is absolutely above reproach in the public's eyes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 14, leave out "six" and insert "five".—[Mr. Tipping.]

  Schedule 2

    THE SPEAKER'S COMMITTEE
    Amendments made: No. 86, in page 103, line 20, leave out "Commission" and insert "Committee".
    No. 87, in page 103, line 25, at end insert—
    '(aa) the Speaker of the House of Commons;'.
    No. 88, in page 103, line 41, leave out paragraph 3.
    No. 89, in page 104, line 9, at end insert—
    '(3) The Committee may appoint a member of the Committee to act as chairman at any meeting of the Committee in the absence of the Speaker.'.—[Mr. Tipping.]

  Clause 3

    APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
    Amendment made: No. 5, in page 2, line 36, leave out—
    'chairman of the Speaker's Committee'
    and insert—
    'Speaker of the House of Commons'.—[Mr. Tipping.]

  Clause 5

    REVIEWS OF ELECTORAL AND POLITICAL MATTERS
    Amendment made: No. 6, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
    '(4A) Each report made by the Commission under this section shall be published by them in such manner as they may determine.'.—[Mr. Tipping.]

  Clause 6

    COMMISSION TO BE CONSULTED ON CHANGES TO ELECTORAL LAW
    Amendment made: No. 7, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
    '(i) an order under section 17A(3) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (free delivery of election addresses at elections to the Greater London Authority).'.—[Mr. Tipping.]

  Clause 9

    BROADCASTERS TO HAVE REGARD TO COMMISSION'S VIEWS ON PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTS
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 45, leave out from "broadcasts," to end of line 5 on page 7.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 109.
    Mr. O'Brien: During consideration in Committee of part I, which was taken on the Floor of the House, we had a useful debate on two amendments to clause 9 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton). My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that we would reflect on the views that were being expressed from both sides of the House. Since then, we have had an opportunity to discuss the matter further with the BBC. Amendment No. 8, which has the support of both the BBC and S4C, is the result of those discussions.
    The effect of amendment No. 8 is to remove subsection 3(b) from clause 9. In doing so, it brings the relationship between the Electoral Commission and the BBC more closely into line with the relationship between the Electoral Commission and both the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority. In all cases, the broadcasting authorities will have to have regard to the views of the Electoral Commission when determining their policy or rules, as the case may be, on party political broadcasts. Any such views will be non-binding, but the broadcasting authorities will be bound to give them proper consideration.
    The Electoral Commission will no doubt have views on the criteria for determining which political parties qualify for party political broadcasts and on the length and the frequency of such broadcasts. The amendment will not in any way prevent the commission from commenting on those important aspects of the BBC's overall policy on party political broadcasts, but the Government agree that it is inappropriate to single out those aspects of the BBC's policies in subsection (3) when they are not singled out in subsections (1) and (2) as they relate to the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority.
    Amendment No. 109 is a parallel amendment to the provisions on referendum broadcasts in schedule 11. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.
    Mr. Grieve: I welcome the Minister's remarks and the amendments. There was never any criticism of the Government's intention to involve the Electoral Commission, but Opposition Members and some Labour Members were concerned that the detail was likely to expose the commission to a degree of involvement in the

    95
    minutiae of editorial policy that was undesirable for both the BBC and the commission. The likely consequence would be that any aggrieved person would take the commission to judicial review proceedings in the same way as occasionally happens to the BBC when it starts to allocate party political broadcasts at election times and the courts are called on to resolve the matter.
    Editorial policy should be left to the editors, and I am grateful that the Minister has taken that point on board while in no way detracting from the proper involvement of the Electoral Commission in stimulating debate and putting forward ideas and proposals to all broadcasters on the way in which broadcasts should properly be handled. On that basis, Conservative Members welcome the amendments and we are grateful to the Minister for responding to the representations that were made from both sides of the House.
    Mr. Linton: I do not wish to detain the House except to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being as good as the word of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who said in Committee that he would take a fresh look at the wording. They have done that and they have adopted the amendment that I moved in Committee. That is the best course of action because it will preserve the unwritten, voluntary and informal parts of the constitution.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 11

    EDUCATION ABOUT ELECTORAL AND DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 8, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
    '(a) current electoral systems in the United Kingdom and any pending such systems, together with such matters connected with any such existing or pending systems as the Commission may determine;
    (b) current systems of local government and national government in the United Kingdom and any pending such systems; and'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 157, in page 8, leave out line 14.
    Government amendment No. 10.
    Amendment No. 159, in page 8, line 28, at end insert—
    '(4A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (4), any grant under subsection 3(b) may not be used to promote or otherwise publicise—

    (a) any change in the system of national government in the United Kingdom (other than a change that is pending for the purposes of this section);

    (b) any change in the electoral system in use at any particular election within the United Kingdom (other than a change that is pending for the purposes of this section); or

    (c) any change in the system of local government in use in any particular part of the United Kingdom (other than a change that is pending for the purposes of this section).'.

    Mr. O'Brien: A number of concerns were expressed in Committee about the extent of the remit given to the
    96
    Electoral Commission under clause 11. The clause sets out the commission's voter education function. It will have an important role to play in promoting a greater sense of citizenship and encouraging participation in the democratic process. However, it is not for the commission to promote alternative electoral systems or alternative systems of local, regional or national government.
    The commission will be the custodian of fair play in any referendum on proportional representation for elections to the House or on the introduction of elected regional assemblies. In such circumstances, the commission's impartiality would be called into question if it had previously campaigned for electoral reform or for the introduction of elected regional government.
    8.15 pm
    Government amendments Nos. 9 and 10 will confine the commission's voter education function to promoting current or pending electoral or governmental systems. The reference to "pending" systems denotes new systems that have already been enacted, but are not yet in force. It is not a question of trying to promote something that is not yet in place.
    For example, were the commission already in being, it would fall to it to explain the arrangements for the election of the London mayor, and we would wish it much luck in performing that task. It would also have to explain the arrangements for elections to the Assembly, albeit that the Greater London Authority is not yet in place.
    The effect of the Government amendments is that the Electoral Commission will not be able to make grants to a body, under the provisions of clause 11(3), to promote the cause of proportional representation for elections to the House, or to campaign for regional elected government. With that assurance, I hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who is concerned about these issues, will decide not to press amendment No. 159.
    Amendment No. 157 covers slightly different, but none the less familiar, territory. It would omit the reference in subsection (1) to the institutions of the European Union. Opposition Members appear readily to accept that if we are to boost turnout at local government elections, it will be necessary for the Electoral Commission to explain how local government works and impacts on our daily lives. People will be more inclined to vote if they believe that the body that they are being asked to elect is relevant to them and will make a difference to the community in which they live. If that is true of local government, it is surely also true of the European Parliament.
    At the previous European elections, voter turnout was very low. If there are ways in which we can improve turnout, we should seriously consider them. The commission must have the scope to explain the role of the European Parliament and its relationship with the European Commission and the other institutions of the European Union. If amendment No. 157 were passed, the Electoral Commission would not be able to discharge its voter education function in respect of European parliamentary elections.

    97
    No political party can take comfort from the low turnout at last June's elections. The Electoral Commission cannot reverse the downward trend on its own, but, if it is to have any impact, it must at least be given the scope to run a meaningful campaign.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. O'Brien: I will give way shortly.
    The amendment deals with Europe. We know from past experience what happens when one mentions the word "Europe" to Conservative Members. Unlike Pavlov's dog, they tend to break out in indignation, splits and general hypertension. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will do precisely that, but I shall give way to him to find out.
    Mr. Robathan: I am so grateful to the Minister, because I can see that he is looking forward to my intervention. The task that he is setting the Electoral Commission of promoting public awareness of the institutions of the European Union is fairly large. Will he therefore illuminate the House as to his awareness of its institutions? Could he tell us what DG VII and DG VIII do?
    Mr. O'Brien: I cannot do so off the top of my head, because I have not been involved in these matters recently. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman what DG V does—but can he tell me?
    Mr. Robathan: No.
    Mr. O'Brien: It might serve us both to be properly educated about the role of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the institutions of Europe. We could both do with a little more education on these matters. If we accepted amendment No. 157, which was tabled by Conservative Members, we might not receive the education that we need.
    Sir George Young: I welcome Government amendments No. 9 and 10. They reflect amendment No. 42, which we moved in Committee. However, I think that amendment No. 159 is also necessary for reasons that I shall explain shortly.
    As the Minister said, Government amendments Nos. 9 and 10 will keep the neutral and impartial Electoral Commission out of contentious issues by allowing it to promote only those electoral systems made by enactment. It will keep it out of promoting AV-plus and other forms of proportional representation before the House of Commons approves them—if, indeed, it ever does. I am grateful that the Minister confirmed that the commission could not promote public awareness of elected regional assemblies when they are not pending. It is worth reminding the House that the Neill committee did not envisage the commission embarking on the functions set out in clause 11.
    I shall speak to amendments Nos. 157 and 159. Amendment No. 157 is similar to an amendment that we moved in Committee, so the Opposition's beach towel has already been laid on this deckchair. The amendment would preclude the commission from promoting public awareness of the institutions of the European Union.
    98
    The Minister may recall the powerful speech that I made on 14 February, from column 711 onwards, which he interrupted to make numerous concessions, but sadly not on that particular amendment.
    Our case is the one that was just implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). The European Union already has a substantial budget, far larger than that of the proposed Electoral Commission, to promote its institutions. It has 45 million euros to spend on general information and communication work concerning the European Union. The budget document published by the European Commission says of the budget for information and communication work:
    these measures are designed to be an effective channel of communication and dialogue between the people of the European Union and the Community Institutions. They take account of specific national and regional characteristics, in close co-operation with the Member State authorities.
    There is therefore no need for UK taxpayers to double-fund a function for which they are already paying through the Commission.
    The Minister needs to take on board another issue. One of the institutions of which the Electoral Commission could promote public awareness, under clause 11, is the European central bank, which is a European institution. We could of course have a referendum on whether the UK should join the euro. Interest rates are fixed by the ECB, and the bank has responsibility for the conduct of monetary policy in Europe. The ECB's performance could therefore be at the heart of a debate about whether the UK should join the euro. Against that background, is it right that the commission should be involved in that debate by publishing literature about; and promoting public awareness of; the ECB?
    The Minister mentioned the commission's voter education role, which I understand, but the commission also has a role to remain impartial and above the issues that may be raised in a referendum. For that reason, it should not embark on promoting awareness of European Union institutions. The commission, after all, would be the umpire in that referendum.
    I shall use the argument that the Minister used on 14 February, when he said:
    It would be injurious to the perceived neutrality of such a body—
    that is the commission—
    if it were seen to adopt a position on the question of alternative voting systems.
    That argument is equally valid if one applies it to the question of joining the euro: it would be injurious to the perceived neutrality of such a body if it were seen to promote public awareness of the role of the European central bank.
    Last time round, the Minister was less than convincing in his argument against the amendment. He simply said:
    It is important that the scope of the commission's voter education role should extend to explaining the institutions of the European Union to voters.—[Official Report, 14 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 712.]
    He repeated that argument again this evening. He went on to say that if the commission did not have that scope, turnout at European elections would remain low.
    There are two responses to that argument. First, by entering the euro debate the commission would prejudice its impartiality. Secondly, there is already a huge budget

    99
    to promote awareness of European institutions, so I was not reassured by what the Minister said today any more than I was on 14 February.
    Mr. Robathan: My right hon. Friend and I agree entirely on this matter. Contrary to what the Minister said, I do not get excited when I read the word "Europe". Indeed, I can tell him that I am going on holiday in Europe this summer, God and the Government willing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is such a low turnout in European elections because people are moved by Europe only in a contrary manner? To involve the Electoral Commission—which, as he said, is meant to be entirely neutral—in arguing for European Union institutions might not only compromise its neutrality, but lead everybody to doubt the worth of the commission, with which we agree.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree also that today's opinion poll, showing that 69 per cent. of people are now ill-disposed towards the European single currency, reinforces his argument? If the Electoral Commission argues against that opinion, is not that likely to lead people to think that it is in some way flawed?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Bill gives the Electoral Commission a duty, not an option, when it says:
    The Commission shall promote public awareness of … the institutions of the European Union.
    One of the EU's key institutions is the European central bank, and it would be difficult for the commission to promote public awareness of that institution without in some way involving itself in what would inevitably be a controversial political argument about whether the ECB was doing a good job or a bad job. It would be better for the commission if it simply did not engage in that particular function at all.
    I move on to amendment No. 159. I hope that the Minister can persuade me that it is not necessary, but he has not yet done so. The amendment is needed because the phrasing of amendments Nos. 9 and 10 allows grants to be made to promote change in particular areas or elections so long as the proposed system is in use elsewhere in the UK. For example, a grant could be given to promote the use of the additional member system, the single vote or the single transferable vote for elections to the House on the grounds that those systems are already in use elsewhere in the UK for mayoral elections and elections to the Scottish Assembly, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the European Parliament.
    If amendment No. 159 is not made, the commission will get involved in exactly the sort of controversy that the Minister said he did not want it to become involved in. Although those systems do not at present apply to elections to the House, they are in use elsewhere in the UK. The position without the amendment would be inconsistent with the Minister's remarks on 14 February, when he said that
    it would be outside the powers of the commission to make a grant to an organisation to enable it to promote alternative voting systems.— [Official Report, 14 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 712.]
    100
    The Government amendments do not achieve that, so I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 159 to close the loophole.
    Mr. Stunell: I oppose the Conservative amendments—and I am not happy with the Government amendments, either.
    I say to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who has said that some of his best friends are European and, indeed, that he is going on holiday to Europe, that he lives in Europe. One of the problems for Conservative Members is that they do not accept that they are part of Europe in the first place.
    It would be a serious mistake to clip the wings of the Electoral Commission and give it the role of explaining what local government does and why it is a good idea to participate in the decision-making process—although not to promote a specific form of local government—but say that it cannot do the same for the European Union.
    The Conservatives' argument is somewhat two-edged because if their complaint about Europe is that it is dominating our lives, passing laws that we do not control and generally disrupting the universe, that is surely all the more reason to explain that evil to the British electorate and encourage them to play a part in European democratic procedures.
    Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has not only given way to me but given me a geography lesson. How can he refer to Europe as "it" if we are within it? He was talking about it as though it were a foreign body, yet, as he has so rightly pointed out, it is not because we are part of it.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Stunell: That is an interesting argument; the same is true of local government, Parliament and all other bodies on which the Electoral Commission has been given a job, exactly as the hon. Gentleman says. In its collective form, the European Union is the same. I see no justification for the Conservatives' approach, and I could not see it last time either. I do not think that that is for want of intelligence on my part. Their ideas are fundamentally misconceived.
    I understand the spirit in which the Government's concessions have been made and their entirely honourable intention to ensure that the commission is not drawn into controversy. In restricting what the commission can do on electoral systems, I hope that its duty to explain and promote systems in use in the United Kingdom will remain clear. Judging by some preliminary findings from discussions with colleagues from the London area about the mayoral election and the ballot paper with which London electors will be faced, there is a substantial job to be done. There is clearly a substantial job to be done throughout the country in pointing out the many advantages—and perhaps one or two disadvantages—of the closed list system.
    I very much hope that, in clipping the wings of the Electoral Commission for some apparently very good reasons, the Minister does not cause it to go into its shell and fail to take necessary action. I especially hope that he will not in any way be tempted by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to support amendment No. 159. The right hon. Gentleman said that

    101
    different electoral systems in the UK were a problem and that the wicked Electoral Commission might be drawn into explaining to another part of the United Kingdom the voting system in, let us say, Northern Ireland in the European elections, Scotland in the Scottish elections or, for that matter, London in the mayoral election. Both Government and Opposition amendments could inhibit the commission's wider duty of promoting and developing democracy, and are to be regretted.
    Mr. Robathan: Comments about Europe made by the Minister, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and, indeed, me, illustrate the difficulties into which the Electoral Commission could walk if it tried to educate people about the European Union and the institutions thereof. We are self-evidently European. I stress to both hon. Gentlemen that I am not anti-European; nor do I leap up and down at the mention of the word "Europe". Indeed, I spent much time studying European history. When I did so, there was a distinction between British and European history. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I am going on holiday on the continent of Europe and not to Cornwall.
    The educational requirement could strike at the purpose of the Electoral Commission. If its purpose is to be above party politics and political and detailed argument, it must remain neutral at all times. The Minister will say that it can educate on European and other matters while remaining neutral. That is true if it educates on electoral systems about which all parties agree, but if such education extends to various EU institutions, especially the European central bank, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) mentioned, the commission will inevitably be drawn into detailed argument.
    However the Minister puts his argument, he will discover accusations of bias—possibly from both sides of the House. Such accusations, even if they are from both sides of the House, will tend, in the eyes of those who take contrary views, to undermine the perceived neutrality of the Electoral Commission. That is important. If the Electoral Commission starts discussing Europe or proportional representation or methods of voting, there will be accusations that the commission is getting involved in matters on which it should be neutral. That is a straightforward argument.
    I shall not repeat my right hon. Friend's argument, as he expressed it better than I could. The particular case of the European central bank and the single currency is a good example. I could write the argument from one side and the Minister could write it from the other, and we would both think that we were being neutral, but if the Electoral Commission wrote a paper on the ECB, setting out the pros and cons, the Minister—whose position on the European currency I do not know—and I might be able to criticise it equally well from either side. The danger is that by getting involved in the debate, the Electoral Commission would lose its perceived neutrality, however hard it might try to maintain it.
    I question whether it should be the purpose of the Electoral Commission to get involved in such matters, when there is an office in Storey's Gate, run by Mr. Geoffrey Martin, whom the Minister may know. The office exists in order to publish the great benefits that the European Commission brings to these isles. I do not disagree with much that the office publishes; indeed,
    102
    Mr. Martin and I often have genial conversations. However, what would be the purpose of such an office if the Electoral Commission acquired an educational responsibility? Might they not end up working in tandem and, again, might that not undermine the perceived neutrality of the Electoral Commission?
    As was revealed by the Minister's ignorance about DG VII and VIII, and mine about DG V, the Electoral Commission would face an enormous task if it was required by the Government to educate people about the institutions of the European Union. The Minister and I do not know all the details of the EU, and we spend considerable time studying it, so that would be a huge task for the Electoral Commission, in which it might fail.
    I shall not detain the House. The argument is important, although it is easily dismissed. The neutrality of the Electoral Commission could be undermined before it even started. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) wants to go to Europe. We wish him well on his holiday, and from our point of view, the sooner he goes, the better.
    Mr. Robathan: In that case, I shall go now.
    Mr. O'Brien: That is a matter for the hon. Gentleman and his Whips. Our Whips are happy to give him permission to go.
    Let us consider the argument and cut to the core of the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) that there could be some mention of the European central bank. We have set up an Electoral Commission which will be above politics. The right hon. Gentleman welcomed the independence that the commission will have. It will be supervised by the Speaker's Committee. He welcomed the independent way in which that Committee will operate. There are many safeguards to preserve the independence and integrity of the Electoral Commission.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman give that body some credit for common sense, when we appoint all these great and good people to run it, supervised, no doubt, by more great and good people from the House? There are enough safeguards. We want a neutral body that is not involved in questions such as whether we join the single currency or not. It would be ridiculous for the Electoral Commission to get involved in that debate. We want a body whose neutrality is not compromised, but we do not want a body that is neutered.
    The right hon. Gentleman is proposing, in effect, to neuter the body that we are setting up to educate voters by providing basic information. Awareness of an institutional set-up such as the European central bank is unlikely to sway anyone one way or the other on whether we should join the single currency. I doubt whether the Electoral Commission wants to get involved in such a debate, or even provide information.
    However, after the next election, and perhaps the subsequent election, a Conservative Government might—heaven forfend—return to office. The Conservative party is committed to not joining the single currency for only two

    103
    elections. It could subsequently determine that the time was right to join. The Electoral Commission might then decide to educate people about an institution of which we are a member. We are therefore making law for the future; it is wise to consider circumstances that may arise. Nobody wants the Electoral Commission's neutrality to be compromised. However, we do not want to neuter it.
    Sir George Young: I appreciate that the Minister does not want to compromise the commission's impartiality. However, we feel strongly about amendment No. 157, and believe that it is important at this stage not to give the commission the duty that we are considering, and involve it in such a sensitive debate. At the appropriate time, we shall press the amendment to a Division.
    Mr. O'Brien: I regret that Conservative Members take that view. The sort of problem that they fear is in no danger of arising. They display their usual hypertensive reaction to the word "Europe".
    On amendment No. 159, the Government do not believe that it would be possible for the Electoral Commission to promote proportional representation for election to Parliament under clause 11(3) by giving grants. The right hon. Gentleman knows the implications of Pepper v. Hart. We do not believe that the Electoral Commission will be able to give any organisation grants to promote proportional representation for parliamentary elections.
    The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) was right to say that voter education was important. We must ensure neutrality on some of the more sensitive issues. The Government want the Electoral Commission to remain strictly neutral on controversial political issues such as Europe, proportional representation and regional government—many Labour Members feel strongly about the latter. It is better for the Electoral Commission to stay out of the fray on such issues. However, it can inform people about proportional representation in European elections, and regional government in the devolved assemblies, especially if assemblies were to be established in England. There are potential opportunities for the Electoral Commission to perform a useful function.
    Sir George Young: I am not a solicitor and I am not as familiar as the Minister with Pepper v. Hart. Is he saying that even if Government amendment No. 9 allowed the commission to make a grant to an organisation that could promote alternative electoral systems, which existed elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the commission would not be permitted to do that because of Pepper v. Hart?
    Mr. O'Brien: No. Such grants could not be made by the Electoral Commission under the Bill. That is our interpretation of the Bill. The case of Pepper v. Hart provides that the a Minister's words may be taken into account in interpreting the wording of legislation. I am therefore telling hon. Members about the way in which the Government intend the legislation to operate.
    The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) believed that if the Electoral Commission participated in educating the public about institutions, it would inevitably become involved in controversy and thus compromise its neutrality. Every weekday in our schools there are
    104
    teachers who teach politics. They do so in a way that is not party political. It is not biased and it does not involve controversy. The teaching is reasonably easy and it has not produced the compromise of neutrality among teachers that the hon. Gentleman suspects.
    8.45 pm
    We shall create an Electoral Commission that is composed of the great and the good. Behind it will be a Speaker's Committee, which will oversee it to ensure that its neutrality is not compromised. It cannot be reasonable to think that the members of the Commission would all lack common sense to such a level that they would embark on a dissertation on anything that would get them involved in the issues surrounding a single currency. They would not do so.
    Mr. Robathan: I have no idea where the Minister went to school, but in my school I well recall people who taught me politics in a partisan manner. One was a Conservative and one was a Labour supporter. I won a bet with the Labour supporter on the result of the 1970 general election, on which he reneged.
    Mr. James Gray: Typical.
    Mr. Robathan: Indeed.
    More importantly, the Minister is making my point for me. If the Electoral Commission becomes involved in controversial issues—[Interruption.] To help the Minister, I went to Merchant Taylors' school. If the commission becomes involved in controversial issues on which there are two passionately held arguments, it runs the grave risk of being accused of bias. It may not be biased and it may be composed of the great and the good and very good at doing its work, but that will be the accusation. That is when the commission's reputation will be under threat.
    Mr. O'Brien: The sort of people that the occupants of the Conservative Front Bench have asked us to put on the commission are those who are above politics, who are of high repute and of independence and neutrality. They are precisely the sort of people who would avoid getting into the compromising situation which the hon. Gentleman is outlining. We are not dealing with real fears about the commission being compromised. I do not think that there is a realistic prospect of its members getting themselves into that silly position. Instead, we are dealing with the internal disputes, views and hypertension of the Conservative party about Europe. If the Opposition divide the House, that is all that we have.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed: No. 157, in page 8, leave out line 14.—[Sir George Young.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 308.

    Division No. 103]

    [8.48 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Amess, David

    Body, Sir Richard

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Baldry, Tony

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    105

    Brady, Graham

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Brazier, Julian

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Madel, Sir David

    Chope, Christopher

    Malins, Humfrey

    Clappison, James

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Duncan, Alan

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Ottaway, Richard

    Evans, Nigel

    Paice, James

    Faber, David

    Paterson, Owen

    Fabricant, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Fallon, Michael

    Prior, David

    Flight, Howard

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Robathan, Andrew

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Robertson, Laurence

    Fox Dr Liam

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Gale, Roger

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Garnier, Edward

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Gill, Christopher

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Gray, James

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Greenway, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Grieve, Dominic

    Streeter, Gary

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Swayne, Desmond

    Hamilton Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Syms, Robert

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hammond Philip

    Townend, John

    Hawkins, Nick

    Tredinnick, David

    Hayes, John

    Trend, Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Viggers Peter

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Walter, Robert

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Wardle, Charles

    Horam, John

    Waterson, Nigel

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Wilkinson, John

    Key, Robert

    Willetts, David

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Wilshire, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Yeo, Tim

    Lidington, David

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Loughton, Tim

    Mr. Tim Collins and

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Mr. Nick Gibb.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Betts, Clive

    Ainger, Nick

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Allan, Richard

    Blizzard, Bob

    Allen, Graham

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Borrow, David

    Ashton, Joe

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Austin, John

    Breed, Colin

    Ballard, Jackie

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Browne, Desmond

    Beard, Nigel

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Burden, Richard

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Burgon, Colin

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Burstow, Paul

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Benton, Joe

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Berry, Roger

    Cann, Jamie

    Best, Harold

    Casale, Roger

    106

    Caton, Martin

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Chaytor, David

    Hanson, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Healey, John

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clelland, David

    Heppell, John

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hesford, Stephen

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hill, Keith

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hinchliffe, David

    Coleman, Iain

    Hoey, Kate

    Colman, Tony

    Hood, Jimmy

    Connarty, Michael

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Corbett, Robin

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Corston, Jean

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cotter, Brian

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Crausby, David

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hurst, Alan

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hutton, John

    Cummings, John

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Illsley, Eric

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jamieson, David

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jenkins, Brian

    Darvill, Keith

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Denham, John

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dobbin, Jim

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Doran, Frank

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Dowd, Jim

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Drew, David

    Khabra, Piara S

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Kidney, David

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Edwards, Huw

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Efford, Clive

    Laxton, Bob

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Lepper, David

    Ennis, Jeff

    Leslie, Christopher

    Etherington, Bill

    Levitt, Tom

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Linton, Martin

    Fisher, Mark

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Flint, Caroline

    Lock, David

    Flynn, Paul

    Love, Andrew

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    McCabe, Steve

    Gapes, Mike

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Gardiner, Barry

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Gerrard, Neil

    McDonnell, John

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McFall, John

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Godsiff, Roger

    McIsaac, Shona

    Goggins, Paul

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McNulty, Tony

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McWalter, Tony

    Grocott, Bruce

    McWilliam, John

    Hain, Peter

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    107

    Martlew, Eric

    Skinner, Dennis

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Miller, Andrew

    Snape, Peter

    Mitchell, Austin

    Soley, Clive

    Moffatt, Laura

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Spellar, John

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Morley, Elliot

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mountford, Kali

    Stevenson, George

    Mullin, Chris

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Norris, Dan

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Stringer, Graham

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Stunell, Andrew

    Olner, Bill

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Pearson, Ian

    Pendry Tom

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Taylor, Matthew (Trvro)

    Pike Peter L

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Plaskitt, James

    Timms, Stephen

    Pond, Chris

    Tipping, Paddy

    Pope, Greg

    Todd, Mark

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Truswell Paul

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Turner, Dr Desmond(Kemptown)

    Prosser Gwyn

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Purchase, Ken

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Tyler, Paul

    Rammell, Bill

    Tynan, Bill

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Rapson,Syd

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Raynsford Nick

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Rendel, David

    Watts David

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Webb, Steve

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    White, Brian

    Rooney, Terry

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rowlands, Ted

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Roy, Frank

    Ruane, Chris

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Winnick, David

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Wise, Audrey

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Wood, Mike

    Salter, Martin

    Woolas, Phil

    Sanders, Adrian

    Worthington, Tony

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wyatt, Derek

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Mr. Don Touhig.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Amendment made: No. 10, in page 8, line 14, at end insert—
    '(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) any system such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection is pending at a time when arrangements for giving effect to it have been made by any enactment but the arrangements are not yet in force.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

  Clause 21

    OFFICE-HOLDERS TO BE REGISTERED
    9 pm
    Mr. Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 177, in page 13, line 12, after "must", insert "either—(a)".
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 178, in page 13, line 16, at end insert—
    '; or
    (b) where there is an approved federal party structure have overall responsibility for—

    (i) the financial affairs of the federal party and for ensuring compliance with the provisions of Parts III to V and VII, and

    (ii) notifying the Electoral Commission of the duly authorised treasurer of every other approved constituent part of the party.'.

    No. 179, in clause 22, page 14, line 17, at end insert—
    '(5A) Where a Party seeks to register an approved federal structure, it must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that its constitution includes specific provision for two separate bodies with responsibility for the same geographical area, where one of those bodies (the "Federal Party") has powers and duties relating to the whole of one or more of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and where each party has

    (i) wholly separate functions, powers and duties, and

    (ii) no duty either to approve accounts or submit accounts to the other.'.

    No. 181, in schedule 8, page 123, line 43, at end add—
    '(6) Where a party has an "approved federal structure" any reference to any national spending limits or accounting limits contained in Part V and Part VII Chapter II shall be deemed to be divided into two equal parts, with one part allocated to the "Federal Party" and the second part allocated to the "other approved parties"; each of the other approved parties shall have as its relevant expenditure and accounting limits that proportion of the second part of such limit as the number of parliamentary constituencies within the geographical area covered by that party bears to the total number of constituencies within the United Kingdom.'.
    Mr. Stunell: All the amendments are part of a package that is designed to secure a particular possibility for the Liberal Democrats especially, and perhaps for other parties with a federal structure. We make it absolutely clear that there is no intention in any way to water down or debase the Bill as a whole. It is our strongly held view that the Bill needs to be enforced quickly, and that it needs strong provisions to safeguard the public and to ensure that abuses that have arisen on party political funding are eradicated.
    I think that the Minister and other Members recognise that the Liberal Democrats have, throughout progress on the Bill, strongly supported the restrictions, the reporting requirements, the introduction of transparency and other provisions. However, we have a particular problem. At each stage at which it has been raised, the Minister has been sympathetic to our cause. We have had a meeting and an exchange of correspondence. I hope that the debate will advance that argument a little further.
    Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's generous comments. The door is still open. There is a

    109
    need to make further progress on the matter. At the very least, I hope to offer him and his colleagues further discussions on the point.
    Mr. Stunell: I welcome what the Minister has said. In all honesty, it is very much of a piece with his approach throughout the Committee stage. It is much appreciated.
    I do not want to detain the House for too long, but it is such an important issue for us that I want to get it on the record and to say how we see the way ahead. The Bill makes provisions for parties that are structured in the first place as unitary parties—parties that are homogenous in structure throughout the United Kingdom, or at least throughout the constituent parts of the UK, in many cases excluding Northern Ireland.
    Within the unitary party structure, the Bill makes provision for separate accounting units. Those might be local constituency parties, or wider groupings of constituencies, regions or states, but, in essence, there is a pyramid structure, with a reporting line going from the lowest level to the top of the pyramid. In terms of the Bill, that is the party treasurer, who takes the ultimate rap if there is any difficulty or any breach of the Bill at any level within the party. As a result of discussions in Committee, an alternative structure is permitted under the Bill: a confederation of different geographical units, each of which is, in essence, a separate party. There might be a party for Scotland, for Wales, for England and perhaps for Northern Ireland.
    Both those models are clearly catered for in the Bill, or in the amendments that the Government have spoken of, but the difficulty is that we have a different structure—a federal structure. That is neither widely admired nor widely understood in the House. I understand that clearly, but I am not inviting the House to convert to federalism. I simply invite it to permit us to continue to practise our minority sport in that regard.
    Although federalism is a somewhat unusual concept in the House and in the United Kingdom, it is far from being an unusual concept in democracies generally. The most obvious analogue of a federal structure is that provided in the United States constitution, with which some hon. Members will be familiar, at least in outline. The United States has separate state governments and an overarching federal Government, each of whom have different duties and functions, none of which overlap or interlink.
    The government of Texas, for example, are not required to report their budget to Washington, to seek approval of or to validate their actions. The state, in performing its own duties and functions, proceeds as an entirely separate and independent entity.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Does my hon. Friend agree that a characteristic of good law is that it should be fully operable for the foreseeable future? Is it not beyond a mere possibility that, in the next few years, at least one of the other parties might seek to adopt such a structure? At least one of those parties believes in subsidiarity, which is another feature of a good federal structure, whereas the other has promoted devolution across the United Kingdom and might well move in that direction itself.
    Mr. Stunell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which are particularly apposite. When I deployed that
    110
    argument in Committee, the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), said that the point of view that I was expressing resonated with his Conservative colleagues in Scotland.
    To develop the United States analogy a little further—perhaps beyond the point that the House would prefer—the latitude provided to states extends even to whether they should have the death penalty and, if so, how it should be implemented. The United States provides freedom to states to take decisions within the bounds of the powers that they possess. That is the essence of the federal structure. Simultaneously, however, the United States federal Government have duties and powers that apply in every state.
    The United States analogy is appropriate in considering the position of the Liberal Democrats. We have a federal party that covers England, Scotland and Wales. Within the federal party, we have state parties for Scotland, for Wales and for England, each of which has an entirely separate range of functions.
    Our difficulty with the Bill is that it requires a reporting link from the state parties to the federal party. To fulfil the Bill's requirements as they stand, we would be required to build in reporting links, responsibility links and, ultimately, the power for the central party to overrule an act proposed by a state party. We would have to do that to comply with the Bill, but it would completely undermine the concept of a federal party and of federal government. That is why we have tabled this group of amendments.
    When a party's convenience and common practice conflict with a Bill's provisions, it is entirely proper for Liberal Democrats—or our Conservative, Labour or other colleagues—to amend their practice to conform with the legislation. We are not simply seeking an excuse to continue ancient ways that happen to be convenient. When it is necessary to change to secure good practice, we fully accept that we should make that change. I should add that our party federal headquarters has been notifying our constituency and regional parties of precisely what changes they will have to make.
    Conversely, however, we ask the House and the Government to give serious consideration to how the Bill might be adapted to permit us to continue our form of federalism. In Committee, I moved amendments designed to achieve that aim. The Minister, and civil servants, quite properly came back to me to say, "That's fine, but it is not guarding against abuse." Perhaps some less scrupulous party might seek to set itself up as a federal party to bypass the sensible provisions for the prevention of abuse.
    That brings me to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 177 and 178 outline a process by which a party could register with the Electoral Commission the fact that it intended to have a federal structure and specify the form for that. Amendment No. 179 sets that out in detail. There would be no self-certification. The party would have to establish clearly that it had a bona fide federal structure. The amendment explains the characteristics of that in language that I hope is simple and legally effective.
    Perhaps the most important amendment in the group is No. 181, because it defines how we would ensure that there was no advantage in pretending to be a federal party in order to bypass the financial restrictions and limits in the Bill. We have supported all the financial restrictions

    111
    and limits. Later, I shall support amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) which would reduce the limits. We do not have a problem with the existence of the limits.
    In discussions outside the Committee, the Minister pointed out the difficulty that our original amendments, at least on the face of it, would have entitled each layer to the full limits applicable to a party. That would effectively double the limits available. We do not want that and neither, understandably, do the Government. That is where amendment No. 181 comes in. It says that if a party has a federal structure approved by the Electoral Commission and in accordance with the other amendments, any applicable national limit should be divided into two equal parts, with one half attributable to the federal party and the other half attributable to the other bodies. In our case, those other bodies do not cover the whole of the United Kingdom, but relate to Scotland and Wales and regions of England. Their share of the second half would be in proportion to the number of constituencies within them.
    Mr. Grieve: Do I take it that, under the system that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward, there could be no transfer of surplus funds from one part of the federation to another? If one area did not use up to its limit, would the other area be unable to benefit?
    Mr. Stunell: As the amendments are drafted and as the rest of the Bill stands, it would be proper for a party to contribute to another party, as it would be, for instance, for a constituency party with the unitary construction permitted by the Bill to contribute to a national campaign, or vice versa. Nobody can trespass the limits that are set for their level. If they do, they will carry the can for that liability, rather than it transferring to a different level.
    I fully accept that there may be some more drafting work to be done on our amendments, that there may be some avenues that I have failed to explore or loopholes that may appear. Our amendments are designed to take forward the discussion that we had in Committee and address the concerns and issues that the Minister and his civil servants brought to our attention. I hope that during this debate and the subsequent discussion that the Minister has generously offered, we can advance the argument a little further.
    We are keen for the Bill to be enacted. We do not want to be the grit in the machine. We regret that we have introduced some complexities that the Minister probably could do without, but we consider this to be matter of principle. It has considerable ideological significance and real political importance, especially for our colleagues in Scotland, who operated in a much looser political framework in the past. We are happy that that framework has been drawn into the federal structure, and we should be most reluctant to see that structure broken now.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Grieve: I shall not detain the House, save to say that the official Opposition do not want to stand in the way of the Liberal Democrat party's constitutional niceties. It would be churlish of us to object if it suited those niceties to require some alteration to this part of the Bill.
    112
    I remain uneasy, however, and my anxieties do not find a clear answer in the Bill. I intervened on the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) to suggest that the amendment could be to the manifest disadvantage of his party, or of any federal party. I assumed that it would mean that the usual flow of funds during a campaign to those areas thought to need more funds could not cross the federation's internal boundaries. The hon. Gentleman then persuaded me that the Bill provides for the transfer of gifts between political parties.
    That illustrates the complexities involved in this matter. Moreover, I know that the Liberal Democrat party has links with the Alliance party in Northern Ireland. Although we shall not discuss it tonight, the question of Northern Ireland—and how to deal with it—arises. That problem has caused great concern to hon. Members of all parties.
    For that reason, I shall listen very carefully to the Minister's response. Adjustments without downsides should always be made, but I am still not sure how the amendment squares with some of the other provisions—even though I have read the Bill 150 times.
    Mr. Syms: I started off being sympathetic to the amendment, but then began to wonder—perhaps because my knowledge of the constitution of the Liberal Democrat party is lacking. However, although I can understand the amendment's application to Scotland, Wales and England, I cannot understand how the regions could be separated out. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was worried about how money could be ring-fenced, and I share his disquiet.
    I presume that the Liberal Democrats would register as one party under the Bill. Some line of authority must run through even a federal political party. If a party registers as a federal party, will it have to register as one party, or several?
    Mr. Stunell: We would register as one political party, within a federal structure. For example, the United States is one country, but each state is separate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could explore the point in more detail over a cup of coffee in the Members' Tea Room.
    Mr. Syms: The United States is an interesting example, but this country remains a basically unitary state, with the exception of Scotland.
    Mr. Stunell: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for intervening again so soon, but I want to draw a clear distinction between country and political party. The political party's structure is a matter for its internal organisation and its views. A party can have a federal structure in a unitary country, if it so wishes, and the Liberal Democrat party does so wish.
    Mr. Syms: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I understand that the Liberal Democrats are organised in the way in which they would like to organise the state. It is a perfectly respectable point of view, but unfortunately we are not organised in that particular fashion.
    I think that, in so far as it is possible to accommodate the needs of a responsible and major political party, we should try to do so. However, I think that this may be one of those instances in which there are issues under the

    113
    surface—issues that may not be entirely obvious—and that, especially given the regional structure in England, it will be difficult to incorporate the proposal in the Bill. I shall, however, be interested to hear the Minister's view.
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that there had been quite a dialogue about this issue—and it is a difficult issue, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who is new to our discussions on the subject.
    The hon. Member for Hazel Grove raised the matter in Committee, and we had a helpful meeting involving Liberal party officials on 27 January. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for writing to me last week, on 7 March, describing the way forward as he saw it. Let me add, somewhat mischievously, that I think his letter took longer to write than we had anticipated—but no doubt that reflects the real difficulties that exist. In any event, the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to explain the problem tonight. It is not just a Liberal Democrats issue; there have been representations from the Green party.
    Mr. Grieve: Once a proposal of this kind was enshrined in law, it would surely be open to parties to organise on a village basis, and to register several thousand parties in a federation. It is a theoretical possibility, but it must be a possibility.
    Mr. Tipping: I shall deal with the Government's view of the amendments shortly, but it would clearly be possible to devolve to a very low level. There are different ideas between and within parties about the extent to which it would be possible to devolve. I am quite radical: for instance, I believe strongly in home rule for Hucknall and for north Nottinghamshire.
    I want to be positive and helpful. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove spoke of dialogue and the need to make progress, and I am keen to do that, but I think that the amendments involve fundamental problems, not least the problem of what
    an approved federal party structure
    means. Presumably it means a structure that the Electoral Commission has agreed, but the amendments do not provide a framework to help the commission to decide what such a structure might be.
    I should also point out—as, indeed, did the hon. Gentleman—that parties will need to adapt to meet the new requirements. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that his party was considering that, and that it, along with the other parties, would have to make changes. Let me repeat that I am trying to be helpful. I note that the hon. Gentleman's party has made changes to its "federal structure" to meet the provisions of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, and that, although it is a "federal" party, there is an official in the party who signs the forms for candidates throughout the United Kingdom. That shows how parties can change to meet the requirements of new legislation.
    The scale of the problem involved in the registration of political parties, however, pales into insignificance when we deal with financial matters. It is important that we look at how we change the parties ourselves and acknowledge that federal parties are important for our political structure. Given the significance of the Liberal Democrat party and the Green party, it is important to find a solution.
    114
    The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested that the issue had ramifications for Northern Ireland. The Government have not been in a position to bring forward amendments on separate registration in Northern Ireland because we need to crack this problem first. This problem spills over into Northern Ireland.
    I should like the opportunity to examine further the proposals put before the House by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and which he submitted last week. Secondly, I would like to arrange a meeting between Home Office and Liberal Democrat officials. Following that, I should like to arrange a more political meeting involving the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues to try and find a way forward.
    This is a difficult issue. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keen to find a solution. It is important that the Liberal Democrats, the Green party and other parties are not disadvantaged. We will work with him to take this matter forward. I would be pleased if I could guarantee to find a solution, but I cannot. However, I guarantee that over the next few weeks we will work with him and his colleagues to find a solution to what is a very important issue for the Liberal Democrat party. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister, and other right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The Minister is right to say that it took some time for us to formulate an appropriate response following the meeting. I am sorry if that caused increased difficulties for him and his officials. We now have, we hope, the basis of a good development of ideas and proposals for the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to 1,000 village parties. I shall look carefully at my amendment, because it did not specifically mention them.
    Mr. Grieve: I appreciate that that was not what the hon. Gentleman was proposing for his own party, and that the structures were likely to be based on the various national component parts of the United Kingdom or on regions. I simply made that point to illustrate how small the groups could be under his amendment.
    Mr. Stunell: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is an interesting one, which further discussion and research could explore to the full.
    Amendment No. 179 addresses the hon. Gentleman's point to some extent, and begins to address the Minister's point about what is an approved federal structure. It cannot be self-defining; it has to be approved. The wording of the amendment may be insufficient to specify what it should be. At its limit, it could affect an individual constituency party, although the practical difficulties of that would defy even the Liberal Democrats. The amendment attempts to address the point, and I hope that further discussion may move us forward.
    9.30 pm
    The Minister made the perfectly fair point that the Liberal Democrats have one person reporting on political party registration. That turned out not to be a terribly challenging point; the question was whether we could have a bird as a logo, a point not of the essence when it

    115
    comes to whether we should have to report back on spending in future on elections or on political activity at any other time, which would entirely dismantle our federal structure. The Minister understands that point; a step designed to offer the minimum trouble for the approval of a bird as a logo is not quite the same thing.
    I welcome the fact that the Minister said that he would take time to consider our proposals and that he wants meetings between officials and political meetings. One reason for delay is that our elected officials have changed, which has made the job more complex. However, we welcome what he said. I wanted to put on the record an issue important to us, but our hearts remain strongly with the Bill, with which we want full compliance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 28

    PARTY CEASING TO BE REGISTERED
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 17, line 27, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
    '(4) However, until the end of the financial year of the party which follows that in which its entry is removed from the register—

    (a) the Commission shall, when considering applications made by other parties under this Part, treat the entry as if it were still contained in the register, and

    (b) the requirements of Parts III and IV shall continue to apply to the party as if it were still registered.'.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 127.
    Mr. O'Brien: The purpose of amendment No. 11 is to deal with phoenix parties. As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) pointed out in Standing Committee, it is possible that, when a party becomes defunct and ceases to be registered with the Electoral Commission, others—possibly supporters of the extinct party—may wish to use its name. In the long run, there is no reason why defunct parties should enjoy any protection. However, in the short term, the immediate assumption of a defunct party's name by a different political group—no matter how similar its views—is likely to mislead voters.
    In addition, clause 28 already requires that, where a party's entry is removed from the register, it will be required to continue to comply with the requirements of parts III and IV until the end of the financial year following that in which its entry was removed. For as long as the party continues to be subject to the supervision of the commission, there should not be another party making use of its name.
    Amendment No. 11 is intended to afford de-registered parties some continued protection against the use, or misuse, of their names. The amendment is consistent with an existing provision of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998: under section 8, the registrar must, in considering applications by other political parties for registration, treat a de-registered party as being registered for a specified period, which is set at three months from the date at which the party's entry is removed from the registers. The Bill proposes that the relevant period should
    116
    be the period during which the de-registered party remains under a duty to continue to comply with the requirements of parts III and IV.
    Amendment No. 127 amends the parliamentary election rules, which are set out in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. Its effect would be to require returning officers to send a copy of a statement to the persons nominated to the Electoral Commission. Returning officers would also need to forward to the commission a copy of any certificate issued by the nominating officer of a registered party authorising a candidate to stand in that party's name.
    Under schedule 8(3) of the Bill, a party receives an expenditure allowance of £30,000 for each constituency contested. The overall expenditure limit for a party will therefore depend on the number of candidates it stands in an election. The amendment will ensure that the Electoral Commission has the information necessary to make that calculation. I commend both amendments to the House.
    Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for having taken on board the points made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). I have one query on amendment No. 11. I realise that it prevents other political parties from making use of the name and identity of a party during the period in which the original party still has responsibilities. The Minister may be able to clarify easily the one point that is not clear to me: what would happen if a party had expressed a desire to de-register, part of that period had elapsed but, before it was completed, the party announced that it wanted to revive itself at the end of the period? At that point, if other individuals were competing with the party for registration in that name, would the party enjoy any preference?
    I should be grateful if the Minister would consider that matter. One can foresee disputes in which a party that had previously allowed its registration to lapse would believe that it was grossly unfair that it could not revive itself, if its fortunes and circumstances had changed.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: The commission will have to consider any applications. It is a material fact that the party that wanted to re-establish itself would be the same party that had previously been registered. That would seem to be an issue of which the commission would be entitled to take cognisance in reaching a decision. If that became a subject of controversy, the commission would have to determine how it wanted to proceed.
    I shall consider the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and shall examine whether there might be a reason for tabling an amendment in another place. The amendment will probably cover the matter, but I shall consider it in greater detail and if we need to make a change, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 37

    ANNUAL STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNTS
    Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 22, line 13, leave out "£1,000" and insert "£5,000".
    Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 72 to 79.
    Mr. Tipping: Clause 37 allows the Electoral Commission to prescribe different requirements, depending on the level of

    117
    their income or expenditure, as to the form and content of the annual statement of accounts prepared by registered parties and their accounting units. Small parties should be subject to a light touch, whereas larger parties with a greater income should be dealt with more thoughtfully and effectively.
    As originally drafted, the Bill set out three bands of income or expenditure: the first was up to £1,000; the second was £1,000 to £250,000; and the third was £250,000 or more. In Committee, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) argued that those bands were not appropriate and that, in effect, there should be four bands. After reflecting on the matter, we decided not to accept the solution offered by the hon. Gentleman. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 would introduce three bands that would pitch the cut-off point between the first and second band at £5,000 rather than £1,000. As a result, the intermediate band will be more clearly focused on parties and accounting units that enjoy relatively significant rates of income and expenditure, and will extend the scope for applying a lighter touch to organisations that do not.
    Amendments Nos. 73 and 76 pick up on an issue that was discussed in Committee, and will make the Bill compliant with the electronic age. They will ensure that any information received by the Electoral Commission will be in an appropriate form. We have all had the experience of computers that do not talk to one another, or of e-mails that do not arrive in the proper form. The amendments give the commission powers to ask for computer records in a legible form.
    Amendment No. 73, which inserts new subsection (3A) into clause 134, also enables a person appointed by the commission to check the operation of any computer as a guard against fraud. I may well be asked if there are precedents on this. There are similar precedents in regulations on the Gaming Board of Great Britain.
    Amendments Nos. 14 and 72 are also on the theme of access to records. In both cases, they make self-explanatory changes to ensure consistency with like provisions elsewhere in the Bill.
    Amendments Nos. 74, 75, 77 and 78 extend the Electoral Commission's supervisory powers in clause 134 to candidates at elections and the agents of such candidates. Clause 133 already provides that one of the functions of the Electoral Commission is to monitor compliance with the existing controls on candidates' election expenses. The commission cannot undertake that role effectively without appropriate powers to inspect candidates' financial records and to demand explanations relating to what the commission may find in those records. These amendments will confer such powers on the commission.
    I remind the House that the Neill committee argued, in paragraph 11.23, that
    the Electoral Commission should have the power to investigate allegations or suspicions that the existing candidate spending limits have been breached.
    It is important to point out that the Electoral Commission will investigate these matters, but if criminal proceedings are to be taken, that is a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
    That leads me to amendment No. 79, which merely tidies up the definition of a supervised organisation in clause 134(8) to make it clear that the supervisory powers in that clause are exercisable in respect of the central organisations of a party as well as its accounting units.
    118
    As has so often been the case during the Bill's passage, these amendments were suggested in other forms in Committee, and I am delighted that the Government have been able to respond, I think appropriately.
    Mr. Grieve: I shall be brief. I welcome the amendments and am grateful to the Minister for having taken note of the arguments that were made in Committee. The earlier amendments in the group are especially important. The change from £1,000 to £5,000 offers much greater scope and flexibility for very small parties. If the Bill had remained unamended, the second bracket would have extended up to quite substantial levels of party income and expenditure. We regarded that as undesirable.
    This is another example of some very sensible work taking place in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for having listened carefully and improving the Bill substantially as a result.
    Mr. Stunell: I largely echo the points that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has made. I seek reassurance from the Minister on only one aspect. The Government have changed the limits, but not in the way that we proposed in Committee. A band of income and expenditure by accounting units between £1,000 and £5,000 has been shifted down a gear, if I may put it that way, but the guidance that the Electoral Commission will publish in relation to the three bands is not yet known to us. The Electoral Commission, looking at that, might decide to introduce for the lowest band proposals that were suitable for an organisation spending £4,900, thereby making things more complex for those spending less than £1,000.
    Mr. Tipping: In Committee, and again tonight, the hon. Gentleman has emphasised the nature of Mrs. Brown in his constituency, who needs a light touch on these matters. In Committee, and tonight, I have given an assurance that the light touch will apply in the nought to £5,000 band.
    Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps I should make it clear that Mrs. Brown is the hypothetical treasurer of a very small branch of the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Evans: They are all small.
    9.45 pm
    Mr. Stunell: Voices suggest that my example is not so hypothetical. Certainly the branch's accounts are small.
    In the light of the Minister's assurance—I might return to it on another occasion for it to be repeated in even stronger form—I welcome the amendments. They offer a major reassurance. As I said in Committee, we face a problem that is parallel to the one facing school governing bodies. We are imposing more complex and onerous procedures on people who are, in essence, volunteers and who do things out of the goodness of their hearts. If we make things too difficult for them, they will stop and that will not benefit politics in this country. I welcome the Minister's assurances.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 13, in page 22, line 14, leave out "£1,000" and insert "£5,000".—[Mr. Tipping.]

  Clause 39
    SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS ABOUT AUDITORS
    Amendment made: No. 14, in page 23, line 29, after "all", insert "reasonable".—[Mr. Tipping.]
  Clause 45

    DONATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF PART IV
    Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 156, in page 27, leave out line 13.
    I do not know what Mrs. Brown would think of this amendment.
    Mr. Stunell: I can tell the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Evans: I wait with bated breath.
    The amendment deals with the provisions in clause 45 about sponsorship. Clause 45(2)(a) to (e) are fairly straightforward and deal with gifts of property and money to a party, subscriptions, fees, gifts in kind and money lent to a party. Those provisions are clearly defined.
    However, it is in clause 45(2)(e) that the Government—and not just the Government—are in a stew. Lord Neill has been unclear as to what constitutes sponsorship of a party. Pepper v. Hart was mentioned earlier, and I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to tell us clearly what constitutes sponsorship of a political party.
    As I said, the clause contains clear and unclear areas, and it is the grey areas that we should attempt to clarify. The Government have said that, under the Bill, they will not give tax concessions to people making small contributions to political parties, but all the political parties are looking for smaller donations from a wider variety of sources. That is healthier for democracy, so the provisions for sponsorship should be clarified.
    I do not believe that the Government intend to stop the Motorsport Industry Association from asking Members to drive motor racing cars for charity. However, hon. Members have to approach businesses in our constituencies to raise funds and, last year, the limit on that was £1,000. Goodness knows what it will be this year. Such approaches do not benefit the political parties as such, but there is a relationship between firms in the constituencies and individual Members of Parliament. I assume that the Government have no intention of preventing such relationships.
    The grey area is demonstrated by a letter of 17 January 2000 from the Home Secretary to Lord Neill. The Home Secretary asks for a clearer definition and refers to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is looking for clarification about the treatment of exhibition stands at party conferences. That is an issue of increasing interest to all political parties, because such stands provide a tremendous opportunity for firms to meet party representatives, councillors, Members of Parliament, Ministers and members of Her Majesty's Opposition. I cannot see any problem with that.
    The Home Secretary goes on to say in his letter that he is
    inclined to think that we ought to amend the Bill so as to clarify the matter
    120
    of exhibition stands. There is also the point about whether the stands are from a permissible source, which could affect exhibitions by the Government of Gibraltar and charities. There would perhaps be no need for shareholder approval for those stands to be made available at party conferences.
    The Home Secretary goes on to talk about the possibility that sponsorship from companies in the range of £20,000 to £40,000 a year would not need shareholder approval. Lord Neill is not so keen on that abstention, and says that over several years that could amount to a large sum.
    On stands, Lord Neill says to the Home Secretary that this
    broad sub-set of "donation" would exclude those examples of transactions that you describe in your letter as "plainly of a purely commercial character" and exhibition stands provided at or below a commercial rate.
    Lord Neill also mentions dinners where people are asked to pay large amounts of money. I do not know about other hon. Members, but when I am asked to pay about £150 to go to a dinner, I do not expect to get £150-worth of food—indeed, some of us would be hard put to eat £150-worth of food—so I expect that some of the money will be a donation to the cause concerned. In the United States it is common to have dinners that cost $1,000, $2,000 or even $5,000 a plate, where diners can listen to the President or other senior politicians. That is an interesting issue that needs to be considered.
    What constitutes a commercial rate? That is an important point. If a political party holds a big dinner, and companies buy tables at, perhaps, £500 per head, one aspect of whether that is a commercial rate is whether the contributions need shareholder approval. Brochures containing advertisements may be available at the tables, and the menu card may be sponsored. The dinner itself or individual courses may be subsidised or sponsored by a particular company. What is a commercial rate for such activity? I should like the Minister to address that question.
    At some of the dinners that I have been privileged to attend over the past few years, Lord Archer and several other people have been feted for doing auctions. That poses another problem about what is commercial, and it is a serious point. I have been at functions where a painting has been made available or someone has been commissioned to do a painting if a guest bids a sufficient sum. The painting itself may be worth £10,000 and the winning bid may be about £15,000. Does the fact that someone has offered a painting worth £10,000 count as one donation, and the fact that someone has paid £15,000 for it count as another donation, so that donations of £25,000 have been made for the same item?
    Mr. Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman turn his mind to a situation that sometimes faces the Liberal Democrats: the bid is for only £5,000?
    Mr. Evans: And that is for the entire political party! I would say that the person had been had.

    121
    Let us take another example of tickets. I was at a dinner the other day where four tickets for the England-Wales rugby game were on offer. Their face value was about 160, but much more would be bid for such scarce tickets. Indeed, ordinary punters find it difficult to get hold of them.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend explain how he manages to retain his youthful figure while going to all these dinners?
    Mr. Evans: I am sponsored by Whitbread plc—it is declared in the Register of Members' Interests—which allows me regularly to use its gym at County Hall. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be more than welcome to join me in one or two sessions.
    We need clarification of sponsorship in respect of tickets for Wimbledon or other sporting occasions—the value often vastly exceeds the face value—especially when companies have bought them. Indeed, we do not know whether it has paid over the odds in order to get hold of such tickets.
    At one Labour party conference, a famous leading supermarket sponsored the ribbons that held passes that Labour representatives and delegates wore around their necks. We do not know how much the supermarket paid for the privilege.
    Companies often sponsor forums at conferences. I remember one a couple of years ago that was sponsored by Sky, which had something to do with sport—I believe that it held such a forum at every party conference—at which food was available. Such sponsorship must be taken into account.
    Will the Minister say something about a raffle in which somebody buys many tickets? For a valuable first prize, somebody might buy a lot of tickets as a way of making a donation and circumventing some of the sensible rules and regulations proposed. We need clarification. We have tabled the amendment not to prohibit sponsorship but to clarify matters on which Lord Neill has proved inadequate. Such a grey area is enormously difficult; I look forward to the Minister's response.
    Mr. Stunell: The Committee discussed this matter on several occasions; it concerns a series of anomalies and paradoxes. There is the question of commercial value, whether scarcity should be taken into account—the auction point—and whether there could be some objective assessment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and I moved an amendment proposing that the Electoral Commission set guidelines that could be quoted as, say, alibis for valuations submitted by parties—in the absence of the availability of anything else. The Minister did not seem inclined to accept the proposal, but in the light of further expositions of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), perhaps he will bear in mind the fact that the Bill does not address significant grey areas.
    Some of the grey areas are amusing. For example, what happens if bids at auction are lower than the market value for the prize? That might be unheard of in Conservative circles, but I assure hon. Members that it is not in others. Can we have a discount? Such issues appear trivial, but we are working in the context of quite small voluntary organisations. We are not speaking of high-powered accountants and solicitors, and legal eagles working out all the rules.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  Question agreed to.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Stunell: The examples provided in Committee can be seen in the Committee record. The Minister was present and is familiar with them. It is a little disappointing not to see at this stage an amendment reflecting that discussion. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how the problem is to be tackled and give us some advice about the way ahead.
  I am not persuaded by the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, which he said was largely exploratory. We explored the issue twice in Committee and left Ministers baffled. It has been raised again, and I understand the difficulties, but progress needs to be made.
  Mr. Syms: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). There are many problems—for example, when someone with a professional background works as a volunteer for a political party and uses that professional background to give the party a valuation, legal advice, a bookie's advice or whatever it may be.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the problem of party conferences, especially the stalls at party conferences. Companies sometimes use them for advertising because they know that many members of the press are there, but it is debatable whether that is of great benefit to the party, or whether a service is being provided. Guidance is required.
  We all know that national organisations such as newspapers sponsor debates and events at party conferences. There may be a spin-off for the media, rather than for the political party. All that needs to be clarified.
  Tickets for events are another example. If a company takes a table, should that be declared, and will the political party necessarily know who buys tickets for events? Real difficulties arise in the management of such events. If a ball is arranged to which there are 1,000 tickets, and a company buys 20 tickets in the name of Mr. Jones, who happens to work for Shell, how does one know whether that should be declared?
  We need guidelines. Everyone wants to make the measure work, but we all want to ensure that everyone is operating the same system. That is the point that the Opposition are making.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have had a useful debate, which highlighted a difficult area. The view of the Neill committee was clear and firm. It recommended that the definition of a donation should include sponsorship. The Bill gives effect directly to that recommendation.

  123
  However, the debate has brought out a number of issues on which hon. Members are unclear and which merit further dialogue with the Neill committee.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister. It is clear from the Neill report that the committee thinks that sponsorship should be part of the total picture, but did the committee understand what sponsorship was?
  Mr. O'Brien: We have received assurances from the Neill committee that it did understand that. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who spoke earlier in the debate, was a member of the committee, and there were representatives on the committee from other political parties, including the Government party, so there were committee members with experience of such matters.
  It is not difficult to understand the reasons for the committee's recommendation. The committee took the view that even if the motive for providing sponsorship is different in a company's eyes from the motive for making a simple donation, the effect on the receiving political party's finances is not substantially different.
  It is difficult to draw a clear line legally between sponsorship and a simple donation. That is part of the problem. It would not take a great deal of imagination to make a substantial donation in the form of sponsorship. If there is a boundary, it lies not between sponsorship and a donation, but between sponsorship and purely commercial activity. We raised that matter in the White Paper that was published last July and, more recently, in a letter that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sent to Lord Neill. A copy of that letter and Lord Neill's reply are in the Library.
  The Government are sympathetic to the proposition that the cost of renting stands, especially at party conferences, should not be regarded as a form of sponsorship or donation. Lord Neill's reply to the Home Secretary's letter suggests a method of providing more certainty about what constitutes a donation: for example, payments for dinner plates at premium prices; and what does not: for example payment for an advertisement at commercial rates. We are closely considering that further advice from the Neill committee, with a view to introducing a clarifying amendment in another place.
  However, the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made pertinent points. Despite Lord Neill's reply, some issues require further clarification. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove pointed out, political parties are often organised by part-time volunteers. They need clarity, especially if they are at risk of breaking a law that is not sufficiently clear. The implementation of the law also needs to be practical.
  We also believed it right to consult Lord Neill on the suggestion that companies might be allowed to spend a de minimis amount on sponsorship without shareholder consent. That matter properly belongs under part IX. Clearly, that idea does not find favour with the Neill committee.
  We believe that it is not necessary to define sponsorship, and that any attempt to define it would be more likely to create confusion and, possibly, loopholes
  124
  than it would greater certainty. As clause 45 stands, a party would do well to regard any money passed to it—other than payment for goods or services provided on a commercial basis—as a donation. That is the position under the Bill, and the result that the Neill committee intended. I can understand the logic of that; it is straightforward.
  We have yet to be convinced of the necessity of removing paragraph (f) of clause 45(2). We do not support the amendment. However, we are listening, and we are anxious to have further dialogue with other parties. Parties need to discuss the issue and ascertain what would happen about the painting or the rugby or Wimbledon tickets that were mentioned. As the Bill stands, and according to the Neill committee's view, they are donations, and would have to be declared. Consequences would flow from that.
  We are thus providing for a complex accounting system, which political parties would have to undertake. Holding appropriate discussions, taking a view and discussing it with the Neill committee might be a way forward, but that is for another time. In view of the points that I have made, I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will withdraw the amendment, which he described as a probing amendment.
  Mr. Evans: All hon. Members acknowledge that there is a problem and a grey area. I suspect that there will always be grey areas, despite our attempts to define them clearly. Amendment No. 156 would remove paragraph (f) of clause 45(2). As the Minister knows, we did not intend to do that; we simply wanted clarification. Members of political parties will have to try and work through the muddle as best we can. Some grey areas will remain even after that.
  We should ensure that there is a proper mechanism so that if a problem arises about a grey area at the time of the party conferences, parties may approach the Electoral Commission for an adjudication. However, we might not want to wait two or three months for that adjudication because companies may want immediate answers before deciding whether to exhibit or organise other functions at our conferences.
  I welcome what the Minister said, but understand that the matter has been discussed a number of times as the Bill has progressed through the House. I hope that we can make speedier progress before it becomes law.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48

  PERMISSIBLE DONORS
  Mr. Linton: I beg to move amendment No. 162, in page 29, line 28, at end add—
  '(g) an individual who is by reason only of his age incapable of being included in any register of electors and is ordinarily resident in the UK.'.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 163, in page 30, line 30, at end add—
  '(10) No donation by an individual under subsection (2) (a) above may exceed £250,000 in any financial year.'.
  Mr. Linton: Amendment No. 162 would allow young people aged under 18 to give money to political parties.

  125
  Hon. Members may be surprised to know that the Bill forbids that. The list of permissible donors says that they have to be registered voters and clearly people cannot become registered voters until they reach their 18th birthday. Clause 61 disregards donations of less than £200. That is usually referred to as the de minimis rule from, I believe, the Latin de minimis non curat lex, which means something like, "The law does not concern itself with trivialities". However, we should be careful here. Calling the measure the de minimis rule does not suggest that donations by under-18s are legal, but merely that they are disregardable. Similarly, clause 61 does not say that donations under £200 are permissible, but simply that they may be disregarded.
  The minimum age for joining the Labour party is 15 and I look to Members from other parties to tell me the minimum age for joining the Young Liberal Democrats or the Young Conservatives.
  Mr. Forth: Thirty-seven.
  Mr. Linton: That is the maximum age, I think. Even the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has left the Young Conservatives by now, in years if not in spirit.
  All three main parties and other parties represented here—Plaid Cymru, I dare say—have youth movements. This is not a trivial point and it is insulting to young people that they should be included in the Bill only as an afterthought. Youth movements should be one of the first thoughts of political parties because there is enough apathy among young people already without giving under-18s who choose to join a political party the feeling that they are not even considered important enough to be declared permissible donors.
  I am not suggesting that young people should be asked for a fee of more than £200 a year to join a political party, but we should make donations from under-18s permissible, along with those from over-18s. Under-18s may want to donate more than £200 and it is not the Bill's function to make that illegal. I have made that point to my hon. Friends, who said that it is of no consequence, but it is a complete oversight that no one has realised, until this point, that the Bill does not allow such donations. I have two daughters who joined the Labour party as teenagers and I would like to protect the interests of all young people who want to join political parties. It is excellent for them to show interest in the political arena at that age and I hope that my hon. Friends will agree to the amendment simply to clarify the status of young people.
  Amendment No. 163 proposes an upper limit on permissible donations from an individual. I do not deny that £250,000 is an arbitrary figure, but any figure will be called arbitrary. The Liberal Democrats proposed £50,000 in their evidence to the Neill committee. I think that that is a bit low. I dare say that donations of £50,000 or £100,000 are all too infrequent, but they are unlikely to buy favours from a Government. We run the risk of creating that perception if we allow individual donations of more than £250,000 or £500,000. As a donations limit, £250,000 is a high figure.
  10.15 pm
  In Quebec, parties are legally not allowed to accept donations of more than $3,000, which is about £1,500.
  126
  In the United States, individuals cannot give more than £17,000 in total, which is $25,000. It is true that there are currently proposals in the US to increase that figure, but only to $50,000, which is nowhere near the figure proposed in the amendment. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Beaconsfield can give me the figure, but there is certainly a donation limit in France as well. The amendment proposes a much higher limit, because we should allow as much freedom as possible and go for the mischief in the system—the individual £1 million donations.
  In its evidence to the Neill committee, the Labour party left the issue of donations limits open. It said:
  The Labour Party invites the committee to examine the question of contribution limits and assess their implications.
  The Neill report came out against donations limits for a number of reasons. It felt that disclosure of donations above £5,000 would continue the arms race between the main parties. I find that naive if not disingenuous, because many countries have disclosure—the United States has had disclosure of donations above $100 for the past 25 years—but that has not stopped people making donations: it has merely made them more blatant. Anyone who knows anything about the United States political system will know what I mean.
  It is argued that if there were a limit on donations, it would be easy to evade it by spreading resources among friends, setting up subsidiary companies and using other such easy devices. The Bill makes it illegal to spread donations among friends or even among members of the same family. In Quebec, big companies used to be able to get round the donations limit of $3,000 by handing out money to a group of executives who would each write a personal cheque for $3,000—typically at a Liberal party lobster dinner or some such event.
  Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman is kidding.
  Mr. Linton: Indeed, yes. The Liberal party in Canada is much richer than the Liberal Democrats in this country. The electoral commission in Quebec was well up to plugging those gaps when they appeared. There will always be attempts at evasion, as with any taxation system, but it is perfectly possible to impose a donations limit and to make it stick.
  A third argument that has been used is that the proposals on tax relief, which the House discussed earlier, would encourage parties to switch from a few big donations to a large number of small ones. The Neill committee said that
  it is therefore unnecessary to introduce a new ban to produce the same result.
  The Neill committee regarded its proposal for tax relief on political donations as a substitute for an upper limit on individual donations. As the House has rejected the proposals for tax relief, the logical other side of that coin is to entertain the arguments for an upper limit on individual donations. That would be in keeping with the logic that the Neill committee used.
  The argument against a donations limit, which is in the Neill committee report, is that individuals should have the freedom to contribute to political parties, and parties should be free to compete for donations. We have seen what happens when parties compete for big donations. I only have to mention Asil Nadir, John Latsis, Li Ka-shing,

  127
  C.K. Ma and, indeed, Bernie Ecclestone. Before the election, Labour had no choice but to try to match Tory spending by seeking large donations. Now we are in government and introducing a Bill on the subject. Not only Labour Members but the whole House have a chance to close that door for ever and to ban funding of political parties in this country by individual millionaires.
  The amendment deals simply with individual donations because I do not think that corporate donations of more than £1 million from, for example, trade unions or companies are necessarily a problem. It is individual donations that render parties vulnerable to corruption or to the perception of corruption. No matter how well intentioned, a party that relies on individual £1 million donations will always feel beholden to the millionaire donor, will always feel nervous of offending that person, and will always feel anxious not to jeopardise the possibility of another donation.
  After the last election, many people said, "Thank goodness. Never again will we see political parties funded in that way." Many of the electorate felt that, with the election, we were turning a new leaf and that there would be a new chapter in which such funding would never need to occur again. Even at this late hour, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will see that funding is the crux of the Bill and that, if we do not close that door, we will not have completed the task that we have set ourselves in the Bill. It is a question not just of the size of donations, but of the vulnerability of political parties.
  Mr. Walter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Linton: No, I am just finishing my remarks. I am sorry.
  It is a question of the perception in the public's mind of corruption. The Bill should deal with those issues.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) has raised two interesting amendments, although I am slightly more interested in, and possibly sympathetic to, one than the other. Perhaps I can start with the one with which I have some sympathy, albeit that I do not think that it necessarily goes as far as he would wish: amendment No. 162.
  There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has identified what might potentially be a problem with the Bill. Notwithstanding the comment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the minimum age, in practice, of membership of the Young Conservatives, I believe that we admit persons over the age of 15 to membership of the party. They would be incapable of making a donation of more than £200.
  The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—whether a donation of under £200 from an impermissible donor is ipso facto permissible. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments about that. In reality, it never has to be declared, so it would never be identified, but the hon. Member for Battersea certainly has a point. If the Bill
  128
  criminalises the acceptance of a donation of £5 from a 16-year-old for his annual membership of the Conservative party, that will pose a problem.
  Mr. Tipping indicated dissent.
  Mr. Grieve: I see the Minister shaking his head, approving of my view that that is not what the Bill does. In those circumstances, I am disinclined to go along with the amendment.
  One point emerged during consideration of the Bill in Committee. The Government were able to justify denying the right to make donations to all who were not on the electoral register because if one started to allow other categories, as Lord Neill suggested—I think without his committee really applying its mind to the consequences—it would create enormous bureaucratic problems of validating donors. Therefore, unless the Minister can persuade me that such a provision would not cause such problems—I do not know why it should not cause them—I would not be in favour of complicating the issue.
  We might reasonably consider another issue. Although I certainly think that persons under 18 who do not have the vote should be encouraged to make small donations to political parties, I am not sure that it would be in the public interest for young people to be encouraged to make very substantial donations to political parties. Although that is perhaps a more esoteric point, I think that it is perfectly proper for the House to say that the donation limit should stick at £200, which—in view of the Bill's other provisions—is where it will be in reality.
  The hon. Member for Battersea also expressed his concern—I was about to call it the bee in his bonnet, but that would perhaps be very slightly unfair—to establish £250,000 as the absolute maximum that an individual may give annually in political donations. The logic of his argument was very difficult to follow. At one point, he told us that he thought that, although it was inherently corrupting to allow donations of more than £250,000 from an individual, it was not inherently corrupting to allow such donations from a company. That beggars belief.
  If a company is paying huge sums to a political party, it might be said that it was doing so for corrupt purposes, allowing the company to promote its self-advantage and interests. Moreover, it would be difficult to dissociate such potentially huge donations from companies from donations from individuals.
  Mr. Linton: The point that I was seeking to make is that if a company gives a donation, it has to conduct a ballot of all its shareholders to allow it to do so. Before a trade union makes a donation, every one of its members has to vote in a political fund ballot. In those cases, a decision to make a donation, or to change that decision, can be taken only collectively by a large group of people. The decision to turn on and off the tap does not rest in one person's hands. That is what is different about individual donations.
  Mr. Grieve: I find the hon. Gentleman's argument on that point a little flawed. Although a private company may have shareholders, the shareholders may be only two or three in number. Therefore, in reality it seems unlikely that there will always be shareholder control over decisions by a private company to make donations.

  129
  Moreover, private companies, if they are incorporated in the United Kingdom, may frequently be vehicles for perfectly legitimate donations of substantial sums.
  The Bill currently allows—we have not considered the issue on Report, but may well have to return to it later—donations by certain categories of European Union company that do not require shareholder approval at all. Therefore, it seems extremely optimistic to think that such an approach will provide proper control or an ability to remove the possible taint of corruption.
  The other reason why we should not believe that it would be desirable to make amendment No. 163 is that the electorate themselves will make their decision. The hon. Member for Battersea has criticised—implicitly, if not explicitly—the Labour party for accepting, since it came to office, substantial individual donations exceeding the £250,000 limit. However, he has not yet told us that, consequently, he will not support the Government at the next general election.
  Mr. Linton: As I said, before the previous general election, the Labour party and other parties had no choice but to seek donations to match those received by the Conservative party.
  Mr. Grieve: Surely that is the point. As long as there is transparency about the source of gifts, the electorate—through the media, which will undoubtedly thoroughly investigate those matters—will indicate very precisely their view on whether it is proper for a political party to accept such donations. In Committee, some Labour Members argued that the Conservative party was damaged by the donations that it received in the early 1990s. That is a legitimate argument. If we follow that line of reason, the electorate showed their disapproval of the donations from those individuals.
  10.30 pm
  However, just as the electorate may disapprove, they may also be entitled to approve of such donations. Philanthropists prepared to give substantial sums of money from undoubtedly high motives do exist. It is an essential part of our civil liberties that individuals should be allowed to dispose of their money as they see fit. Whatever may happen in other countries, it is wrong to put a fetter on that.
  The hon. Member for Battersea asked what the limit was on political donations in France. I am ignorant of the ceiling there. Indeed, I was not aware that there was such a limit, but I accept what he says. However, French politics has suffered over the years from serious examples of corruption both by individuals seeking their own ends and by corporations—there has been a lot about that in the French press recently. If such limits exist, they do not seem to have had any impact on improving the standing of politicians in that country. That is another reason why we should reject the amendment.
  Mr. Stunell: I take almost exactly the opposite view to that of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve): I think that the first amendment is mistaken and the second is desirable. I shall set out my case briefly.
  If I were a millionaire living in—to take a country at random—Belize and had sent my son to Eton, I might give him a Christmas present of, let us say, £1 million. If,
  130
  when we got to somewhere near Easter, he made a voluntary decision to make a donation to a political party of, let us say—picking a random number—1 million, it would be permitted under the amendment. I doubt whether that is what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) intends. That should be sufficient to cause him to seek to withdraw it.
  A donation of £200 is an adequate and sensible limit for those under 18. We might want to raise that limit in the future, but not now. For the record, I have taken advice and I believe that the minimum age for membership of the Liberal Democrats is 14. We are certainly on the record as wanting a voting age of 16, so in due course we shall want to move towards what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, but at the moment his amendment would do what we have tried to guard against: it would create a loophole for one situation that provided a gap through which the less scrupulous could march with impunity. He has made a nice case, but he has left an enormous loophole.
  The Liberal Democrats have argued for a ceiling on individual donations. Speaking personally, I should like a ceiling on donations from other sources as well, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield However, amendment No. 163 is better than no amendment, so it finds favour with the Liberal Democrats. Amendment No. 162 certainly does not.
  Mr. Miller: To answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the limit in France is 50,000 francs. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the situation across Europe and consider the contradictions in the pattern of funding from individuals and corporate donors. It seems to me that further research is needed. The reliance on European Commission decision 270\83 against France on the question of corporate donors must be examined further, as it covers insurance companies, not political parties. There is no pattern to the donations by companies, trade unions and individuals: the matter is a complete hotch-potch. I accept the integrity of the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, but the amendment does not stand up in the context of clause 48.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to study clause 48 again, as some significant improvements could be made. If the decision in case 270\83 were rejected, the clause could be tightened satisfactorily.
  Mr. Tipping: Amendment No. 163 takes us back to familiar territory, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) pushed the case for it hard in Committee. Amendment No. 162 breaks new ground and, although members of the Committee will remember that its subject was discussed in passing, this is the first time that the House has had the opportunity to discuss it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea pointed out that people under 18 cannot be permissible donors, but he readily acknowledged that, under the de minimis provisions, a young person under 18 could contribute £200. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked whether a £5 subscription fee would be included in that £200. I can tell him that it would.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) described the £200-limit as adequate and sensible, and I agree. As I see it, the only point of amendment No. 162

  131
  would be that it would allow young people under 18 to contribute sums greater than that. I heard some Labour Members comment that any young people who wanted to do that must be off their heads. However, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield made the more serious point that, under the Bill, people must be on the electoral register before they can contribute to a party. To break that link by accepting the amendment would be a step too far. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 163 has attracted much argument both in Committee and in the House this evening. If there is to be a limit on donations, what should it be? The Government's libertarian view, supported by the Neill committee, is that people should be entitled to spend money as they think fit. I agree with that principle.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea was sceptical, to put it mildly, about whether the new reporting provisions would bring about a change in climate. The Bill is about transparency and honesty. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what has happened with the Register of Members' Interests. As the reporting requirements have become more onerous, hon. Members have become more careful about what they do and what they receive.
  It is widely accepted that the Bill will bring about changes in culture and in attitudes. All hon. Members support the notion that political parties should look for smaller donations, and that they should not rely on large donations. The attitude of the press and the public means that large donations will always be questioned. There is nothing wrong with them, but I think that the public will see them as suspicious, feeling that no one gives large sums for nothing. I do not think that the £250,000 cap is necessary.
  Mr. Walter: Does the Minister agree that there is something slightly incongruous in the placing of a £250,000 limit on donations made by "permissible donors" to British political parties, when, under the European convention on human rights, foreigners are allowed to make contributions of up to £500,000 as third parties in general elections and as permitted participants in referendums?
  Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman is following the path of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). I understand that his amendment has not been selected, and that he has used this as a peg on which to hang his point.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield said that hon. Members might want to pursue the issue, which does, I think, involve some uncomfortableness and tension, and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that we shall consider what he said.
  Ultimately, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said that £250,000 was an arbitrary limit, and I agree. I think it right, in this context, for us to be judged on and guided by what the Neill committee said, and I think it right to maintain a libertarian spirit.
  Given all that, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Linton: My hon. Friend the Minister defends a £200 maximum for teenagers, but rejects a £250,000
  132
  maximum for over-18s. I would rather liberate teenagers and restrain millionaires; but, as I am clearly getting nowhere with that argument, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 15, in page 29, line 32, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 55

  REPORTS TO BE MADE BY REGISTERED PARTIES
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 35, line 14, at end insert—
  '(10A) However, for the purposes of subsections (3) to (7) in their application in relation to the central organisation and any year by virtue of subsection (10), any donation—

  (a) which is accepted from a permissible donor by any of the accounting units during that year, but

  (b) which is not required to be recorded under subsection (4) or (6) (as they apply by virtue of subsection (10)) as a donation accepted by the accounting unit.

  shall be treated as a donation accepted from the donor during that year by the central organisation.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 94, 95 and 17 to 21.
  Mr. O'Brien: Last summer's White Paper said that a disclosable donation should include a series of donations, which together total £5,000 or more, from a single source, made either to the central party organisation or to a number of accounting units, or to both, within the same year. Clause 55 as it stands does not meet that objective; amendment No. 16 will remedy the deficiency.
  Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 make consequential amendments to schedule 5, which details the information that a party must submit to the Electoral Commission in its donation reports. Where the new aggregation rule applies, a party will declare the donations as if they had been accepted by the central organisation of the party. That will avoid the bureaucracy of having to record in a donation report each and every accounting unit to which a donor has made his or her donations.
  Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 are essentially technical amendments to clause 59. The clause sets out the form of the declaration that a registered treasurer must make when submitting a quarterly or weekly donation report to the Electoral Commission. Subsection (2) is defective as it stands, in that the terms of the declaration do not fit the case of a treasurer making a nil return—that is, a return stating that there were no recordable donations in the period concerned. Amendment No. 21 therefore introduces a new subsection (2A), which sets out the form of the declaration to be returned in such circumstances.
  Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 are paving amendments for amendment 21. Amendment No. 17 is a drafting amendment. The substance of clause 58(8) is already covered in clause 57(9), so the former provision is unnecessary.
  Mr. Walter: The amendments reflect the spirit of the Standing Committee, where a number of proposals were made and a number of flaws in the Bill identified. The substance of the amendments does not concern me

  133
  greatly; many are consequential and drafting amendments. However, I was somewhat surprised by amendment No. 94, which inserts "(i)" and by amendment No. 95, which inserts a provision beginning with "(ii)". I thought that something was slightly odd, because paragraph 4 of schedule 5 appears to contain two sub-paragraphs (a). The Minister might also like to consider that as a drafting amendment at a later stage. Otherwise, we are relatively content with the amendments.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I will certainly consider that.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5

  DETAILS TO BE GIVEN IN DONATION REPORTS
  Amendments made: No. 90, in page 109, line 5, leave out—
  'the following provisions of this paragraph'
  and insert—
  'sub-paragraphs (2) to (8) and (10) below'.
  No. 91, in page 109, line 8, at end insert—
  'or, in the case of a donation falling within sub-paragraph (9) below, the information required by that sub-paragraph.'.
  No. 92, in page 109, line 38, leave out "falling within section 48(4)(a)" and insert—
  'to which section (Payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors)(2) applies'.
  No. 93, in page 109, line 39, at end insert—
  '(10) In the case of a donation to which section (Payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors)(3) applies, the report must give the full name and address of the donor.'.
  No. 94, in page 110, line 5, after "report)", insert—
  '(i)"
  No. 95, in page 110, line 6, at end insert—
  ', or
  (ii) in the case of a donation to which section 55(10A) applies, indicate that it is a donation which falls to be treated as made to the party by virtue of that provision.'.
  No. 96, in page 110, line 6, at end insert—
  "(1A) In the case of a donation to which section (Payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors) (3) applies, the report must in addition give—

  (a) the date or dates on or between which the visit to which the donation relates took place, and

  (b) the destination and purpose of the visit.'.—[Mr. Pope.]

  Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 110, line 20, after "each", insert "recordable".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 101, 102, 137, 32, 33, 107, 108, 57, 64, 112, 113, 115 to 117 and 83.
  Mr. Tipping: The amendments are merely minor technical and drafting points. I would of course be happy to respond to any specific points-dotted i's, small a's, or any other ways in which the Bill can be improved.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 58

  SUBMISSION OF DONATION REPORTS TO COMMISSION
  Amendment made: No. 17, in page 38, line 3, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
  '(8) Section 57(9) applies for the purposes of this section.'.—[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 59

  DECLARATION BY TREASURER IN DONATION REPORT
  Amendments made: No. 18, in page 38, line 10, after "(2)", insert ", (2A)".
  No. 19, in page 38, line 11, after "55", insert—
  '(other than one making a nil return)'.
  No. 20, in page 38, line 19, leave out "so".
  No. 21, in page 38, line 19, at end insert—
  '(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) a return under section 55 makes a nil return if it contains such a statement as is mentioned in subsection (9) of that section; and in the case of such a report the declaration must state that, to the best of the treasurer's knowledge and belief—

  (a) that statement is accurate; and

  (b) during the reporting period no donations from any person or body other than a permissible donor has been accepted by the party.'.—[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 62

  REGISTER OF RECORDABLE DONATIONS
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 40, line 2, after "6" insert "(a) or (c)".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 56, 70 and 123.
  Mr. O'Brien: The amendments merely ensure public access to information. I hope that they will have the support of the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 23, in page 40, line 5, at end insert—
  'and (in the case of a donation falling within sub-paragraph (1A) of that paragraph) the details given in pursuance of that sub-paragraph.'—[Mr. Pope.]
  Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
  Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Milk Development Council (Amendment) Order 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Question agreed to.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Question agreed to.

  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE ON ACCOUNT 2000–01
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, at the sitting on 14th March, Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply as if the words '(aa) supplementary votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Multiple Sclerosis
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
10.48 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: It is a little over a year since I last secured an Adjournment debate on the subject of multiple sclerosis. The Minister of State who is responding this evening responded to that debate as well.
At the outset of this short debate, I must declare an interest. I now have the privilege of serving as the honorary president of the Sutton branch of the Multiple Sclerosis Society.
What has happened in the past year? In my Adjournment debate last year, we learned that the Government were minded to refer beta interferon to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and that referral has taken place. The result is that those with the secondary progressive form of MS are left in limbo, waiting to see whether the drug will clear the affordability hurdle. Those with relapsing-remitting MS are waiting to see whether the goalposts will be moved for them too.
In the meantime, postcode prescribing continues. Where people live still matters more than the criteria used to assess whether they are eligible for beta interferon treatment. Just two in every 100 of the United Kingdom multiple sclerosis population receive beta interferon. The European average, by contrast, is 12 in 100. Even given the criteria published by the previous Government in executive letter 95/97, which set out eligibility for access to beta interferon for those with relapsing-remitting MS, people who qualify do not receive the drug.
I want to draw attention not only to the drug, but to the services surrounding MS. A survey undertaken last year found that six out of 10 health authorities could not estimate or had not estimated how many people might benefit from beta interferon. Those that had made an estimate found that fewer than half of those who could benefit were being prescribed beta interferon. It is nothing short of a scandal that prescribing is so low, and left so much to chance.
Beta interferon is not the only matter on which MS sufferers face a postcode lottery. Support services that help them to manage their symptoms are similarly affected. In November 1998, a group of senior neurologists signed a statement that made clear their concern about the availability of MS health services. The signatories included leading specialists in MS who work in neurology centres across the country. They declared:
We believe that the National Health Service has failed to respond adequately to the needs of people with MS and that services for them, with some shining exceptions, are seriously deficient in most parts of the country.
A year later, Ministers announced that they would introduce national guidelines on the management of MS in England and Wales. Last Wednesday, the Multiple Sclerosis Society organised a mass lobby of Parliament to press for action on services and for an end to postcode prescribing. More than 1,000 people made the trip to Westminster to lobby their Members of Parliament. I am sure that the lobby will have done much to raise awareness among Members, but I hope that Ministers

137
have taken note of it too. Those people said—certainly those from my constituency to whom I spoke said—that the issue will not go away.
The catalyst for my debate last year was a constituency case. In February 1999, Josephine Timms wrote to me, saying:
I am 39 years old. I have a husband and two sons, one aged 12, and the other 9. At the end of July 1998 I was diagnosed as having Multiple Sclerosis. The initial expectation was that I would have an attack, and then it might be several years until I suffered a further one. This was regrettably not the case. I had two further very bad "episodes" which have left me disabled.
I became quite involved in the case, and it took many letters over a long time, from Josephine and from me, before the local health authority finally realised even that she was resident in the area and therefore its responsibility. At that point, she was finally referred for assessment by neurologists.
I am delighted to tell the House that Josephine started a course of beta interferon on 24 February. However, in a recent letter, she summed up matters as follows:
All I need is a little bit of time to see my two young sons grow into men when they don't need their mummy quite so much. Hopefully this treatment will buy me that time.
Buying time is what beta interferon can do. It is not a cure, but for Mrs. Timms and thousands like her it is the light at the end of a very long tunnel.
Josephine's case highlighted not just the availability of the drug, but the lack of planning and support services for people with MS. MS leads to a range of complex symptoms that usually worsen over time. Symptoms include problems with mobility, spesech impairment, memory loss, incontinence, pain, spasticity and extreme fatigue. As a result, a variety of health care services are necessary for effective management of MS, including occupational therapy, speech therapy and continence care. Because of the illness's progressive nature, there is a need for patients to be properly monitored so that they can receive appropriate medical and social care for their needs at a given time.
A significant number of patients do not receive specialist advice after they have been diagnosed. After diagnosis, many types of information are relevant to people with MS, such as information about disability discrimination rights, social security entitlement and symptom management. However, for many people with MS, that information is not signposted. A survey of 16,000 people with MS throughout the UK, conducted in 1999, found that more than eight out of 10 respondents were not given written information about MS to take away and read when they were diagnosed.
General practitioners will encounter few MS patients during their professional careers, and they cannot therefore reasonably be expected to gain a high level of understanding of managing MS. The lack of specialist MS care can result in some people with MS developing unnecessary complications.
One form of specialist care is the development of MS nursing. At the Manchester royal infirmary, patients can take advantage of such specialist nursing services. People with MS and their carers are able to receive information and counselling from the time of diagnosis onwards. That nursing service also monitors the condition of vulnerable
138
patients in the community and can intervene to prevent patients from developing serious complications, such as urinary tract infections.
An evaluation of the impact of MS nursing in Manchester showed that in-patient admissions for some patients fell because of the service. However, Multiple Sclerosis Society research showed that eight out of 10 MS patients do not have access to such specialist nursing.
Closer to home, I have been told by the chief executive of the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority that there are no specific budget or policies for the care of people with MS. There is no disease register for people diagnosed with MS in my health authority district. How can sensible planning be undertaken when we have no idea of the prevalence of a disease? However, to be fair, many members of the Sutton branch of the Multiple Sclerosis Society have been enthusiastic in their praise of Atkinson Morley's hospital and its assessment clinics and staff.
Looking beyond my patch, evidence from local health decision makers reinforces my concern about the quality of MS services. In last year's debate, I referred to the 1998 survey carried out by the Association of Quality in Healthcare; its findings were disturbing. In 1999, the survey was repeated. It found major gaps in MS provision across the country.
The total population in the areas of authorities responding to the survey was 27 million. Six out of 10 of the health authorities that responded had no separate contract for MS services. Only two authorities in 100 had issued a consultation document on MS services. A third had held no consultations before setting out its MS policy. That is despite the fact that health authorities have a duty to consult their local population before commissioning services. Only 23 per cent. of authorities specified the range of services that must be provided by clinicians.
In March last year, I asked the Government for their response to the AQH survey. Finally, in October, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) wrote to me. The letter stated:
Turning to the Association for Quality in Healthcare (AQH)'s report on Health Authorities' approaches to MS, the Department has not followed this up specifically.
Why not? Lack of planning and lack of consultation leave health authorities ill equipped to commission services for MS sufferers.
In 1997, the Multiple Sclerosis Society conducted a major symptom management survey of people with MS. The sample of 223 people with MS included people of different ages and degrees of disability. It also looked at people who had suffered from the illness for different periods of time. In particular, the survey found that only 8 per cent. of people were seeing rehabilitation specialists.
A more recent survey of 150 MS patients conducted by the National hospital for neurology and neurosurgery found that only one third of people with severe disabilities were seeing a physiotherapist. When will the new guidelines, promised last November, be published? What status will they have? What resources will they command?
Beta interferon has been shown to reduce the number of MS relapses by an average of one third in a year. Fewer

139
relapses mean fewer hospital admissions and a better quality of life. The drug can reduce not only the number of relapses, but their severity.
I have several points to make. First, services that treat symptoms are no substitute for drug therapy that treats the disease. Nursing cannot slow the progression of the disease—beta interferon can do so.
Secondly, Ministers have said that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will need to assess whether the drug can be better targeted. Can the Minister assure the House that targeting will not lead to a catch-22 situation? The current guidance on beta interferon already targets the drug. Only MS sufferers who have had two relapses during the past two years are considered. The search for better ways to target the drug should not be used as a way of denying it completely.
Thirdly, NICE has the option of recommending a clinical trial to address outstanding research questions, such as effective targeting and the results of combining the drug with other therapies. Clinical trials can make a valuable contribution to our understanding of MS and how best to treat it. However, does the Minister agree that it would be ethically unacceptable for MS patients to have access to beta interferon only by joining a clinical trial?
The rules governing clinical trials usually insist that patients have a real choice to enter a trial. That is particularly the case where the treatment is experimental and could damage the patient's health. However, in the case of beta interferon the drug is licensed for both forms of MS. Many neurologists wish to use the drug because, in their clinical judgment, it will benefit their patients. However, if the only way for someone like my constituent Josephine to get the drug is through a clinical trial, she really has Hobson's choice. For her, the drug buys time for herself and for her young family.
Although I am delighted for Josephine that she is now receiving the drug, many thousands of other people just like Josephine are waiting for the drug; and this Hobson's choice gives just a 50:50 chance of obtaining the drug, because such trials, obviously, are placebo controlled.
Many neurologists regard the recruiting of people for such a trial as unethical. The MS research group of the Association of British Neurologists found that the majority of neurologists would not recruit patients with relapsing-remitting MS on to a one-to-one placebo trial. A United Kingdom trial would be ethical only if the drug was available to be prescribed outside the trial.
I should like to know what the Government's position is. In August 1999, 54 neurologists wrote to the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), to protest about the rationing of beta interferon. In his reply on 15 October 1999, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for lichen said:
appraisal by NICE may in turn help to identify some of the issues which could subsequently form the basis for ethically valid research.
Can the Minister confirm that the reference to ethics in that letter means that the Government accept that a placebo-controlled trial of beta interferon in the UK would be unethical?
140
In conclusion, MS patients are dealt with in a very disorganised and unsystematic way. In many cases, follow-up of diagnosed patients is poor. As a result, many patients with relapsing-remitting MS are left to deal with their attacks in the absence of medical help, with only an untrained and hard-pushed relative as a carer.
There is an astonishing lack of understanding about MS, its various forms and the implications for patients of having the disease, at all levels in the NHS and beyond it, in social care. What is needed is a well-planned and properly delivered service for MS patients. It is in that context that the best returns are likely to be achieved from beta interferon.
I should like the Minister to answer two questions tonight. First, when will the new guidelines be ready? Secondly, do the Government accept that a placebo-controlled trial of beta interferon in the UK would be unethical?
I want to finish with a further quote from my constituent Josephine Timms.
I appreciate that Beta interferon is not a cure but I see it as the light at the end of a very long tunnel, which has taken up so much of my time and valuable energy.
What happens to the people like Josephine who do not have the energy and persistence to chase and cajole both their MP and their health authority to get the drug and other support? It is those people who do not have that energy who need some answers from the Government.
11.3 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I start by once again—we have been here before—congratulating the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on bringing forward this subject for our debate tonight. The hon. Gentleman has shown on many occasions that he takes a close interest in these issues, as many hon. Members do, and his knowledge and understanding of some of these issues clearly showed in his comments.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that multiple sclerosis is one of the most common diseases of the central nervous system. It is estimated to affect between 80,000 and 90,000 people in the United Kingdom. Multiple sclerosis can be very difficult to diagnose and treat, and at present there is no conclusive diagnostic test. The symptoms experienced by patients can be symptomatic of many other conditions.
Multiple sclerosis often strikes people when they are young adults—the peak age of onset is between 20 and 40—and is thought to arise from damage to the myelin sheath around nerve fibres that help conduct nerve impulses efficiently through the central nervous system. When such damage happens, disabilities can vary from impairment to speech, vision and movement to incontinence, as the hon. Gentleman said, or even severe paralysis.
The disease course in multiple sclerosis is unpredictable. People most often present initially with relapsing-remitting MS, in which relapses or acute attacks of neurological disability are followed by periods of remission. Later, as chronic problems accumulate, the disease may become more progressive, with more acute relapses. Management of MS therefore involves treatment

141
of relapses caused by increased disease activity, and a care programme to minimise and control specific problems such as spasticity, bowel and bladder problems.
The different phases of the disease mean that people with MS have a wide range of health and other needs and that these needs, particularly for health care, will not remain static but will nearly always change over time. Patients with long-term conditions such as MS therefore require different levels of support and health care at different times. Most health authorities now have procedures in place to ensure that people with MS receive the treatment and care that they need.
Everybody, wherever they live, expects fair access to the most effective treatments, and the Government are taking steps to improve consistency. The new policies are designed to improve the quality of care and treatment that the NHS offers its users, to improve access and equality, and to ensure that service users have a greater say in what services are provided and how they are delivered.
There are now real opportunities to develop innovative care approaches for people with long-term care needs. We have introduced long-term service agreements built on pathways of care. The agreements will link primary care, secondary care and social care where appropriate. We expect that to be a better approach for people with long-term conditions such as MS. Discussions about care pathways will involve users and carers as well as health service professionals. Care pathways are expected to include an appropriate range of preventive, diagnostic, palliative, rehabilitative and supporting care components that are intended to produce an integrated programme of care for the individual service user. The care pathway approach will be particularly helpful for long-term medical conditions where, following accurate and timely diagnosis, a patient's care will generally be managed outside an acute setting. That is likely to be the case for many neurological conditions, including MS.
The development of such pathways reinforces the need for seamless working between health, social services and other agencies such as those involved in housing. People with illnesses such as MS know only too well how failures to deliver the right package of care can produce frustration and unnecessary difficulties in the daily activities of living. The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems that his constituent has experienced, and we take those issues very seriously.
Solving such long-standing problems means that care agencies must work more closely together to ensure that treatment and support systems operate in ways that help people to lead active lives. That includes making sure that they are able to work as long as possible—retaining people with health problems in their jobs is another priority for the Government. Health and social services are expected to play their part in helping people to stay at work as part of our welfare to work programme. The flexibilities created by the Health Act 1999 will enable health and social services partners to provide more joined-up care to MS sufferers and other groups of patients. I very much hope that health and local authorities, including those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, take advantage of the new opportunities.
I know that some NHS services in the recent past have been the cause of concern to voluntary organisations dealing with neurological disease. Indeed, last year, the
142
Multiple Sclerosis Society published "A Survey of Multiple Sclerosis Provision in England 1998–99". The survey was designed to establish how commissioners approach provision of MS services and to build a picture of service provision in England. It is true to say, as the hon. Gentleman did, that a somewhat mixed picture of MS service provision emerged.
The Multiple Sclerosis Society organised a very successful lobby of Parliament last Wednesday where it highlighted some of the results of a forthcoming survey on community provision, which is expected in the summer. I understand that the survey shows that as many as one in four people with MS do not receive any community care services at all and that a majority did not receive either written information or specialist support at the time of diagnosis. That is clearly unacceptable, and I hope that that is not the case with people who have been diagnosed recently. The society has, together with people with MS and the National hospital, also developed comprehensive guidance on standards for the provision of health care for people with MS.
Other changes, such as the introduction of a small number of regionally commissioned specialist services and the move towards primary care group commissioning, have raised further anxieties among neurological voluntary organisations that neurological services will not receive proper attention during the new commissioning process and that the services might be commissioned by people with insufficient knowledge of neurology to ensure that services meet neurological patients' needs.
To address those anxieties, a compendium of good practice on the commissioning of neurological services is being developed. The compendium is pulling together all the good practice that has been produced by many of the voluntary organisations in the neurological field and will act as a single, succinct source of information for health care commissioners.
Mr. Burstow: On this issue, as with all the developments that the Minister has outlined so far, groups outside the House will most want to hear about time scales. When will the compendium be ready?
Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that I cannot be specific about when the compendium will be available. Obviously, I hope that it will be ready as soon as possible. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that a lot of work has to go into that, and obviously the only point in drawing up a compendium is to get it out to the health service as soon as possible. We do not initiate such projects simply to amuse ourselves; we do it for a purpose, which is to improve the commissioning of health services. We have actively engaged neurological voluntary organisations such as the MS Society in that work and they have made a substantial contribution to its development.
As I have already said, the commissioning compendium has direct patient involvement in its development. Such involvement has always reflected best practice, and now the Government are seeking to make it standard practice, not just in the development of national policy but in the commissioning of local services. I am pleased that the MS Society is working with the NHS to develop specialist MS nursing schemes.

143
The hon. Gentleman did not refer to research—I perfectly understand why—which is important in supporting the policy developments for which he and others are calling. He will be aware that the Medical Research Council spent approximately £640,000 on multiple sclerosis in 1998–99. The MRC also gives considerable additional amounts to fund basic underpinning research on issues such as nerve function and damage, which are not included in the figure of £640,000.
Another area of considerable interest to many people with MS is the therapeutic use of cannabis. The Department of Health supports the evaluation of the therapeutic use of cannabis by clinical trial, and is working closely with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to put research on to a better scientific footing. In the short term, that has led to an MRC grant of almost £1 million being awarded to the neurology department of Plymouth hospital NHS trust to undertake a multiple randomised controlled trial of cannabinoids on spasticity in multiple sclerosis. The trial will recruit 660 patients with MS from throughout the country who have significant spasticity in some of their leg muscles. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that it will be the largest single study of symptom treatment in MS ever undertaken in this country.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear also that we are supporting a particularly important study being undertaken by Dr. Jeremy Hobart of the Institute of Neurology. Its aim is to develop a patient-based measure of outcome in patients with MS for use in clinical trials and clinical audit. To guarantee that the measure is appropriate and clinically useful, MS patients are central to the development process. The project is costing some £160,000. It started on 1 November 1997 and is due to end this April. The overall aim of the health technology assessment programme is to ensure that high-quality research information, cost-effectiveness and the broader impact of health technologies are properly assessed.
Mr. Burstow: The Minister is further illuminating the subject, and I am grateful for that. Would the Government regard it as unethical to have a clinical trial that effectively ring-fenced the prescribing of beta interferon so that it was not available outside the trial?
Mr. Hutton: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will come on to what NICE is doing about that. If I do not get to that point by the end of play, I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman and give him the details that he seeks.
In the light of the progressively expanding evidence base, the health technology assessment programme has gone on to commission secondary research in the broader field of MS treatment. In consultation with clinical neurologists and representatives of the Multile Sclerosis Society, reviews are being commissioned on the five topic areas identified as being of greatest clinical, patient and policy concern.
144
There are other funding streams that we make available to support work in that general area, including funding that we make available directly to the Multiple Sclerosis Society, under the section 64 scheme. We are funding several projects, one of which involves developing and maintaining databases on MS treatment and trials so that clear and authoritative information can be given to people with MS.
The hon. Gentleman spent most of his time talking about problems surrounding the availability of beta interferon. I want to address the concerns that he and many other hon. Members have expressed in recent debates in the House.
The Government have a substantial agenda of work in place that is designed to improve the quality of treatment offered by the NHS. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that includes setting up NICE, the introduction of clinical governance and improving the way in which the NHS commissions and uses research. However, we of course recognise that the licensing and prescribing of beta interferon is an issue of concern.
I understand that evidence is that beta interferon drugs reduce the rate of relapses in relapsing-remitting MS by some 30 per cent.—the hon. Gentleman referred to that—on average in a range from 14 to 44 per cent. Betaferon was licensed for treating secondary progressive MS on the basis of evidence that, if used for three years, it might delay disease progression by up to one year.
Clinicians treating patients and those advising health authorities on their overall policy need to take account of both the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of beta interferon. It appears that there is evidence that some patients with relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive forms of multiple sclerosis can benefit from the use of beta interferon, but that, sadly, those short-term improvements are temporary. The cost of beta interferon treatment is estimated at approximately £10,000 a year per patient.
Let me make it clear that the Government are committed to improving standards of health care and to ensuring that, when newer treatments, including new medicines such as beta interferon, represent a genuine therapeutic advance and are cost-effective, they are introduced into the national health service as fast as possible. In fact, beta interferon has taken on an even higher profile since its licence was extended to the treatment of secondary progressive MS at the beginning of last year.
Not surprisingly, the licensing of beta interferon has for the first time given people with MS some hope that there might be a pharmaceutical remedy for their condition. However, it is terribly important that no one raises any false expectations about the ability of beta interferon or any other drug to combat MS. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he made that point clearly, too. Beta interferon is not a cure for multiple sclerosis; there is no cure for MS.
Evidence from trials on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of beta interferon appears to many commentators to be far from clearcut. That is why different health authorities and their clinicians are arriving at different conclusions, which can result in differences in the pattern of provision of beta interferon. That is exactly

145
why we have asked NICE to carry out an authoritative appraisal of the evidence. The work of NICE is the common-sense way in which to end the variations that the Conservatives' internal market did so much to create.
The great advantage of NICE is that it brings together the expertise not just of clinicians, but of managers and of patient groups, in order to make an authoritative assessment of evidence emerging from trials. NICE guidance will support front-line clinicians and help to reduce the confusion, which I am perfectly prepared to
146
accept currently exists. I obviously cannot pre-empt what NICE will conclude, but I think that it is undisputed that the NHS should seek to use its resources to achieve the greatest possible health gain for patients. With this in mind—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list those Regulatory Impact Assessments published during the latest six month period. [114551]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are necessary, give effective protection, balance cost and risk, are fair and command public confidence. In accordance with this, we require Departments to produce and publish Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) for all regulatory proposals likely to have an impact on business.

  I have presented to Parliament today a Command Paper listing 78 RIAs published between 1 July and 31 December 1999. Copies of those listed have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Please note that this Command Paper entitled "Regulatory Impact Assessments" has replaced the previous series entitled "Compliance Cost Assessment". This is the twelfth such Command Paper.

  Rat Infestations
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what was the total expenditure for each of the past three years for treating and controlling rat infestations in buildings and land occupied by Government Departments. [113045]

  Mr. Stringer
  Individual Government Departments are responsible for managing and maintaining the land and property they occupy. The information requested is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The approximate costs (exclusive of value added tax) incurred by the Cabinet Office on pest control in each of the past three financial years in the buildings in which it is the main or sole occupier (including No. 10 Downing Street and the premises occupied by the Cabinet Office agencies) are set out in the table. The specific costs of treating and controlling rat infestations are not recorded separately.

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  13,600

  1998–99

  14,350

  1999–2000 (to date)

  14,050

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to increase the accountability to Parliament of(a) non-departmental public bodies and (b) task forces. [113305]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  None. NDPBs are accountable direct to Parliament through their sponsoring Department. Task Forces, not classified as NDPBs, are accountable to Ministers who in turn are accountable to Parliament.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement about the involvement of the Central Office of Information with the Global Cultural Diversity Congress and Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. [112736]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Central Office of Information (COI) was commissioned by Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd., to provide technical and management support for the Global Cultural Diversity Congress.

  In addition, at the request of the Chairman of the CRE, a member of COI staff was appointed as an unpaid director of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. to provide events and technical service expertise and knowledge.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is the nature of the co-operation between the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator and the United States Office of National Drug Control Policy; in what ways the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator co-operates with the United States Office of National Drug Control Policy; and what agreements the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator has signed with the United States Office of National Drug Control Policy. [113088]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The UK and US Governments maintain a wide-ranging dialogue on drugs issues. There are regular exchanges of information and expertise on all aspects of anti-drugs work. The relationship is excellent.

  General Barry McCaffrey, the Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy visited the UK from 24–26 October 1999 for discussions with Ministers—including myself—and officials. During this visit the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator Keith Hellawell met General McCaffrey and held discussions on drug control policies and initiatives. UK and US officials also held bilateral meetings to discuss a number of drug related topics at this time. The following areas were covered:

  drug prevention/research programmes;

  drug treatment programmes;

  drugs and criminal offenders;

  drug-related science and technology applications;

  trends in drug availability and drug markets;

  performance measures in national strategies;

  doping in sports.

  At the end of this visit, the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator and the Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy issued a Joint

  3W
  Communiqué noting satisfaction with their discussions and pledging continued co-operation between the two countries on drugs policy.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff have been dismissed from the Civil Service in each of the last five years; and what proportion of the total staff in post this represented in each year. [113608]

  Mr. Stringer
  The numbers of staff dismissed from the non-industrial Civil Service over the last five years and the proportions of total staff are as follows. The figures cover dismissals and discharges on inefficiency or disciplinary grounds.

  Year of staff

  Number of staff dismissed/discharged

  Proportion (percentage)

  1994–95

  880

  0.2

  1995–96

  750

  0.2

  1996–97

  870

  0.2

  1997–98

  650

  0.1

  1998–99

  594

  0.1

PRIME MINISTER

  World Education Forum
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister what objectives Her Majesty's Government will seek to attain at the World Education Forum in Dakar in April. [114210]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on 1 March 2000,Official Report, columns 296–97W.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  News Releases
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for the period 2 May 1997 to 29 February 2000 what was(a) the number of occasions on which couriers were used to distribute news releases from his Department and (b) the total cost of using couriers to distribute news releases. [113976]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: During the period an external courier was used twice daily, excluding weekends, at a cost of £54,113.07.

  Decommissioning Commission
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for each year since it was established up to the latest available date what has been(a) the total cost and (b) the cost to United Kingdom funds of the International Commission under General de Chastelain; and under what main headings the sums were paid. [102157]
  4W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Independent International Decommissioning Commission is jointly funded by the British and Irish Governments. The total costs associated with the Commission from September 1997 to December 1999 are as set out.

  (a) Total costs—1R£3,153,332.65

  (b) Total costs to United Kingdom government—£1,339,571.43

  The costs are divided into three main headings.

  IR£

  Salaries/subsistence

  1,009,310.09

  Travel/accommodation

  1,570,881.70

  Other1

  573,150.86

  1 Other includes set up costs for the Commission offices as well as on-going running expenses.

  It was not possible to give precise costs on an annual basis since the two Governments work to different annual accounting periods.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for the financial year 1998–99(a) the number and (b) the total value of contracts let by his Department with external consultants and advisers that (i) were put out to competitive tender, (ii) were not put out to competitive tender and (iii) were let on a non-commercial basis, stating in each case the names of the individuals or organisations that have carried out the work. [109268]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 February 2000]: The figures requested are as follows:

  (i) Put out to competitive tender

  (a) 520

  (b) £9,523,828.15

  Individuals/organisations

  Admiral

  Advanced Learning Systems

  AMT SYBEX

  Anderson Spratt Group Holdings

  Ase Ltd.

  BDP

  BIC Systems Ltd.

  Britannia

  Capita Management Consultants Ltd.

  Carr Communications

  Centre for Research in HE

  Change Management Consultancy

  Colin Stutt Consulting

  Community Evaluation (NI)

  Community Technical Aid

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Deirdre Fitzpatrick Association

  Deloitte & Touche

  DIBB Lupton and Alsop

  Donald McGrigor

  Dr. Tony Hughes

  DTZ Pieda

  5W

  EPEC

  Ernst and Young

  FE Development Agency

  FPM Consultancy

  FPM McCormick

  FSL Computer Systems Ltd.

  GPA

  Grant Thornton

  Helm Corporation

  Hillen & Jenkinson

  ICL

  ICL (CFM)

  ICL Multivendor Computing

  ICL Outsourcing Ltd.

  IMI(NI) Ltd.

  James Maguire Associates

  Johnlaird Public Relations Ltd.

  Juran Institute

  KPMG

  London Economics

  M. B. McGrady & Co

  Manchester University

  Matt Dryman

  Mentor Enterprise Development Ltd.

  Microsoft Ltd.

  Mike Brogden (QUB)

  Mitchell Holmes

  Moran Management Development

  Mr. L. Worral

  Northern Bank Factors Ltd.

  OCTA

  Parity Solutions

  Peks (Glass)

  Peritas

  Price Waterhouse

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  Psychometric Research and Development

  Real Statistics

  Research & Evaluation Services

  Roy McCune Association

  RPS Cairns

  Saville & Holdsworth

  SGS Yarley

  The Learning Centre

  Trutz Hasse

  Ulster Marketing Surveys Ltd.

  University of Manchester

  Venture International

  Wansboroughs

  (ii) Not put out to competitive tender

  (a) 241

  (b) £1,909,749.77

  Individuals/organizations

  Advanced Learning Systems

  Ann Barlow

  B. Jenkins

  Bird & Bird

  Cambridge Policy Consultants

  6W

  CCTA

  CFM ICL and CEICA

  CHKS Ltd.

  Claire Archbald

  Colin Stutt Consultancy

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Costello Associates

  Coutts

  D. Shiels

  David Lock Associates

  David Raynor Services

  Deloitte Touche

  DFK Consulting

  Digital Archiving Services

  DMS Consultancy

  Donaldsons Chartered Surveyors

  Dr. S. Covey

  East Antrim Institute

  Elite Training Services

  Environmental Resources Management

  Ethne Harkness

  Farming & Rural Conservation Agency

  First Consultants Group

  Forestry Commission

  Gilpin Black

  Gordon Dawson

  HCS Ltd.

  Helm Corporation

  Hillen and Jenkinson

  Hughes Associates

  Ian Brown FCA

  ICL Outsourcing

  IFF Research Ltd.

  Irvine McKay

  John Boyle

  Karen Mcllwrath

  Kiang

  Knapp & Kendall

  KPMG

  Liz Comerton

  Manpower plc

  Matrix Business Service

  Mike Ratcliffe (Pensions) Ltd.

  MMC Consulting

  NCC Service Ltd.

  Neil Lambe

  NI Quality Centre

  Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre

  Open Learning Centre

  Ordnance Survey NI

  Peter Bennett

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  Professor D. Conliffe

  Professor Paul Connolly

  Professor Seamus Dunn

  Professor Vani Borooah

  Project Planning International

  QAS Systems

  7W

  Research & Evaluation Services

  RMB Consulting

  Robert Kennedy

  S. Dolan

  Simon Bridge Associates

  Simon Wallace

  The Cabling Partnership

  The Further Education Development Agency

  University of Ulster

  Valerie Kelly (ICL)

  Venture International

  Western Health Board

  York University

  (iii) Non-commercial

  (a) 7

  (b) £42,345.65

  Individuals/organizations

  Central Office of Information

  Helm Corporation

  Mr. T. Gourley

  Realizations International

  Transport Research Lab

  Wallace Walker

  Wellington Group

  Murder Rates
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out on a comparable basis the number of murders recorded in Northern Ireland in each of the past 30 years. [110564]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the number of murders recorded in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 1998 (the latest full year available), divided since 1988 into murders attributable to the security situation and other murders.

  Offences of murder recorded 1969–98

  Number of murders

  Year

  Security situation

  Others

  Total

  1969

  —

  —

  5

  1970

  —

  —

  14

  1971

  —

  —

  123

  1972

  —

  —

  376

  1973

  —

  —

  200

  1974

  —

  —

  205

  1975

  —

  —

  238

  1976

  —

  —

  280

  1977

  —

  —

  116

  1978

  —

  —

  82

  1979

  —

  —

  128

  1980

  —

  —

  85

  1981

  —

  —

  95

  1982

  —

  —

  99

  1983

  —

  —

  86

  1984

  —

  —

  63

  1985

  —

  —

  59

  1986

  —

  —

  85

  1987

  —

  —

  100

  1988

  84

  27

  111

  1989

  57

  10

  67

  1990

  65

  6

  71

  1991

  89

  25

  114

  1992

  81

  27

  108

  1993

  82

  19

  101

  8W

  Offences of murder recorded 1969–98

  Number of murders

  Year

  Security situation

  Others

  Total

  1994

  61

  21

  82

  1995

  8

  14

  22

  1996

  14

  21

  35

  1997

  20

  20

  40

  1998

  54

  26

  80

  Note:

  The 1969–87 figures include both security related murders and crime.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Credit Guarantees (Bulgaria)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his policy is towards extending export credit guarantees to Bulgaria; and if he will make a statement. [113641]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD cover for Bulgaria was withdrawn in 1990 following a default on their external debt obligations. ECGD are currently conducting a review of cover policy in the light of recent improvements in Bulgaria's economic position. ECGD expect to announce the outcome of this review in the next few weeks.

  Anglo-Indian Trade
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what efforts he is taking to promote increased trade between Britain and the Indian subcontinent; and if he will make a statement. [113654]

  Mr. Caborn
  This region is important to the United Kingdom, in both trade and investment terms. British Trade International is conducting an enhanced trade promotion campaign for India, reflecting the market potential and the high priority we attach to increasing trade. During a visit to India in January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State re-launched the Indo-British Partnership, the vehicle for developing our bilateral trade cooperation. He announced a new scheme—the Global Enterprise Initiative, designed to encourage 200 new business partnerships over the next two years. He also set a target for a 20 per cent. increase in bilateral trade, currently worth over £4 billion.

  We also devote resource to facilitate UK trade with the other countries of the region, notably Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

  International Price Comparisons
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2000,Official Report, column 683W, for what reason the first paragraph of his news release dated 11 February stated that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry today published the Government's first ever international prices survey. [114261]
  9W
  Mr. Byers
  The DTI News Release was issued to the media on 11 February embargoed not for use until Sunday 13 February
  the day of publication of the International Price Comparison report.

  Airbus
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Government support for United Kingdom involvement in Airbus. [114709]

  Mr. Byers
  I am pleased to announce that the Government have just entered into a partnership with BAe Systems to secure UK participation in the Airbus A3XX project, to design and build the wings for the world's largest passenger jet. The Government will invest £530 million in the programme, with BAe Systems investing over £1 billion in design and development alone. The Government investment will be repaid by BAe Systems paying levies on aircraft sales.

  The major investment in the UK's leading manufacturing industry will create 22,000 long term new jobs in the UK, 8,000 in BAe Systems and supply companies, and 14,000 new induced employment. It will safeguard a further 62,000 jobs, 20,000 on current Airbus programmes and 42,000 in induced employment. It will confirm the UK as a global centre of excellence in an important area of high technology engineering. It is a practical demonstration of the commitment of the Government, BAe Systems and the UK aerospace industry to Airbus, which has developed over the last 30 years into a highly successful European industrial collaboration. Airbus secured over half the orders for large passenger aircraft in 1999, and the A3XX will enable them to build on this firm base.

  Pakistan (Exports)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what open individual export licences for export to Pakistan are being processed; and how long each application has taken. [112769]

  Dr. Howells
  Licences to export arms and other goods whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting through DTI's Export Control Organisation. All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by the DTI to other government departments with an interest as determined by those departments in line with their policy responsibilities. These include FCO, MOD and DflD.

  As of 3 March, a decision had not yet been taken on 30 applications for an Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) to export to consignees or end-users in Pakistan of goods listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 19994 (commonly known as the Military List), or other goods; 28 of these applications were received before 12 October 1999, the date of the coup in Pakistan.

  Policy on arms sales to Pakistan was set out in a note from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Joint Inquiry on the Government's Annual Reports for 1997 and 1998 on Strategic Export Controls which was published in the Inquiry's report (HC225, page 74). The
  10W
  note stated there has been no change to the Government's policy of considering export licence applications for Pakistan on a case by case basis against the national criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, and in the light of the statement made on 10 July 1998, Official Report, columns 687–88W, by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) following the Pakistani and Indian Nuclear tests.

  Applications for export licences can take some time to process, especially if the situation in the country concerned is fluid. The coup in Pakistan created many uncertainties, and, in the circumstances, it is right for the Government to take the time necessary to assess the new regime's behaviour and intentions before deciding on outstanding export licence applications.

  Flower Imports
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the value of flowers imported into the United Kingdom from EU countries for each year since 1990. [113895]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is given in the table.

  UK imports of bulbs, tubers etc., and cut flowers from EU countries

  £000

  Bulbs, tubers etc.

  Cut flowers and buds

  Total

  1990

  28,206

  128,404

  156,610

  1991

  30,948

  123,621

  154,569

  1992

  33,018

  126,567

  159,585

  1993

  29,424

  131,061

  160,485

  1994

  31,221

  148,927

  180,148

  1995

  35,703

  165,034

  200,737

  1996

  35,490

  191,513

  227,003

  1997

  35,335

  225,000

  260,335

  1998

  38,918

  257,941

  296,859

  1999

  31,215

  261,754

  292,969

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise.

  Synchrotron
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make a decision on the location of the synchrotron. [110002]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the location of the DIAMOND project. [105262]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The Government have announced today that the synchrotron will be located at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Didcot, Oxford.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television Programmes (Home Recording)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment his Department has made of the proposed EU copyright directive in respect of its effect on the legality of home recording of television programmes. [112558]
  11W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  While the draft Directive would allow member states to provide exceptions to copyright permitting private copying of protected material on audio or audiovisual recording media, an amendment proposed by the European Parliament, and taken up by the European Commission in their amended proposal, would require that right owners receive "fair compensation" in exchange for such exceptions. However, as we have always stressed in discussions with the Commission and other member states, we do not consider that a levy or other form of payment would be justified in relation to the UK's limited exception in this area which allows home recording of broadcasts to enable viewing or listening at a more convenient time ("time-shifting"). Although there have been encouraging signs of flexibility from the Commission and others on the precise meaning of "fair compensation", we are still concerned that the overall approach to exceptions in the Directive is too prescriptive, and we are continuing to press strongly for further improvements in this area. We also recognise the potential conflict between exceptions to rights and the use of technical protection measures by right owners, and we are seeking a balanced solution to this issue which would allow users' reasonable "time-shifting" expectations to continue to be met.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the loss of playing fields and recreational grounds since May 1997. [110836]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government are delivering on the manifesto pledge to protect playing fields that schools and communities need because too many have been lost in recent years and grassroots sport has suffered as a result.

  Local authorities are required to consult Sport England on all planning applications affecting sports pitches and playing fields. Since it has taken on this role, there has been a significant increase in the number of local authorities consulting Sport England, which is largely due to greater awareness of their obligation. Applications are assessed by Sport England against its published playing fields policy founded on a presumption against loss unless there are exceptional circumstances.

  Figures show that Sport England receive around 60 applications a month and are objecting to about one third of these. The majority of those approved either contribute to better overall sporting provision, do not affect sports pitches or are proven to be surplus to school and community requirements.

  In addition, the Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields) (England) Direction 1998 was issued on 15 December 1998 and requires planning authorities to refer to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions planning applications on playing fields which they are minded to approve but where Sport England has objected.

  New legislation has also been introduced to require all state schools to seek approval from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for the sale of playing fields, and to consult the local community and other user
  12W
  groups. Since these measures were put in place, the number of school playing field disposals has dropped from some 40 a month to only three. Approval is given only where funds raised are ploughed back into sport and education, and where remaining playing fields fully meet the needs of the school and community both now and in the future. Around a half of approved disposals that affect school sports pitches have been at closed or closing schools, and some 70 per cent. of the remainder which have been approved will lead to new, improved sports facilities.

  Further measures to help communities increase playing fields and green spaces have been launched through the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities initiative, launched in January this year by the New Opportunities Fund. This will, by 2002, commit a total of £125 million of projects designed to help urban and rural communities throughout the UK, create new, or enhance existing, areas of open space. This will include as a priority the creation of new playing fields and recreational areas, with an emphasis on the needs of areas of multiple deprivation.

  My Department is working closely with the Central Council for Physical Recreation and National Playing Fields Association, as well as the DfEE and DETR, in monitoring and evaluating the measures we have put in place, and will consider whether any further action is necessary.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will answer the questions from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead on the Millennium Dome tabled on 15 January (ref. 104655) and 26 January (ref. 108039).[110343]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: I refer my right hon. Friend to the replies I gave on 21 February 2000, Official Report, column 800W and on 2 March 2000, Official Report, column 350W.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made in establishing a Viewers' Panel on the change from analogue to digital broadcasts. [112559]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: My Department is currently in the process of considering the composition and terms of reference for the Viewers' Panel. I would expect the Panel to reflect the interests of viewers from across the UK and to provide advice on the extent of progress towards digital television from the viewer's point of view. I expect the Viewers' Panel to make its first report next autumn.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of his Department's electricity is generated from renewable sources; and what target his Department has for meeting its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2010. [113053]
  13W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department obtains its electricity from the host REC, London Electricity. The latest figures from London Electricity (1998) indicated that 98 per cent. of its supply comes from predominantly fossil fuel generating sources via the National Grid and 2 per cent. is purchased from local generators. These are mainly local combined heat and power schemes.

  As the Department is too small to justify its own generating capacity, any future increase in the percentage of power obtained from renewable sources will rely on London Electricity or an alternative REC changing the make up of its own supply.

  Football Grounds (Athletics)
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those London football clubs with which his Department or Sport England has discussed ground sharing with athletics; and if he will make a statement. [113776]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department has had no discussions with London football clubs about ground sharing with athletics.

  Athletics Venues
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if DLA Ellerbe Beckett have been engaged by his Department in an advisory role on architectural issues relating to possible athletics venues in London. [113775]

  Kate Hoey
  Ellerbe Beckett were asked, as a continuation of their contract with UK Sport, to undertake an assessment of the proposals for athletics at Twickenham put forward by architects acting on behalf of the Rugby Football Union.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what amendments to the Lottery Funding Agreement relating to Wembley National Stadium have been discussed by the Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. with his Department in the context of the proposed £20 million payment. [113780]

  Kate Hoey
  My officials have discussed with Sport England some of the issues in relation to their role as a Lottery distributer, and have confirmed that it seems wholly reasonable to consider, with legal advice, amendments to particular LFA conditions which are requested by the parties to the original agreement. However, any proposed amendments to the Lottery Funding Agreement (LFA) are matters for Wembley National Stadium Ltd., the Football Association and Sport England to consider.

  Trafalgar Square (Pedestrianisation)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the plans for the partial pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square on the Square's potential to attract tourists and Londoners. [113643]
  14W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The partial pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square is included in Phase 1 of the wider "World Squares for All" master plan. Public consultation on the master plan, for which the new Mayor for London will take over lead responsibility later this year, has shown widespread public support. Further extensive public consultation is currently under way on the detailed proposals for Phase 1, which aim to improve access for pedestrians and provide greater enjoyment of Trafalgar Square and adjoining areas. Londoners and visitors alike will benefit from improved accessibility of the National Gallery.

  Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport with which body the Chief Executive of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council has a contract of employment. [114349]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 16 February 2000,Official Report, column 54W.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Photo Passes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what restrictions there are on the number of overseas staff an hon. Member can have photo passes for; when these restrictions were imposed; and what plans his Committee has to review them. [114204]

  Mrs. Roe
  The Administration Committee endorses the recommendations of the House of Commons (Services) Committee in its Report "Access to the Precincts of the House" (HC(1987–88)580), approved by the House on 30 January 1989, and which my Committee has no immediate plans to review. The Services Committee recommended that no hon. Member should be entitled to Palace of Westminster photo passes for more than three individual members of their personal staff. The number of passes issued to temporary research assistants from overseas is limited to 150 in any one calendar year, and to 50 at any one time.

  Hon. Members are permitted to have one temporary overseas student only working for them at a time to ensure that as many hon. Members as possible are able to take advantage of this opportunity. This does not affect the right of hon. Members to employ foreign nationals as secretaries, or as research assistants, on a longer term basis.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Urban Regeneration (Rogers Report)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the recommendations contained in the report on urban regeneration by Lord Rogers (1) have been implemented by the Government; [114410]

  (2) he will have implemented by the end of 2000. [114411]
  15W
  Ms Armstrong
  The Urban Task Force report "Towards an Urban Renaissance" made more than 100 forward-thinking recommendations about how to revitalise our towns and cities. It formed an excellent contribution to the debate on how to reverse the social, physical and economic decline that many of our urban areas have faced in recent decades.

  The Government are looking at the report's recommendations in detail as we prepare for the forthcoming White Paper on Urban policy. But we, and others, have already acted on many of its proposals. We are keen to maintain the momentum created by the report and believe that we should all be working hard to create an urban renaissance now.

  It is important to remember that the recommendations of the Task Force are not for DETR or for Government alone. Many recommendations were directed at local authorities, other public sector organisations and service providers. For its part the Government have already:
  set up three pilot Urban Regeneration Companies in Liverpool, East Manchester and Sheffield. These will co-ordinate the regeneration of run-down urban neighbourhoods within a wider local strategy developed by the local authority and its partners, listening to local people's needs and ensuring local priorities are met:
  set up nine pilot home zones—traffic schemes in residential areas which will give residents more control over traffic movements and ensure that the needs of people, rather than traffic, come first;
  published revised PPG12 which advocates simpler and more effective development plans. This helps to fulfil the Urban Task Force's recommendation to streamline the planning process;
  piloted eight Private Finance Initiatives for Housing Revenue Account pathfinders, helping fulfil the need to attract private investment in local communities;
  taken steps to put Local Transport Plans on a statutory footing ensuring that local authorities take an integrated and strategic approach to planning transport provision in their area;
  revised planning guidance for transport to promote civilised towns and cities where the needs of people are given priority.
  Last week the Government also published "Revised planning policy guidance on Housing (PPG3)". This introduces a new sustainable approach to planning for housing which addresses a large number of Lord Rogers' recommendations including promoting better designed places and giving priority to recycling previously developed sites and empty properties.

  A great deal of work is still being carried out on the full range of Lord Rogers' proposals and the Government's approach to the many issues he raised will be set out in the White Paper. It is not, therefore, possible to say at this time how many of the recommendations will have been addressed by the end of this year.

  Fair Rents
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average weekly difference between rent officer determinations of registered fair rents during the period that the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 was in force(a) before the cap was applied and (b) after the cap had been applied (i) in England and (ii) by region. [1133381
  16W
  Mr. Mullin
  Provisional figures for England are given in the table.

  Average weekly amount by which the rent officer determination of 'uncapped' fair rent exceeded the 'capped' rent during the period May to December 1999

  Amount by which uncapped fair rent exceeded capped rent

  (£) per week

  Number of cases

  London

  Barking

  5.46

  27

  Barnet

  8.35

  638

  Bexley

  3.40

  226

  Brent

  8.69

  810

  Bromley

  6.17

  335

  City of London

  2.01

  62

  Camden

  25.49

  866

  Croydon

  3.00

  105

  Ealing

  8.16

  614

  Enfield

  2.83

  240

  Greenwich

  4.10

  360

  Hackney

  4.73

  688

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3.75

  831

  Haringey

  7.77

  845

  Harrow

  2.75

  187

  Havering

  3.93

  154

  Uxbridge/Hillingdon

  4.03

  266

  Hounslow

  7.05

  367

  Islington

  5.70

  714

  Kensington and Chelsea

  13.17

  669

  Lambeth

  11.64

  950

  Lewisham

  3.99

  629

  Merton

  4.93

  318

  Newham

  5.51

  797

  Redbridge

  2.01

  197

  Richmond

  6.41

  429

  Southwark

  2.12

  414

  Sutton

  1.56

  105

  Tower Hamlets

  8.44

  439

  Waltham

  7.45

  721

  Wandsworth

  5.52

  1,314

  Westminster

  7.74

  536

  London

  7.56

  15,853

  English counties

  Avon

  5.78

  578

  Bedfordshire

  2.77

  212

  Berkshire

  4.96

  407

  Buckinghamshire

  5.53

  207

  Cambridgeshire

  10.27

  400

  Cheshire

  4.58

  543

  Cleveland

  1.63

  81

  Cornwall

  7.29

  13

  Cumbria

  2.25

  91

  Derbyshire

  2.59

  120

  Devon

  3.83

  179

  Dorset

  4.08

  226

  Durham

  3.71

  75

  East Sussex

  5.83

  169

  Essex

  5.59

  378

  Gloucestershire

  10.50

  308

  Greater Manchester

  3.06

  1,570

  Hampshire

  6.65

  724

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  2.97

  204

  Hertfordshire

  6.28

  568

  Humberside

  3.34

  273

  Isle of Wight

  7.62

  13

  Kent

  4.35

  618

  Lancashire

  2.12

  271

  Leicestershire

  2.28

  485

  Lincolnshire

  2.12

  107

  Merseyside

  4,35

  2,434

  Norfolk

  6.26

  522

  Northumberland

  1.79

  143

  Northamptonshire

  4.28

  212

  North Yorkshire

  3.37

  376

  Nottingham

  3.00

  246

  Oxfordshire

  13.32

  193

  17W

  Average weekly amount by which the rent officer determination of 'uncapped' fair rent exceeded the 'capped' rent during the period May to December 1999

  Amount by which uncapped fair rent exceeded capped rent

  (£) per week

  Number of cases

  Shrewsbury

  3.89

  30

  Somerset

  7.34

  93

  South Yorkshire

  1.85

  256

  Staffordshire

  4.32

  100

  Suffolk

  2.97

  243

  Surrey

  5.00

  534

  Tyne and Wear

  2.49

  850

  Warwickshire

  3.41

  533

  West Midlands

  2.38

  532

  West Sussex

  3.90

  441

  West Yorkshire

  2.23

  964

  Wiltshire

  5.87

  289

  English regions

  London

  7.56

  15,853

  North East

  2.42

  1,149

  North West and Merseyside

  3.80

  4,909

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2.57

  1,869

  East Midlands

  2.81

  1,170

  West Midlands

  3.03

  1,399

  Eastern

  6.19

  2,323

  South East

  5.66

  3,306

  South West

  6.32

  1,686

  England

  5.86

  33,664

  Note:

  That the unavailability of data from February to April 1999 is because of processing problems directly associated with the introduction of the Order. These problems continued to affect some rent officer areas after April 1999. Consequently the number of cases for each region may be an under-estimate of the total number of fair rent cases determined by the rent officer in that region during the period May to December.

  Source:

  Provisional rent officer determinations for May-December 1999

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average weekly registered fair rent paid by regulated private tenants during the period that the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 was in force in(a) England and (b) by regions where (i) the rent was capped under the Order and (ii) the rent was not capped under the Order. [113337]

  Mr. Mullin
  Provisional figures for England are given in the table.

  Average weekly registered fair rent paid by regulated private tenants during May-December 1999 where the rent was (i) capped and (ii) not capped under the Order

  Rent capped

  Rent not capped

  £ per week

  Number of cases

  £ per week

  Number of cases

  London

  Barking

  53.56

  27

  60.77

  4

  Barnet

  79.12

  638

  78.45

  88

  Bexley

  58.74

  226

  63.75

  28

  Brent

  61.62

  810

  59.84

  60

  Bromley

  71.73

  335

  85.23

  27

  City of London

  67.47

  62

  n/a

  0

  Camden

  77.67

  866

  104.11

  80

  Croydon

  77.36

  105

  80.86

  155

  Ealing

  64.60

  614

  76.86

  134

  Enfield

  60.59

  240

  61.54

  110

  Greenwich

  67.66

  360

  79.02

  7

  Hackney

  58.62

  688

  65.47

  70

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  68.23

  831

  77.30

  52

  18W

  Average weekly registered fair rent paid by regulated private tenants during May-December 1999 where the rent was (i) capped and (ii) not capped under the Order

  Rent capped

  Rent not capped

  £ per week

  Number of cases

  £ per week

  Number of cases

  Haringey

  65.63

  845

  72.49

  70

  Harrow

  70.46

  187

  75.43

  37

  Havering

  63.23

  154

  80.77

  6

  Uxbridge/Hillingdon

  67.21

  266

  74.95

  27

  Hounslow

  74.65

  367

  81.20

  14

  Islington

  66.30

  714

  84.55

  57

  Kensington and Chelsea

  71.06

  669

  141.61

  239

  Lambeth

  59.59

  950

  58.94

  101

  Lewisham

  53.72

  629

  56.61

  75

  Merton

  80.08

  318

  80.79

  34

  Newham

  56.30

  797

  51.24

  43

  Redbridge

  50.06

  197

  57.27

  66

  Richmond

  75.42

  429

  84.94

  23

  Southwark

  60.81

  414

  66.91

  123

  Sutton

  63.34

  105

  67.62

  73

  Tower Hamlets

  67.21

  439

  43.00

  10

  Waltham

  50.53

  721

  52.84

  121

  Wandsworth

  76.32

  1,314

  88.85

  37

  Westminster

  77.02

  536

  127.78

  82

  London

  66.56

  15,853

  81.21

  2,053

  English counties

  Avon

  66.22

  578

  71.75

  80

  Bedfordshire

  54.81

  212

  54.98

  65

  Berkshire

  72.64

  407

  82.70

  82

  Buckinghamshire

  57.20

  207

  61.47

  29

  Cambridgeshire

  52.59

  400

  54.68

  80

  Cheshire

  37.10

  543

  50.37

  87

  Cleveland

  53.52

  81

  44.78

  133

  Cornwall

  48.57

  13

  60.04

  168

  Cumbria

  40.19

  91

  40.65

  136

  Derbyshire

  43.16

  120

  44.85

  424

  Devon

  60.83

  179

  64.36

  260

  Dorset

  64.01

  226

  64.89

  379

  Durham

  46.53

  75

  43.80

  111

  East Sussex

  72.09

  169

  75.62

  386

  Essex

  61.69

  378

  60.18

  631

  Gloucestershire

  57.94

  308

  76.51

  80

  Greater Manchester

  42.81

  1,570

  40.79

  432

  Hampshire

  64.88

  724

  71.32

  360

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  51.36

  204

  51.59

  167

  Hertfordshire

  76.10

  568

  73.36

  181

  Humberside

  47.46

  273

  44.73

  357

  Isle of Wight

  50.83

  13

  58.19

  63

  Kent

  71.22

  618

  68.22

  557

  Lancashire

  45.50

  271

  46.99

  115

  Leicestershire

  47.93

  485

  51.73

  292

  Lincolnshire

  45.44

  107

  45.15

  159

  Merseyside

  44.60

  2,434

  46.52

  754

  Norfolk

  49.71

  522

  52.86

  227

  Northumberland

  46.01

  143

  43.35

  163

  Northamptonshire

  53.52

  212

  50.59

  58

  North Yorkshire

  53.81

  376

  56.45

  161

  Nottingham

  48.82

  246

  52.64

  546

  Oxfordshire

  74.28

  193

  86.69

  55

  Shropshire

  50.49

  30

  50.65

  59

  Somerset

  56.66

  93

  61.99

  80

  South Yorkshire

  40.65

  256

  38.94

  628

  Staffordshire

  41.72

  100

  43.11

  391

  Suffolk

  49.59

  243

  51.15

  200

  Surrey

  83.38

  534

  96.17

  72

  Tyne and Wear

  43.22

  850

  39.55

  255

  Warwickshire

  49.70

  533

  51.25

  76

  West Midlands

  46.09

  532

  49.13

  1,073

  West Sussex

  69.40

  441

  80.17

  191

  West Yorkshire

  42.82

  964

  47.16

  663

  Wiltshire

  64.64

  289

  72.70

  46

  English regions

  London

  66.56

  15,853

  81.21

  2,053

  North East

  44.51

  1,149

  42.25

  662

  North West and Merseyside

  43.17

  4,909

  44.63

  1,524

  19W

  Average weekly registered fair rent paid by regulated private tenants during May-December 1999 where the rent was (i) capped and (ii) not capped under the Order

  Rent capped

  Rent not capped

  £ per week

  Number of cases

  £ per week

  Number of cases

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  45.41

  1,869

  44.66

  1,809

  East Midlands

  48.41

  1,170

  49.34

  1,479

  West Midlands

  48.02

  1,399

  48.17

  1,766

  Eastern

  59.06

  2,323

  58.83

  1,384

  South East

  70.99

  3,306

  73.59

  1,795

  South West

  62.91

  1,686

  65.49

  1,093

  England

  59.55

  33,664

  57.99

  13,565

  Note:

  The unavailability of data from February to April 1999 is because of processing problems directly associated with the introduction of the Order. These problems continued to affect some rent officer areas after April 1999. Consequently the number of cases for each region may be an under-estimate of the total number of fair rent cases determined by the rent officer in that region during the period May to December.

  Source:

  Provisional rent officer determinations for May-December 1999.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average weekly registered fair rent paid by regulated private tenants(a) in England and (b) by each region in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96, (iii) 1996–97, (iv) 1997–98 and (v) 1998–99. [113336]

  Mr. Mullin
  The available figures for England are given in the table.

  Average weekly registered fair rent paid by regulated private tenants in England, 1994–95 to 1998–99

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  London

  Barking and Dagenham

  £

  41.40

  43.36

  47.47

  51.79

  54.11

  Number of cases

  8

  69

  102

  102

  93

  Barnet

  £

  55.64

  59.97

  71.74

  73.52

  81.49

  Number of cases

  797

  472

  326

  758

  613

  Bexley

  £

  32.99

  54.23

  54.90

  54.43

  61.03

  Number of cases

  411

  1,321

  959

  298

  261

  Brent

  £

  40.09

  42.71

  49.39

  54.96

  61.54

  Number of cases

  871

  460

  337

  718

  470

  Bromley

  £

  49.52

  53.59

  57.49

  63.52

  69.44

  Number of cases

  656

  702

  592

  635

  523

  City

  £

  —

  60.58

  134.62

  —

  —

  Number of cases

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  20W

  Average weekly registered fair rent paid by regulated private tenants in England, 1994–95 to 1998–99

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Camden

  £

  64.88

  76.11

  82.48

  89.57

  101.58

  Number of cases

  1,252

  941

  624

  897

  768

  Croydon

  £

  54.86

  62.72

  66.98

  72.82

  74.73

  Number of cases

  847

  895

  699

  712

  558

  Ealing

  £

  53.19

  54.03

  60.85

  65.78

  74.07

  Number of cases

  1,028

  734

  521

  788

  572

  Enfield

  £

  43.34

  47.57

  50.21

  53.93

  58.76

  Number of cases

  831

  548

  683

  515

  582

  Greenwich

  £

  46.42

  56.12

  56.96

  61.01

  66.63

  Number of cases

  407

  1,571

  577

  500

  218

  Hackney

  £

  42.34

  49.63

  50.85

  56.45

  59.34

  Number of cases

  640

  474

  529

  491

  362

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  £

  54.87

  57.57

  63.96

  69.70

  79.93

  Number of cases

  1,202

  1,207

  991

  953

  799

  Haringey

  £

  48.03

  55.23

  57.12

  63.09

  69.07

  Number of cases

  673

  806

  520

  514

  565

  Harrow

  £

  48.16

  52.05

  60.90

  64.05

  77.69

  Number of cases

  451

  623

  364

  496

  180

  Havering

  £

  53.61

  46.97

  50.33

  57.15

  59.53

  Number of cases

  230

  259

  260

  317

  239

  Hillingdon

  £

  47.66

  53.28

  58.06

  65.39

  66.92

  Number of cases

  658

  543

  437

  494

  554

  Hounslow

  £

  49.67

  54.44

  60.28

  66.22

  73.06

  Number of cases

  319

  437

  388

  284

  273

  Islington

  £

  47.46

  54.16

  59.06

  65.10

  70.90

  Number of cases

  491

  104

  325

  268

  340

  Kensington and Chelsea

  £

  74.40

  93.64

  91.31

  97.77

  120.60

  Number of cases

  1,234

  796

  1,116

  715

  702

  Kingston

  £

  52.49

  58.55

  64.66

  —

  —

  Number of cases

  411

  494

  254

  —

  —

  21W

  Average weekly registered fair rent paid by regulated private tenants in England, 1994– 95 to 1998–99

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Lambeth

  £

  46.92

  49.13

  54.76

  57.58

  64.09

  Number of cases

  1,192

  887

  1,036

  862

  819

  Lewisham

  £

  40.04

  47.97

  48.61

  51.13

  56.84

  Number of cases

  1,051

  628

  447

  639

  588

  Merton

  £

  51.10

  60.13

  65.16

  69.65

  75.81

  Number of cases

  564

  529

  293

  468

  424

  Newham

  £

  32.19

  34.68

  39.74

  41.76

  46.98

  Number of cases

  900

  926

  774

  741

  625

  Redbridge

  £

  38.92

  40.89

  44.32

  46.41

  50.36

  Number of cases

  418

  437

  464

  319

  323

  Richmond on Thames

  £

  57.34

  63.47

  70.55

  75.36

  84.35

  Number of cases

  659

  899

  731

  1,112

  774

  Southwark

  £

  49.30

  47.16

  51.89

  55.13

  58.63

  Number of cases

  997

  923

  660

  786

  614

  Sutton

  £

  45.43

  51.00

  55.02

  61.16

  63.54

  Number of cases

  305

  380

  267

  310

  213

  Tower Hamlets

  £

  41.96

  45.70

  47.31

  49.76

  55.90

  Number of cases

  210

  178

  259

  111

  244

  Waltham Forest

  £

  34.90

  36.11

  39.96

  42.90

  46.62

  Number of cases

  1,145

  1,355

  1,173

  1,155

  973

  Wands worth

  £

  54.01

  55.60

  64.49

  68.51

  77.56

  Number of cases

  1,517

  1,314

  1,120

  1,257

  902

  Westminster

  £

  90.50

  92.72

  106.69

  109.09

  112.32

  Number of cases

  2,068

  2,260

  1,820

  1,740

  1,683

  London

  £

  53.06

  57.96

  63.38

  67.75

  74.87

  Number of cases

  24,443

  24,174

  19,649

  19,955

  16,854

  English counties

  Avon

  £

  47.37

  53.80

  56.92

  61.74

  65.46

  Number of cases

  730

  736

  549

  568

  542

  22W

  Average weekly registered fair rent paid by regulated private tenants in England, 1994– 95 to 1998–99

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Bedfordshire

  £

  37.08

  36.44

  46.22

  46.94

  51.99

  Number of cases

  586

  351

  326

  351

  158

  Berkshire

  £

  51.19

  58.24

  63.83

  70.31

  74.77

  Number of cases

  801

  970

  611

  689

  485

  Buckinghamshire

  £

  40.54

  46.90

  50.79

  55.33

  63.18

  Number of cases

  455

  586

  351

  515

  317

  Cambridgeshire

  £

  41.80

  41.32

  47.02

  48.06

  61.42

  Number of cases

  599

  522

  510

  338

  339

  Cheshire

  £

  25.25

  27.45

  32.48

  36.02

  42.40

  Number of cases

  871

  1,184

  805

  959

  661

  Cleveland

  £

  31.80

  35.54

  38.99

  39.78

  42.00

  Number of cases

  444

  370

  249

  545

  189

  Cornwall

  £

  53.83

  55.71

  56.75

  58.83

  59.89

  Number of cases

  554

  466

  439

  326

  338

  Cumbria

  £

  32.13

  30.85

  33.18

  36.74

  38.44

  Number of cases

  540

  673

  526

  573

  452

  Derbyshire

  £

  34.79

  35.06

  39.24

  40.73

  43.71

  Number of cases

  2,063

  1,888

  1,481

  1,474

  1,1900

  Devon

  £

  48.00

  50.95

  54.58

  56.67

  59.94

  Number of cases

  1,348

  874

  773

  945

  688

  Dorset

  £

  46.65

  50.89

  54.01

  59.13

  63.14

  Number of cases

  1,398

  1,060

  1,212

  966

  819

  Durham

  £

  31.49

  32.79

  35.97

  38.61

  42.62

  Number of cases

  183

  347

  338

  276

  265

  71.56

  East Sussex

  £

  58.42

  63.59

  65.58

  69.79

  Number of cases

  2,205

  2,126

  1,636

  1,694

  1,251

  Essex

  £

  45.00

  48.49

  53.25

  55.66

  59.37

  Number of cases

  2,207

  2,028

  1,812

  1,708

  1,579

  Gloucestershire

  £

  46.37

  49.26

  54.59

  58.10

  62.26

  Number of cases

  534

  458

  389

  454

  354

  23W

  Average weekly registered fair rent paid by regulated private tenants in England, 1994–95 to 1998–99

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Greater Manchester

  £

  29.19

  29.95

  34.73

  36.22

  39.48

  Number of cases

  3,444

  3,338

  2,340

  2,534

  2,067

  Hampshire

  £

  49.25

  53.24

  59.26

  62.21

  65.73

  Number of cases

  2,164

  1,717

  878

  1,629

  1,672

  Hereford and Worcester

  £

  39.30

  40.10

  44.21

  47.14

  49.52

  Number of cases

  780

  515

  416

  616

  539

  Hertfordshire

  £

  49.05

  59.71

  60.84

  67.16

  70.67

  Number of cases

  1,402

  1,060

  1,076

  863

  793

  Humberside

  £

  34.71

  37.22

  39.10

  41.29

  42.85

  Number of cases

  1,862

  1,737

  1,217

  1,336

  964

  Isle of Wight

  £

  43.60

  47.77

  49.86

  55.56

  54.61

  Number of cases

  211

  62

  61

  135

  95

  Kent

  £

  53.04

  57.24

  60.75

  64.18

  68.12

  Number of cases

  3,074

  2,506

  2,490

  2,306

  1,942

  Lancashire

  £

  32.25

  33.96

  37.37

  40.61

  42.94

  Number of cases

  965

  840

  664

  632

  536

  Leicestershire

  £

  36.56

  39.94

  42.96

  45.72

  47.51

  Number of cases

  1,569

  1,227

  1,210

  1,002

  973

  Lincolnshire

  £

  33.85

  36.67

  38.31

  41.58

  42.16

  Number of cases

  581

  512

  432

  467

  403

  Merseyside

  £

  25.76

  26.42

  33.90

  38.35

  42.56

  Number of cases

  5,239

  4,477

  3,962

  3,060

  2,916

  Norfolk

  £

  39.82

  41.94

  44.18

  47.46

  49.68

  Number of cases

  1,223

  1,168

  957

  1,057

  877

  Northumberland

  £

  31.19

  32.77

  37.76

  38.93

  42.84

  Number of cases

  530

  552

  370

  592

  384

  Northampton

  £

  37.11

  40.40

  43.04

  45.54

  50.02

  Number of cases

  440

  301

  350

  264

  281

  North Yorkshire

  41.49

  42.07

  46.96

  50.84

  53.53

  Number of cases

  1,056

  946

  860

  824

  754

  24W

  Average weekly registered fair rent paid by regulated private tenants in England, 1994–95 to 1998–99

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Nottinghamshire

  £

  40.19

  42.80

  46.76

  48.63

  50.83

  Number of cases

  1,869

  1,623

  1,631

  1,415

  1,206

  Oxfordshire

  £

  59.02

  60.43

  68.97

  74.49

  81.70

  Number of cases

  588

  552

  524

  565

  443

  Shropshire

  £

  —

  44.99

  45.56

  46.96

  50.39

  Number of cases

  —

  49

  253

  365

  266

  Somerset

  £

  44.25

  45.60

  51.90

  53.82

  59.17

  Number of cases

  570

  340

  197

  373

  288

  South Yorkshire

  £

  30.07

  31.13

  33.10

  34.94

  37.06

  Number of cases

  2,843

  1,697

  1,982

  1,985

  1,674

  Staffordshire

  £

  31.15

  34.14

  38.83

  39.06

  41.05

  Number of cases

  1,216

  1,065

  1,040

  866

  870

  Suffolk

  £

  37.13

  39.34

  43.07

  44.58

  48.70

  Number of cases

  1,200

  1,039

  970

  877

  925

  Surrey

  £

  62.54

  67.23

  74.13

  82.34

  87.30

  Number of cases

  1,596

  1,475

  1,429

  1,083

  1,099

  Tyne and Wear

  £

  29.72

  31.08

  35.24

  37.06

  40.41

  Number of cases

  1,930

  1,762

  1,551

  1,588

  1,166

  Warwickshire

  £

  33.44

  36.73

  43.16

  45.58

  48.62

  Number of cases

  664

  423

  134

  636

  449

  West Midlands

  £

  37.04

  37.88

  42.14

  45.70

  47.23

  Number of cases

  4,716

  3,593

  2,804

  3,220

  2,587

  West Sussex

  £

  54.46

  61.94

  64.57

  70.42

  74.32

  Number of cases

  1,232

  935

  826

  757

  639

  West Yorkshire

  £

  33.56

  36.12

  38.05

  40.84

  43.16

  Number of cases

  3,354

  2,740

  2,571

  2,306

  2,018

  Wiltshire

  £

  49.40

  49.55

  54.83

  57.55

  63.25

  Number of cases

  516

  444

  452

  411

  158

  English regions

  London

  £

  53.06

  57.96

  63.38

  67.75

  74.87

  Number of cases

  24,443

  24,174

  19,649

  19,955

  16,854

  25W

  Average weekly registered fair rent paid by regulated private tenants in England, 1994–95 to 1998–99

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  North East

  £

  30.43

  32.13

  36.09

  38.07

  41.26

  Number of cases

  3,251

  3,022

  2,446

  2,990

  1,922

  North West and Merseyside

  £

  27.67

  28.54

  34.23

  37.43

  41.33

  Number of cases

  11,059

  10,512

  8,297

  7,758

  6,632

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  £

  33.62

  35.99

  37.92

  40.40

  42.66

  Number of cases

  9,115

  7,120

  6,630

  6,451

  5,410

  East Midlands

  £

  25.83

  26.91

  31.32

  31.60

  34.19

  Number of cases

  6,522

  5,551

  5,104

  4,622

  4,053

  West Midlands

  £

  35.98

  37.35

  41.80

  44.92

  46.66

  Number of cases

  7,376

  5,645

  4,647

  5,703

  4,711

  Eastern

  £

  42.69

  46.34

  50.44

  52.95

  57.25

  Number of cases

  7,217

  6,168

  5,651

  5,194

  4,671

  South East

  £

  54.25

  59.24

  64.26

  67.92

  72.11

  Number of cases

  12,326

  10,929

  8,806

  9,376

  7,943

  South West

  £

  47.75

  51.19

  54.86

  58.13

  62.05

  Number of cases

  5,650

  4,378

  4,011

  4,043

  3,187

  England

  £

  43.27

  46.98

  51.38

  54.86

  59.48

  Number of cases

  86,959

  77,499

  65,241

  66,089

  55,383

  Source:

  Rent Officer Statistics

  Landfill
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to commission research into the potential health effects of landfill sites; and if he will make a statement. [113288]

  Mr. Mullin
  Last year the Government commissioned the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU) at Imperial College to carry out a national study to determine whether there is any pattern of adverse health effects around landfill sites. The results are expected later this 26W
  year. A further programme of research was announced last year. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 7 December 1999, Official Report, column 487W.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on which dates Lord Levy has had meetings with(a) Ministers and (b) senior officials in his Department since 1 May 1997, giving in each case the purpose of the meetings; and if he will make a statement. [113501]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: None.

  Thames Gateway Regeneration Area
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list (1) the size of sites designated as previously developed vacant land sites within the three relevant Government regions in the Thames Gateway Regeneration area; [114069]

  (2) the (a) size and (b) number of potential dwellings on sites designated as previously developed land which are allocated in a local plan (i) for any use and (ii) as having planning permission for housing that exist in each of the Government regions in the Thames Gateway Regeneration area; [114070]

  (3) the size of sites designated as previously developed land which (a) have redevelopment potential, but have no planning allocation or permission and (b) require some form of remediation work within the relevant Government regions in the Thames Gateway Regeneration area. [114071]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Thames Gateway area is made up of parts of a number of boroughs and districts within the London, South East and East of England Government Office regions. The information is not therefore available in either the form or detail requested. However, the table provides an extract from the Supplementary Table on the National Land Use Database website (www.nlud.org.uk). It shows, for the core districts in the existing, non-extended Thames Gateway area, total amounts of previously developed vacant land, derelict land and land occupied by vacant buildings reported by each local authority. The portions allocated for housing use in the local plan or with planning permission for housing area are also shown. Not all of this land will be available for redevelopment. The table additionally shows amounts of land currently in use with allocation for redevelopment for any use or with planning permission for housing. The figures refer to the time of the survey in 1998, and have not been adjusted for some cases where the coverage was partial (as indicated by the footnotes). The estimates are a "snapshot" for 1998 and take no account of future supply of previously developed land.
  27W

  Previously developed land that is unused or may be available for redevelopment1 by land type and Planning Authority: England 1998

  hectares

  Planning Authority2

  Area

  Previously developed vacant land of which proposed for housing

  Area

  Derelict land and buildings of which proposed for housing

  Area

  Land occupied by vacant buildings of which proposed for housing

  Area

  Land currently in use with planning allocation for any use or planning permission for housing of which proposed for housing

  Thames Gateway

  Thurrock UA

  18

  7

  206

  184

  —

  1—

  10

  10

  Barking and Dagenham

  2

  1

  19

  —

  5

  —

  7

  —

  Bexley

  10

  10

  10

  —

  3

  3

  8

  7

  Greenwich

  46

  1

  155

  53

  4

  —

  30

  14

  Havering

  40

  3—

  34

  3—

  1

  3—

  13

  1

  Newham

  95

  429

  32

  4

  9

  5

  342

  7

  Dartford

  271

  9

  76

  —

  69

  29

  297

  5

  Gravesham

  4

  7—

  8

  5

  2

  1

  3

  2

  Swale

  8

  4

  46

  41

  6

  42

  61

  59

  The Medway Towns UA

  1

  1

  77

  4

  5

  1

  996

  34

  1 Ungrossed totals as reported by the authority. Comprises previously developed vacant and derelict land: vacant buildings (excluding single dwellings except where they could be developed into 10 or more dwellings); land or buildings currently in use, which are allocated in the local plan for any developed use, have planning permission for housing or with known potential for redevelopment.

  2 Local authority, district or unitary authority.

  3 Completion is less than 85 per cent.

  4 Figures have been revised against the May 1999 Supplementary Table because of duplicate sites; amendments made by the Local Authority; data resubmitted by the Local Authority after the May 1999 Supplementary Table; changes to assumptions used by the DETR to aggregate data.

  5 Partial returns.

  6 Nil or less than half the final digit shown.

  7 Completion figures have not been provided.

  Planning Policy
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he is issuing to local planning authorities about the balance between(a) industrial and commercial development and (b) housing on brownfield sites. [114154]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Our newly published planning policy guidance for housing, PPG3, requires authorities to review their land allocations for employment and other uses to see whether they may be better used for housing.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he is issuing to local planning authorities about height restrictions on new housing build in(a) urban, (b) suburban and (c) rural areas. [114153]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning Policy Guidance note 3, "Housing", requires local planning authorities, when considering design and layout to have regard not just to any immediate neighbouring buildings but the townscape and landscape of the wider locality. They are expected to adopt policies which create places and spaces with the needs of people in mind, which are attractive, have their own distinctive identity but respect and enhance local character.

  The Government do not intend that PPG3's requirement to make more efficient use of land for housing should result in a return to 1960s-style high rise residential development.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance to local authorities asking them to collect household waste more frequently than once a fortnight. [113686]
  28W
  Mr. Mullin
  Under section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, waste collection authorities have a duty to collect household refuse. How this duty is discharged is a matter for local decision.

  Gatwick Airport
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received from BAA the results of their feasibility study into a second main runway at Gatwick; and if he will make a statement. [114346]

  Mr. Mullin
  BAA did not complete their study, which the previous Administration had asked them to undertake, of less environmentally damaging runway options, such as a close parallel runway at Gatwick. We announced on 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 37, that we had asked BAA to put this work on hold so that we could review the issue in the light of the integrated transport White Paper.

  The then Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), announced on 11 March 1999, Official Report, columns 360–61, a study of airport issues in the south-east and east of England. This study will include consideration of runway capacity.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the status of the agreement between the then Government and Crawley Borough Council which prohibits the building of a second runway at Gatwick Airport until 2019. [114345]

  Mr. Mullin
  The agreement the hon. Member refers to is between the local authority, West Sussex County Council, and the airport owners, the then British Airports
  29W
  Authority. It was agreed in August 1979, under the terms of section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.

  Water Industry Safety
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account Ofwat took of minimum staffing levels required in respect of safety when setting its revised price controls for the water industry; and if he will make a statement. [114131]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Director General of Water Services has a statutory duty to ensure that companies can finance the proper carrying out of their functions. These functions include obligations enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. The handling of the price review is a matter for the Director. His report "Final Determinations: Future water and sewerage charges 2000–05" includes a full account of the price review process.

  Heathland Habitats (Dorset)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2000,Official Report, column 670W, if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance issued by English Nature to its local teams in September 1999. [114321]

  Mr. Mullin
  A copy of the Guidance will be placed in the Library within the next ten days.

  Roads (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made with the studies of improvements to the A453 between Kegworth and Clifton; when the results will be published; and if he will make a statement on the future of road links between the M1 motorway and the city of Nottingham. [114323]

  Mr. Hill
  The current study of the A453 corridor is part of the national programme of multi-modal studies to consider movements by all modes within specific corridors. In the East Midlands, consultants have been appointed for two studies (one on the A453 and the second on the M1 corridor, including routes into Kegworth). Work began in December 1999. The conclusions of both studies will be presented to the East Midlands Regional Planning Forum next year. The Secretary of State will then consider the Planning Forum's recommendations in the light of the studies' results.

  The A453 is one of the three trunk road links between the M1 and the City of Nottingham. All fall within the remit of the studies. I cannot anticipate the study outcomes but, in accordance with the Government's integrated transport policies, they will relate to transport by all modes.

  Bristol Road, Stonehouse
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps in conjunction with the British Railways Board and the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority to ensure that the land at Bristol Road, Stonehouse, is withdrawn from the next round of land sales. [112991]
  30W
  Mr. Hill
  The property at Stonehouse was included in the 60-day minimum Notice of Intention to market the site that was issued on 10 November 1999. BRB/sSRA will, in accordance with the marketing process announced by the Department in September 1999, take account of the representations made in response to that Notice when deciding how to sell the site.

  Fishing Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many fishing vessels were prohibited from putting to sea following safety inspections by officials of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [112766]

  Mr. Hill
  The numbers of fishing vessels prohibited from putting to sea following safety inspections by officials of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in each of the past five years are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1994–95

  26

  1995–96

  48

  1996–97

  55

  1997–98

  46

  1998–99

  49

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the range of penalties that can be imposed on the owners of fishing vessels for(a) the failure to maintain vessels in a seaworthy condition and (b) neglect of safety equipment; and if he will make a statement. [112767]

  Mr. Hill
  Owners of fishing vessels can be prosecuted for offences under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

  The owner of a dangerously unsafe fishing vessel can be fined a maximum of £50,000 by magistrates and face an unlimited fine and/or two years in prison if convicted in the Crown court.

  The owner of a fishing vessel is also liable for the unsafe operation of the vessel and faces the same penalties.

  In addition the owner of a fishing vessel faces a maximum fine of £5,000 before magistrates and an unlimited fine in the Crown court if his vessel contravenes any of the fishing vessel construction rules which include maintaining rules on safety equipment.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many officials are employed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to carry out inspections of fishing vessels in relation to(a) their seaworthiness and (b) the adequacy and maintenance of their safety equipment; and if he will make a statement. [112768]

  Mr. Hill
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency currently employs 16 marine surveyors to carry out safety inspections of fishing vessels. A further 41 coastguard officers are qualified to carry out basic safety checks on the under 12 metre fleet, and a further 17 are undergoing or awaiting training.

  Public Transport Personnel (Violent Attacks)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department is taking to combat violence against public transport personnel. [112606]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am very concerned about all work-related violence. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published a range of guidance on violence at work and I have asked the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) to consider options for further action which would make a significant impact on preventing assaults, verbal threats and abuse in the workplace, particularly for higher-risk occupations.

  In relation to the public transport sector, my Department has published guidance on how bus operators can reduce the risk of violence on their bus services, including the fitting of alarms and two-way radios on vehicles. The guidance has been widely circulated and well received throughout the industry.

  The HSC's Railway Industry Advisory Committee (RIAC) held a conference on violence at work in the railway sector on 8 July 1999. As a result, RIAC are developing a national co-ordinated plan in partnership with industry to reduce assaults.

  More generally, our programme of measures to improve personal security in the public transport system—including, for example, the Secure Stations Scheme launched in 1998—emphasises the need for transport operators to improve the personal security of both staff and passengers.

  Housing Spending
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the Government's total spending on housing in each of the years(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1995–96, (d) 1996–97, (e) 1997–98 and (f) 1998–99; and what it will be in (x) 1999–2000 and (y) 2000–01. [114416]

  Mr. Mullin
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Amount

  1993–94

  7,742.0

  1994–95

  7,166.3

  1995–96

  6,631.9

  1996–97

  5,418.5

  1997–98

  5,814.4

  1998–99

  5,577.8

  1999–2000

  5,898.3

  2000–01

  6,579.4

  Housebuilding Statistics
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the housebuilding figures announced on 7 March broken down by county. [114413]
  32W
  Mr. Raynsford
  On 20 March we will be publishing for consultation full details of proposed changes to the Regional Planning Guidance for the South-East. The consultation will include an illustrative distribution of housing provision to county level.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new(a) private houses and (b) social houses have been built in each of the years (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1996–97, (v) 1997–98 and (vi) 1998–99; and how many are planned for (x) 1999–2000 and (y) 2000–01. [114394]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The number of permanent dwellings completed in England are as follows:

  Calendar year

  Private houses

  Social houses

  1993

  116,700

  31,200

  1994

  122,700

  32,000

  1995

  125,500

  31,700

  1996

  121,600

  27,600

  1997

  128,000

  21,200

  1998

  121,200

  20,200

  1999 (provisional)

  122,300

  17,600

  Information on the numbers of houses built in 1999–2000 or expected to be built in 2000–01 is not available.

  South East England Development Agency
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what environmental objectives have been set for SEEDA. [114397]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have a statutory duty to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK, where it is relevant to their areas to do so.

  The RDAs, including SEEDA, presented their regional strategies to Ministers on 26 October last year. SEEDA's strategy, "Building a World Class Region", contains a chapter on "World Class Environment". This chapter sets out SEEDA's region-wide programme for addressing environmental needs, and contains a set of strategic priorities and objectives.

  A copy of SEEDA's strategy is available in the Library of the House.

  School Places (West Sussex)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what undertakings he has received from the Department of Education and Employment regarding the provision of additional schools and school places over the next 15 years to cater for the increased housing requirement in West Sussex. [114407]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will be consulting SERPLAN and others on the distribution of housing within the region, including for West Sussex, during the forthcoming consultation period. When regional planning guidance for the south-east is finalised later this year it will provide a planning framework which will assist decisions about the
  33W
  provision of supporting infrastructure, including the provision of additional schools and school places which are the responsibility of the local education authority. Where an authority can demonstrate growth in the need for school places, it may apply for capital funding.

  Housing Green Paper
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish his housing green paper. [114427]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 10 March 2000,Official Report, column 832W.

  Official Visits Abroad
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list his official visits abroad since May 1997; and what is their total cost. [114383]

  Ms Armstrong
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 June 1999,Official Report, column 196W. The Government will publish similar information on ministerial visits for the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 later this year.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many council house sales have been completed in each of the last 20 years. [114395]

  Mr. Mullin
  The available information is in the table.

  Number of local authority and New Town dwellings sold: England1

  Year

  Total sales

  1979–80

  55,400

  1980–81

  71,500

  1981–82

  132,100

  1982–83

  185,600

  1983–84

  126,000

  1984–85

  95,300

  1985–86

  89,500

  1986–87

  88,800

  1987–88

  116,200

  1988–89

  161,000

  1989–90

  168,500

  1990–91

  127,800

  1991–92

  70,900

  1992–93

  69,600

  1993–94

  84,200

  1994–95

  87,400

  1995–96

  79,100

  1996–97

  57,700

  1997–98

  77,800

  1998–99

  117,800

  1 Includes all sales and transfers, but excludes those from local authorities to Housing Action Trusts and from New Towns to local authorities.

  Source:

  DETR Housing Activity P1 (B) (quarterly) and Housing Investment Programme (annual) returns.
  34W
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many council houses he estimates will have been sold to tenants in the current financial year. [114396]

  Mr. Mullin
  Latest information on sales show that nearly 24,000 dwellings were sold into owner-occupation in England during the first six months of 1999–2000. It is not possible to predict accurately how many outstanding applications will be completed in the second half of the year.

  Habitation Density
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what density of habitation for housebuilding will result for each region of England from his Policy Statement in response to the Crow report on 7 March. [114405]

  Mr. Raynsford
  More than half of all new housing in England is built at less than 20 dwellings per hectare. Planning Policy Guidance note 3, "Housing", requires local authorities to avoid such developments which make inefficient use of land and encourages more efficient use of land by developing new housing at 30 to 50 dwellings net per hectare net. PPG3 applies to all planning authorities in England.

  Development Statistics
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what balance of brownfield and greenfield development he expects to take place in each of the English regions in the next 15 years as a result of his statement on 7 March. [114412]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The national target is that by 2008, 60 per cent. of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land or through conversions of existing buildings. Each region should propose, as part of its draft regional planning guidance, its own target to contribute to this national figure. Most have now done so. However, apart from in the south-east and East Anglia, these proposed targets have not yet been tested through the public examination process. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 7 March that the target for the south-east region outside of London should be 60 per cent. London already achieves over 80 per cent. of residential development on recycled land or through conversions, and we expect that to continue. Announcement on the RPG for East Anglia will be made on 20 March.

  Housebuilding (South-east)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what extent the housebuilding requirement for the south-east of England as set out in his statement on 7 March will differ from that recommended by SERPLAN. [114404]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Allowing for housing completions between 1991 and 1996, SERPLAN proposed a "baseline provision" of 660,000, with a higher "indicative range" to be provided through the structure plan process of 696,000 to 718,000 additional dwellings in the region outside of London between 1996 and 2016. In London the provision for the same period was 462,000 to 512,000 dwellings, allowing for completions. The Government's proposal
  35W
  would be for an annual rate of provision of 43,000 dwellings outside of London and 23,000 within London. That would amount to 860,000 and 460,000 respectively for the same period. However, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in his announcement on 7 March that we do not believe in fixed 20-year housing requirements. Instead, there will be a more flexible approach with the level of housing provision for the region adjusted in the light of monitoring. Such reviews will take place at least every five years.

  Affordable Housing (South-east)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his definition is of affordable housing as applied to the south-east region. [114426]

  Mr. Raynsford
  For the purposes of planning policy, affordable housing is defined in Circular 6/98 as low cost market and subsidised housing (irrespective of tenure, ownership—whether exclusive or shared—or financial arrangements) that are available to people who cannot afford to rent or buy houses generally available on the open market.

  Housebuilding (West Sussex)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new homes will need to be built in West Sussex in(a) the next 15 years and (b) over each of the next five years as a result of his housebuilding policy announcement on 7 March. [114402]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 20 March we will be publishing, for consultation, the full details of our proposed changes to regional planning guidance for the South-East. These will include an illustrative breakdown of housing to county areas within the region to achieve the overall level of 43,000 new homes a year outside London announced on 7 March. This will include an annual rate of provision for West Sussex. We will be seeking the views of the local authorities in the region, through SERPLAN, and those of other interested parties, on that distribution.

  Housebuilding (Brownfield Sites)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what tax incentives he has recommended to the Chancellor to encourage more housebuilding on brownfield sites. [114403]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In his Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor announced that the Government were considering fiscal instruments to support their policies for sustainable urban development. Decisions on taxation are a matter for the Chancellor.

  Water Supply (West Sussex)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the water companies about ensuring the increased provision of water supplies to West Sussex homes following his announcement on 7 March on the need for more houses. [114401]
  36W
  Mr. Mullin
  Under the supervision of the Environment Agency, each water company produced in April 1999 a water resources plan, showing how it would maintain an adequate balance between supply and demand in its area for the next 25 years. The Environment Agency published its assessment of these plans in a report to my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales in June 1999.

  Following guidance issued by the Environment Agency on 28 February 2000, each water company will review its plan annually and will report the outcome to the Environment Agency in September each year. In that way, each water company will show how it proposes to respond to any changes which may influence its water resources plan. The Environment Agency will report to Ministers its assessment of these annual reviews.

  Medical Services (West Sussex)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what undertakings he has received from the Department of Health regarding the provision of additional hospital and other medical services over the next 15 years to cater for the increased housing requirement in West Sussex. [114408]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will be consulting SERPLAN and others on the distribution of housing within the region, including for West Sussex, during the forthcoming consultation period. When regional planning guidance for the South East is finalised later this year it will provide a planning framework which will assist decisions about the provision of supporting infrastructure, including additional hospital and other medical services.

  Housing Demand (South-east)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has given to local authorities when drawing up their own five year local plans as to the effect of the Government's five-year reviews of housing demand in the South East of England. [114398]

  Mr. Raynsford
  When finalised later this year regional planning guidance will set the overall level of housing provision for the region and provide a distribution to constituent structure plan and unitary development plan authorities. This will be expressed as an annual rate to be applied throughout the plan period. At a local plan level PPG3, published on 7 March, advises that sufficient sites should be shown on the proposals map to accommodate at least the first five years (or the first two phases) of housing development proposed in the plan. If the rate of provision at the regional level changes as a result of the monitoring and review process, local authorities will need to consider whether consequential adjustments have to be made through reviews of development plans.

  Crow Report
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to investigate the leaks regarding the Government's response to the Crow report to which he referred in his announcement in the House on 7 March. [114409]
  37W
  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department is conducting an investigation into the leak of information in the normal way.

  Single Person Occupancy
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he intends to put in place to discourage single person occupancy of new households over the next 20 years. [114406]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The latest household projections for England for the period 1996–2021 indicate that 71 per cent. of new households are likely to be formed by single persons. Planning Policy Guidance note 3 therefore advises local authorities to adopt policies which take full account of changes in housing needs in their areas and which will widen the range of housing opportunities to allow these to be met. It is not for the Government to encourage or discourage any particular size of household.

  Gas-powered Vehicles
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the development of liquefied petroleum gas-powered vehicles in rural areas. [113932]

  Mr. Hill
  We are committed to developing a sustainable market for alternatively fuelled vehicles, which can offer benefits in terms of emissions of local air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Liquefied petroleum gas powered vehicles offer most benefits when they are used in urban areas, particularly when used by commercial operators instead of diesel. Of course the climate change benefits that LPG vehicles can bring are as welcome in the countryside as they are in our towns and cities. However, our priority for LPG vehicles is to encourage their use in urban areas, for instance, through the use of fiscal measures and the Energy Saving Trust's Powershift programme. We also want to see the development of a publicly accessible LPG refuelling infrastructure in these areas.

  We do recognise that a properly strategic refuelling infrastructure that operators can rely on will require LPG refuelling stations in some rural areas, particularly near major trunk roads, so the infrastructure has national coverage. This will enable the climate change benefits gas-powered vehicles can bring to be further realised.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the level of capital investment by National Air Traffic Services Ltd. in each year for which figures are available from 1 April 1996. [114005]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on 2 March 2000,Official Report, columns 333–34W.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to include measures to modernise the rights of way network in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill; and if he will make a statement. [112568]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill which was introduced on 3 March includes several measures to improve the rights of way network. I have also announced that the Government will bring forward additional rights of way measures during the Bill's passage.

DEFENCE

  KFOR
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of KFOR deployed in Kosovo. [114258]

  Mr. Spellar
  The strength of KFOR deployed in Kosovo on 9 March is 39,096.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of KFOR; and which countries are contributing forces to the operation, indicating how many men each contributes. [114257]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 9 March 2000 the strength of KFOR was 44,939. This figure includes 5,843 personnel based in FYROM, Greece and Albania. The number of men and women contributed to KFOR, by nation, are as listed.

  Number

  NATO Nations

  Belgium

  1,146

  Canada

  1,382

  Czech Republic

  180

  Denmark

  752

  France

  4,860

  Germany

  5,685

  Greece

  1,186

  Hungary

  307

  Iceland

  2

  Italy

  5,970

  Luxembourg

  2

  The Netherlands

  1,615

  Norway

  1,261

  Poland

  756

  Portugal

  341

  Spain

  1,226

  Turkey

  1,088

  United Kingdom

  3,368

  United States

  6,065

  Non NATO Nations

  Argentina

  111

  Austria

  470

  Azerbaijan

  34

  Bulgaria

  39

  Estonia

  10

  Finland

  812

  Georgia

  34

  Ireland

  99

  Jordan

  104

  Latvia

  10

  Lithuania

  30

  Morocco

  347

  39W

  Number

  Russia

  3,141

  Slovakia

  39

  Slovenia

  6

  Sweden

  826

  Switzerland

  133

  Ukraine

  240

  United Arab Emirates

  1,262

  Training Parachute Jumps
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of training parachute jumps undertaken by Army personnel in each of the past five years. [114255]

  Mr. Spellar
  The total number of recorded parachute training jumps undertaken by Army personnel in the last five years is set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of descents

  1995

  32,639

  1996

  29,558

  1997

  27,389

  1998

  27,385

  1999

  29,221

  Total

  146,192

  Catterick Garrison
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the new garages, workshops and hard standing for main battle tanks at Catterick Garrison. [113750]

  Mr. Spellar
  The cost of garages, workshops and hardstanding for the main battle tanks at Catterick Garrison, known as Megiddo Lines, was £13.7 million.

  Helicopter Support Authority
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future location of the defence helicopter support organisation. [113756]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no plans to move the Defence Helicopter Support Authority from its current location at Yeovilton. The DHSA will become part of the Equipment Support (Air) Business Unit from 1 April 2000 within the Defence Logistics Organisation.

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Organisation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111765]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.
  40W
  Letter from Terence S. Lord to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 13 March 2000:
  I am writing in response to your request to the Secretary of State for Defence for information with regard to AFPAA targets which were not achieved for 1998–1999 and the action taken to improve target achievement performance for 1999–2000. As Chief Executive of the Armed Forces Personnel Agency (AFPAA), I have been asked to reply.
  The information requested is contained in the AFPAA Annual Report (HC631) under the section entitled 'Performance against Key Targets 1998–1999', a copy of which is in the Library of the House. For ease of reference, a copy of the aforementioned section of the Annual Report is attached.
  You will note that the Agency achieved all its key/milestone targets (in most cases exceeding 1998–1999 performance targets and achieving those set for 1999–2000), except the formulation of a plan to validate the completeness and accuracy of military records of service and subsequently to introduce sample validation, which was only partially achieved. The validation of personnel records is a necessary precursor to the introduction of the new pay system for the Armed Forces, which is now due for delivery by 1 April 2001, and the creation of a tri-Service Corporate Personnel Database (CPD).
  While plans were formulated and detailed discussions were held with the Agency's customers (the Service Principal Personnel Officers), the sampling methods necessary to enable the checks to be carried out were not completed to original targets. The proliferation of single-Service legacy systems (those inherited on the formation of the Agency) rendered the validation task and the introduction of appropriate sampling methods far more complex than had been originally forecast. Consequently, this work has been carried forward into the current Financial Year.
  As you might imagine, this is a high priority for AFPAA at the moment and plans are being addressed with both our customers and our private partner, Electronic Data Systems (Defence) Limited, with the intention of completing the initial data cleansing later this year, and thereafter introducing a programme of rolling data validation.
  I hope that this information is useful to you.

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111749]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from G. G. Holton to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 13 March 2000:
  In response to Parliamentary Question 1156K. The Defence Intelligence and Security Centre achieved 4 out of its 5 key targets during financial year 1998–1999. On the attached we have highlighted each key target, indicating if the key target was met or not and provided a short summary for each.
  The DISC did not achieve key target 4. Although the endorsed training programme was delivered the Agency did overspend during the course of the financial year. We have explained the main reasons for this and have attributed the fact to problems that were experienced in setting up the Departments largest tri-service training agency. We have now put in place a rigorous financial monitoring system to ensure that our resource management is more closely scrutinised.

  41W
  Finally, we would like to draw your attention to the recently published Agency Annual Report and Accounts for 1998–99, which sets out a summary of our achievements and future challenges that lie ahead for the Agency, a copy of which is attached. Further copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Defence Codification Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Codification Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111732]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Codification Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from K. A. Bradshaw to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 13 March 2000:
  1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about achievement of Defence Codification Agency (DCA) key targets as the matter falls within my area of responsibility.
  I have numbered the replies to match your questions.
  a. (1) Achieved: Attain a 10% reduction in Agency running costs (achieved 15.3%), reduction in unit cost of codification to under £51 (achieved £41.40), attain a 5% reduction of post codification challenges (achieved 5%). There were no significant factors affecting the target achievement.
  (2) Not achieved: Meet timescales for UK codification as agreed in SLAs/CSAs (target 85% achieved 80%), meet timescales for International Codification requests (target 95% achieved 92%), new items codified using source data (target 75% achieved 73%). The implementation shortfall of the revised Codification IT system (ISIS2) contributed significantly to these targets not being achieved.
  On 1 April 1999, the Defence Codification Agency ceased to exist and was subsumed with the Logistic Support Services Agency. The ISIS2 database has now been fully implemented and performance shortfalls have been eliminated.
  2. The above information has been extracted from the Defence Codification Agency Annual Report and Accounts 1999, a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library reference HC720.

  Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) those targets of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency for 1998–99 which (i) were and (ii) were not achieved, giving the factors affecting the outcome in each case and (b) action taken by the agency to improve target achievement performance in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [111754]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from B. J. Cash to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 13 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about those targets of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency which were and were not achieved in 1998/99, factors affecting these outcomes and actions taken to improve performance in 1999/2000. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the British Forces Post Office, as the Defence Postal and Courtier Services Agency is now named.
  42W
  The Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency was set four Key targets, all of which it achieved.

  a. To achieve a 2% improvement in the range of postal and courier services provided.

  b. To achieve independent assessment of DPCSA using the British Quality Foundation (BQF) Business Excellence Model (BEM) by 31 Mar 99, to enable subsequent measurement of business improvements.

  c. To exceed an average 95.85% satisfaction of Customers' postal and courier requirements.

  d. To exceed an average 3% improvement in unit cost per output.

  Factors affecting the outcomes were:

  a. DPCSA launched an initiative to stock part of the Royal Mail Post Shop range at all Forces Post Offices world-wide, to enable customers to have access to, amongst other products, packaging materials approved by the Post Office.

  b. DPCSA devoted considerable resources to BEM assessment, and focused on putting forward an entry into the United Kingdom National Quality Award.

  c. The Agency exceeded its postal and courier Quality of Service requirements against a background of a major Operational deployment to Kosovo. Despite the difficulties endemic in Operational support, and the deployment of Agency personnel to the Theatre, careful management of the postal network and the employment of civilian casual staff ensured that the target was met.

  d. Despite the increased mail volumes generated by the Kosovo deployment, the Agency's overall costs did not increase in real terms, which led to a reduction in the unit costs of output.

  Although all targets were achieved in 1998/99, BFPO has more stringent Quality of Service targets for 1999/2000, and is required to deliver a further 3% reduction in the unit cost of output. All parts of the Agency are under scrutiny to improve efficiency, and Quality of Service is monitored by me on a weekly basis, to ensure that BFPO is on target to meet its targets.
  Fuller details of the Agency's achievements last year can be found in the annual report for 1998/99, which is held in the library of the House.

  Floods (Mozambique)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many helicopters his Department has offered for use in Mozambique to the Department for International Development; what financial charge he has made in respect of this offer to the Department for International Development; and what other offers of assistance his Department has made to the Department for International Development. [113460]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on 8 March 2000, Official Report, column 710W and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 8 March 2000, Official Report, column 710W with regard to how many helicopters my Department has offered and the financial charge to the Department for International Development.

  MOD officials discussed with their colleagues in the Department for International Development the additional option of deploying a small number of Royal Marines and their equipment to Mozambique. Since large numbers of boats and boat handlers were already due to arrive in Mozambique, the Department for International Development did not pursue this offer.

  SSBN Force
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future size of the SSBN force. [113908]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have nothing to add to the position set out in the Strategic Defence Review (Supporting Essay Five, paragraph 6).

  Kosovo
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library all procurement assessment details and requests carried out by MOD staff in relation to Kosovo. [104834]

  Mr. Hoon
  Details of some of the equipment procured for use in Kosovo are classified and I am withholding information on them under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I will, however, place in the Library a list of unclassified equipment procured for use in Kosovo.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Carter Center, Atlanta
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) projects carried out in each year since 1992 and (b) work in progress under part or full funding by his Department by the Carter Center, Atlanta, United States of America.
  [112749]

  Mr. Battle
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not in fact funded any projects carried out by the Carter Center, Atlanta, but the Carter Center is DFID's key partner in global efforts to eradicate guinea worm.

  India (Bonded Labour)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Indian Government's response to the concerns the Minister of State raised on the issue of bonded labour during his visit in November. [113588]

  Mr. Hain
  We continue to raise the issue of bonded labour with the Indian Government and the Indian Human Rights Commission, both nationally and at state level.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received (1) on the release of bonded labourers from the villages of Kili-Nahal-Singh-Wala and Buraj Mehma in Punjab State, India; and what prosecutions were initiated against landlords in respect of bonded labourers; [113590]

  (2) regarding the attempted abduction of bonded labourers from the human rights organisation, Volunteers for Social Justice, on 7 February; and what reports he has received on the action that has been taken by the Indian authorities to bring to justice the instigators of this attack and ensure the safety of human rights workers at Volunteers for Social Justice. [113589]
  44W
  Mr. Hain
  We are aware of these cases. Our High Commission in New Delhi has written about them to the Chair of the Punjab State Human Rights Commission and has also raised them with the Indian National Human Rights Commission.

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department's officials gave to the police regarding the Chinese state visit. [113743]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on 28 October 1999,Official Report, column 993W, and to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 28 October 1999, Official Report, columns 993–94W.

  Millenium Civil Society Forum
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the plans of the United Nations Millennium Summit and General Assembly to make use of the report to be produced by the Millennium Civil Society Forum in May. [114087]

  Mr. Hain
  A formal decision has still to be taken on the linkage between the Millenium Civil Society Forum and the Millenium Summit and Assembly. The Forum's report should be a valuable input to the Summit and Assembly. With our European Union partners, the Government are pressing for the fullest possible Millenium Forum representation at these events.

  Atomic Energy Counsellor (Japan)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the nature of the contractual appointment of a BNFL employee as the atomic energy counsellor in the British Embassy in Japan; what payment is made annually by BNFL in respect of this appointment; and when the arrangements with BNFL covering this embassy post were agreed. [114084]

  Mr. Hain
  The appointment of a BNFL employee on secondment to the post of Atomic Energy Counsellor at the British Embassy in Tokyo is in line with the usual contractual arrangements for such secondments. These are that he functions as a fully integrated member of the Embassy, works solely to objectives set by the Government, is bound by Diplomatic Service Regulations relating to conduct and discipline, and is answerable to the Ambassador and ultimately my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

  There is no payment to the FCO in respect of this appointment, but BNFL does meet the costs associated with it. These are around £500,000 annually. This arrangement has been in place for 33 years and was last reviewed with BNFL upon the appointment of the present incumbent in 1997.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what examination of prison
  45W
  conditions and the length of detention without trial has been undertaken by United Kingdom officials in Pakistan. [113820]

  Mr. Hain
  We are concerned that detainees can be held without charge for up to 90 days. We are raising this with the Pakistani authorities and are considering a further demarche together with our EU colleagues.

  Official examinations of prisons are prohibited by the Pakistani authorities. We take up complaints about prison conditions, for example by British prisoners, with the Pakistani authorities.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts United Kingdom representatives have had with human rights and civil liberties groups in Pakistan since the military take over; and if he will make a statement. [113814]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave in reply to him on 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 141W.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions have been taken by his Department to encourage India and Pakistan to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and if he will make a statement. [113813]

  Mr. Hain
  Having the G8 and EU Presidency, the UK played a leading role in co-ordinating the international response to the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests. We continue to take every opportunity to urge both countries to take all the steps set out in United Nations Security Council resolution 1172, including acceding to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as Non-Nuclear-Weapon States.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review the relations between the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. [114176]

  Mr. Hain
  We have recalled our High Commissioner for consultations.

  James Mawdsley
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the imprisonment of James Mawdsley in Burma; and what representations he has made to the Burmese Government. [114379]

  Mr. Hain
  British Embassy officials have visited James six times. The last visit took place on 9 February. James has told us that he is well. Our Ambassador in Rangoon regularly raises James's case with the Burmese authorities, most recently with the Deputy Foreign Minister on 1 March. Baroness Scotland, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, also called in the Burmese Ambassador to express our concerns about the case in September 1999.
  46W
  In particular, we have protested about:

  the failure of the Burmese authorities to inform us of his arrest;

  the delay over consular access;

  the denial of legal representation;

  the length of the sentence;

  mistreatment in prison;

  lack of access to reading and writing material;

  length of recreation time;

  delay in getting the trial transcript;

  delays in receiving food parcels, letters and books.

  We will continue to do everything we can to help James. We are in frequent contact with his family.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest assessment of the situation of James Mawdsley, imprisoned in Burma. [114006]

  Mr. Hain
  British Embassy officials have visited James six times. The most recent visit took place on 9 February. James has told us that he is well. We have raised with the Burmese authorities complaints he has had about his treatment.

  We do not comment on the legal aspects of charges levelled against British nationals overseas. We do all we can to ensure they have access to legal representation and receive a fair trial.

  China
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the results were of the recent EU and People's Republic of China human rights dialogue with regard to Tibet; and if he will make a statement. [114260]

  Mr. Battle
  The last round of the EU/China Human Rights dialogue took place in Lisbon on 25 February. The Presidency called on the Chinese Government to enter into a dialogue with the Dalai Lama on the future of Tibet, and raised the case of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the Dalai Lama's choice as Panchen Lama; restrictions on freedom of religious expression; and the preservation of the Tibetan cultural identity. They also called for better access to Tibet for non-governmental organisations and journalists. The EU/China discussions did not, however, lead to concrete results: specifically, the Chinese gave no commitment on a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, nor on access to Gedhun Choekyi Nyima whose parents, they stated, did not want to expose him to media attention.

  EU Ministers will review the human rights dialogue and the situation in China, including Tibet, at the General Affairs Council on 21 March. At our most recent round of bilateral talks on human rights, it was agreed that the All Party Group could visit Tibet.

  Iraq
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what approach was made to him by the makers of the ITV television programme shown on Monday 6 March on Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [114170]
  47W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  John Pilger asked me to appear in the programme. My officials offered him a ministerial interview to be broadcast at the end of the programme to respond to the points raised. He refused.

  During the programme itself, Pilger claimed this meant I was seeking editorial control. On the contrary, I was not prepared to allow him to edit my right of reply.

  The TV companies are required to provide balanced coverage. It is normal practice for programmes to provide a right of reply when broadcasting criticisms of government policy. Though I am unsurprised, I regret that Pilger and Carlton TV were not prepared to do so.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest policy of Her Majesty's Government towards sanctions on Iraq. [114171]

  Mr. Hain
  The UN Security Council resolutions provide the framework for the Government's policy on Iraq and sanctions. Our position has always been that sanctions can be lifted only when Iraq complies with its obligations under those resolutions, including disarmament. The latest resolution, SCR 1284, which the UK was key in driving through the Security Council, sets out a clear path towards the lifting of sanctions, by allowing for their suspension while the disarmament programme is underway. I urge Saddam Hussein to accept it.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farmed Sea Bass
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the labelling of farmed sea bass. [113079]

  Mr. Morley
  The Food Safety Act 1990 and the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 generally require that labelling should not falsely describe a food or be likely to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality. These provisions are to be supplemented by new European rules, which come into force on 1 January 2002. These will specifically require an indication of the production method (caught at sea or in inland waters or farmed) to be given for all fish offered for sale to the final consumer. They will also have to indicate the agreed sales name for the species and, in the case of sea fish, the catch area.

  Genetically Modified Seeds
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what genetically modified seeds he plans to add to the National Seed List; and if he will make a statement. [111967]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: Applications for the addition of plant varieties to the National List are considered against the requirements of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (as amended) which implement EC directives. These regulations require that varieties must be distinct, uniform and stable (DUS) and, for agricultural species, have a value for cultivation and use (VCU) in the UK. Before genetically modified plant varieties may be proposed for addition to the National List, Ministers also require that a
  48W
  marketing consent has been promulgated under Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms, and, where appropriate, authorisation has been given under the Novel Foods Regulation, No. 258/97/EEC.

  Ministers are currently considering making a proposed decision about the addition to the National List of a genetically modified forage maize variety (CHARDON LL). The variety in question has completed the normal two years of National List tests and trials, and the trait involved has a marketing consent under Directive 90/220/EEC and an authorisation under the Novel Foods Regulation No. 258/97/EEC. As required under the National List regulations, once a proposed decision has been made by Ministers, it will be published in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette together with the procedure for making representations against such a proposed decision.

  However, the Government's recent agreement with SCIMAC (representing the seeds, farming and biotechnology industries in the UK), precludes the general commercialisation of GM maize until 2003 at the earliest, subject to the results of the UK farm-scale evaluation programme.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions ministers in his Department have held meetings with ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 17 June 1999, indicating the dates and locations, the ministers involved, and the names of the Irish ministers and officials at each meeting. [113089]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  There have been no formal meetings between MAFF Ministers and Irish Ministers since 17 June 1999. Informal contacts have taken place in the margins of EU Agriculture Councils, on 19 July, 15 November, 14 December 1999 and 24 January 2000, and Fisheries Councils on 26 October, 22 November and 16 December 1999.

  Drift Nets
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by coastal area the number of(a) dolphins, (b) whales and (c) basking sharks caught by coastal drift nets within six miles of the UK coast for each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [113274]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not available. Inshore drift nets are not considered to represent a significant threat to these species.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Pensions
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in receipt of war and war widows' pensions in(a) Bolton, North-East parliamentary constituency and (b) Bolton. [111579]
  49W
  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of war pensions is a matter for the Chief Executive of the War Pensions Agency, Mr. Gordon Hextall. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Gordon Hextall to Mr. David Crausby, dated 8 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people are in receipt of war and war widows' pensions in (a) Bolton North East parliamentary constituency and (b) Bolton.
  I am sorry to advise you that this precise information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The war pensions computer system does not separate details of war pensioners into Parliamentary constituencies or local authority areas.
  However, the computer system does provide statistics showing the numbers of war disablement pensioners and war widows resident in Welfare Office regions. Pensioners and widows living in Bolton fall within the Preston welfare region, which also covers Blackburn, Preston, part of Wigan and some parts of Greater Manchester.
  The statistics held for the area that includes Bolton are:

  War disablement pensioners—6953

  War widows—858

  If I can be of further assistance then please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Funeral Expenses
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time taken between receipt of invoice and payment of funeral expenses by the Social Fund. [113634]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Chris Pond, dated 10 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent question asking about the average length of time taken between receipt of invoice and payment of funeral expenses by the Social Fund.
  The Benefits Agency (BA) does not record the date of receipt of funeral invoices in connection with claims for funeral payments, as an invoice or bill is not required in every case. For example, applications made in advance of the funeral may be determined using a "contract" between the customer and the Funeral Director.
  We do however collect information about length of time taken from the date the application is received in the office to the date a decision is issued. This data does not distinguish between decisions making a full award, a partial award or a refusal. The Performance Indicator for Funeral Payments is that 90% of applications should be determined within 35 days. For the period April 1999-February 2000 BA received 62,557 Funeral Payment applications. 60,411 (96.57%) of these applications were determined within 35 days.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of increasing the amount allowable for funeral expenses under the Social Fund to(a) £800 and (b) £1,000. [113632]

  Angela Eagle
  The Social Fund Funeral Payment scheme aims to cover the reasonable cost of a simple, dignified funeral. Therefore, under current legislation, where an eligible person is deemed to have good reason for taking responsibility for funeral expenses, the scheme allows for the fees levied by the burial authorities and crematoria (in so far as it is necessary to incur them), specified travel expenses and up to £600 for any other 50W
  funeral expenses. If this £600 for other funeral expenses were to be increased to £800 or £1,000, it is estimated that the net programme expenditure would increase by £7.4 million and £12.8 million respectively.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of applications to the Social Fund for funeral expenses are refused(a) in whole and (b) in part. [113633]

  Angela Eagle
  Statistics compiled so far for 1999—2000 indicate that of the total number of claims made to the Social Fund for Funeral Payments, 37 per cent. are wholly refused and 56 per cent. result in a partial award.

  Independent Tribunal Service
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he issues guidelines to Chairmen of Independent Tribunal Service hearings; what is the recommended time for them to provide appellants with written explanations for decisions; what is the average time currently taken; and if he will make a statement. [113733]

  Angela Eagle
  We do not issue guidelines to Chairmen of the Appeals Service (formerly the Independent Tribunal Service) tribunals. The President of appeal tribunals, Judge Michael Harris, is responsible for the functions of appeal tribunals. We cannot intervene in the matters for which the President is responsible.

  Judge Harris is working to develop standards for all areas of interlocutory work, including provision of written explanations for decisions and he will write to the hon. Member when these are in place.

  The average time for an appellant to receive a written explanation for the decision of a tribunal is 5.3 weeks. The average time for the Chairman to provide the written reasons is 4.0 weeks. This is calculated from the date that the Chairman received the appellant's request to the date that the reasons were passed to the administrative clerk.

  Source:
  100 per cent. download from the Appeals Service Generic Appeals Processing System. The figures are based on requests for reasons received between 1 August 1998 and 31 July 1999.

  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of the administration of the Benefits Agency Independent Tribunal Service in the last year for which figures are available. [113474]

  Angela Eagle
  The Independent Tribunal Service was not part of the Benefits Agency.

  The cost of the administration of the Independent Tribunal Service (now the Appeals Service) for the 1998–99 financial year was £55.890 million.

  Housing Benefit (Verification Framework)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if a recent letter from the police regarding investigation of a burglary at a property is acceptable proof of identification to comply with the housing benefit verification framework. [113774]
  51W
  Angela Eagle
  The relevance or weight given to any piece of evidence in support of a claim is a matter for the local authority concerned. The Verification Framework requires local authorities to look at the whole picture presented by a claimant when establishing identity. It would not be appropriate for this Department to direct local authorities as to the weight they should give to a particular piece of evidence, which may or may not be relevant depending on the wider circumstances of the case.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend the definition of hostels for the purposes of implementation of the housing benefit verification framework to other organisations providing accommodation for the vulnerable and socially excluded. [113650]

  Angela Eagle
  The definition of hostel that exists ensures that most bona fide direct access, short stay accommodation for the homeless is covered. The special rules for hostels are designed to ensure that this type of accommodation is available to the socially excluded. For all other types of accommodation the Verification Framework is sufficiently flexible to allow genuine claimants to satisfy its requirements and receive their benefit entitlement. In very exceptional documented cases the local authority can decide to make payment even when the Verification Framework standard has not been met.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has published a list of acceptable proofs of identification to comply with the housing benefit verification framework. [113773]

  Angela Eagle
  The Verification Framework initially contained a prescriptive list of documents that could be accepted as evidence of identity; each claimant was required to provide two of the documents on that list. It soon became apparent that this was not the best way to establish identity in many cases. Such rules particularly disadvantaged the vulnerable and socially excluded.

  Revised guidance was issued to all local authorities in July 1999. This guidance stresses the importance of looking at the whole picture presented by a claimant and their circumstances. It allows local authorities to build a picture to support a person's claim using different sources of evidence. The new guidance deliberately does not contain a prescriptive list of acceptable documentary evidence.

  The Verification Framework does provide guidance as to the level of confidence that can be applied to various commonly submitted documents relating to ID.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he gives landlords about what they should do if a potential tenant is unable to produce any forms of identification acceptable to local authority housing benefit officers to comply with the verification framework. [113772]

  Angela Eagle
  The verification framework sets standards for local authorities to follow in establishing entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not give guidance to landlords on identity requirements as decisions on letting property are distinct from decisions on benefit entitlement. Where a person is unsure whether
  52W
  or not they might get Housing Benefit, it is advisable for them to make inquiries of their local authority before entering into an agreement to pay rent.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he gives local authorities on telling potential tenants what are accepted proofs of identification to comply with the housing benefit verification framework. [113771]

  Angela Eagle
  The verification framework requires local authorities to make it clear on their claim forms what documentary evidence the claimant will need to supply. However, when establishing identity there is no specific list of documents which claimants must supply. Indeed, to have such a list would cause problems for those claimants who are most vulnerable, as they are least likely to have specific documents.

  The framework requires local authorities to look at each case on its merits when examining supporting evidence. Where a claimant has little or no documentary evidence of identity, the local authority should give consideration as to why that is when considering how to progress the case.

  Income Support
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he proposes to encourage the take-up of income support unclaimed by those already in receipt of the state pension but entitled to additional benefit. [113176]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are committed to taking action to find more effective ways of encouraging eligible pensioners to claim their benefit entitlement. We will shortly be announcing our plans to encourage pensioners to take up their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee.

  Hospital Downrating
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what, in the latest financial year for which figures are available, were the total savings accruing from hospital downrating. [113074]

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

  Estimated savings from hospital down rating, by benefit, 1998–99

  £ million

  Benefit

  Estimated savings

  Retirement pension

  55

  Incapacity benefit/severe disablement allowance

  45

  Disability living allowance (mobility component)

  5

  Notes:

  1. Savings estimates are based on samples of administrative data. It is assumed that the weeks of each sample are typical of the financial year as a whole. Figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  2. Estimates for income-related benefits (Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit) not available. In November 1999 there were an estimated 1,000 Income Support claimants who had been in hospital for between 4 and 52 weeks, and 2,000 claimants who had been in hospital for over 52 weeks.

  3. Disability Living Allowance mobility savings arise from transitionally protected Higher Rate Mobility cases.
  53W
  4. Disability Living Allowance (other than transitionally protected cases), Attendance Allowance and Invalid Care Allowance estimates are not included as these benefits generally cease after four weeks or less in hospital.

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking in respect of those area directorates where fraud in income support and jobseeker's allowance increased in the last area benefit review; and if he will make a statement. [114003]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: The Benefits Agency's Area Directorates have plans in place which help them to direct their resources effectively to areas of greatest risk. The plans are regularly reviewed to see how effective areas are in paying benefits accurately and securely and appropriate adjustments are made. We are paying close attention to those areas where levels of fraud and error have risen.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department began the programme to check the veracity of national insurance numbers; when the programme is expected to end; how many numbers(a) have so far been checked and (b) remain to be checked; and how many of the numbers so far checked have been identified as bogus. [113630]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: A programme to check the correctness of accounts held on the Departmental Central Index (DCI) was set up on 6 November 1995 and is currently expected to run until March 2001. Since the start of the programme all accounts held on DCI have been continually scanned.

  By May 1999 of the 81 million National Insurance accounts currently held on the Departments computer index about 1 million (1.23 per cent.) had certain types of anomalies (e.g. incorrect address format, two accounts showing the same identity details etc). These were further checked and about 750,000 (0.93 per cent.) were found to be inaccurate.

  These can be broken down into 645,000 (0.8 per cent.) which were identified as duplicate cases caused by faulty information or inputting error and have since been deleted and approximately 100,000 cases which have been investigated and corrected.

  Of the total in only 11 cases has it been established that the account was deliberately created in order to establish a false identity and fraudulently gain access to benefits. We are currently re-running the initial scans and designing new scans to identify any further "at risk" accounts on the index.

  Child Support
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in 2002–03 of introducing a £10 child maintenance disregard for 54W
  (a) parents with care on Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance and (b) parents with care on Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance where maintenance has been assessed under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. [1143721

  Angela Eagle
  The reformed child support scheme, including the introduction of a £10 maintenance premium (or disregard) in Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, will come into effect for new cases by April 2002. Existing cases will be moved across at a later date, once the new arrangements are seen to be working well. On this basis, the net costs of the child maintenance premium, taking account of offsetting savings from the abolition of the Child Maintenance Bonus, will be around £20 million in 2002–03. If all existing cases were to qualify for the premium from April 2002, the additional net first year costs would be around £65 million.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many non-resident parents will pay more maintenance under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill for each of the weekly income bands(a) £0 to £99, (b) £100 to £149, (c) £150 to £199, (d) £200 to £249, (e) £250 to £299 and (f) £300 to £400. [114373]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table. Changes in assessment for existing cases will be phased in.

  Non-resident parents in work who would have a higher maintenance assessment under the reformed child support scheme.

  Net weekly income

  Caseloads

  £0 to £99

  20,000

  £100 to £149

  50,000

  £150 to £199

  60,000

  £200 to £249

  35,000

  £250 to £299

  15,000

  £300 to £400

  10,000

  Notes:

  1. New scheme maintenance modelled on August 1998 5 per cent. scan of Child Support Computer System.

  2. Caseloads calibrated to forecast 'A' day levels (April 2002).

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

HEALTH

  Breast Implants
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often and when the Independent Review Group meets to consider published scientific information relating to breast implants and health issues; and if he will list its membership. [110097]

  Mr. Denham
  The Independent Review Group continues to meet twice a year to review any new evidence on possible health risks associated with silicone gel breast implants or the issues relating to pre-operative patient information.
  55W
  The current members of the Independent Review Group are as follows:
  Professor R. D. Sturrock—The McLeod Arthritis Research Campaign Professor of Rheumatology, University of Glasgow (Chairman)
  Professor J. R. Batchelor—Emeritus Professor of Immunology, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine on the Campus of Hammersmith Hospital
  Dr. J. Evans—Consultant Plastic Surgeon, Derriford Hospital Mrs. V. Harpwood—Senior Lecturer, Cardiff Law School, University of Cardiff
  Professor D. R. London—Emeritus Professor of Medicine, University of Birmingham; Registrar of the Royal College of Physicians
  Mr. T. Milward—Consultant Plastic Surgeon, Leicester Royal Infirmary
  Ms C. Rayner—Patients Association
  Professor A. J. Silman—Arthritis Research Campaign Professor of Rheumatic Disease Epidemiology, University of Manchester Medical School
  Professor J. P. Sloane—Professor of Pathology, University of Liverpool
  Dr. J. Evans was suspended from the IRG pending an investigation by Derriford Hospital NHS Trust. She was suspended in order to maintain public confidence in the group and its work pending the results of the investigation.

  Otahara Syndrome
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Otahara Syndrome (Early Infantile Epileptic Encephalopathy) are known in the United Kingdom; whether there is a specialist unit for its treatment; and what(a) support groups and (b) charities have been formed to assist sufferers and their families. [110065]

  Mr. Hutton
  Epilepsy is the commonest chronic neurological disorder affecting between 400,000 and 420,000 people—one in 200 of the United Kingdom population and including 100,000 children.

  There is no epidemiological information available on the number of children with Otahara Syndrome and we are not aware of any specialist units for the treatment of this condition. Treatment is usually via the prescription of anticonvulsants.

  It is for health authorities and primary care groups to plan and arrange the services available to people in their care. However, complex epilepsy is included in the comprehensive list of specialised services in the Health Service Commissioning in the New National Health Service. This means that regional offices will need to give special consideration to commissioning services for people with complex epilepsy.

  We are not aware of any support groups or charities formed specifically to assist people with Otahara Syndrome and their families. However, support and advice is available from the members of the Joint Epilepsy Council such as the British Epilepsy Association and The National Society for Epilepsy.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current situation in respect of recruiting and retaining pharmacists in the NHS. [112446]
  56W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: We are taking a number of steps which will help to address the issue of recruitment and retention of pharmacists. The potential impact on the pharmacy work force of the move to a four-year pharmacy degree, against a background of growing demand for pharmacists, was recognised early on. The in-take of pharmacy students has increased each year in the last six years, with 20 per cent. more new students in 1998 as compared with 1993. In addition there was special recognition for hospital pharmacists in the 1999 pay round.

  The Government are also modernising services and modernising employment practice in the National Health Service: developing more supportive, flexible and family friendly working practices; extending and improving investment in lifelong learning and professional development; tackling violence and racism in the workplace; involving staff in the way services are delivered and in the changes and developments that affect their working lives.

  In addition, we are developing the interactive service "NHS Careers" which will cover pharmacists in due course.

  Pay Review Body
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the percentage increase in the NHS pay bill as a result of implementing the Pay Review Body report on nursing, midwives and health visitors. [112447]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: To implement the recent recommendations on pay made by the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine will increase the pay bill of the NHS by 1.5 per cent.

  Long-term Care
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the West Sussex Health Authority area receive long-term round the clock nursing care at home funded by the NHS. [112474]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently two patients in West Sussex receiving 24-hour nursing care at home funded by the health authority. Individual patients are assessed and a decision made by the West Sussex Health Authority's Commissioning for Individual Packages (CIP) Panel. The systems for managing the commission of individual packages of care are open to internal and external audit.

  Beta Interferon
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the secondary waiting list for multiple sclerosis sufferers in need of beta interferon; and if he will make a statement. [113348]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department receives a high volume of correspondence on multiple sclerosis and beta interferon, some of which mentions waiting for assessment by a neurologist.

  Information on waiting times for patients with multiple sclerosis is not collected but, nationally, the average waiting time of patients seen for a first outpatient

  57W
  appointment in neurology following general practitioner was 10.6 weeks (or 74 days) during October to December 1999–2000 (the latest data available).

  Shropshire Health Authority
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the adequacy of Shropshire Health Authority's allocation for 1999–2000, with reference to population growth. [113345]

  Mr. Denham
  The 1999–2000 allocation for Shropshire Health Authority is £247.65 million. This represents a cash increase of £15.15 million or 6.51 per cent. This is above the national average increase of 6.50 per cent. for health authorities without health action zones.

  In addition, the 2000–01 allocation for Shropshire Health Authority is £265.68 million. This represents a cash increase of £17.13 million or 6.89 per cent. This is above the national average increase of 6.69 per cent. for health authorities without health action zones.

  For 1999–2000 Shropshire Health Authority's resident population increased by 0.80 per cent. compared to the national average of 0.48 per cent.

  The objective of resource allocation is to distribute funds fairly based on the relative healthcare needs of populations. In doing so, account is taken of the latest available data, including changes to populations.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of NHS dentistry in Hereford; and if he will make a statement. [113481]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are aware that there is a problem of access to National Health Service dentistry in Herefordshire and have taken positive steps to address this problem. Four Investing in Dentistry grants have been approved totalling £100,000, guaranteeing promises of a further 8,000 NHS patient registrations. A proposal for a "phone and go" dental access centre in Herefordshire is currently being considered by the NHS Executive. If successful the dental access centre should be operational by the end of the year.

  Medical and Dental Regulation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to transfer responsibility for the regulation of the medical and dental professions from the Privy Council to Parliament. [113427]

  Mr. Denham
  The responsibility for setting the regulatory framework lies with Parliament. This has been discharged through the passing of the Medical Act 1983 and the Dentist Act 1983 and subsequent primary and secondary legislation.

  Parliament already has sufficient powers to call the General Medical Council (GMC) and the General Dental Council to account before the Health Select Committee which met on the 2 March 2000 to consider the role of the GMC.
  58W
  We are discussing with the regulatory bodies the need to modernise the arrangements for accountability. It is important that these arrangements are fit for the purpose and retain the confidence of the public, the professions, Government and Parliament.

  Medical Laboratory Science Officers
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much it costs on average to train a person as a medical laboratory science officer. [113193]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: Given the multiple training routes for the pre-registration and post-registration training and the variable duration of study, it is not possible to provide a meaningful figure for the average cost of training a person as a medical laboratory scientific officer.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the salary level for each grade of medical laboratory science officer in the NHS; and how many employees there are on each pay level. [113201]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: National terms and conditions of service for medical laboratory scientific officers provide five grade pay scales.

  The current minimum and maximum of each grade pay scale is:

  £

  Grade

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Effective 1 December 1998:

  Trainee MLSO

  7,476

  9,796

  MLSO1

  11,812

  17,486

  MLSO2

  16,169

  23,931

  MLSO3

  22,127

  27,998

  MLSO4

  25,885

  (32,753)

  The estimated number of MLSOs by grade, directly employed by the NHS in England, rounded to the nearest 1,000, is:

  Grade

  Trainee MLSO

  1,000

  MLSO1

  6,000

  MLSO2

  3,000

  MLSO3

  2,000

  MLSO4

  1—

  Note:

  1 Less than 500; greater than zero

  Improvement to pay, backdated to 1 April 1999, remains available.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many tests were performed by NHS medical laboratory science officers; and what was the ratio of tests per worker in each of the last 10 years. [113198]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: It is recognised that the workload in pathology laboratories is increasing but detailed information on the number of tests done by particular staff groups is not held centrally.
  59W
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what qualifications and training are required for a medical laboratory science officer grade 1; and what requirements exist for such staff to retrain on an annual basis. [113196]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: Medical Laboratory Science Officer is are graduates. They are state registered through the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine. To become state registered they need to possess an accredited first degree and to have undergone approved vocational training. The length of vocational training required depends on the entry degree and the ability of the individual.

  Some MLSOs undertake programmes of continuing professional development that are approved by the Institute of Biomedical Science. These are not mandatory and there is no definite requirement, as yet, for staff to retrain on an annual basis.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average starting pay for(a) clinical psychologists, (b) clinical scientists, (c) speech and language therapists and (d) health advisers on sexually transmitted diseases working in the NHS. [113202]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: The pay of clinical psychologists, clinical scientists and speech and language therapists is negotiated in the Scientific and Professional Staffs Whitley Council. The Council's agreement provides for staff to be appointed to any point on the appropriate grade pay scale. The pay scales are:

  Clinical psychologists

  Clinical psychologist grade A

  £14,949 minimum to £34,065 maximum—effective from 1 December 1998.

  Clinical scientists

  Clinical scientist grade B

  £18,734 minimum to £35,087 maximum—effective from 1 April 1999.

  Speech and language therapists

  Speech and language therapist grade 1

  £14,237 minimum to £14,806 maximum—effective from 1 April 1999

  There are no nationally agreed pay scales for health advisers on sexually transmitted diseases working in the NHS. We do not collect information about their starting pay centrally.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of staff morale in the professions working in the NHS who are not covered by the NHS pay review body. [113197]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: As part of the national Human Resource strategy "Working Together—Securing a quality workforce for the NHS" we have asked National Health Service trusts to carry out a staff attitude survey by April 2000.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the professions within the NHS that are not covered by the NHS Pay Review Body. [113204]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: National Health Service staff groups not covered by the remit of the pay review bodies are Administrative and
  60W
  Clerical, Ancillary, Ambulance (staff and officers), Maintenance, Professional and Technical (B), and Scientific and Professional.

  Rothbury Community Hospital, Northumberland
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects work to start on the building of the new Rothbury community hospital, Northumberland. [113796]

  Mr. Denham
  No start date can be given for the scheme at present as it is dependent on the outcome of ongoing Private Finance Initiative negotiations.

  Patients' Rights
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make lay representatives available within hospitals to give guidance to patients on their rights. [113611]

  Mr. Denham
  Greg Dyke's report, "The New NHS Charter: A Different Approach", recommended that most large hospital trusts should have a patient representative. In response to this recommendation the Department is currently investigating possible models for patient representation in the National Health Service.

  Patient Referral
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if patients have the right to be referred to more than one consultant to obtain a second or further opinion. [113858]

  Mr. Denham
  It is accepted professional practice among doctors that patients have the right to a second opinion. This is enshrined in guidance the General Medical Council has issued which includes the need for doctors to respect the rights of patients to a second opinion.

  Ethical Investment Policy
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when regulations on ethical investment policy for hospital trusts and health authorities will be likely to come into force; and if they will restrict investment in companies connected with the arms trade; [114219]

  (2) if he will list those hospital trusts and health authorities which invest pension funds and donations in companies known to have connections with the arms trade. [114218]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authorities do not invest Exchequer funds in companies. National Health Service trusts can invest surplus funds only in institutions approved by the NHS Executive, and from 1 April 2000 will be able to invest only in the Office of the Paymaster General.

  NHS trusts and health authorities do not hold pension funds. Contributions to the NHS Pension Scheme are paid to the Exchequer, which meets the cost of scheme benefits as required.

  Charitably-donated funds are administered by trustees, who are responsible for investment decisions concerning these funds. Trustees operate within charity legislation, and Health Ministers properly have no powers to influence trustees' decisions.

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish estimates of the number of known or registered drug addicts per 100,000 people in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America and (c) the Netherlands. [114221]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Based on the number of drug misusers reported to Regional Drugs Misuse Databases as presenting to services for treatment in England during the six month period ending 31 March 1999, there were 58 problem drug misusers per 100,000 people in England. Figures for the United States of America and the Netherlands are not available centrally, but information may be available from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which is based in Portugal.

  Fruit and Vegetables
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice his Department is giving the public on the peeling and topping of carrots before they are consumed; what is the reason for that advice; and what are the methods used to communicate the advice; [114418]

  (2) what advice his Department is giving the public on peeling apples before they are consumed; and what is the reason for that advice and the methods used to communicate the advice; [114348]

  Minister

  Country

  Date

  Purpose

  Minister of State for Public Health

  Netherlands/ Luxembourg

  3–6 June 1997

  Visit to European Union Health Council

  Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State (Commons)

  Belgium

  4–5 June 1997

  Visit to European Parliament

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons)

  Austria

  16–18 June 1997

  Attendance at Council of Europe XVth Conference of Family Ministers and other engagements

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons)

  Belgium

  23–25 October 1997

  Attendance at Young People's Conference on Sexual Health

  Minister of State for Public Health

  France

  24 November 1997

  Meeting with French Health Minister

  Minister of State for Public Health

  Belgium

  3–4 December 1997

  European Union Health Council Meeting

  Secretary of State

  Denmark

  26 February-1 March 1998

  Visit to World Health Organisation and other engagements

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords)

  USA

  4–7 March 1998

  Attendance at External Advisory Panel for Health, Nutrition and Population

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons)

  Belgium

  8–10 March 1998

  European Union Health Council meeting

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons)

  Belgium

  24–26 March 1998

  European Union Health Council meeting

  Secretary of State

  Belgium

  22 April 1998

  Visit to European Parliament to address Health Committee

  Minister of State for Public Health

  Belgium

  22 April 1998

  Visit to European Parliament to address Health Committee

  Minister of State for Public Health

  Luxembourg

  29–30 April 1998

  Meeting of the European Union Health Council

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords)

  France

  11 May 1998

  Meeting of the Club of Three sub group

  Minister of State for Public Health

  Switzerland

  12–13 May 1998

  Attendance at World Health Assembly

  Secretary of State

  Germany

  3–4 June 1998

  Attendance at Social Services Conference

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons)

  Sweden

  16–17 June 1998

  Attendance at presentation of the FINSAM Project and other engagements

  Secretary of State

  France

  22–23 June 1998

  Representing HM Government at England vs Romania World Cup match

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons)

  Australia

  9–20 July 1998

  Fact finding mission on mental health issues

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons)

  Sweden

  23-–5 September 1998

  Keynote speech at 50th anniversary Swedish social services conference

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons)

  Germany

  3–5 October 1998

  British Council seminar

  Secretary of State

  South Africa

  3–18 October 1998

  Combined official visit to South Africa to support Department for International Development projects and pursue bilateral health relations

  Secretary of State

  USA

  21–23 October 1998

  Attendance at International Symposium on Health and other engagements

  62W
  (3) which fruits and vegetables apart from apples and carrots his Department is advising the public to peel before consuming; what is the reason for that advice; and what are the methods used to communicate the advice. [114347]

  Ms Stuart
  Studies recommended by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides have found variable levels of pesticide residues in some fruit and vegetables. In response to these findings, the following advice from the Deputy Chief Medical Officer was issued in Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) News Release 83/97 and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food/Department of Health Food Safety Information Bulletin for December 1998:"washing fruit and vegetables before consumption is always a sensible precaution to ensure it is clean. Peeling is a matter of consumer choice, but is a sensible additional precaution when preparing fruit and vegetables for small children"
  This precautionary advice remains relevant and is used by Government Departments in responding to inquiries about pesticide residues in food.

  Overseas Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the overseas ministerial visits that have taken place since May 1997, indicating the purpose of each visit. [112770]

  Ms Stuart
  Between May 1997 and March 2000 Department of Health Ministers have made 36 overseas visits in an official capacity as listed. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.
  63W

  Minister

  Country

  Date

  Purpose

  Minister of State for Public Health

  Belgium

  12 November 1998

  Meeting of European Union Health Council

  Secretary of State

  Barbados

  15–18 November 1998

  Attendance at Commonwealth Health Ministers Conference

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons)

  Japan

  25–29 November 1998

  British Healthcare industry export promotion

  Minister of State for Public Health

  France

  14–16 January 1999

  Meeting with French Ministers for Health and Women and attendance at Franco-British Colloque events

  Secretary of State

  Denmark

  9–11 April 1999

  Meeting with senior officials from the European Office of the World Health Organisation

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords)

  Italy

  26–27 May 1999

  Conference on emergency services and reanimation

  Minister of State for Public Health

  Luxembourg

  7–8 June 1999

  European Union Health Council Meeting

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons)

  France

  17 June 1999

  European Social Services Conference

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords)

  Malaysia

  5–9 October 1999

  British Healthcare industry export promotion

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health

  Turkey

  10–11 October 1999

  Conference on Diabetes Care and Research in Europe

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons)

  USA

  10–12 October 1999

  International Initiative seminar on Building Strong Communications to Support Families

  Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for Health

  Finland

  12–13 October 1999

  Representing United Kingdom at European Union Presidency meeting

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health

  Belgium

  17–18 November 1999

  European Union Health Council Meeting

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 31 January regarding a constituent Ref. POH(6)5608/39. [114351]

  Ms Stuart
  My noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath announced on 9 February that insulin pen needles would be available on general practitioner prescription from I March, and a reply will be sent to my hon. Friend very shortly.

  Controlled Drug Stocks
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to seek an amendment of the law to permit hospital operating department practitioners lawfully to possess a stock of such controlled drugs as they may lawfully administer. [113558]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to amend the misuse of drugs legislation to authorise operating department practitioners (ODPs) to possess a stock of controlled drugs.

  The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 authorise certain health professionals to order, supply, possess or prescribe controlled drugs in the practice of their professions. They include doctors, dentists, pharmacists, nurses and midwives, all of whom are subject to statutory regulation. ODPs—which are not a statutorily regulated profession—are not authorised to supply or possess controlled drugs. The 1985 Regulations also authorise any person other than a doctor to administer to a patient, in accordance with the directions of a doctor, any drug specified in schedule 2, 3 or 4 of the regulations.

  Where a doctor, nurse or midwife supplies or possesses a controlled drug other than in the practice of their professions, the regulatory bodies are able to investigate and take appropriate action. Statutory regulatory bodies can also, if necessary, remove individuals from the professional register. This helps to ensure that health professionals employed within the NHS or private health care sector do not represent a risk to patients, colleagues or themselves.
  64W
  We do not consider that the 1985 Regulations should be amended to authorise ODPs to supply and possess controlled drugs unless that group becomes subject to statutory regulation.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  University Funding
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage increase in spending on universities he has provided for in the forthcoming financial year; and if he will make a statement. [113887]

  Mr. Wicks
  In the 2000–01 financial year, the Government have made an extra £253 million available to the higher education sector. This is a 4.9 per cent. increase in cash terms. Over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02, funding for the higher education sector will increase by 11 per cent. in real terms.

  Class Sizes
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in(a) secondary, (b) junior and (c) nursery schools are in classes of over 30; and what the totals were in each of the previous five years. [113888]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information on class sizes in maintained primary and secondary schools in England for January and September is shown in the following table. The latest class size count was carried out in September 1999 for infant classes and found a further reduction in the numbers of infant pupils in classes of over 30. Information about classes in maintained nursery schools is not collected by the Department.

  Provisional national estimates of class sizes in maintained primary and secondary schools in England for January 2000 are expected to be published in a Statistical First Release in April.

  65W

  Numbers of pupils in classes with 31 or more pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in England: 1995–1999

  1 Teacher

  Primary schools1 2 or more teachers

  Total

  1 Teacher

  Secondary schools1 2 or more teachers

  Total

  Position as at January:

  1999

  1,277,250

  119,249

  1,396,499

  312,974

  36,114

  349,088

  1998

  1,410,762

  122,979

  1,533,741

  282,633

  33,156

  315,789

  1997

  1,344,231

  121,559

  1,465,790

  245,420

  38,749

  284,169

  1996

  1,260,551

  128,581

  1,389,132

  234,536

  48,640

  283,176

  1995

  1,155,715

  129,885

  1,285,600

  201,210

  57,435

  258,645

  1 Includes middle schools

  Numbers of pupils in infant classes with 31 or more pupils in maintained primary schools in England: 1998–99

  Number

  Position as at September

  1999

  165,557

  1998

  346,288

  New Deal
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will state the number and percentage of participants in the New Deal for 25 years and over in(a) Great Britain, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales who have returned to (i) Jobseeker's areas in Scotland where a larger percentage then the (A) Great Britain and (B) Scottish average figure have moved on to one of the categories in (i) to (iii) including the number and percentage in each area and for each category. [111281]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The information requested is as follows:

  (i) Percentage of participants in the New Deal 25+ returning to Jobseeker's Allowance

  Percentage

  Scotland

  32

  Wales

  28

  Great Britain

  29

  Scottish Units of Delivery with a larger percentage of participants in the New Deal 25+ who have returned to JSA, than the Scotland average

  Left New Deal for JSA

  As a percentage of New Deal starts

  Tayside

  707

  36

  Ayrshire

  952

  38

  Borders

  68

  30

  Dumfries and Galloway

  311

  36

  Dumbarton

  466

  37

  Fife

  493

  37

  Grampian

  253

  38

  Moray, Strathspay and Badenoch

  82

  32

  Renfrewshire

  519

  34

  West Lothian

  79

  30

  Caithness and Sutherland

  116

  31

  Inverness and Nairn

  97

  33

  Orkney

  34

  35

  66W

  Scottish Units of Delivery with a larger percentage of participants in the New Deal 25+ who have returned to JSA, than the Scotland average

  Left New Deal for JSA

  As a percentage of New Deal starts

  Tayside

  707

  36

  Ayrshire

  952

  38

  Dumfries and Galloway

  311

  36

  Dumbarton

  466

  37

  Fife

  493

  37

  Grampian

  253

  38

  Renfrewshire

  519

  34

  Inverness and Nairn

  97

  33

  Orkney

  34

  35

  (ii) Percentage of New Deal 25+ participants who leave and claim other benefits

  Percentage

  Scotland

  8

  Wales

  8

  Great Britain

  7

  Scottish Units of Delivery with a larger percentage of participants in the New Deal 25+ who have returned to other benefits, than the GB average

  Left New Deal for other benefits

  As a percentage of New Deal starts

  Tayside

  158

  8

  Dumbarton

  108

  9

  Forth Valley

  31

  15

  Grampian

  61

  9

  Lanarkshire

  174

  10

  Renfrewshire

  129

  8

  Argyll and The Islands

  39

  9

  Caithness and Sutherland

  28

  8

  Inverness and Nairn

  28

  9

  Lochaber

  9

  13

  Western Isles

  9

  16

  Orkney

  9

  9

  Ross and Cromarty

  18

  9

  Shetland

  5

  12

  Skye and Lochalsh

  12

  11

  Scottish Units of Delivery with a larger percentage of participants in the New Deal 25+ who have returned to other benefits, than the Scotland average

  Left New Deal for other benefits

  As a percentage of New Deal starts

  Dumbarton

  108

  9

  Forth Valley

  31

  15

  Grampian

  61

  9

  Lanarkshire

  174

  10

  67W

  Scottish Units of Delivery with a larger percentage of participants in the New Deal 25+ who have returned to other benefits, than the Scotland average

  Left New Deal for other benefits

  As a percentage of New Deal starts

  Argyll and The Islands

  39

  9

  Inverness and Nairn

  28

  9

  Lochaber

  9

  13

  Western Isles

  9

  16

  Orkney

  9

  9

  Ross and Cromarty

  18

  9

  Shetland

  5

  12

  Skye and Lochalsh

  12

  11

  (iii) Percentage of New Deal participants who leave for unsubsidised jobs

  Percentage

  Scotland

  10

  Wales

  13

  Great Britain

  13

  Scottish Units of Delivery with a larger percentage of participants in the New Deal 25+ who have returned to unsubsidised jobs, than the GB average

  Left New Deal for unsubsidised jobs

  As a percentage of New Deal starts

  Forth Valley

  42

  20

  West Lothian

  36

  14

  Inverness and Nairn

  40

  14

  Western Isles

  8

  14

  Orkney

  15

  15

  Ross and Cromarty

  34

  18

  Shetland

  7

  17

  Skye and Lochalsh

  16

  15

  Scottish Units of Delivery with a larger percentage of participants in the New Deal 25+ who have returned to other benefits, than the Scotland average

  Left New Deal for unsubsidised jobs

  As a percentage of New Deal starts

  Edinburgh, East and Mid Lothian

  239

  13

  Forth Valley

  42

  20

  Grampian

  70

  11

  Lanarkshire

  194

  11

  West Lothian

  36

  14

  Argyll and The Islands

  53

  12

  Caithness and Sutherland

  42

  11

  Inverness and Nairn

  40

  14

  Western Isles

  8

  14

  Orkney

  15

  15

  Ross and Cromarty

  34

  18

  Shetland

  7

  17

  Skye and Lochalsh

  16

  15

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will state the percentage of participants in the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds in(a) Great Britain (b) Scotland and (c) Wales
  68W
  who have received (i) subsidised employment and (ii) education and training through the New Deal; and if he will list the areas in Scotland where a smaller percentage than the (1) Great Britain and (2) Scottish average figures have these options, including the number and percentage of participants for each of these areas. [111278]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The information requested is shown in the tables. For subsidised employment and education and training we have used the numbers for the Employment and Full Time Education and Training Options respectively.

  Employment option:

  Percentage of New Deal starts who join the Employment option

  Percentage

  Scotland

  9

  Wales

  11

  Great Britain

  7

  Scottish units of delivery with a smaller percentage of participants in the New Deal (18–24 year olds) who have received subsidized Employment than the Great Britain average

  Employment option starts

  Percentage of New Deal starts joining the Employment option

  Glasgow

  508

  6

  Grampian

  88

  5

  Renfrewshire

  145

  5

  Lochaber

  5

  6

  Scottish units of delivery with a smaller percentage of participants in the New Deal (18–24 year olds) who have received subsidized Employment than the Scotland average

  Employment option starts

  Percentage of New Deal starts joining the Employment option

  Dumbarton

  128

  7

  Fife

  269

  8

  Forth Valley

  198

  8

  Glasgow

  508

  6

  Grampian

  88

  5

  Renfrewshire

  145

  5

  West Lothian

  78

  7

  Caithness and Sutherland

  18

  7

  Lochaber

  5

  6

  FTET option:

  Percentage of New Deal starts who join the FTET option

  Perception

  Scotland

  15

  Wales

  14

  Great Britain

  16

  69W

  Scottish units of delivery with a smaller percentage of participants in the New Deal (18–24 year olds) who have received education and training through the New Deal than the Great Britain average

  FTET option starts

  Percentage of New Deal starts joining the FTET option

  Tayside

  591

  14

  Ayrshire

  511

  12

  Borders

  89

  13

  Edinburgh, East and Mid Lothian

  429

  12

  Grampian

  203

  12

  Moray, Strathspay and Badenoch

  47

  10

  Lanarkshire

  942

  15

  Renfrewshire

  371

  13

  West Lothian

  127

  12

  Argyll and The Islands

  37

  8

  Inverness and Nairn

  59

  15

  Lochaber

  6

  7

  Orkney

  6

  9

  Shetland

  8

  13

  Skye and Lochalsh

  7

  8

  6,760

  15

  Scottish units of delivery with a smaller percentage of participants in the New Deal (18–24 year olds) who have received education and training through the New Deal than the Great Britain average

  FTET option starts

  Percentage of New Deal starts joining the FTET option

  Tayside

  591

  14

  Ayrshire

  511

  12

  Borders

  89

  13

  Edinburgh, East and Mid Lothian

  429

  12

  Grampian

  203

  12

  Moray, Strathspay and Badenoch

  47

  10

  Renfrewshire

  371

  13

  West Lothian

  127

  12

  Argyll and The Islands

  37

  8

  Lochaber

  6

  7

  Orkney

  6

  9

  Shetland

  8

  13

  Skye and Lochalsh

  7

  8

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will state the percentage of participants in the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds in(a) Great Britain, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales who have gone through to the follow-through stage of the New Deal; and if he will list the areas in Scotland where a larger percentage than the (i) Great Britain and (ii) Scottish average figures have gone on to the follow-through stage. [111277]
  70W
  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage of New Deal participants who join Follow-Through

  Percentage

  Scotland

  20

  Wales

  20

  Great Britain

  17

  Scottish Units of Delivery with a larger percentage of participants (18 to 24-year-olds) who have gone through to the follow-through stage of the New Deal, than the GB average

  Tayside

  Ayrshire

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumbarton

  Edinburgh, East and Mid Lothian

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Glasgow

  Moray, Strathspay and Badenoch

  Lanarkshire

  Renfrewshire

  West Lothian

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Inverness and Nairn

  Western Isles

  Ross and Cromarty

  Scottish Units of Delivery with a larger percentage of participants (18 to 24-year-olds) who have gone through to the follow-through stage of the New Deal, than Scotland Average

  Tayside

  Ayrshire

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Moray, Strathspay and Badenoch

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the impact of the New Deal scheme in reducing youth unemployment in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire. [111069]

  Ms Jowell
  To the end of December 1999, 155 young people in Shrewsbury and Atcham and 1,037 in Shropshire had found jobs through the New Deal. Over the year to the end of January 2000, the numbers of young people who had been unemployed for six months or more fell by 59 per cent. in Shrewsbury and Atcham and 33 per cent. in Shropshire. This confirms that the New Deal is equipping young people with the skills and attributes that they need to compete successfully in the labour market. Indeed 146 young people in Shrewsbury and Atcham and 592 people in Shropshire have benefited from training and work experience opportunities on the other options.

  Statemented Children
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes have been made to the consent arrangements in respect of placing individual children with a statement in non-approved independent schools since the publication of the Green Paper, entitled "Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Education Needs". [113916]
  71W
  Jacqui Smith
  My Department will shortly consult on proposals for the placement of children with statements of special educational needs in independent schools. Earlier consultation had been intended, but we wished to ensure that our proposals for this sector would reflect relevant recommendations arising from the recently published report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the abuse of children in care in North Wales.

  Our intention will be to ensure that children are placed only in schools that can both meet their educational needs and safeguard their welfare.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the standard spending assessment in(a) cash and (b) real terms for primary and secondary pupils for (i) England and (ii) Northumberland county council for each year from 1990 to 2000; and what is his estimate for 2000–01. [114140]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the following tables.

  Standard Spending Assessment

  £

  Year/Cash figures

  Northumberland

  England

  1990–91

  Per primary pupil

  1,435

  1,539

  Per secondary pupil

  2,036

  2,176

  1991–92

  Per primary pupil

  1,641

  1,766

  Per secondary pupil

  2,377

  2,549

  1992–93

  Per primary pupil

  1,743

  1,873

  Per secondary pupil

  2,544

  2,724

  1993–94

  Per primary pupil

  1,784

  1,921

  Per secondary pupil

  2,587

  2,775

  1994–95

  Per primary pupil

  1,838

  1,968

  Per secondary pupil

  2,566

  2,741

  1995–96

  Per primary pupil

  1,825

  1,981

  Per secondary pupil

  2,421

  2,630

  1996–97

  Per primary pupil

  1,935

  2,053

  Per secondary pupil

  2,582

  2,728

  1997–98

  Per primary pupil

  2,016

  2,130

  Per secondary pupil

  2,638

  2,782

  1998–99

  Per primary pupil

  2,120

  2,248

  Per secondary pupil

  2,765

  2,918

  1999–2000

  Per primary pupil

  2,240

  2,372

  Per secondary pupil

  2,877

  3,031

  2000–01

  Per primary pupil

  2,332

  2,474

  Per secondary pupil

  3,014

  3,175

  72W

  Real Terms using 1998–99 prices

  £

  Year

  Northumberland

  England

  1990–91

  Per primary pupil

  1,848

  1,982

  Per secondary pupil

  2,622

  2,803

  1991–92

  Per primary pupil

  1,991

  2,142

  Per secondary pupil

  2,883

  3,091

  1992–93

  Per primary pupil

  2,046

  2,199

  Per secondary pupil

  2,987

  3,198

  1993–94

  Per primary pupil

  2,041

  2,197

  Per secondary pupil

  2,958

  3,174

  1994–95

  Per primary pupil

  2,072

  2,219

  Per secondary pupil

  2,894

  3,091

  1995–96

  Per primary pupil

  2,000

  2,171

  Per secondary pupil

  2,654

  2,882

  1996–97

  Per primary pupil

  2,055

  2,180

  Per secondary pupil

  2,741

  2,896

  1997–98

  Per primary pupil

  2,082

  2,199

  Per secondary pupil

  2,724

  2,873

  1998–99

  Per primary pupil

  2,120

  2,248

  Per secondary pupil

  2,765

  2,918

  1999–2000

  Per primary pupil

  2,190

  2,320

  Per secondary pupil

  2,814

  2,964

  2000–01

  Per primary pupil

  2,225

  2,360

  Per secondary pupil

  2,875

  3,030

  Notes:

  1. The figures were calculated using the Treasury GDP deflators published 22 December 1999.

  2. 1998–99 has been used as the base year for calculations.

  School Places (West Sussex)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many extra pupils he expects to enter West Sussex schools over the next 15 years. [114393]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not collected by my Department. The latest projections from individual local education authorities, submitted as part of their annual returns on surplus places, relate to 2002–03 for primary pupil numbers and 2005–06 for secondary pupil numbers.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the likely impact of additional housebuilding in West Sussex on provision of school places over the next 15 years. [114392]
  73W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is for local education authorities to plan and keep under review the supply of school places in the light of proposed housing development, so as to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet demand. Regional planning guidance for the South-East will be finalised later this year and this will assist West Sussex Local Education Authority in its planning decisions. Where an LEA can demonstrate growth in need for school places it may apply to the Department for capital funding.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has issued on the appointment of Ofsted inspectors; how many Ofsted inspectors have been appointed in total; and how many of these are members of an ethnic minority. [114164]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not issued any guidance on the appointment of inspectors. The other parts of the question were answered by Chris Woodhead in a written reply to the hon. Member on 28 February 2000. Copies of the letter are in the Libraries.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the individuals employed or used by Ofsted to undertake inspections of schools, other educational establishments and education authorities, indicating with what private consultancies each is associated. [113659]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This is a matter for HM Chief Inspector of Schools and I have therefore asked Chris Woodhead to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Child Care Costs
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the average weekly cost of full-time child care provision for a child aged(a) zero to two and (b) two to five (i) in a nursery place and (ii) with a registered childminder; and what variations exist between average child care costs in each setting in each region in England and Wales. [110548]

  Ms Hodge
  The Department does not have information on child care payments in the detailed form requested.

  DfEE Research Report No. 176 "Parents' Demand for Childcare" includes analysis of weekly household child care payments. For households with pre-school children only, the average (mean) weekly child care payment among those who paid some money for child care was £68. Fourteen per cent. of these households had weekly child care payments over £100.

  This analysis covers a range of households, many of which will be using small amounts of paid child care, and includes non-working households. It also covers a range of child care types.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North on 14 February (ref. 110548) relating to child care provision. [113925]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply above.

  PE and Sport
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to ensure that students on teacher training courses acquire the skills to teach PE and sport to a high standard; and if he will make a statement. [113657]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We recognise the need to ensure that initial teacher training (ITT) equips trainees with the confidence and skills they need to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum in all the foundation subjects, including PE. We are addressing issues in relation to PE and sport through our wider reforms to improve the quality and flexibility of ITT provision. The Teacher Training Agency (TTA) is also addressing training in PE and sport as part of its review of the ITT Curriculum and Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) Standards.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to ensure Ofsted monitors the quality, range and overall level of provision for PE and sport provided by primary and secondary schools. [113658]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The requirements for the inspection of schools are a matter for HM Chief Inspector. I have therefore asked Chris Woodhead to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils were excluded from school(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the school population for each of the past 10 years. [113278]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: The number of permanent exclusions from maintained schools (except Special Schools) submitting returns under the voluntary National Exclusions Reporting System which covered the period from April 1990 to April 1992 was 2,910 in year one and 3,833 in year two.

  My Department first began collecting data on permanent exclusions from maintained schools in England in relation to the school year 1994–95 and the latest available data relate to the school year 1997–98. The available figures are shown in the table.

  Information on permanent exclusions for the academic year 1998–99 is currently being collected and national estimates are expected to be published in a Statistical First Release in May.

  Number and percentage of pupils who were permanently excluded from maintained primary and secondary schools and special schools' in England: 1994–95 to 1997–98

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of school population2

  1997–98

  12,298

  0.16

  1996–97

  12,668

  0.17

  1995–96

  12,476

  0.17

  1994–953

  11,084

  0.15

  1 Includes both maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  2 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of full-time and part-time pupils of all ages.

  75W
  3 The number of permanent exclusions was estimated to take account of a small number of schools that did not provide any information on their permanent exclusions (excluding dually registered pupils in special schools) in January of the academic year.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) inquiries and (b) requests for assistance were received by (i) the Equal Opportunities Commission and (ii) the Commission for Racial Equality in each of the last two years, in respect of (1) all areas and (2) further education; and how many requests for assistance were taken up in each case. [113493]

  Ms Hodge
  In 1998, the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) handled 34,857 inquiries and considered 225 requests for assistance in all areas. The EOC supported 81 of these cases. The EOC does not hold separate data on the number of inquiries and requests for assistance for Further Education cases.

  In the same year the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) dealt with approximately 7,000 inquiries and received 1,657 requests for assistance, of which 43 were from the Further Education sector (including Sixth Form Colleges). The CRE provided some form of representation in 378 cases, including six Further Education cases.

  Details of inquiries and assistance for 1999 for both equality bodies will be available later this year after the publication of their respective Annual Reports.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime (Slough)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the chief constable of the Thames Valley police about tackling crime in Slough. [112588]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have had no recent discussions with the chief constable of the Thames Valley police on this subject.

  Local Elections
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what election pilot projects for the forthcoming local elections have been approved; and if he will make a statement. [112589]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Forty-two pilot schemes have been provisionally approved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Of these, 16 involve early voting, eight involve all postal ballots, six involve electronic voting or counting, four involve extension of postal vote entitlement, four involve a mobile polling facility, two involve extension of hours of poll, one involves weekend voting and one involves freepost arrangements.

  Safe Cells
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many safe cells will be installed in prisons in the next financial year. [112590]
  76W
  Mr. Boateng
  All new prisons are required to provide cells which reflect the design requirements of the Prison Service's new improved standard cell or "safe cell".

  All future new prisons will similarly be required to reflect the design requirements of the Prison Service's new improved standard cell.

  Youth Offenders (Greater Manchester)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Greater Manchester police force about known youth offenders. [112591]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Through the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales we have been discussing with the police and other agencies in Greater Manchester their involvement as one of the Board's nine pathway areas, which will act as examples of good practice in work with young offenders. The Board is investing more than £5 million over three years in Greater Manchester from its development fund for this purpose.

  Passports (Compensation)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much compensation has been paid to holiday makers who were unable to obtain passports during the summer of 1999; and if he will make a statement. [112592]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1999, the Passport Agency paid around £124,000 in compensation to customers who missed holidays as a result of delays last summer in issuing their passports.

  Stop and Search
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of stop and search in the prevention and detection of crime. [112593]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We strongly support the proper use of stop and search as an essential tool in the prevention and detection of crime, as did the report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, published in February 1999. However, it is essential that these powers are used fairly, to command the confidence of all sections of the community. We have commissioned a wide-ranging programme of research to help broaden understanding of stop and search and how it can be improved. This includes a project focusing on the value of stop and search as a tool to detect and prevent crime.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact on his policy of Article 5 of the ECHR on his policy on the detention element involved in police stop and search operations. [114377]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We believe that the police power of stop and search is compatible with the Convention, provided of course that it is exercised lawfully.

  Crime Reduction (Five-year Targets)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish the final
  77W
  five-year targets for crime reduction for each police authority; and what measures he intends to take to help police authorities reach their targets. [112594]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Police authorities are required to publish their Best Value Performance Plans by 31 March each year. These will include their crime reduction targets. The Crime Reduction Strategy published on 29 November sets out in detail the Government's approach to reducing crime.

  Security Services (Parliamentary Oversight)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on parliamentary oversight of the Security Services and the Metropolitan police following the implementation of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. [112595]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Oversight of the Security Service is provided for by the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

  For the Metropolitan police, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 sets up a new, independent Police Authority that will be responsible for securing an efficient and effective police force and for holding the Metropolitan police to account.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have a continuing responsibility for the national and international functions of the Metropolitan police. He will also continue to have responsibility for the promotion of an efficient and effective police service in England and Wales, of which the Metropolitan police is a significant part. He will be accountable to Parliament in exercising those duties.

  Domestic Violence
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to tackle domestic violence. [112596]

  Number of asylum seekers being supported by each London Borough Council authority in the week ending 18 February 2000

  Borough

  Total number of asylum seekers

  Unaccompanied minors1

  Single adults2

  Number of families3

  Number of people in families

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,540

  110

  830

  530

  1,590

  Barnet4

  1,400

  50

  260

  330

  1,090

  Bexley

  420

  80

  100

  60

  240

  Brent

  1,880

  50

  560

  430

  1,270

  Bromley4

  520

  40

  170

  90

  310

  Camden

  1,790

  80

  420

  370

  1,300

  Corporation of London4

  170

  —

  90

  20

  70

  Croydon

  920

  140

  170

  180

  610

  Baling4

  1,240

  —

  400

  250

  850

  Enfield4

  1,970

  60

  420

  550

  1,490

  Greenwich4

  1,910

  50

  860

  360

  1,000

  Hackney

  2,420

  —

  920

  480

  1,500

  Hammersmith and Fulham4

  2,340

  160

  650

  460

  1,530

  Haringey4

  5,040

  350

  1,210

  1,050

  3,480

  Harrow4

  760

  40

  160

  150

  560

  Havering

  660

  110

  290

  70

  250

  Hillingdon

  2,000

  440

  800

  230

  750

  Hounslow4

  960

  30

  230

  270

  710

  Islington4

  2,360

  220

  1,280

  460

  860

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,820

  110

  810

  280

  910

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  300

  20

  80

  60

  210

  Lambeth4

  2,940

  150

  1,040

  580

  1,750

  Lewisham

  2,450

  90

  1,000

  430

  1,370

  Merton4

  910

  —

  260

  190

  660

  Newham

  5,870

  70

  1,270

  1,350

  4,530

  78W
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government are taking to tackle domestic violence. [112597]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have:run a successful 'Break the Chain' campaign specifically against domestic violence;
  published a joint Home Office/Women's Unit document 'Living without Fear: an integrated approach to tackling violence against women';
  taken steps to improve the collection of statistics by introducing better definition of what should be counted as a domestic violence incident;
  announced a specific initiative within the Crime Reduction Programme on violence against women: the major component of this is the provision of at least £4.5 million for the funding of projects to reduce both physical and sexual domestic violence; and
  issued new guidance to the criminal justice and other agencies that deal with the survivors of domestic violence.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the additional responsibilities local authorities will have to look after asylum seekers from 1 April. [112598]

  Mrs. Roche
  Local authorities will have no additional statutory responsibilities to look after asylum seekers from 1 April.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were being housed in each of the London borough council authorities on 1 March. [113430]

  Mrs. Roche
  The latest available information is given in the table and shows the number of asylum seekers supported by each London Borough Council authority. All of those receiving support from these local authorities are also being accommodated.
  79W

  Number of asylum seekers being supported by each London Borough Council authority in the week ending 18 February 2000

  Borough

  Total number of asylum seekers

  Unaccompanied minors1

  Single adults2

  Number of families3

  Number of people in families

  Redbridge4

  2,180

  220

  730

  380

  1,230

  Richmond-upon-Thames4

  1,670

  220

  690

  220

  750

  Southwark

  3,060

  190

  1,130

  570

  1,740

  Sutton

  570

  50

  250

  90

  270

  Tower Hamlets

  750

  10

  270

  140

  470

  Waltham Forest

  2,270

  —

  1,160

  500

  1,110

  Wandsworth4

  980

  20

  200

  220

  760

  Westminster

  2,300

  140

  740

  430

  1,420

  Total

  59,350

  3,320

  19,420

  11,750

  36,610

  1 Unaccompanied children under 17

  2 A significant proportion of the single adults live in other areas of the country but the accommodation is organised by London local authority

  3 Families include cases with only dependant adults

  4 Updated figures not yet reported, figures taken from previous report

  Drugs and Crime
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the links between the commission of crime and the illegal trade in hard drugs. [112599]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Research carried out for the Home Office has clearly established the link between drugs, particularly heroin and crack/cocaine, and crime. The Drug Testing of Arrestees research programme suggests that about one third of all property crime is committed in order to buy these drugs.

  The Government are determined to break the link between drugs and crime. Initiatives in hand include piloting the Drug Treatment and Testing Order with a view to national roll-out later this year. £20 million is also being invested in a joint funding initiative with the police to speed up the development of arrest referral schemes. Proposals are also being developed to extend drug testing across the criminal justice system in order to identify drug misusing offenders, get them into treatment where appropriate and monitor their progress.

  Immigration
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of efforts to reduce the backlog of outstanding immigration cases at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [112601]

  Mrs. Roche
  New, streamlined procedures have been developed to speed up the consideration of all immigration (i.e. non-asylum) applications, and management changes introduced to maximise operational efficiency. Over 70 per cent. of new applications are now being decided under fast track procedures, most of them within a week. A dedicated team is tackling the backlog of general and settlement casework, at present concentrating on marriage cases.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were made for UK nationality at the Immigration and Nationality Office in Croydon during 1999. [112580]

  Mrs. Roche
  All applications for British citizenship are dealt with by the Integrated Casework Directorate in Liverpool. The number of applications received during 1999 is estimated at 76,500.

  Police Numbers (West Mercia)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police numbers in West Mercia. [112602]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  At the end of September 1999, the West Mercia Constabulary had 1,979 police officers. Following the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Court Act 1994, the actual number of police officers at any one time is a matter for the Chief Constable to determine within the available resources.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the allocation of additional police posts under the Crime Fighting Fund in a reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on 9 February 2000, Official Report, columns 172–74W. As a result, the West Mercia Police Authority will receive sufficient funding for 89 police posts over the next three years in addition to the planned recruitment over that period.

  Political Asylum
  31. Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom. [112603]

  Mrs. Roche
  At the end of January 2000, there were 104,890 people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom whose applications remained undecided.

  Crime Fighting (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received following the recent allocation of funding to the Derbyshire Constabulary from the Crime Fighting Fund. [112604]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have received no representations about the allocation of funding to Derbyshire Constabulary from the Crime Fighting Fund.

  UK Visas
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has determined the amounts of the financial bond to be applied in the experimental pilots for UK visas. [112605]
  81W
  Mrs. Roche
  No. The amount of the bond was one of the issues on which comments were sought in the consultation paper issued last year. Responses to the consultation are currently being assessed.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in his plans for reforming the Probation Service. [112607]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government plan to create a unified service for England and Wales, which will have a national headquarters and 42 local boards. Provision for the structural changes needed to achieve this will be included in the forthcoming Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. We expect these changes to create a service which is better able to play its part in protecting the public and reducing re-offending. The new service will concentrate on enforcing community sentences so that they command public confidence, and will use offender programmes—the What Works programmes—which have a proven record in reducing re-offending behaviour. Work on improving enforcement and implementing What Works is already well under way.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to prevent re-offending by young people awaiting trial. [112608]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales is investing more than £18 million over three years from its development fund to strengthen the local provision of bail support and supervision schemes. From 1 April, local authorities, working in partnership with other agencies in youth offending teams, will be placed under a duty under section 38 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to ensure such provision is available.

  Crime Fighting (New Technology)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure that new technology is properly used in the fight against crime. [112609]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are taking a comprehensive range of measures to ensure that new technology is used more effectively to tackle crime.

  The newly formed Property Crime Reduction Action team is taking forward work with industry to encourage the comprehensive electronic tagging or "chipping" of goods. The ability to track and trace goods effectively will have far-reaching implications for commerce and crime reduction.

  Under the £153 million Closed Circuit Television Initiative, over £48 million has currently been allocated to some 280 schemes in England and Wales. All proposals are closely scrutinised to ensure Closed Circuit Television will contribute effectively to crime reduction as part of a wider local crime reduction strategy, and that the technology is used fairly and lawfully.
  82W
  We are developing proposals for the greater use of automatic number plate recognition systems by police forces.

  The Police Scientific Development Branch of the Home Office provides technical, operational and policy support and also experimental development and research for all United Kingdom Police forces and the Home Office.

  We are improving the use of Information Technology systems by the Police Service. The National Strategy for Police Information Systems (NSPIS) is a vehicle to enable better procurement and use of Information Technology. A major part of the NSPIS programme is the production of national software for police use. The Police Information Technology Organisation is developing the common data and technical architectures needed to support that software. These are being designed to ensure interworking between forces, inter-operability between systems in different forces and standard interfaces between police systems and those elsewhere within the criminal justice system.

  The Police Information Technology Organisation is also rolling out a £120 million national automated fingerprint system (NAFIS) which will be capable of supporting a database of over 54 million ten-print sets and two million crime scene marks. It will be possible to process over 5,000 ten-prints and 5,000 scene of crime marks each day and make over one million fingerprint comparisons every second. The roll out will be completed by April 2001. We are also investing an extra £34 million over the next two years to expand the DNA database.

  We are funding a project to assess the effectiveness of applying enhanced forensic science techniques to scenes of crime in identifying and successfully prosecuting those involved. That complements the expansion of the DNA database.

  The Government will legislate when parliamentary time allows to give the police bulk access, through the Police National Computer (PNC), to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's driver records. Steps are also in hand to give the police ready access through the PNC to the Motor Insurance Industry database of insured drivers (which would become operational in 2001) and to computerised MOT records (which should be available from late 2002).

  We are funding the Foresight Crime Prevention Panel which is identifying future opportunities for using advances in technology to reduce crime. It will publish a consultation document later this month. The Council of Europe is currently negotiating a cybercrime convention (most provisions are already in United Kingdom law) in which the United Kingdom is now a leading player. This is due for completion in December 2000. The United Kingdom is also working with its G8 partners in the High-tech Crime sub-group, looking at innovative and novel solutions to internet crime.

  Ballot Arrangements
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce
  83W
  legislation to regulate the procedures and modus operandi of organisations which make arrangements for ballots. [112610]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No. Organisations are responsible for their own ballot procedures.

  Rural Crime
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to combat the increase in rural crime. [112611]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Both the level of crime and the fear of crime remain lower in rural areas than in urban or inner-city areas, but this does not mean that there is room for complacency.

  The key to tackling rural crime lies in partnerships. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provisions relating to the establishment of crime reduction partnerships, the conduct of audits and the drawing up of strategies enable specific rural concerns to be addressed with the involvement of all the interested parties, including the rural community and rural voluntary organisations. In addition, the Best Value duty, placed on police authorities from April, will involve wide local consultation and provide a framework for the review of all police activities, including how they respond to the concerns of rural communities.

  To recognise the additional demands in tackling rural crime, the police funding formula includes a sparsity element. The position of rural police forces has improved steadily since 1997; in the current financial year their budgets will increase on average by 3.6 per cent., compared with around 2.7 per cent. for the metropolitan forces. The ring-fenced Crime Fighting Fund to provide money for extra police officers on the ground will also benefit rural forces.

  Other funding provision includes a number of successful bids in the first round of Closed Circuit Television funding which cover rural areas, and rural bids will feature specifically in the second round. Targeted policing initiatives funded within the Crime Reduction Programme may also cover rural areas. The Home Office Joint Funding Initiative will match-fund the police service and other local partners in the setting up of Arrest Referral Schemes and the purchase of drug treatment. This is expected to have a significant impact on rural crime committed to support drug misuse and on fear of crime.

  A number of "Watch" schemes are of particular relevance to the countryside, including Farm, Horse, Country and Poacher Watch. There are over 500 Farm Watch schemes covering offences from theft of equipment to rustling, and the Plant Theft Action Group of the Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team is developing work to improve security for farm equipment by bringing it more up to the standard that already exists for cars.

  Police Training (Hendon)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police cadets have begun training at Hendon on each of the courses commencing since 1 January; and what is the capacity of each course. [112600]
  84W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner informs me that the Metropolitan Police Cadet Corps was disbanded in 1993. Two police officer recruit courses have commenced at Hendon since 1 January; 103 recruits began training on 4 January and 58 on 7 February. Numbers for courses do not have to be limited, because the deployment of Hendon's resources is flexible.

  Crime Reduction Partnerships
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received about the contribution made by(a) social services departments, (b) health authorities and (c) local education authorities to meetings of crime reduction partnerships; and if he will make a statement. [114364]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires the council and police in every area to work in partnership with a wide range of other agencies, including health authorities, to develop and implement a strategy to reduce crime and disorder in the area. The Act required the first strategies to be in place by April 1999.

  The essence of these arrangements is that different agencies should work together in a single partnership and together contribute to the common goal of reducing crime and maintaining safety and good order. We have not called for reports on the contributions made by any specific services, although the Report of the Statutory Partnership Task Force last year drew attention in the course of its survey of a representative sample of 12 partnerships to particular instances of the contributions made by, for example, health and education services.

  Disclosure of Evidence Requirements
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received from police forces about the effect of requirements as to the disclosure of evidence upon the efficient use of police manpower; and if he will make a statement. [114363]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Fair disclosure to an accused of unused prosecution material is an inseparable part of a fair trial. The present disclosure provisions in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 came into effect on 1 April 1997. As part of its general responsibility to evaluate new legislation the Government have commissioned an independent research study to evaluate all aspects of the working of the disclosure provisions. This will include an examination of the resource implications for the police as well as prosecutors in carrying out their disclosure responsibilities. The research began at the end of January and will be completed by early next year.

  Prison Staff (Assaults)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults on prison staff there were in each of the London prisons in 1999. [113602]

  Mr. Boateng
  Official statistics on assaults in prisons are provided by the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office. These are based on proven adjudications of assault dealt with by prison disciplinary procedures and the information is provided in the table. There is no central collation of information
  85W
  concerning cases of assaults by prisoners that were pursued through the courts. This could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Number of proven adjudications on offences of assault on a member of prison staff, January to December 19991

  Prison establishments in Greater London

  Number of proven offences

  Belmarsh

  86

  Brixton

  66

  Downview

  2

  Feltham

  109

  High Down

  65

  Holloway

  111

  Latchmere House

  —

  Pentonville

  128

  Wandsworth

  60

  Wormwood Scrubs

  46

  Total

  673

  1 Provisional

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there were under the Animal Scientific Procedures Act 1986 in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [113601]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There were no prosecutions during 1999.

  Updated advice on infringements, offences and penalties will be provided in the extended Home Office Guidance on the Operation of the 1986 Act, which I plan to bring to the House shortly. Sections 22, 23 and 24 of the Act set out the offences and penalties. Infringements vary in gravity from major offences to minor technical breaches of licence and certificate conditions and a range of sanctions is available to the Secretary of State from which the measures best suited to preventing a recurrence can be selected.

  At an early stage in the investigation of a suspected breach of the controls, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate review whether a criminal offence has been committed and whether its gravity is likely to justify referral for prosecution. This depends on its origins, scale and consequences for animal suffering. Thus, deliberate infringements will be viewed more seriously than those due to negligence, ignorance, confusion or adherence to inappropriate instructions from those in authority over the alleged guilty party; repeated failures will generally be viewed more seriously than single incidents; and any unnecessary animal suffering will significantly increase the gravity of any infringement.

  PCCGs
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he is proposing for a police/community consultative group working well; and if such criteria will be agreed in consultation with PCCGs. [113645]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under section 96 of the Police Act 1996, the responsibility outside London for consulting local people on their priorities for policing and for securing their co-operation with the police in crime 86W
  prevention rests with the police authority. From 3 July 2000, the responsibility in the Metropolitan Police District for ensuring this happens will pass to the Metropolitan Police Authority. In making arrangements for public consultation, the police authority must consult the Chief Officer of police for that police area. It is for the police authority to determine what criteria it will use to assess whether and to what extent individual Police Community Consultative Groups (PCCGs) help it to fulfil its statutory responsibility. In assessing the effectiveness of all its arrangements for public consultation, including the use of PCCGs, the police authority will, from 1 April, be under the duty of securing Best Value.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a dedicated member of the Metropolitan Police Authority will be responsible for the development strategy of police/community consultative groups. [113646]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under section 96 of the Police Act 1996, as amended by paragraph 103, schedule 27 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the statutory responsibility for consulting Londoners in the Metropolitan Police District will from 3 July 2000 fall to the Metropolitan Police Authority. This duty falls on the police authority collectively. It will be a matter for that authority as to whether its members are encouraged to specialise in particular areas of the Metropolitan Police Authority's statutory functions such as community consultation. However, under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, the Metropolitan Police Authority will not be able to delegate a statutory responsibility to an individual member.

  Prisoner Suicides
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners committed suicide in cells in magistrates courts in the last year for which figures are available. [113731]

  Mr. Boateng
  There were five self-inflicted deaths in cells in magistrates courts in 1999. The two inquests held to date have concluded with verdicts of misadventure and suicide.

  Juveniles (Representation)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he has issued to prisons and young offender units on the rights of representation for juveniles in internal disciplinary adjudications, with special reference to the Human Rights Act 1998. [113917]

  Mr. Boateng
  General guidance on access to legal representation for all prisoners is set out in the Prison Service's discipline manual, a copy of which is available in the Library. This was issued in 1995 and takes account of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  Racial Incidents
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the recorded number of racial incidents reported in the Metropolitan Police authority area during 1999. [113836]
  87W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has advised me that 22,105 racial incidents were reported within the Metropolitan Police District during the calendar year 1999.

  Public Safety Radio Communications
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) of 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 541, what estimate he has made of the amount, for each police force in England and Wales and for each year of the project, to be deducted from the central police grant to be spent on the Public Safety Radio Communications Project. [109239]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 8 February 2000]: The table contains the core service charges for the Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP) for each police force in England and Wales for each year

  PSRCP core service charge

  England and Wales prices

  Thousand

  Force

  Customer price in £000

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  2,959

  —

  —

  1,110

  2,959

  2,959

  2,959

  2,959

  2,959

  2,959

  2,959

  Bedfordshire Police

  1,101

  —

  —

  —

  413

  1,101

  1,101

  1,101

  1,101

  1,101

  1,101

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  1,303

  —

  —

  —

  1,140

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  Cheshire Constabulary

  1,897

  —

  —

  —

  —

  711

  1,897

  1,897

  1,897

  1,897

  1,897

  City of London Police

  1,036

  —

  —

  —

  —

  389

  1,036

  1,036

  1,036

  1,036

  1,036

  Cleveland Constabulary

  1,455

  —

  —

  —

  —

  909

  1,455

  1,455

  1,455

  1,455

  1,455

  Cumbria Constabulary

  1,067

  —

  —

  —

  934

  1,067

  1,067

  1,067

  1,067

  1,067

  1,067

  Derbyshire Constabulary

  1,762

  —

  —

  881

  1,762

  1,762

  1,762

  1,762

  1,762

  1,762

  1,762

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  3,032

  —

  —

  1,263

  3,032

  3,032

  3,032

  3,032

  3,032

  3,032

  3,032

  Dorset Police

  1,223

  —

  —

  —

  459

  1,223

  1,223

  1,223

  1,223

  1,223

  1,223

  Durham Constabulary

  1,413

  —

  —

  177

  1,413

  1,413

  1,413

  1,413

  1,413

  1,413

  1,413

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  915

  —

  —

  —

  574

  918

  918

  918

  918

  918

  918

  Essex Police

  2,851

  —

  —

  —

  358

  2,861

  2,861

  2,861

  2,861

  2,861

  2,861

  Gloucestershire Constabulary

  1,111

  —

  —

  594

  1,111

  1,111

  1,111

  1,111

  1,111

  1,111

  1,111

  Greater Manchester Police (GMP)

  6,601

  —

  1,100

  6,601

  6,601

  6,601

  6,601

  6,601

  6,601

  6,601

  6,601

  Gwent Constabulary

  1,209

  —

  —

  —

  756

  1,209

  1,209

  1,209

  1,209

  1,209

  1,209

  Hampshire Constabulary

  3,426

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,141

  3,426

  3,426

  3,426

  3,426

  3,426

  Hertfordshire Constabulary

  1,703

  —

  —

  —

  1,064

  1,703

  1,703

  1,703

  1,703

  1,703

  1,703

  Humberside Police

  1,999

  —

  —

  250

  1,999

  1,999

  1,999

  1,999

  1,999

  1,999

  1,999

  Kent County Constabulary

  3,235

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,830

  3,235

  3,235

  3,235

  3,235

  Lancashire Constabulary

  3,166

  —

  3,166

  3,166

  3,166

  3,166

  3,166

  3,166

  3,166

  3,166

  3,166

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  1,787

  —

  —

  1,638

  1,787

  1,787

  1,787

  1,787

  1,787

  1,787

  1,787

  Lincolnshire Police

  1,096

  —

  —

  —

  —

  959

  1,096

  1,096

  1,096

  1,096

  1,096

  Merseyside Police

  4,214

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,634

  4,214

  4,214

  4,214

  4,214

  4,214

  Metropolitan Police Service

  30,925

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11,597

  30,925

  30,925

  30,925

  30,925

  30,925

  Norfolk Constabulary

  1,463

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,280

  1,463

  1,463

  1,463

  1,463

  88W
  of the project. As had previously been announced, these core service costs will be funded centrally by means of deduction from total police grant provision.

  We are doing all we can to ensure that the police have adequate resources to play their key part in tackling crime and disorder and improving community safety. Over the three-year period, commencing from the 1999–2000 financial year, the police service will receive an additional £1.24 billion in central Government funding. This is a significant increase for the police at a time when the Government need to maintain firm control over public expenditure. The Public Safety Radio Communications annual service charges will be reduced by the £50 million that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has obtained from the Capital Modernisation Fund specifically for the PSRCP. Consideration of the financial pressures on forces will also be taken into account in the overall level of resources to be provided for the police service in future years as part of the year 2000 Spending Review.

  89W

  PSRCP core service charge

  England and Wales prices

  Thousand

  Force

  Customer price in £000

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  North Wales Police

  1,320

  —

  —

  —

  165

  1,320

  1,320

  1,320

  1,320

  1,320

  1,320

  North Yorkshire Police

  1,365

  —

  —

  1,024

  1,365

  1,365

  1,365

  1,365

  1,365

  1,365

  1,365

  Northamptonshire Police

  1,137

  —

  —

  —

  —

  142

  1,137

  1,137

  1,137

  1,137

  1,137

  Northumbria Police

  3,697

  —

  —

  462

  3,697

  3,697

  3,697

  3,697

  3,697

  3,697

  3,697

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary

  2,215

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,938

  2,215

  2,215

  2,215

  2,215

  2,215

  South Wales Constabulary

  2,889

  —

  —

  —

  1,806

  2,889

  2,889

  2,889

  2,889

  2,889

  2,889

  South Yorkshire Police

  2,983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,865

  2,983

  2,983

  2,983

  2,983

  2,983

  Staffordshire Police

  2,006

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,756

  2,006

  2,006

  2,006

  2,006

  Suffolk Constabulary

  1,196

  —

  —

  1,196

  1,196

  1,196

  1,196

  1,196

  1,196

  1,196

  1,196

  Surrey Police

  1,517

  —

  —

  —

  —

  948

  1,517

  1,517

  1,517

  1,517

  1,517

  Sussex Police

  2,939

  —

  —

  —

  367

  2,939

  2,939

  2,939

  2,939

  2,939

  2,939

  Thames Valley Police

  3,957

  —

  —

  —

  3,462

  3,957

  3,957

  3,957

  3,957

  3,957

  3,957

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  923

  —

  —

  —

  —

  115

  923

  923

  923

  923

  923

  West Mercia Constabulary

  1,979

  —

  165

  1,979

  1,979

  1,979

  1,979

  1,979

  1,979

  1,979

  1,979

  West Midlands Police

  6,721

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,520

  6,721

  6,721

  6,721

  6,721

  6,721

  West Yorkshire Police

  5,048

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,417

  5,048

  5,048

  5,048

  5,048

  5,048

  Wiltshire Constabulary

  1,145

  —

  —

  —

  1,002

  1,145

  1,145

  1,145

  1,145

  1,145

  1,145

  Percentage sub total

  127.000

  0.000

  4.431

  20.441

  44.587

  86.989

  126.152

  127.000

  127.000

  127.000

  127.000

  PSRCP core service charge

  England and Wales prices

  Thousand

  Force

  2009–10

  2010–11

  2011–12

  2012–13

  2013–14

  2014–15

  2015–16

  2016–17

  2017–18

  2018–19

  2019–20

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  2,959

  2,959

  2,959

  2,959

  2,959

  2,959

  2,959

  1,849

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire Police

  1,101

  1,101

  1,101

  1,101

  1,101

  1,101

  1,101

  1,101

  688

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  163

  —

  —

  Cheshire Costabulary

  1,897

  1,897

  1,897

  1,897

  1,897

  1,897

  1,897

  1,897

  1,897

  1,186

  —

  City of London Police

  1,036

  1,036

  1,036

  1,036

  1,036

  1,036

  1,036

  1,036

  1,036

  648

  —

  Cleveland Constabulary

  1,455

  1,455

  1,455

  1,455

  1,455

  1,455

  1,455

  1,455

  1,455

  546

  —

  Cumbria Constabulary

  1,067

  1,067

  1,067

  1,067

  1,067

  1,067

  1,067

  1,067

  133

  —

  —

  Derbyshire Constabulary

  1,762

  1,762

  1,762

  1,762

  1,762

  1,762

  1,762

  881

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  3,032

  3,032

  3,032

  3,032

  3,032

  3,032

  3,032

  1,789

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset Police

  1,223

  1,223

  1,223

  1,223

  1,223

  1,223

  1,223

  1,223

  765

  —

  —

  Durham Constabulary

  1,413

  1,413

  1,413

  1,413

  1,413

  1,413

  1,413

  1,237

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  918

  918

  918

  918

  918

  918

  918

  918

  344

  —

  —

  Essex Police

  2,861

  2,861

  2,861

  2,861

  2,861

  2,861

  2,861

  2,861

  2,504

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire Constabulary

  1,111

  1,111

  1,111

  1,111

  1,111

  1,111

  1,111

  417

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester Police (GMP)

  6,601

  6,601

  6,601

  6,601

  6,601

  6,601

  5,501

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent Constabulary

  1,209

  1,209

  1,209

  1,209

  1,209

  1,209

  1,209

  1,209

  453

  —

  —

  Hampshire Constabulary

  3,426

  3,426

  3,426

  3,426

  3,426

  3,426

  3,426

  3,426

  3,426

  1,285

  —

  Hertfordshire Constabulary

  1,703

  1,703

  1,703

  1,703

  1,703

  1,703

  1,703

  1,703

  639

  —

  —

  Humberside Police

  1,999

  1,999

  1,999

  1,999

  1,999

  1,999

  1,999

  1,749

  —

  —

  —

  Kent County Constabulary

  3,235

  3,235

  3,235

  3,235

  3,235

  3,235

  3,235

  3,235

  3,235

  3,235

  404

  Lancashire Constabulary

  3,166

  3,166

  3,166

  3,166

  3,166

  3,166

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  1,787

  1,787

  1,787

  1,787

  1,787

  1,787

  1,787

  149

  —

  —

  —

  90W

  91W

  PSRCP core service charge

  England and Wales prices

  Thousand

  Force

  2009–10

  2010–11

  2011–12

  2012–13

  2013–14

  2014–15

  2015–16

  2016–17

  2017–18

  2018–19

  2019–20

  Lincolnshire Police

  1,096

  1,096

  1,096

  1,096

  1,096

  1,096

  1,096

  1,096

  1,096

  137

  —

  Merseyside Police

  4,214

  4,214

  4,214

  4,214

  4,214

  4,214

  4,214

  4,214

  4,214

  1,580

  —

  Metropolitan Police Service

  30,925

  30,925

  30,925

  30,925

  30,925

  30,925

  30,925

  30,925

  30,925

  19,328

  —

  Norfolk Constabulary

  1,463

  1,463

  1,463

  1,463

  1,463

  1,463

  1,463

  1,463

  1,463

  1,463

  183

  North Wales Police

  1,320

  1,320

  1,320

  1,320

  1,320

  1,320

  1,320

  1,320

  1,155

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire Police

  1,365

  1,365

  1,365

  1,365

  1,365

  1,365

  1,365

  341

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire Police

  1,137

  1,137

  1,137

  1,137

  1,137

  1,137

  1,137

  1,137

  1,137

  995

  —

  Northumbria Police

  3,697

  3,697

  3,697

  3,697

  3,697

  3,697

  3,697

  3,235

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary

  2,215

  2,215

  2,215

  2,215

  2,215

  2,215

  2,215

  2,215

  2,215

  277

  —

  South Wales Constabulary

  2,889

  2,889

  2,889

  2,889

  2,889

  2,889

  2,889

  2,889

  1,083

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire Police

  2,983

  2,983

  2,983

  2,983

  2,983

  2,983

  2,983

  2,983

  2,983

  1,119

  —

  Staffordshire Police

  2,006

  2,006

  2,006

  2,006

  2,006

  2,006

  2,006

  2,006

  2,006

  2,006

  251

  Suffolk Constabulary

  1,196

  1,196

  1,196

  1,196

  1,196

  1,196

  1,196

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey Police

  1,517

  1,517

  1,517

  1,517

  1,517

  1,517

  1,517

  1,517

  1,517

  569

  —

  Sussex Police

  2,939

  2,939

  2,939

  2,939

  2,939

  2,939

  2,939

  2,939

  2,572

  —

  —

  Thames Valley Police

  3,957

  3,957

  3,957

  3,957

  3,957

  3,957

  3,957

  3,957

  495

  —

  —

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  923

  923

  923

  923

  923

  923

  923

  923

  923

  808

  —

  West Mercia Constabulary

  1,979

  1,979

  1,979

  1,979

  1,979

  1,979

  1,815

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands Police

  6,721

  6,721

  6,721

  6,721

  6,721

  6,721

  6,721

  6,721

  6,721

  4,201

  —

  West Yorkshire Police

  5,048

  5,048

  5,048

  5,048

  5,048

  5,048

  5,048

  5,048

  5,048

  631

  —

  Wiltshire Constabulary

  1,145

  1,145

  1,145

  1,145

  1,145

  1,145

  1,145

  1,145

  143

  —

  —

  Percentage sub total

  127.000

  127.000

  127.000

  127.000

  127.000

  127.000

  122.569

  106.559

  82.433

  40.011

  0.838

  Police (Human Rights)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact on his policy of Article 3 of the European Convention on his policy concerning Human Rights on the use by police officers of handcuffs. [114376]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We believe that the use of handcuffs by the police, in accordance with the relevant provisions of domestic law and the applicable Home Office guidelines, is compatible with the convention.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of Article 6 of the ECHR on his policy relating to actions against the police for negligence in the investigation and suppression of crime. [114378]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government's view on this matter is set out in a letter sent from the Home Office to all police forces and police authorities on 4 March 1999, a copy of which is in the Library. That letter advises that, on the basis of the interpretation of Article 6 adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Osman v. United Kingdom, police forces should exercise considerable caution before applying to have claims for negligence struck out on the basis of public policy immunity.

  Metropolitan Police Service
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the recruitment intake target for and (b) the actual number of joiners to the Metropolitan
  92W
  Police Service on the intake start dates, (i) 2 May 1999, (ii) 6 June 1999, (iii) 11 July 1999, (iv) 15 August 1999, (v) 19 September 1999, (vi) 24 October 1999, (vii) 28 November 1999 and (viii) 4 January 1999; and what are the latest intake start dates for which figures are available. [114375]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is in the table, provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Intake start date

  (a) Recruitment intake target

  (b) Actual number of joiners

  (i)

  2 May 1999

  130

  145

  (ii)

  6 June 1999

  130

  86

  (iii)

  11 July 1999

  130

  90

  (iv)

  15 August 1999

  130

  110

  (v)

  19 September 1999

  130

  103

  (vi)

  24 October 1999

  130

  87

  (vii)

  28 November 1999

  130

  94

  (viii)

  4 January 2000

  130

  101

  7 February 2000

  130

  57

  Note:

  The provisional intake targets are outlined at the beginning of each financial year. This takes into account anticipated wastage and the desire to maintain officer numbers. The 1999–2000 recruitment target was 1,300 officers (i.e. 130 per intake).

  The Commissioner tells me that a final intake for 1999–2000 is planned to start on 13 March with 75 recruits.
  93W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers left the Metropolitan Police Service in(a) the first and (b) the second year of service in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998 and (iv) 1999. [114374]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is in the table, provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  (a) Officers leaving in the first year of service

  (b) Officers leaving in the second year of service

  (i)

  1996

  45

  28

  (ii)

  1997

  50

  29

  (iii)

  1998

  128

  30

  (iv)

  1999

  152

  30

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were(a) the police establishment numbers and (b) the actual police numbers in the London Borough of Southwark, on 1 April in each year from 1980. [113823]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The practice of setting establishment numbers for police forces in England and Wales ended in 1994–95. The Commissioner of Police

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Camberwell

  80,902

  133,860

  83,907

  153,123

  73,096

  27,604

  Walworth

  347,834

  167,662

  201,727

  174,155

  177,345

  109,987

  Peckham

  225,157

  324,641

  278,532

  315,916

  264,646

  112,740

  Rotherhithe

  178,522

  409,652

  63,455

  48,877

  89,139

  28,548

  Southwark

  392,504

  248,290

  269,820

  245,814

  215,681

  57,935

  Tower Bridge

  153,141

  218,268

  76,731

  76,161

  51,713

  19,602

  East Dulwich

  144,413

  107,658

  129,629

  185,580

  156,632

  71,904

  1 Expenditure only up to November 1999

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of capital works to(a) Rotherhithe, (b) Tower Bridge, (c) Southwark, (d) Walworth, (e) Camberwell, (f) Peckham and (g) East Dulwich police stations, in each year from 1990–91 to 1999–2000. [113821]

  Police station capital expenditure 1999–91 to 1999–2000

  Year

  Camberwell

  Walworth

  Peckham

  Rotherhithe

  Southwark

  Tower Bridge

  East Dulwich

  1991–92

  —

  61,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  10,000

  2,400,000

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  10,000

  1993–94

  —

  2,052,000

  —

  —

  —

  4,701

  7,147

  1994–95

  —

  6,192

  715

  3,744

  138,021

  16,625

  730

  1995–96

  1,600

  15,295

  50,005

  1,637

  29,934

  1,541

  —

  1996–97

  —

  —

  4,991

  —

  —

  —

  1,287

  1997–98

  9,325

  —

  15,274

  600

  41,489

  —

  3,582

  1998–99

  —

  61,000

  2,496

  96

  1,116,975

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  307,000

  —

  —

  —

  1,513,161

  —

  —

  94W
  of the Metropolis tells me that information about police establishment numbers at borough level is not available, nor is information about actual police numbers in the years 1980–89. Actual police numbers as at 31 December in each year from 1990 are in the table:

  Year

  Strength

  31 December 1990

  902

  31 December 1991

  886

  31 December 1992

  816.65

  31 December 1993

  849.78

  31 December 1994

  871.47

  31 December 1995

  902.86

  31 December 1996

  878.16

  31 December 1997

  860.51

  31 December 1998

  876.43

  31 December 1999

  851.8

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department what was the revenue cost of(a) Rotherhithe, (b) Tower Bridge, (c) Southwark, (d) Walworth, (e) Camberwell, (f) Peckham and (g) East Dulwich police stations in each year for the years 1990–1991 to 1999–2000. [113822]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District tells me that the information requested for the financial year 1994–95 is not held centrally. Figures for 1994–95 onwards are in the table:

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District tells me that the information requested is not available for the financial year 1990–91. Figures for 1991–92 to 1999–2000 are shown in the table.

  Press Office
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications there have been for positions on the new Home Office Press Office news team. [113824]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government Communications and Information Service Development Centre received a total of 108 applications to date.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish estimates of the quantity of illegal drugs consumed in the United Kingdom by type of drug in the last five years. [114223]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available. Some exploratory research on sizing the drugs market was carried out by the Office for National

  Number of Persons prosecuted and cautionted for illegal possession of drugs, by class of drug and police force area, England and Wales 1998

  Police force

  Prosecutions

  cautions

  Class A Total

  Prosecution

  Cautions

  Class B Total

  Prosecution

  Cautions

  Class C Total

  England

  Avon and Somerset

  652

  152

  804

  814

  880

  1,694

  23

  6

  29

  Bedfordshire

  132

  24

  156

  603

  347

  950

  8

  0

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  240

  27

  267

  580

  579

  1,159

  21

  3

  24

  Cheshire

  661

  36

  697

  1,328

  760

  2,088

  34

  4

  38

  Cleveland

  354

  64

  418

  451

  614

  1,065

  40

  7

  47

  Cumbria

  223

  100

  323

  673

  481

  1,154

  14

  2

  16

  Derbyshire

  205

  34

  239

  605

  615

  1,220

  44

  4

  48

  Devon and Cornwall

  331

  94

  425

  1,555

  1,264

  2,819

  28

  8

  36

  Dorset

  217

  1

  218

  605

  289

  894

  12

  2

  14

  Durham

  115

  3

  118

  409

  45

  454

  22

  0

  22

  Essex

  309

  66

  375

  1,167

  977

  2,144

  17

  1

  18

  Gloucestershire

  189

  77

  266

  427

  773

  1,200

  3

  2

  5

  Greater Manchester

  995

  291

  1,286

  2,485

  2,620

  5,105

  93

  4

  97

  Hampshire

  363

  28

  391

  2,080

  1,089

  3,169

  27

  2

  29

  Hertfordshire

  159

  46

  205

  654

  487

  1,141

  7

  1

  8

  Humberside

  221

  20

  241

  730

  478

  1,208

  80

  5

  85

  Kent

  230

  36

  266

  1,727

  1,168

  2,895

  28

  6

  34

  Lancashire

  742

  133

  875

  2,320

  1,618

  3,938

  71

  5

  76

  Leicestershire

  203

  9

  212

  896

  511

  1,407

  11

  0

  11

  Lincolnshire

  139

  8

  147

  796

  378

  1,174

  18

  2

  20

  Merseyside

  787

  198

  985

  2,953

  2,030

  4,983

  21

  71

  92

  Metropolitan Police1

  3,966

  1,378

  5,344

  10,506

  15,899

  26,405

  83

  48

  131

  Norfolk

  227

  11

  238

  831

  439

  1,270

  13

  0

  13

  Northamptonshire

  157

  17

  174

  418

  535

  953

  4

  0

  4

  Northumbria

  357

  92

  449

  1,990

  2,100

  4,090

  106

  22

  128

  North Yorkshire

  321

  35

  356

  810

  406

  1,216

  28

  5

  33

  Nottinghamshire

  513

  15

  528

  1,357

  564

  1,921

  34

  3

  37

  South Yorkshire

  1,079

  206

  1,285

  1,646

  730

  2,376

  53

  6

  59

  Staffordshire

  613

  8

  621

  967

  711

  1,678

  29

  4

  33

  Suffolk

  135

  45

  180

  631

  632

  1,263

  9

  8

  17

  Surrey

  108

  21

  129

  575

  655

  1,230

  10

  1

  11

  Sussex

  305

  72

  377

  967

  842

  1,809

  19

  6

  25

  Thames Valley

  569

  33

  602

  1,758

  493

  2,251

  23

  0

  23

  Warwickshire

  72

  14

  86

  307

  357

  664

  4

  0

  4

  West Mercia

  295

  114

  409

  743

  1,234

  1,977

  7

  4

  11

  West Midlands

  1,064

  202

  1,266

  3,683

  3,002

  6,685

  44

  7

  51

  West Yorkshire

  2,519

  288

  2,807

  3,618

  1,289

  4,907

  63

  4

  67

  Wiltshire

  124

  20

  144

  413

  351

  764

  2

  0

  2

  Total

  19,891

  4,018

  23,909

  55,078

  48,242

  103,320

  1,153

  253

  1,406

  Wales

  Dyfed-Powys

  252

  47

  299

  1,256

  1,025

  2,281

  61

  4

  65

  Gwent

  444

  25

  469

  817

  1,165

  1,982

  15

  6

  21

  North Wales

  229

  53

  282

  1,002

  785

  1,787

  10

  7

  17

  South Wales

  252

  42

  294

  2,355

  1,198

  3,553

  74

  6

  80

  Total

  1,177

  167

  1,344

  5,430

  4,173

  9,603

  160

  23

  183

  1 Including City of London

  Note:

  As a person may be prosecuted or cautioned for more than one class of drug, columns for different classes of drug cannot be added together to produce sub-totals or totals

  Source:

  Home Office Reserch Development and Statistics Directorate
  96W
  Statistics in 1998 as part of a broader European-wide project on estimating the contribution of illegal activities to national budgets. Further research has been commissioned by the Home Office to measure the size of the United Kingdom drugs market, to help support the Government's Drugs Strategy. This project should provide better information on drugs consumption. An initial report is due to be made to the Home Office by July.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b) cautions there were for people accused of possessing drugs by (i) class of drug and (ii) police authority, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [114222]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the number of prosecutions made and cautions given for illegal possession of drugs in 1998 in England and Wales, by class of drug and police force area, is given in the table.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent research he has commissioned into the asylum and immigration processes undertaken by his Department; what work has been done in respect of such research by outside consultants; what conclusions such research has reached; and if he will make a statement. [114205]

  Jane Kennedy
  No research on asylum and immigration procedures has been commissioned or published, and no work has been done in respect of research by outside consultants.

  Compensation Payment Defaulters
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will ensure that the courts have the right of access to names and addresses held by other Government Departments and agencies in order that those who default on compensation payments can be traced. [113729]
  98W
  Jane Kennedy
  Section 94 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 will allow the Lord Chancellor to designate by order any relevant public authority from which courts may request this information. Before such an order can be made, administrative arrangements need to be in place. The Benefits Agency is the public authority which is most likely to hold the names and addresses of defaulters so my officials have already commenced discussions with colleagues at the Department of Social Security with a view to establishing a workable and effective system as soon as possible. We will then consider which other public authorities would be most likely to be able to help.

  Magistrates Courts (Safe Cells)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many safe cells were installed in magistrates courts in the last year for which figures are available; how many will be installed in the coming financial year; and if he will make a statement. [113730]

  Jane Kennedy
  No cells to the HM Prison Service improved standard cell design were installed in magistrates courts in 1999–2000 or are planned to be installed in 2000–01.

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

Lead Shot Working Group
Lord Kimball Lord Kimball asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will reconvene the lead shot working group to assess the effectiveness of the Environmental Protection (Restriction on the Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/2170), as announced on 9th November 1999.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Lead Shot Legislation (England) Review Group meeting is planned for Thursday, 30th March 2000 in Bristol. Letters of invitation have already been sent out to a number of organisations covering all interests in this issue.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. I see that the invitations were sent out immediately after my Question was put down. Will the Minister bear in mind that, whatever may have been said when we debated the orders, non-toxic bismuth shot has not and will not come down in price? Will the Minister bear in mind that that is causing great hardship to very many shooters? Will she look carefully at the possibility of permitting other tailored non-toxic shot? In addition, will she review the existing order and return to the original designation of listed SSSIs, removing from it the moorland species of snipe and golden plover?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the remit of the working group is specifically to review the Schedule 1 list of sites. Furthermore, the Government would like to discuss other issues relating to the effectiveness of the legislation, including of course the availability of alternative shot, compliance by shooters and police experience. For the benefit of the House, perhaps it may help if I say that the National Farmers Union has been added to the list of consultees. I believe that this morning the NFU agreed to take part in the meeting.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister aware that these regulations look as though they were drawn up by someone who would suffer from agoraphobia on Islington Green? Is there not a fundamental error here, in that the restrictions are not related to where the shot falls, but to the species of bird being shot? No harm can come from shooting a duck over a dry meadow, except, of course, to the duck. However, shooting a pheasant over wetland does present a hazard because the shot
1276
could fall into the wetlands. Does the Minister agree that the Government have simply got it the wrong way round?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the order covers both specific sites and specific species of birds. I have no doubt that, if the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is widely held, it is exactly the kind of issue that will be raised at the review group meeting. However, given the membership of the original working group, I hardly think that one could claim that a fair cross-section of wide-ranging experience in this field was not present when the order was originally drawn up.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how long the working group has been in existence?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the working group was established once its members had had enough time to gain valid experience of the order. It is due to report in time to influence any possible changes by the start of the shooting season.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kimball referred to the high cost of bismuth. Is the noble Baroness aware that the most effective main alternative to bismuth is, similarly, more than three times the cost of lead shot? That is causing a great deal of distress to many people. Furthermore, is the Minister aware that efforts are being made to develop alternatives which would be less expensive, equally effective and, in my opinion, environmentally friendly? Will the Minister give an assurance that the working group will be entitled to study such alternatives once they have been produced, and to make recommendations accordingly?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure that the working group will take into account any representations that are made. I welcome the news that detailed work is being carried out on alternative shot. However, no one should be in any doubt about the damage that can be caused to the environment by the use of lead shot.

Go: Fares Complaint against Lufthansa
2.38 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend to take to support the British airline Go in its complaint to the European Commission of alleged anti-competitive behaviour by Lufthansa on the London-Munich route.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, competition between airlines brings real benefits for passengers in terms of value for money and improved choice. UK

1277
airlines have a good record in competing energetically and fairly, and we expect all airlines in Europe also to compete fairly. We have not yet received details of this particular complaint from the European Commission. The Commission is required to carry out its investigations in close and constant liaison with member states and we would expect to be consulted by the Commission in due course. We will ensure that Go's legitimate interests are protected. It would be a great pity if, in the meantime, passengers on the London to Munich route ended up paying higher fares.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The allegation is that since Go started trading on this route, Lufthansa has systematically tracked its fares. When Go announced its departure from the route, Lufthansa raised its fare from £59 to £129. However, when Go filed a complaint with the Commission, the Lufthansa fare mysteriously reduced again from £129 to £55. However, is not the real worry that this case could take up to two years to be settled by the Commission? For that reason, will the Government press the Commission to try to deal with the matter more quickly? It is to the long-term disbenefit of both passengers and potential competitors in the airline industry if such complaints take as long as two years to be sorted out.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. The complaint was made only on 28th February. As I understand it, the case has yet to be assigned a case officer within the Commission. The first step will be for the Commission to determine whether it is in the interests of the Community for the case to be pursued. Should such an investigation be initiated, it will be conducted in liaison with other member states. It is likely to be several weeks before any papers reach us. However, I agree with the noble Lord that investigations by the Commission can take an unduly long time. If necessary, we will use our best efforts to press the Commission to proceed quickly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what are the best efforts that the Government are able to make in this regard? Is it not a scandal that Go should be penalised for a period as long as two years? I apologise for not being able to articulate more clearly, but I suffered a stroke on 3rd December. I do not want Go to have a stroke in the interim.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say how pleased we all are to see my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis back in his seat. I am always daunted by having him sitting at my back, staunch friend though he is, because his knowledge is so much greater than mine in these areas.
It is true that the Commission's investigations can be lengthy. It does have powers to take interim measures against anti-competitive practices where
1278
there is clear prima facie evidence of such behaviour. We shall certainly work with Go and do everything we can to ensure that British interests are protected.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's anxiety to curtail the duration of these proceedings, is it not the case that if someone in the United Kingdom notices that someone else is about to undertake an illegal or anti-competitive practice there is recourse to an injunction that has immediate effect and can be proceeded with quickly? Is there an equivalent procedure available within the Community? If not, should not that situation be remedied?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we understand that the Commission has advised Go that it is unlikely that it could take interim measures as predatory pricing is a very difficult allegation to prove. However, noble Lords can be assured that we shall certainly investigate every avenue of recourse for British interests.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British public will not take lightly any suggestion that the Commission can deal with this affair, in so far as it affects Great Britain, at its own convenience? The fact that we have raised a complaint in the matter should be sufficient to ensure that it is attended to immediately, and the Commission should be told so!
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we shall leave the European Commission in no doubt as to the view of this House.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, a single and deregulated market in air traffic in the EU is obviously of benefit to passengers, but we need a much more effective watchdog in such a market. Is it possible for the Government to do more than merely support Go and actually try to ensure that these procedures are made more rapid?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat my assurance that we shall do everything in our power to ensure that these matters are expedited.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the liberalisation of European aviation has produced real benefits for consumers? Does he also agree that the routes where the fares tend to be higher are those on which there is no competition? Does my noble friend further agree that any study of fare structures would show that the routes from London are favourable when compared to those of our competitors?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, liberalisation of the European aviation market has brought great benefits to consumers. Where competition has developed—and here I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for his efforts in such matters while in office—it has often led to substantial

1279
price reductions, increased choice and better value for money. In fact, a recent study by the CAA showed that the lowest fully flexible fares from London were among the lowest in Europe.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to answer the main thrust of the courageous, witty and accurate question from his noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis; namely, what is there that the British Government can actually do about this matter under the present regulation, apart from making rather pathetic "noises off' as far as concerns the Commission?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I can only reiterate my assurance that we shall use our good offices here to do everything that we can.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the problem on the London to Munich route is an isolated incident, or are other UK low-cost airlines threatened in the same way on other routes? Alternatively, does he think that it is likely that such airlines may be so threatened?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am sure that we have a very robust civil aviation sector in Britain that, in many cases, is better prepared than others on the continent to defend its commercial interests. That is simply because of the commercial acumen that the sector has acquired through being in a more competitive situation. However, there have been incidents in the past where pressures have arisen that we believed might raise some concerns. We shall certainly be vigilant on behalf of Go and the other British airlines.
British Airways, for example, faces much greater competition on its domestic hubs than Lufthansa might do. BA has about 40 per cent of the slots at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, as against Lufthansa's 60 per cent at Frankfurt and Munich. It is worth noting that the Star alliance in which Lufthansa is involved has still not been investigated by the Commission, although the attempts of BA to set up alliances have been.

Civil Court Fees
2.49 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart asked Her Majesty's Government:
From what organisations responses have been received to the consultation paper on civil court fees issued by the Court Service in January 2000.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I doubt your Lordships would be best pleased if I took up time literally listing all the organisations which have responded. I shall write to the noble Lord with a comprehensive list. However, 15 interest groups have responded, including the Consumers' Association, the TUC, the Law Society, the Advice
1280
Services Alliance and the Civil Courts Users' Association. Ten managers of a range of court groups have responded, as have 12 firms of solicitors and local law societies and six court user organisations and individuals. There has also been an extensive response from the judiciary. The total of 76 responses has therefore been comprehensive.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. What is the Government's response to the call for a moratorium on the proposed increases in civil court fees which has been issued jointly by the Advice Services Alliance, the Consumers' Association, the Law Society, the Legal Action Group, NACAB and the Public Law Project? Does the noble and learned Lord accept the argument put forward by these and other organisations that the proposed increases in the court fees will seriously inhibit access to justice, particularly for those whose incomes are only just over the fee exemption limit?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not accept that argument. I shall be signing a new fees order, probably today. It will take effect from 25th April. It is necessary to continue to follow the policy of full cost recovery. I shall listen with great care to the responses to the consultation. I shall publish an analysis of responses by the beginning of April. When I arrive at preliminary policy conclusions, I shall consult on them. However, the government policy of full cost recovery remains.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is quite wrong for access to justice to be seriously prejudiced by excessive civil court fees? Can he tell us the extent to which the number of civil actions has fallen—if it has fallen—since the principle was accepted by the Government that court fees should be sufficiently high even to cover the cost of milk for the office cat?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, let us not forget that the main deterrent to going to law is not court fees but lawyers' fees. To argue that the current level of court fees is a deterrent to litigants is rather like arguing that people are deterred from buying a new car by an increase in vehicle excise duty.
My present judgment is that there is nothing wrong with a general principle that those who can afford to do so should pay a fair fee for the use of the courts to resolve their disputes. I listened carefully to the representations that were made criticising the allocation fee in defendant claims up to £1,000, and I have recently announced the abolition of that allocation fee.
The taxpayer, however, pays in full the court fees of parties who are in receipt of a range of benefits: working families' tax credit, disabled persons' tax credit, income support and others. Thus the taxpayer pays in full, or where remissions apply in part, the court fees of those for whom payment of the full fee would constitute undue hardship. Also there are categories of litigation, such as Children Act and domestic violence applications, where the fees are set

1281
about 40 or 50 per cent beneath the true cost. We should also remember that the taxpayer pays in full from the Legal Aid Fund the court fees of those eligible for legally aided representation.

Sudan
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy with respect to recent developments in Sudan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's policy remains focused on achieving a peace settlement beneficial to all Sudanese. We have long supported the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace process as the main vehicle likely to achieve this. Now that we have a fully operational embassy in Khartoum we are more able to promote peace and human rights and to aid the humanitarian effort, with the Government of Sudan, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and other factions. We believe that there is now an opportunity to press for peace and that the international community should do all that it can to pursue that goal.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive reply. Is she aware that I have visited areas in western Upper Nile near the oilfields and witnessed at first hand the ethnic cleansing by the Government of Sudan of the African people who live there? They have been subjected to aerial bombardment by helicopter gunships and Antonovs carrying out scorched earth policies in which thousands of homes and many schools, mosques, churches and clinics have been burned to the ground. The United States has adopted a policy of economic sanctions. If the British Government's policy of normalisation of relations does not make them minded to follow that road, will the British Government at least make sure that no British firms are involved in the exploitation of the oil which is being used by the regime to fuel its war against its own people?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that Her Majesty's Government are being assiduous in trying to promote the peace process. We are aware of the concerns about which the noble Baroness speaks and are giving the matter a great deal of attention. The noble Baroness will know that the sanctions in relation to this area are complex and difficult because of the consequences that may flow therefrom for the people of Sudan. We continue to give robust advice to all businesses which seek to work in this area so that they are fully aware of the reality of what involvement means.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, mindful of the serious picture which the noble Baroness, Lady
1282
Cox, has painted, and of the strong representations made to me by bishops of the Episcopal Church in Sudan when I met them in Nairobi last month, will the Minister please tell us what practical steps Her Majesty's Government have taken; what practical steps are being taken; and what practical steps the Government propose to take, and with whom, to bring to an end this appalling tragedy and to forward the peace process with the utmost haste?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am delighted to do so, but I first commend to the House all the work that has been done by the Churches in the region which work with great energy and dedication to bring about peace for the Sudan. The UK continues to play a prominent role in pursuit of peace, especially now that we have a fully operational embassy in Khartoum. We have given new political and financial support to the newly revitalised Inter-Governmental Authority on Development—the peace process which I mentioned earlier which is allowing for a sustained and accelerated negotiation. We continue to press for extensions to a partial ceasefire, first agreed during the late Derek Fatchett's visit to the region, which has brought much relief to the people in southern Sudan. Your Lordships will remember that the previous agreement was reached in January. It will continue until April of this year.
We continue to engage with all sides. The Sudanese Government and Opposition are well aware of our views. On 8th and 9th March our ambassador to Sudan met the SPLA in Nairobi and reiterated our concerns to see the peace talks make progress, in close coordination with the head of the secretariat of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development, Mr Daniel Mboya. We are involved in newly resumed EU dialogue with the Government of Sudan, a positive but frank forum which addresses the peace process, human rights and democratisation. All our efforts are going into making sure that both sides understand that the true benefit that will flow to the Sudanese people will be the end of this long war. Your Lordships will be aware that the war has gone on for 16 years and over 1.5 million people have suffered. We want to do everything in our power to bring that suffering to an end.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noted the reports last week of the bombing of aid agency compounds in the south, particularly those belonging to the American NGO, Samaritans First, and the Irish organisation, Concern, in which it was alleged that two people were killed and a dozen injured? Does she not think that if the Sudanese authorities stopped bombing civilians in the south it would be one of the main contributions towards the achievement of a peace settlement? In pursuance of this objective, what additional measures could be taken to deny them the aircraft and spares coming from eastern Europe, sometimes via third countries such as Yemen? Does the Minister think that the international community has

1283
done enough to enforce the arms embargo, particularly when it is being breached by eastern European countries through third countries such as Yemen?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we have been very assiduous in highlighting the difficulties in the region. We have given every encouragement to our international partners to be as assiduous as we are in implementing the arms embargo. We shall not cease to make those efforts. The noble Lord will know how dire is the situation. We have a window of opportunity—it is not a great one—and we need to put all our energies into ensuring that we get something viable for all the people of Sudan.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, we welcome very much the contribution from the Bishops' Benches in relation to this matter. There are many persecuted Christians in the Sudan, as there are in other countries. Does my noble friend agree that this is much more the role of the Bishops than is negotiating with the Government without other interested parties on Section 28?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the reality is that we need energy and commitment from every single sector in order to deliver peace. I warmly welcome the energy put into this issue by the Bishops, as indeed I welcome the energy that they have addressed towards Section 28.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, in the context of the visit to the Sudan undertaken by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury some while ago, will the Minister underline the value of that visit and indicate whether she would like a further such visit to be undertaken now?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand that the most reverend Primate will visit Sudan in April. We warmly welcome this initiative and wish him Godspeed.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, while I warmly welcome what has been said so far, I must return to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate. Schools and hospitals have been bombed. When a spokesman was challenged about the issue, he said that they had intended to bomb the school. As part of our normalisation efforts and discussions, to what degree do we point out specifically to the Sudanese Government how wholly unacceptable such actions are? Have we involved the Ugandan Government because, after all, Uganda is suffering from an enormous influx of refugees as a result of the conditions in Sudan? Have we turned to the international community generally to support normalisation in terms of expecting rational, civilised behaviour from the Sudanese Government?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the noble Baroness's questions in order. We are aware of the reports about the bombs being dropped. We have raised the matter specifically with the Government of Sudan. At this year's UN Commission on Human Rights, an EU-sponsored consensus resolution on Sudan was agreed. It calls on the Government of Sudan to stop immediately the indiscriminate bombardment of civilians and humanitarian centres—actions which run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights and humanitarian law. Our ambassador made this general point on bombing yesterday to the Sudanese Government and at the time of the bombing of the Holy Cross school in Nuba.
So far as concerns the Ugandan Government, we are aware that they have come to terms with the Sudanese, together with Ethiopia and Eritrea, and we welcome that. It is a difficult issue. As I said earlier, it needs all our efforts. We shall not hesitate to highlight these issues to the Sudanese. It needs the efforts of both north and south because, I regret to say, the honours are equally shared when it comes to unreasonableness.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, first, does the Minister agree that with regard to humanitarian aid the main problem in the Sudan has been not the amount of aid donated but ensuring that it reaches those most in need? In the light of the deteriorating situation in the Sudan, what initiatives do the Government intend to take to ensure that NGOs are allowed freely to continue their humanitarian work? As the House will be aware, some 11 foreign aid agencies were forced to suspend their operations and pull out their staff from southern Sudan on 1st March this year after refusing to accept a rebel ultimatum. Secondly, what action do the Government intend to take to build on the important agreements reached last year between the Government of the Sudan, the SPLA and the UN to secure access to certain roads and rail corridors used by aid agencies?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I share the concerns outlined by the noble Lord. We have strongly expressed our concern in relation to the memorandum of understanding which the SPLA sought to make a number of agencies sign—the noble Lord will know that at least 11 of the major agencies refused to sign—and we have given every support to those who have condemned that as a retrogressive step. The difficulties inherent in this situation have been manifest not only in this interchange but in all our dealings with both sides. We shall continue to urge them with great vigour that the Sudanese people need peace and that failing to take advantage of the humanitarian agencies which are willing to commit themselves to the region is a retrogressive step. We shall continue to press the SPLA to address this issue.

Business of the House: House of Lords Investigation
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wonder whether the Leader of the House can set my mind at rest about a matter which seems to me to reflect directly on the right of the House to regulate its own affairs. I caught the end of a news story this morning which seemed to indicate that the matter of a register of interests would be referred for investigation by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee on standards in public life. I also understand that this matter is the subject of a Written Answer today which I have not had the privilege of seeing. Can the Leader of the House reaffirm that whether a reference is made is a matter for a decision by the whole House? As I remember it, the agreement was that before that reference is made the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee?
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, first, whether she believes that it is appropriate to refer to the matter by means of an announcement to the press. If it was not an announcement to the press, how did the matter come to be leaked? Secondly, does she believe that it was appropriate for the matter to be referred to by means of a Written Answer? Thirdly, has the matter been discussed at all by the Procedure Committee? Fourthly, does the noble Baroness intend to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee and then to refer any report that may result from its discussion to a decision of your Lordships' House before it is referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life? I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the decision on how your Lordships' affairs should be addressed must rest unequivocally with your Lordships and with no one else.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be helpful if I speak to one or two matters at this stage. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranborne for raising this matter. It is an issue of great importance which lies at the heart of the sovereignty of this House of Parliament. It is an issue which, I must admit, I missed. I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, in the middle of last week informing me that he was to undertake an investigation of this House. I replied almost immediately pledging the co-operation of the official Opposition in any inquiry that he makes.
My noble friend has raised a far more important issue; namely, how it is that the noble Lord, Lord Neill, is conducting the inquiry without reference to this House. Has the noble Baroness the Leader of the House had discussions with either the Clerk of the Parliaments or the Chairman of Committees in order to ensure that the proper procedures have been followed? I have it in mind that when the issue was raised previously it was dealt with by another Member of this House, the distinguished noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, who set up his inquiry on the advice of the Procedure Committee, which was approved by this House. The report was ultimately approved by the House and was put into effect.
1286
I should also like to take up the matter of the Written Question. I understand that there is an article in today's Independent. I failed to see it; however, I did catch the tail-end of a news report on the radio this morning. I am sure that the Government had nothing to do with it. I suspect that this slipped out of the committee of inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, rather than this House. Is a written statement really the best way to proceed on this matter? Would it not have been much better for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to come to the House to make an oral Statement so that it could be discussed and debated?
This provides me with an opportunity to ask the noble Baroness for a debate before this matter goes much further—or at least for the matter to be referred to the Chairman of Committees, who would no doubt decide which was the best committee to discuss the issue.
Will the noble Baroness also confirm—she may not know the answer now—that my noble friend Lord Cranborne is right in saying that, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Neill, reports on, it will be up to this House to decide how best to proceed?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the points that they have raised. Like them, I was surprised by what I heard on the BBC this morning. I have not read the article in the Independent to which the noble Lord referred. I understand that it was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, at a much earlier stage in his proceedings that he was planning to examine the arrangements in this House in much the same way as he had done in relation to another place. At that stage, it was agreed that the understanding was that that was appropriate.
Like the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Neill, indicating that this was the next stage of his inquiry into the affairs of Parliament. I replied, indicating the Government's ready acquiescence in such an inquiry. The practices that the noble Lord suggests should be followed are ones which we on these Benches have for some time encouraged Members of this House to follow voluntarily.
At that stage I also suggested, in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, that it was obviously appropriate—and I am sure that he had already done so—to consult the noble Lord and other Members of this House about proceeding with this matter. If some more formal procedure should be undertaken based on precedent, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has indicated, I am willing to look into that and to take the matter further in any way that is appropriate. The activities of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee are completely independent of the Government. I thought that he had made the appropriate consultative arrangements with other leading Members of this House as he did with me. As I say, if the noble Viscount says that on the basis of precedent some other proceedings should be followed,

1287
I am extremely willing to look into that and to discuss it with both the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and other leading Members of the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as one who ought to know more about this than I do, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to remind us whence spring the powers of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to investigate this House. Assuming that they have been granted by this House already, it seems that the difficulty is a small one. If they have not, surely it is not appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to approach either the Government or the Opposition; it is the House as a whole that has to be approached. That can be done only by one of the committees nominated for the purpose or by a Statement and debate in the House.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my informal understanding is that the noble Lord's original proposition is correct. If on consultation with the House authorities I am proved wrong, I shall of course make sure that that procedure is followed, as I indicated in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.14 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 25) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Freedom of information: applicability to the House of Lords
Parliament is included in the list of public bodies covered by the Freedom of Information Bill. The Bill would enable the authorised officer of each House to refuse to disclose information either on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. In the House of Lords the authorised officer is the Clerk of the Parliaments. In the case of other public bodies, the Bill provides that a dissatisfied applicant for information can appeal to the Information Commissioner. But there will be no such appeal in the case of Parliament. In the interests of equity the Committee recommends that the House should have a mechanism to consider whether a refusal by the Clerk of the Parliaments to disclose information is reasonable.
The Committee recommends that in cases where the Clerk of the Parliaments is minded to refuse to disclose information on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs he should ask applicants whether they accept his decision or whether they wish him to reconsider. If he is asked to reconsider, he should refer the matter to a panel of members of the House for advice. The panel should consist of 5 persons, chaired by a Lord of Appeal or a retired Lord of Appeal. The other members should include a representative from each of the parties and the Crossbenches. The panel should have the assistance of the Information Commissioner.
2. Scrutiny of amendments at committee and report stage
The Committee considered how major new amendments tabled at report stage could be scrutinised properly, given the restrictions on debate at that stage. The Committee reminds the House that whole Bills or certain clauses or schedules may be recommitted to
1288
a Committee of the whole House at any time between committee and third reading. Recommitment allows the House to give further detailed consideration to a Bill or certain parts of it without the limitations that apply on report and at third reading. In addition the Committee recommends that, in order to improve the scrutiny of legislation, the House should whenever possible have the benefit of a further report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, if appropriate, on any significant amendments containing delegated powers tabled to a Bill after the committee's initial report.
3. Starred Questions
The Committee agreed that the Clerk of the Parliaments should inform the House at the beginning of Question Time when he knows that a Starred Question on the Order Paper is not to be asked.
4. Revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders
The Committee was informed that a comprehensive revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders was being undertaken. The Committee recommends that for the convenience of members the new edition should be in two volumes. Volume 1 should be an essential practical guide to conduct and procedure in the Chamber; volume 2 would contain more technical information. Both volumes would carry the same authority. The Committee will appoint a small sub-committee to undertake detailed examination of the revised text.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I have a brief query. Paragraph 1 of the report contains the reference:
"in cases where the Clerk of the Parliaments is minded to refuse to disclose information on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice".
In a long and undistinguished life in public service I have managed all these years, as has everyone else, without the phrase, "is minded". What does it actually mean? Surely there is a phrase in common usage which can be employed instead. Otherwise, we are just falling into the spin doctors' trap.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Select Committee report informs the House that Parliament is included in the list of public bodies covered by the Freedom of Information Bill. I am not aware that the Bill in its final form has come before this House. I should very much like to examine the Freedom of Information Bill before I am prepared to consider the proposition that is reproduced at paragraph 1 of the report. The paragraph states that,
"The Bill would enable the authorised officer of each House to refuse to disclose information either on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs".
I venture to draw your Lordships' attention to the last part of the sentence referring to the "effective" conduct of public affairs. Public affairs can be conducted very effectively but not necessarily properly. I should have thought that it would have been far better to have inserted the words, "proper conduct of public affairs".
The second part of the paragraph states that,
"The Committee recommends that in cases where the Clerk of the Parliaments is minded to refuse to disclose information on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, he should ask applicants whether they accept his decision or whether they wish him to reconsider".

1289
I give way to no noble Lord in this House in my very great respect for the Clerk of the Parliaments, who is of enormous assistance to everyone and whose reputation, and indeed strength, is well known to us all. I should have thought, on the whole, that before we commit ourselves to approving the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, we might also refer the matter to the Committee for Privileges. The privilege of this House to receive information of one kind or another is a vital issue.
We are presently witnessing—as I have attempted to show on a number of occasions and hope to be spared to do so on a few more occasions—the progressive erosion of parliamentary powers from outside the United Kingdom. I therefore suggest that we return the report to the Select Committee on Procedure, together with as polite an indication as possible—copied to the Clerk of the Parliaments—that we should prefer this matter to be considered after detailed consideration has been given to the Freedom of Information Bill.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, at the end of the report reference is made to an examination of the Companion to the Standing Orders with a view to possible revision. Can the Chairman of Committees tell the House the object of that possible revision? Who is to conduct it, and will Members of the House be invited to comment before it is published?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. I was not aware that the terminology to which he refers was the invention of spin doctors, whatever they may be. The term has historic connections with judicial proceedings and is frequently used by both noble and learned Lords and others of lesser standing within the justice system. Your Lordships may feel that it has impeccable origins. I do not believe that I can help the noble Lord further.
I turn next to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He quoted the words,
"effective conduct of public affairs",
in paragraph 1 of the report and suggested that the term "proper" might more properly be substituted. The words used by the committee in its report have been taken from the Bill itself. The proposal in paragraph 1 of the report was given careful consideration by the Procedure Committee before the decision was taken. It was thought that this was a proper way to proceed.
I do not believe that I can help the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in regard to his suggestion that these matters should be deferred until the Bill has been considered. I would have thought—I am sure that I speak for the committee—that it was right for these matters to be considered by your Lordships' House at the earliest possible moment. There was no doubt within the Procedure Committee that this provision was required
1290
and that it was right and fair to all concerned. I would, therefore, commend to your Lordships this proposal along with the others in the report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Council]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("and one as Chief Executive, a post which shall subsequently be appointed by the Council as set out in Schedule I to this Act').
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 1 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6. I understand that Amendment No. 8, which is grouped with my amendments, is to be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
Amendment No. 1, which seeks to include on the face of the Bill a reference to the subsequent appointment of the post of chief executive as set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill, does no more than bring the arrangements into line with those for the chairman. The Minister gave no reason why it had been found necessary in Clause 1 to say that a member of the council should be appointed chairman but not that a member should also be appointed chief executive. Both should appear in either the schedule or in Clause 1, with subsequent detailed arrangements being dealt with in the schedule. Therefore, the amendment is tabled merely as a matter of consistency.
Amendment No. 2 is about the appointment of the chairman and ensures that he is a person with current or recent non-public business experience who commands national respect. The amendment adopts the Minister's own words. The Government intend that the individual should be someone from business who is nationally respected. Given that there is a great deal of minutiae on the face of the Bill, which will increase some of the concerns of business and commerce about the council, it is important that this should also be made explicit.
Amendment No. 3 is about the composition of the Bill, and it, too, is a matter with which the Government should have no difficulty. The Government have made it clear both informally and formally that 40 per cent of the members of the national council and of the local councils should include people from the business community. It is essential that that appears on the face of the Bill. At each stage of the Bill business and commerce have re-emphasised the importance of seeing something like this on the face of the Bill. Both we and business and commerce are conscious that the training and enterprise councils, which will go out of business as a result of the Bill and government policy, are to lose membership of those bodies. At the moment, they comprise two-thirds of the membership, which will reduce as a result of the Bill. In order to steady any nerves about the legislation, it is important that that should be made explicit on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 4 provides that,
"Not less than 20 per cent of the members shall be nominated by the Local Government Association".
I listened to what the Government said at an earlier stage and have read what they have said since. They are concerned about prescribing so much of the composition on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I have reduced the figure from 25 per cent to 20 per cent. I feel strongly that there should be representation on the body and that it should be made explicit in some form on the face of the Bill.
The concern is that the Government say all the right things. I have been present at a number of meetings where Ministers have explained their intentions, but very little in the Bill bears out those intentions; much of it is left to chance. If in addition to some of the comforting statements one accepts what the noble Baroness has said constantly—that it will be a matter for Nolan—if Nolan does not make the recommendations, that will not happen. In order for the Government to make that happen—in other words, to say to Nolan that they mean that there should be 40 per cent representation by business and local government—it is important that, even if that is subject to Nolan procedures, that matter is made explicit on the face of the Bill.
There will be some argument about Amendment No. 4, but I hope that there will be none about Amendment No. 3 which represents the Government's declared intention. The Government have been less explicit about local government representation. The only explicit statement that we have had from the Minister in another place, Mr Wicks, is that there will be one local government representative on each of the councils, both national and local.
Amendment No. 5 proposes that,
"The chairman shall be appointed for a period of not less than three years and not exceeding live years".
We have again taken the Minister's declared intention that there should be a properly recognised term of office. The Minister will notice that the amendment does not say that the person shall be reappointed, but that the appointment should be for a period of not less than three years and not exceeding five years. All of that is subject to the chairman not making an awful gaffe whereby he or she may have to be dismissed in a shorter period of time, but the appointment itself should be made for a specific period, and that should be properly understood by the person who accepts the post.
Amendment No. 6 makes grammatically explicit on the face of the Bill that the reference is not to "a member". I understand that the present wording is counsel-speak. Counsel always knows what he or she means by a word. However, given that business, commerce, local authorities and other interested parties—for example the voluntary sector and so forth—need to understand what these words mean, it is right that each member appointed to a relatively small national council should bring to it skills and experience which are relevant to the work of that body. That should be required not of "a member", or of "any member", but of "each member".
Perhaps I may say in passing that there will be some concern if at the end of the day the Government take the view that the membership should be 12 and not 16 members. If two of the posts are already taken up by the chairman and chief executive, there will be only a very small number of people to represent all the interests. I am aware that today noble Lords will propose that other interests should be represented on the council. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question for clarification as regards construction. I speak to all amendments within the grouping. Do the functions and duties under Clause 1, Schedule 1 and Clause 2 apply where the local authority is not a local education authority? Moving Amendments Nos. 150 and 152 in Committee the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn made plain that they applied only where the local authority was a local education authority. I can see the logic of that. This morning I asked half a dozen noble Lords with greater knowledge of education than I possess and no one knew the answer. As a matter of principle, it would be a good idea to see where we are going at the outset. I hope that the Minister will take the matter on board.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 8 tabled by my noble friend Lord Tope and myself. We moved a somewhat similar amendment in Committee stressing that it was a minor proposal aimed at preventing the learning and skills council being dominated by a self-perpetuating clique. The amendment seeks to limit the normal term of the chairman's appointment to no more than two terms. It is somewhat similar to Amendment No. 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which seeks to limit the period for which the chairman shall be appointed to not less than three years and not exceeding five years. Our amendment is slightly different. We seek to limit the normal period to two terms. It echoes the reply that we received from the Minister in Committee.
Although recognising that stability and membership build up a team spirit and strengthen bonds between members, they can also lead to conservatism and entrenched attitudes. It is always good for an organisation to be challenged from time to time. We are worried that, as drafted, Schedule 1 allows the chairman to continue indefinitely. We want to ensure that that does not occur. The Minister stressed in Committee that the general rule set out in the code of practice for public appointments was that members and chairs would normally serve for a maximum of two terms but that exceptions were allowed. That is good. However, the very fact that it is normal practice suggests that the provision should be incorporated on the face of the Bill. It is for that reason that we again bring forward an amendment in a slightly altered form.
Perhaps I may comment on the noble Baroness's six amendments. We have some sympathy with Amendment No. 1 in relation to the chief executive

1293
serving on the council. However, we accept, as the Minister stated on the last occasion, that chief executives sit on the research councils, the Higher Education Funding Council and the Further Education Funding Council, and that that provides a precedent. It is not essential.
We have less sympathy with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. We feel that they are too prescriptive. It would be wrong for such a clear proportion of the council to be dominated by one forum or another. We have a great deal of sympathy for Amendment No. 4. It is right that local government should be represented on the learning and skills council. Amendment No. 5 is very close to our own amendment. It seeks the same end.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I set down a marker that I am concerned about the degree of prescription in membership that Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 envisage. I am not happy about the Bill moving more and more strongly towards making provision simply about education and training for employment. If we consider the figures, 60 per cent would be predicated to education and business. My calculation is that 60 per cent of 16 is 9.6—that is 10 members, plus the chairman and chief executive. It leaves only four members to be selected from other disciplines and backgrounds.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I am puzzled by Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It simply replicates provisions already in Schedule 1. In Committee, the noble Baroness seemed to suggest—she repeated the suggestion today—that provisions in a schedule have somehow less force than provisions in a clause. That is not the case. If provisions are in a schedule they are still part of an Act when it is enacted and, therefore, have statutory power. It is simply not the case that they have less force if they are in a schedule. It means that the chief executive will be no less a creature of statute than the chairman.
I do not believe that the chief executives of, for example, the Further Education Funding Council or the Higher Education Funding Council, for which the noble Baroness's own government legislated in 1992, felt slighted because their appointments were contained within schedules to the relevant legislation. Nor, I am sure, do the chief executives of any of the regional development agencies. The Bill does exactly what earlier legislation did—legislation of the government of which the noble Baroness was a member.
As to Amendment No. 2, I fully support the wish of noble Lords that the business sector should play a major role in the LSC's strategic decision-making and planning. That is exactly why I sought to reassure noble Lords during Second Reading and in Committee that the national chair and most local chairs will have significant business or commercial experience.
1294
I set out the reasons for those commitments to business at an earlier stage. However, it does not follow that we should incorporate such commitments on the face of the Bill. As I mentioned before, there is an obvious problem of definition with the terms "business" or "non-public sector"—I am not entirely sure how they would be defined, and what would happen in a court case if there were argument on the definition—and "national respect". I am sure that many Members of this House are the subject of great national respect, but some people might debate that.
We have discussed at great length the issues in Amendment No. 3. I made clear at Second Reading and in Committee that the Government want and are fully committed to ensuring that the business sector should play a major role in the strategic decision-making and planning that the LSC undertakes.
In response to the Committee stage debates, the CBI welcomed,
"the Government's commitment to business involvement; and the fact that the LSC will take account of the sectoral skills needs of industry".
I could repeat the assurances and commitments given in Committee, but since the CBI has noted and warmly welcomed our commitments, I hope that the noble Baroness can do the same. I do not believe that there is any need to put this provision on the face of the Bill. Nor am I aware of pressure from elsewhere that it should be on the face of the Bill.
Turning to Amendment No. 4, I accept that the noble Baroness now seeks to secure a quota of 20 per cent rather than 25 per cent, thereby allowing more representation of other groups. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that if we have too many percentage quotas on the face of the Bill, the situation will become inflexible. It could lead to difficulties when we have to take into account other people and bodies which must be represented on the learning and skills council.
I reassure noble Lords once again that local authorities will have a major role in the new arrangements. As we shall hear later, we are looking to strengthen the framework for consulting local authorities on local LSC plans. They will be central partners not only in securing and providing learning opportunities in schools and through adult and community learning, but also as organisations which can provide vision and leadership for local communities. I believe that they have an important role.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked about definitions. I am not sure about the relevance of that to these clauses, but wherever the Bill specifies "local education authority", it refers only to local education authorities. Where it refers to "local authorities", it can include LEAs as well as district councils. I hope that that answers his question.
As I said previously, if a suitable individual with current local government experience were appointed to the council, that would serve to strengthen the links with the LGA. However, it would be wrong to specify the number or to guarantee a quota of places for the

1295
LGA and its representatives. In any case, we do not want members of the council to be delegates or nominees of any particular organisation. Members of the council, wherever they come from, should serve the interest of the council as a whole,
I accept the principle behind Amendment No. 5, which is that the period of the term of office of the chairman will be between three and five years. That is in line with guidance from the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which we have made a public commitment to follow. But setting that in stone in the legislation would make no allowance for exceptional circumstances in which, for some reason, we may need to appoint a chairman for a different period of time. For instance, the principle would not allow the short-term appointment of a chairman to see through a period of change before a longer-term appointment could be made. We need to retain flexibility in these matters.
As regards Amendment No. 6, I am disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has felt the need to return to the issue. In Committee, I gave the noble Baroness a full explanation of the reason why Clause 1(3) was so drafted. By way of reply, the noble Baroness launched into what I thought was an unnecessary attack on parliamentary counsel, accusing them of pedantry. The noble Baroness is insisting that Clause 1(3) be amended so that the indefinite article "a" is replaced by the adjective "each". Without wishing to be pedantic myself, I simply repeat that the legal effect of the amendment would be precisely zero. That is because under Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978,
"unless the contrary intention appears … words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular".
Therefore, the effect of Section 6 of the Interpretation Act is that, when Clause 1(3) sets out to what the Secretary of State must have regard in appointing "a" member, it applies to his appointment of all members. I hope that with that assurance, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not feel the need to press her amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way. She said that she had answered my question. Perhaps before she leaves the matter I may respectfully say that she did not. The answer to my question is either "yes", "no" or "do not know". I do not want to press the noble Baroness now, but will she be good enough to read Hansard and answer my question, which is specifically related to Clause 1, Schedule 1 and Clause 2? That is all I ask.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I shall be happy to do that.
Perhaps I may return to the effect of Section 6 of the Interpretation Act. When Clause 1(3) sets out to what the Secretary of State must have regard in appointing "a" member, it applies to his appointment of all members.
Amendment No. 8, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, seeks to limit the number of terms which a member of the LSC may serve. With
1296
regard to the tenure of members, the Government have stated that they will adhere to the guidelines set out in the code of practice for public appointments. The last thing that they would want to see is people permanently in such jobs. Of course there must be fresh blood and limits to the length of time that chairmen and others may serve, but the code of practice for public appointments states that chairs and members should normally serve for a maximum of two terms.
However, I am sure that the noble Baroness will appreciate that there may be exceptional circumstances in which a member's final term may need to be extended. That might happen, for example, when a degree of stability is needed due to a large number of members simultaneously reaching the end of their period of office, or a large number of resignations taking place for some reason. The guidance allows for such exceptional circumstances. However, setting the provision in legislation raises difficult questions of interpretation; for instance, what "normally" means and so forth. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp, will accept our clear and repeatedly expressed intentions on those issues of appointment and that we shall be bound by the relevant guidance. I hope that with those assurances they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. She totally missed the point as regards the first amendment. It asks why it has been thought necessary to provide in Clause 1 that the council shall include a chairman and not a chief executive and why it has been thought fit to provide in the schedule that it shall include a chief executive and not a chairman? Furthermore, the schedule includes references to subsequent appointments.
One of the weakest defensive arguments ever to be used by a Minister—I am culpable and probably used it myself—is to say, "It has always been done like this and we shall continue with it". I am afraid that that is not an answer.
As regards the noble Baroness's disparaging comments about me using the words "commands national respect", I took them verbatim from col. 539 of Hansard. They were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on 8th February and I thought that if they were good enough for him, they were good enough for me and for the consideration of this House.
I understand what the noble Baroness said about the term of office not being set out on the face of the Bill. It is helpful to have the Government's explanation on the record. However, will reference be made to the term of office in any job advertisement or job description for the post?
As regards the definite article, yes, we are becoming a little pedantic, but so often lay people must make sense of legalese. I make no apologies for being slightly critical of counsel, who write for counsel readers. The truth is that when the law is interpreted, it must have

1297
a practical meaning to those who implement it. However, as the noble Baroness said, although the indefinite article subsumes the plural, what happens when it is meant to mean only the singular? What happens when the indefinite article is meant to include the plural? What, then, does "council" suggest? There are occasions in legislation when "a" is used to mean a specific person, one thing or one aspect of a Bill. Therefore, the indefinite article becomes appropriate. However, to say that it always includes the plural is, frankly, not right.
I am not entirely happy with the answers. As I said, no reason has been given as to why the chairman and chief executive have been treated differently. It is possible that a person who reads Clause 1 will understand that a council will have 12 to 16 members, one of whom will be a chairman, and that that will be the only prescribed post. It is not until one reads almost to the end of the Bill that one finds, hidden away in a schedule, that another post of the council is prescribed to be held by the chief executive. I believe that that is unfortunate. They should either both be on the face of the Bill in Clause 1 or both in the schedule together so that no one is left, as I am, wondering why they should be treated differently, even if that has been the case in the past. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1 line 12, at end insert—
("() Not less than 40 per cent of the members shall be persons who have current or recent non-public sector business or commercial experience.").
3.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Denham, L.

Attlee, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Biffen, L.

Elles, B.

Blaker, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blatch, B.

Elton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fookes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bumham, L. [Teller]

Hanham, B

Buscombe, B.

Hanningfield, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Caithness, E.

Haslam, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Hooper, B.

Courtown, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cranborne, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cuckney, L.

Kimball, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Liverpool, E.

1298

Luke, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Rawlings, B.

McConnell, L.

Rees, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Seccombe, B.

Montrose, D.

Sharples, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Naseby, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Northesk, E.

Tebbit, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Vivian, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Waddington, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wilcox, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Windlesham, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hoyle, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Avebury, L.

Islwyn, L.

Bach, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Lipsey, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brookman, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Christopher, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Maddock, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Crawley, B.

Marsh, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Methuen, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Desai, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newby, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Northbourne, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs, L.

Palmer, L.

Elder, L.

Patel, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Peston, L.

Ezra, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Randall of St Budeaux, L.

Gale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Rix, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rogan, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Russell, E.

Grabiner, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gregson, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harrison, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hayman, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stallard, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

1299

Strabolgi, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Strange, B.

Weatherill, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Whitty, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wigoder, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Wilkins, B.

Tope, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Uddin, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Varley, L.

Winston, L.

Warnock, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("() In appointing a member the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to reflect the diversity of the population as a whole and to include those with an understanding of or an interest in achieving social inclusion and equality of opportunity in relation to race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation or religion.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 56, which seeks to amend Amendment No. 55, on which it would be appropriate for me to comment. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 66 and Amendment No. 101, which seeks to amend Amendment No. 100, on which I shall comment, and to Amendment No. 116. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 63, which I see now that I have had wrongly grouped with this amendment. That is a different issue. I shall deal with Amendment No. 63 when we reach it in the normal course of business. I apologise to your Lordships if that causes any confusion.
This group of amendments deals with the whole issue of equality of opportunities. I find it a rather surprising omission from the Bill as published. Indeed, it is a surprising omission after we have been through the Committee stage, for which I take my share of responsibility.
I welcome government Amendments Nos. 55 and 100. They are a little late, but better late than never. They are also rather limited, as I shall comment later. But it is a welcome recognition that the issue of equality of opportunity goes wider than the issue of disability, important though that is.
Amendment No. 7 deals with membership of the learning and skills council. It requires the Secretary of State to,
"have regard to the need to reflect the diversity of the population as a whole and to include those with an understanding of or an interest in achieving social inclusion and equality of opportunity",
in determining the overall membership of the council.
We have said consistently from these Benches that we feel that it is wrong to be prescriptive about the proportions which should make up the membership. But if the Government are serious—and I believe they are—about tackling social inclusion and promoting equality of opportunity, it is important that the learning and skills council is seen to be representative of the whole population and the whole community;
1300
that it cannot be seen or perceived as, at worst, a white male business-dominated body. The membership should reflect all parts of our community and there should be confidence in it.
Amendment No. 56 relates to the welcome amendment from the Government. The government amendment, to which I imagine the Minister will speak in a moment, deals with important areas of race, gender and disability but ignores or omits any reference to the other categories of discrimination as now defined within the European Union—those of sexual orientation, age and religion.
I recognise that to talk about sexual orientation in relation to this Bill or any other is perhaps a sensitive issue but, whatever differing views we take, none of us has been in favour of discrimination on those grounds. Not to deal with discrimination on grounds of age in a Bill which deals with lifelong learning seems to be particularly wrong, as is the case in relation to religion. I can only assume that as those categories are now well recognised and always included together, as they are in the Greater London Authority Act, it was an accidental omission. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it was not the Government's intention to omit them and that either this amendment will be accepted or they will bring forward their own amendment to recognise that omission.
Amendment No. 66 simply applies the provisions of Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 to local councils, which is not the case at present either in the Bill or in the amendments tabled by the Government. Again, I cannot believe that the Government intentionally meant to apply the provisions of the Bill only to the national council and not equally to the local councils. The Government may well say that by applying it to the national council it is implicit that it applies to the local councils. But I believe that it should be explicit.
We are told that local councils will be business dominated. While I know that there are many business people who have the social inclusion agenda uppermost in their minds and are strongly committed to equality of opportunity, that is not always immediately associated with local business-dominated bodies. It is desirable that we should have on the face of the Bill the same requirement for local councils as we shall have for the national council.
Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 simply repeat that for the Welsh council and I need not repeat myself on that.
Amendment No. 116 relates to Clause 52 which requires the adult learning inspectorate to keep the Secretary of State informed about a number of matters listed in the Bill. This amendment adds to those the requirement to keep the Secretary of State informed of whether provision of education and training within its remit accords with the principle of equal opportunities. In other words, it puts a duty on the adult learning inspectorate also to report on that aspect.
I welcome the Government's tentative step in the direction of equality of opportunity within this Bill. But I believe that this group of amendments, as a

1301
whole, represents a rather more significant stride towards ensuring that equality of opportunity is available to all members of our community and that achievement of that aim will be a principal objective of the learning and skills council and the adult learning inspectorate at national and local level. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I welcome Amendments Nos. 55 and 100 most enthusiastically. I was extremely pleased when the Minister said in Committee that she hoped to return with an amendment at a later stage. I admit that when it had to fit in with issues of race and sex equality as well, I wondered whether the amendments would appear in time for Third Reading. But the amendments are here and they have encompassed more than my original proposed amendment and it is only Report stage. Therefore, I thank the Minister and her officials and congratulate them on having accomplished that. It is excellent that the amendments address race and sex equality as well as the position of disabled learners and that they require the councils to report on their arrangements to promote that equality.
I have not yet heard what the Minister has to say but I believe that she will stress that although the duty relates to disabled learners as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act, in fact it must be taken in the context of Clause 13, with the wider definition of learning difficulties, which is extremely important. However, I shall wait to see what she says about that.
With regard to the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I understand absolutely what he is saying. I agree that we should offer equality of opportunity in relation to sexual orientation, religion and age. As the Minister probably cannot accept the amendment, I wonder whether some encouraging words and perhaps some mention in guidance will satisfy him for the moment. I feel a bit of a wimp saying that because I remember in the days before the DDA my irritation at having to be content with a line in Hansard, whereas provisions relating to sex and race discrimination were included in the Bill. However, having done my wimpish bit, I return to Amendments No. 55 and 100, to which I give three hurrays.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend on the Front Bench come to reply, will they clarify what they mean by "persons of religion"; I believe that that, or something similar, is the term used? I wonder whether they would include people who do not have a religious belief. On the surface, it seems a contradiction to discuss religion and non-religion in the same breath. I believe that it is what has come to be called in modern parlance a "catch-22 situation". In other words, people who do not have a religious view find it impossible to put forward their point of view.
I raise the point because for some time now opinion polls have shown that between 25 and 30 per cent of people do not hold a religious point of view. That percentage is increasing. That is a substantial minority. I believe that I am right in saying—my noble
1302
friend on the Front Bench will confirm this—that on the permanent committee on religious education there is at least one person who is either an atheist, humanist, agnostic or does not have any religious belief. It seems to me that in modern times that factor should be considered. These amendments lend themselves greatly to the point I am making. I hope that some assistance and clarification will be provided at the end of the debate.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I appreciate the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. Of course, it is difficult to have a negative idea without a positive idea. The noble Lord's tight religious education in a state school in Durham is what has produced his agnosticism. One cannot teach non-religion without teaching religion. In other words, we all agree that people should be aware of their religious background, even if they reject it. I wonder whether the noble Lord is asking Her Majesty's Government to ask schools to teach non-religion, particularly to the 16 to 18 age group. I am rather puzzled, because one gets into something of a morass there.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am unhappy about the amendments. The reason is not because I do not believe in equality of opportunity, which I understand to mean fairness to the underdog, but because the amendments limit equality of opportunity only to certain categories of people. I need not go into detail, but the Minister's amendment is limited only to racial groups, women and the disabled. Why should it be that equality of opportunity is limited only to those with the loudest voice? Plenty of other groups in our society are desperately underprivileged and are entitled to the same level of equal opportunity. If Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, were to be accepted, I should be minded to table an amendment at Third Reading to remove the words,
"in relation to race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation or religion",
because the provision reads perfectly well without them. It would then state:
"In appointing a member the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to reflect the diversity of the population as a whole and to include those with an understanding of or an interest in achieving social inclusion and equality of opportunity".
I cannot see why other amendments in this group should not be amended in the same way.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 55. Naturally, I am delighted that it is set alongside the duty to have regard to the needs of all students with learning difficulties or disabilities, reinforcing the need to pursue actively the equalisation of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled learners. That duty is certainly a cause for optimism; optimism that the council will start off with the right intentions and that the councils will deliver for all learners at risk of exclusion or discrimination. The clause sends a clear message from government of their expectations. It is a message which I fully support.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to begin with government Amendments Nos. 55 and 100 before I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for their support for the amendments.
We want the LSC and the CETW to ensure that learning opportunities of high quality are available to meet the needs of all learners across the whole range of abilities and aptitudes. In addition, it will be critical that the councils are able to combat the disadvantages that some learners and potential learners genuinely face. As new bodies, we want the LSC and the council in Wales to show the way to all public organisations in building equality of opportunity into all their policies, programmes and actions.
In December, we set out in the LSC prospectus what that would mean in practice. We expect the LSC to draw up an equal opportunities strategy including targets and performance indicators to tackle both under-representation and under-achievement. Vital to that strategy will be the principle that policies and funding take account of the different characteristics of learners, such as race, gender and disability. The LSC will benchmark the equal opportunities performance of each of the local councils. It will encourage all providers to take positive steps to widen participation and will promote equal opportunities through marketing its activities. We are already working closely with the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission to prepare for what I am sure noble Lords will agree is a challenging agenda. We expect the LSC to continue the close liaison that we are now establishing.
Against the background of that firm commitment to measures to promote equality of opportunity, I was keen to respond quickly and positively to the important amendments debated in Committee on provisions for disabled people. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said about what was perhaps an unfortunate omission. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, also proposed that the LSC should have a duty in respect of the promotion of equality for disabled learners. Clause 13 already makes specific provision for the wider group of people defined as those with learning difficulties. We shall also be bringing forward new rights to prevent discrimination against disabled learners in our forthcoming Bill addressing disability in education. However, I said that I would consider further whether an additional duty would be helpful in that area.
As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the Government are committed to ensuring that all public bodies take a lead in promoting equal opportunities. We announced last November that we would place that obligation in legislation as soon as parliamentary time permitted. Our aim is to take a consistent approach across all public bodies. It would have been preferable to wait for a suitable legislative vehicle
1304
where the same duty could have been applied to all public bodies. However, as noble Lords know, we shall be introducing a duty in respect of race equality alone in the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill and I appreciate the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Those arguments, together with the fact that the learning and skills council is a new body, mean that a duty to promote equality is desirable at this stage.
On reflection, therefore, we decided that it would better represent the broad thrust of government policy for equality in public bodies to go further than the noble Baroness's amendment and, through government Amendments Nos. 55 and 100, to place the councils under a duty in respect of race and gender as well as disability. We have also gone further than the noble Baroness's amendment in requiring the LSC and the CETW to provide annual reports giving details not only of what they have done to promote equal opportunities in the past year, but also what effect those measures have had and the steps which the councils intend to take in the following year. That is an important way of monitoring and publicising the work and effectiveness of the LSC and the CETW in this important area.
There is one important point which I should make clear about the work of the LSC and CETW for people with disabilities. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, shares with me the view that, while it is sensible to address equality provisions towards the group of people who are defined as "disabled" under the Disability Discrimination Act, in the sphere of education law we must take account of the needs of the wider group of people who have difficulty in getting access to education. These are defined in the Bill, as they are in the current Further and Higher Education Act, as persons with learning difficulties. The full effect of the duty of the LSC to address the needs of people with disabilities is seen only when Clause 13 and this new Clause 14 are taken together. I hope and believe that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will welcome this approach.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 56 and 101. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, wishes to extend the provisions of the duty of equality to other groups who might experience barriers in securing learning opportunities. The LSC prospectus already makes clear that the LSC will have a comprehensive approach to the needs of all learners. Perhaps I may give a few more examples. We shall require the LSC to have a wide-ranging equal opportunities strategy and action plan. We will want the LSC to use performance indicators to set targets to tackle under-representation and under achievement by any group; to mainstream equal opportunities in all its policies and programmes; to encourage all providers to take positive steps to widen participation and to engage in learning those groups which are currently under-represented (the kind of groups to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred); to challenge discrimination and stereotyping; and to monitor and evaluate performance and disseminate examples of good practice.

1305
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that an equal opportunities strategy cannot be confined to issues of gender, race and disability. However, the Government's approach to equality in legislation, as set out in the Statement made in November by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, recognised that extending legal provisions beyond the current areas of race, sex and disability raises a number of questions which need further thought and research. To give one example, while the LSC will certainly be addressing the needs of older learners, it is a clear provision in the Bill that priority must be given to 16 to 19 year-old learners. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that we need to think through these issues and, in the light of the assurances about what we expect the LSC to do in practice, will not press his amendments.
I turn to Amendment No. 66. Once again I recognise the concern of the noble Lord that the duties should apply to local LSCs as much as to the national LSC. I share the view that local councils should be right at the forefront in ensuring that we make a real difference in removing barriers to disadvantaged groups. As I mentioned earlier, the LSC will benchmark the performance of the local councils.
However, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary to achieve the result that both the noble Lord and I want to achieve. Local councils are part of the single unitary body which is the LSC. When the local councils perform functions delegated by the national council, they will be subject to the same duty to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. The LSC prospectus makes clear that action plans will be required at local as well as national level. With that reassurance in mind, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will not feel the need to press the amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 7, I repeat that appointments will be carried out in accordance with the guidance of the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. What is significant in appointments to the council is a person's ability to do the job and do it well over the period of appointment. We shall strive to achieve a balanced council and one which reflects the diversity of the population, which is, I recognise, the purpose behind the amendment. However, I do not accept that that objective will be further supported by setting it in this legislation.
We have set out unequivocally in the LSC prospectus that we shall expect local and national councils to include people who understand the needs of those who face discrimination, to challenge such discrimination, and to promote equality of opportunity. We are also taking active steps to encourage applications from traditionally underrepresented groups, such as ethnic minorities, and are working with the CRE on that. The amendment we are introducing to place duties on the LSC in respect of equal opportunities reinforces our commitment to making progress in these areas on the face of the Bill.
1306
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for raising the issue of equality of opportunity in relation to inspection. I have no difficulty with the principle that inspection should encompass judgments on equal opportunities. As regards, for example, inspecting provision for students with disabilities, I would expect inspectors to form and report a view about whether equality of opportunity was being taken account of properly.
Furthermore, I have no doubt that the adult learning inspectorate, and indeed Ofsted, will evaluate the extent to which equal opportunities are promoted. This is territory which I think the common inspection framework should address. I would expect that in making their judgments, inspectors will consider, for example, whether the provider promotes access for disabled students; whether there are up-to-date equal opportunity and disability policies; whether selection procedures for students guarantee equality of opportunity; and whether there is proper regard for protection against discrimination and harassment, and so forth. All those judgments should be part and parcel of any inspection. In those respects I think that the noble Lord and I are in full agreement.
But I believe that the best place for setting out those issues is not on the face of the Bill but in the common inspection framework. That will encompass many other highly desirable features of a good and comprehensive approach to inspection such as, for example, effective leadership and management or the standards of internal quality assurance and the guidance and support for learners. Once again, however, I repeat that I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, even if I take a different view about how best to give them expression.
The government amendments are a mark of our firm commitment to equal opportunities and our desire that the LSC and the Welsh council place the principles at the forefront of their work. I understand the reasoning behind the further additions and amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I am sympathetic to the objectives. However, as I made clear in my opening remarks, I do not believe they are necessary to achieve the action we all want to undertake. I hope that the House will accept the amendments standing in my name and that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she agree that the admirable principles of equal opportunities of a general nature and the comprehensive approach which she enunciated of challenging discrimination and stereotyping wherever it is found are weakened by Amendment No. 55 which refers specifically to three particular groups which will be protected by this legislation? When a particular group is mentioned in legislation, the rights of and opportunities for all the other groups who may fall into the general class are

1307
immediately weakened. I believe it is wrong to do that in connection with only three groups of disadvantaged people.
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord. I believe it is right to state categorically that we should not be discriminating against girls or women, ethnic minorities, disabled people or young people with a learning disability. It is perfectly appropriate to specify that because these groups have suffered from discrimination in many different areas of public life. It is right that we should make clear that we expect the LSC to work hard to ensure that that does not happen.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I would like the Minister—
4.30 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to give way for a moment. I am sorry to interrupt but we are on Report. Of course, the noble Baroness is entitled to ask questions to elucidate something the Minister said in her reply, but she cannot make a speech.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, the question I wish to ask the Minister is whether, under the category of people with learning difficulties, she would include those who have emotional and behavioural difficulties and who, in the light of their past careers, might find it very difficult to be taken seriously by the council. If such people are included, then I shall be very happy to have them mentioned in a category in her amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can confirm that they are included.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I begin with the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. I understand very well the point that he makes. My understanding is that this clause is about discrimination and not about teaching as such. I do not want to be drawn into a debate as to whether it is possible or desirable to teach non-religion. My understanding is that that would cover those who did not profess to have a religion, although if the wording needs to be tightened I would not be worried about that. It is the principle that I am trying to convey. I believe that on this issue the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and I are at one.
I have no doubt also that the Minister and I are at one over what we want to achieve. I hope that I made that clear, but perhaps I may do so again. I welcome the Minister's two amendments although my feeling is that they do not go far enough. I have some sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, who described herself as a wimp. I would not have been so rude in that regard, but she expressed exactly my concern that we are specifying three important areas of discrimination and in doing so drawing attention to
1308
European Union definitions that are not mentioned. By referring to three we are drawing attention to the fact that we are not referring to another three.
In reply the Minister made reference to what is a new body, the importance of establishing it as such, and being at the cutting edge. Not so long ago I spent many happy hours here setting up another new body, the Greater London Authority. We eventually included a provision in what is now an Act, specifically giving the new authority a duty in all these areas of discrimination. To have done that for one new body and now quite deliberately leaving it out for another is a form of discrimination itself. It is a mistake.
I do not doubt the Minister's belief that the matter is covered in the prospectus and that there will be a strong duty on the national council. One could argue there is no need to make any reference in the Bill. But we are, and we have welcomed it. I feel quite strongly that if we are to make a reference, it should be a comprehensive one—not a partial reference, as it is now. It is almost a retrograde step which I very much regret.
Similarly, we are not imposing any duty on the local councils because they will be benchmarked by the national council which will require them to deliver and so forth. That argument could be used for not having the government amendments as regards the national council. If it is a priority for the local councils, as the Minister and I believe, then that too should be on the face of the Bill, not least because its omission, having put the onus on the national council, in a sense has a reverse effect.
In many ways the proviso is possibly more important on a local council at local level where in some cases it is business dominated and the matter is not necessarily at the top of the agenda. I have some regret about not pressing the amendment. I hope that the Minister will think further. I welcome the step that has been taken today, but I urge the Government to turn it into a bigger stride and to give a more wholehearted and all-embracing commitment to equality of opportunity before the Bill is finally enacted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Learning and Skills Council for England]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 56. line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, invited me to bring back these three amendments because I confused appointing staff with appointing the chief executive. I agreed; hence Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11.
Paragraph 5(1) of the schedule states,
"The Council may appoint such employees as it thinks fit".
Sub-paragraph (2) continues,
"A person is to be appointed as an employee of the Council on such terms (including terms as to remuneration and allowances) as the Council may determine".

1309
Then, incongruously and for no good reason, subparagraph (3) states:
"A determination under this paragraph requires the Secretary of State's approval".
I simply ask the question: why? It seems to me that if the council is prestigious, carefully chosen and appointed, with a good chairman and chief executive, why cannot it be left to have control over the quality of staff, especially if it is free to appoint and to determine the terms and conditions?
My second amendment gives me the opportunity to ask for some explanation of what I refer to as legalese gobbledegook. Paragraph 8(6) states:
"The Secretary of State may remove a disability under this paragraph subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate".
Sub-paragraph (7) states:
"The power of the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (6) includes power to remove (either indefinitely or for any period) a disability which would otherwise attach to any member, or members of any description, by reason of such interests, and in respect of such matters, as may be specified or described by the Secretary of State".
That would win no prizes in a plain English competition. I wish to know what the wording means. Indeed, I should have included sub-paragraph (8) because that goes on to say:
"Nothing in this paragraph precludes any member from taking part in the consideration or discussion of, or in voting on, any question whether an application should be made to the Secretary of State for the exercise of the power conferred by subparagraph (6)".
which is about removing a disability. It would be helpful to know what a "disability" is and what the three extracts I have quoted mean.
My third amendment I admitted to when speaking to these amendments before they were withdrawn at the previous stage of the Bill. I refer to the battle that I lost in the back room and in this Chamber when dealing with a previous Bill. When a body is set up and the Government argue strongly that it is not a top-down arrangement and not everything is emanating from the Secretary of State, why is it that the Secretary of State has an absolute right to attend the meetings?
It seems to me that once the council is set up, as has happened when similar bodies have been established in the past, it should, if it wishes, have representatives of the Secretary of State or the holder of that office present at council meetings. But it should be at the discretion of the council. If we are to dispel any fears that the Bill is a top-down, influential arrangement, then it should be the council which invites the Secretary of State or his or her representatives to attend meetings. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. We agreed that we should return to these issues today on Report. Paragraph 5(2) of the schedule, as the noble Baroness says, provides that the terms and conditions (including pay) on which the council employs staff are for the council itself to determine but
1310
the Secretary of State must approve the council's determination. As the noble Baroness stated in clear terms, her Amendment No. 9 removes this provision.
The LSC will be a large, non-departmental public body within the public sector employing significant numbers of staff. It is a standard provision for such NDPBs that the Secretary of State should be able to approve their proposed terms and conditions to ensure that public sector employment policies are observed. By way of example, perhaps I may refer the noble Baroness to Schedule 1 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, both of which are fairly recent examples under successive governments of how this problem has been approached. We do not believe that we should take a different attitude in this Bill.
Amendment No. 10 refers to the part of Schedule 1 which deals with members' interests. Under this provision, a member of the national LSC cannot take part in discussions or decisions of the national council where that member has disclosed an interest in the outcome. The noble Baroness asked what the word "disability" means in that context. It really means disclosing an interest.
The intention of sub-paragraphs (6) to (8) is to allow the Secretary of State to remove that bar where appropriate. If the amendment were passed, it would no longer be possible for the Secretary of State to intervene. It is of course right that LSC members with an interest should disclose that interest when such matters are discussed and should normally be barred from taking part in relevant deliberations and decisions in which they have an interest. We believe that an unqualified application of these provisions could lead to perverse consequences. I shall give one hypothetical example. If a principal of a further education college who was on the national council was unable to take part in general debates on priorities for resource allocation because the outcome would inevitably have some impact on his or her college, we do not think it would be in the public interest for that principal necessarily not to take part in the discussions on that broad topic. We believe that there should be a provision for the Secretary of State to lift such a bar on an individual member when he judges that it is sensible. This is standard provision in legislation which establishes NDPBs. I refer to Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. We believe that it is right that this power should be with the Secretary of State rather than the council in order to ensure that such decisions are made in a detached and considered way.
The noble Baroness's third amendment would remove the entitlement of the Secretary of State to have a representative present at any meeting of the council and take part in any deliberations at these meetings. It would make the representative's attendance subject to the approval of the council.
The noble Baroness mentioned that she had lost a battle on this matter in the recent past. Perhaps I may say in passing that I do not suppose that she lost many

1311
battles of this type when she was in government. However, we cannot agree with her on this occasion. No doubt, that skirmish was lost because it was then, and still is, common practice for the sponsoring department to send a representative to meetings of its sponsored non-departmental public body. The provision within paragraph 9(1) of the schedule—which bars the Secretary of State's representative from taking part in the decisions of the council at these meetings, which is again a standard bar—is an important restriction.
However, I say to the noble Baroness that we believe it right that the representative should be there to inform and observe. I repeat what has been often said: the LSC will be responsible for spending a huge amount of public money—£6 billion. It will be important that the relationship between the council, the department and the Secretary of State is a close one. We believe that an arrangement whereby the Secretary of State's observer attends meetings but does not take part in decisions strikes about the right balance.
I hope I have explained to some extent the thinking behind the way in which the Bill appears, and that the noble Baroness will not press these amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has responded to these amendments. However, I simply do not accept the explanation. I believe that the law is the law. The ways in which the council will have to behave towards its staff are already set out in endless statutes. Therefore, the idea that it could do something quite outside the law seems to me to be extraordinary. It has to live within budgets. It already has a direction. It comes from the Secretary of State to the council. The idea that there should be a determination under this paragraph for each member of staff does seem to me to be excessive. It is also excessive intrusion in the day-to-day work of the council, which will be employing people and managing employees all the time.
I accept the Minister's explanation in respect of disability, but it is such a pity that we cannot use the opportunity to engage in plain English. It seems to me that the noble Lord's explanation was that a disability could be explained by removing a bar to speaking and/or voting on an issue. I think that is what it actually meant—that it is possible for the Secretary of State to lift that bar and, as set out in paragraph 8, nothing would preclude a member from then taking part and voting on an issue where that has happened.
The Minister's response to my Amendment No. 11 only serves to feed our concerns about the incredible influence that the Department for Education and Employment, and the Secretary of State personally, will have on the way in which the council works. I know from experience that there will be an almost permanent presence on these councils, reforming, informing and observing. "Informing" and "observing" were the two words used by the noble Lord. I believe that, once set up with a proper remit, and with all the other statutes that come into play in terms of how they behave, they should be left to get on
1312
with it. However, those people, not just inside this Chamber but outside as well, who are very concerned about the superstructure of bureaucracy headed by the Department for Education and Employment will not be helped by the Government's defence of this part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 57, line 5, leave out sub-paragraphs (6) and (7).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 115.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Jopling, L.

Attlee, E.

Kimball, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Biffen, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blakcr, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McConnell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Burnham, L, [Teller]

Montrose, D.

Buscombe, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nascby, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northesk, E.

Chalkcr of Wallasey, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Onslow, E.

Courtown, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cumberlcge, B.

Patten, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fookes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rees, L.

Geddes, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Goschen, V.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hanham, B

Sharples, B.

Hanningfield, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Howe, E.

Tebbit, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Vivian, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Waddington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wilcox, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blackstone, B.

Alli, L.

Blease, L.

Amos, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bramall, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Brookman, L.

Bach, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Barnett, L.

Burlison, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

1313

Christopher, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L, [Teller]

Crawley, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

David, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Davics of Oldham, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dealing, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Dixon, L.

Orme, L.

Donoughue, L.

Palmer, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Patel, L.

Dubs, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Elder, L.

Paul, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Filkin, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gale, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Randall of St, Budeaux, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grabiner, L.

Rix, L.

Gregson, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harrison, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hayman, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tenby, V.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Hoylc, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Uddin, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Varley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Warnock, B.

Islwyn, L.

Warwick of Underclifle, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Weatherill, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Whitty, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilkins, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lipsey, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Lockwood, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.57 p.m.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Education and training for persons aged 16 to 19]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 21, after first ("education") insert ("and training").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 12 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 16 to 18, 21.26 to 29, and 31 to 34. The net effect of all these amendments is to eliminate the need for separate subsections in Clauses 2 and 3 referring separately on each occasion to "education" and "training". I spoke to a similar set of amendments in Committee when I stressed the need to get away from the binary divide that separates education from
1314
training and to take a more holistic view of the two. We were much encouraged on that occasion by what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, had to say in response. He said:
"We recognise and accept that our present arrangements for post-16 education and training are too fragmented and incoherent … Members of the Committee quite rightly make the point … that the proposed new arrangements should not simply perpetuate the artificial distinctions and separate systems of the past".—[Official Report, 8/2/2000: col. 566.]
The noble Lord went on to say that he appreciated that from the way education and training are separated in the two clauses we might get the impression that things were not going to change, but he nevertheless assured us that that would not be the case.
I return to this issue because it is unsatisfactory that the Bill makes so clear a distinction between education and training when this is not the intention. If the whole purpose of the Bill is to provide a coherent framework for post-16 education and training, providing a seamless service across the whole spectrum of needs and not pigeon-holing them into convenient categorisations that have plagued and divided the service for far too long, it is not only logical, but also important that this distinction is eradicated from the face of the Bill.
As it stands, the wording of the Bill perpetuates precisely what the Minister stated the Government wanted to avoid. Our amendments are not far reaching; indeed, I would go as far as saying that they are largely cosmetic or drafting amendments; but their significance goes well beyond their appearance. Combining education and training, as suggested, on the face of the Bill would indicate that the Government intend to live up to their declared aspirations.
For too long we have had this divide in Britain between the academic and the vocational; between the high status education and the low status training. It has led to an undervaluation of the practical and has plagued our approach towards the applied sciences and engineering. It means that we have never really offered a proper career structure for vocational training. We have never, like the Germans, trained people to be a Meister with all the status and symbolism that that implies.
This Bill makes a real attempt to break with the past and to forge a new integrated and coherent approach—and yet here, on the very first page, in the second and third clauses of the Bill, it reverts to the old style of address. We urge the Minister to have the courage of his convictions and to make sure that the Bill's wording reflects the Government's aspirations on these issues. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I do not want to bring too much ideology into this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness. However, we quote Germany so easily. What is conveniently forgotten is that in Germany there are separate channels for vocational and academic education, which has been the nature of the success of German education—and the French, the Dutch and the Austrian. I have said

1315
this in this House often before: altering words on a Bill will not alter the fundamental structural problem of English education; that is, that the only way we felt we could make vocational training acceptable was to make it parasitic on academic. It has failed; it will fail; and the Germans have it right. I am glad the noble Baroness said that, but she is not prepared to go the whole mile.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, on the skilful way in which these comprehensive amendments to Clauses 2 and 3 have been drafted. She will forgive me saying that practice is clearly making perfect.
We fully accept the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness in relation to the fragmentation of present arrangements for post-16 education and training, and agree that the LSC must view them, to use her expression, in a "holistic" and balanced way. The new arrangements must not simply perpetuate the artificial distinction and separate systems of the past. Her concern that the form in which the duties of the council are expressed may imply a continuation of such divisions is also appreciated. There is nothing between us on the policy; rather on the way in which it is expressed.
The noble Baroness made it clear that she would like to see on the face of the Bill an explicit reference in the duties of the LSC to those aspects of education and training which are concerned with broadening the mind, which Amendment No. 29 addresses. Again, I do not believe that there is anything between us on the policy here, and I share her aspirations. But we believe that this amendment too is unnecessary.
Post-16 education in this Bill encompasses secondary education for persons over the age of 16 and further education. Both secondary and further education are defined in Section 2 of the Education Act 1996. In particular, as has already been mentioned when we previously considered this amendment in Committee, the amendment is unnecessary because the exact words the noble Baroness seeks to apply to the meaning of "education" in this Bill already appear on the statute book in Section 2 of that Act.
I am sorry that this is a rather legalistic response, but the point being made by the noble Baroness essentially involves the legal phrasing of the Bill. In those circumstances, I hope that she will understand that a response which cites legal definitions is appropriate in the circumstances.
In Committee and today the noble Baroness accepted that the Government's intentions are good, but was concerned that a future government may seek to interpret the law differently. I must point out that the meaning of the law does not change at elections. We inherited the previous government's arrangements for post-16 education and found them lacking; but we were bound to work within that framework until we brought forward the present Bill which we consider to be a much better and more coherent approach to post-16 education and training. We are satisfied that the Bill as drafted does not imply the possibility of differential
1316
and fragmented approaches to education and training. The LSC's duties must be viewed as a whole. It does not have the discretion to choose to implement some bits and ignore other parts. None of the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3 is an optional extra.
I repeat the assurance already given that the provisions as currently drafted do not imply any such division in the first place. Each phrase carries equal weight in its current form. No fragmentation of approach is implied or required by the way the words are organised on the page. As drafted, the existing provisions achieve what we all want to see, and therefore the proposed amendments are unnecessary. I hope that with those assurances (perhaps repeated more times than they should have been), the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his congratulations on my drafting skills. He is right that practice helps and I am learning by doing on these occasions.
Nevertheless, I am disappointed that the Government do not see fit to accept my amendments. I am glad that they accept them in spirit; but we knew that from the words spoken in Committee. The Minister is right that we on these Benches welcome the integrated coherent purpose of the reforms incorporated in the Bill. However, I cannot see why, if that is the intention, it cannot be expressed on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert ("or of persons who are above the compulsory school age but have not attained the age of 25 and who did not acquire a level 2 qualification in the year in which they attained the age of 16").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 13 is coupled with Amendment No. 14, which will be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
In col. 572 of Hansard on 8th February the Minister said that,
"to single out the needs of one group of adults and to give them priority over all adults would be wrong, although of course I [the Minister] have some sympathy with what lies behind the amendments".
I understand what the Minister was saying. But we are talking about those young people who, for one reason or another—perhaps there has been a mismatch between an individual and school teachers; perhaps there has been a high degree of truancy; or perhaps for more acceptable reasons, such as where a young person has had long periods of illness or because of a learning difficulty—have not been capable of attaining up to a level 2 qualification by the age of 19.
On a number of occasions we have discussed the cutoff point of 19. Up to that age, the provision has to be a proper provision made by the council and the local councils, but beyond that age it becomes discretionary and hidebound by resources. If there is to be any

1317
priority at all for young people—I include 19 to 25-year olds as "young people"—and if "inclusivity" is to mean anything (I gave some examples of the kind of people I am talking about), there ought to be some flexibility to continue the focus and emphasis on raising skill levels for that young cohort. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 14 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tope. Our reasons for tabling the amendment are similar to those cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when she moved her Amendment No. 13. We are conscious of many young people aged over 19 who, for one reason or another, have failed to make the best use of the education system before that age and whose needs justify an entitlement to "proper" facilities after that age.
In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, refers to those who have not acquired a level 2 qualification in the year in which they attain the age of 16. We on these Benches live in hope that the Government will implement the recommendations of the Kennedy report and those made in the third report of the National Skills Task Force. That report suggested that there should be an entitlement to education and training up to level 3 rather than level 2, which is currently enjoyed by those under the age of 19, and that this entitlement should be extended up to the age of 25.
When we debated this issue in Committee, the Minister made it clear that, for the present, priority lay with making good the entitlement for the 16 to 19 year-old cohort, in particular taking steps to bring back into the fold those who had dropped out of education and were neither employed nor currently receiving either education or training. We agree with this priority, but we are also of the opinion that many of these—and indeed others in the 16 to 19 year-old cohort—do not know what they want to do with their lives and resist the idea of education or training, only to regret those decisions when they are a little older. By then they may have had to face the responsibilities of parenthood and homemaking. It is vital that provision should be made for those late returners. They should be offered the opportunity to equip themselves with recognised skills and qualifications.
Amendment No. 14 has been drafted flexibly so as to offer two advantages. First, immediately, it allows for discretion so that in deserving cases the Secretary of State can extend the entitlement to those aged over 19. Secondly, later, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer feels perhaps a little more generous than he does at the moment, it would allow that entitlement to be extended to those up to the age of 25.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, it is very important to include a measure of flexibility in this area. The age of 19 is often quite a turning point for people with severe learning difficulties and sometimes it is inappropriate to cut off their educational opportunities at that age. For myself, I would not want to tie such extra provision for education to further
1318
qualifications because for people with severe learning difficulties education is good in itself, even if it does not lead to further qualifications. For that reason, I strongly support Amendment No. 14, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, these amendments would extend to other age groups the entitlement to education and training that Clause 2 provides for young people. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has previously made what I genuinely think is a very good point about the needs of people who may have missed out in their school years and I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, reinforced that point. I do not think that there is much between us here in what we want for such people and I share the concerns of both noble Baronesses.
In discharging its duties for the older age group, the LSC must—I repeat the word "must"—ensure that the education and training provided for them is suitable to their requirements. The flexibility to do that is already in place. The requirements of a person with low levels of previous achievement will, of course, be very different from the requirements of those who are already well qualified. It is precisely with that in mind that the consultation we are conducting at the moment on future funding arrangements suggests moving beyond current systems. These might be broadly characterised as dividing payments for provision into entry, retention and achievement. We have suggested building in a fourth element, payment for disadvantage. This would not be restricted to a particular age group, unlike the effect of either of these amendments. Indeed, I do not believe that it should be. There are people over the age of 25 who also need help in coming back into either full-time or part-time education.
However, I repeat a key point from our previous debate on this issue: to single out the needs of one specified group of adults and to give them priority over other adults in this way would be wrong. I believe that it would constrain the LSC and reduce the element of flexibility for which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has asked. It would restrict the council's ability to make judgments about what may be the equally and possibly more pressing needs of some other adults.
I am also bound to point out again that some adults with special needs or disabilities could actually be disadvantaged by Amendment No. 13. Let us take the example of a disabled adult of any age who has attained a level 2 qualification. The effect of the amendment would mean that that person would be cut out. The LSC would be required to give greater priority to a person aged under 25 without a disability who had not achieved a level 2 qualification. I am not sure that that is what we want to achieve. I believe that this indicates some of the difficult decisions that will need to be taken. Placing such requirements on the LSC may have some consequences that none of us intended.

1319
Although Amendment No. 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, takes a slightly different approach to Amendment No. 13, it would also have the effect of giving priority to one group of adults over another on the basis of age rather than their actual requirements. I believe that what we need here is a less restrictive approach which would allow the LSC to exercise its judgment and its discretion about the allocation of resources—
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I should point out to the Minister that the amendment as drafted does not give priority to any particular group of adults. It has been deliberately left open to be determined by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept that Amendment No. 14 has built into it a determination by the Secretary of State. However, I should like to return to the point that placing requirements on the LSC would be an unfortunate move. I believe that we need a rather less restrictive approach which would allow it to exercise its own judgment and discretion. I hope that, in view of this, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not press her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before I decide what to do with Amendment No. 13, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to answer one question. The amendment that follows these amendments—Amendment No. 15—goes some way to answering the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. If my amendment were to be accepted, the noble Baroness spoke of a person aged between 19 and 25 without a learning disability then taking precedence over someone with a disability aged over 25. Amendment No. 15 narrows the group of people for whom proper provision should be made, as opposed to reasonable provision. Can the noble Baroness give the House an indication of whether she will be able to accept that amendment? Logic would say that Amendment No. 15 should be more acceptable than my amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps it would be easier to wait until we reach the next group of amendments. However, although I am sympathetic to what is being proposed in Amendment No. 15, I am afraid that I am going to have to resist it for reasons that I shall give in due course.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for being so straightforward in her answer to my question. In her opening remarks in response to Amendment No. 13, the noble Baroness said—I made a note of her words—that the LSC "must" provide education and training to meet the requirements of those who have not achieved level 2.
However, that is not what it says in the Bill. Clause 2(1) states that,
"The Council must secure the provision of proper facilities",
and goes on to refer to young people up to the age of 19. But there is a very different emphasis in Clause 3.
1320
Subsection (1) states that the council must provide "reasonable facilities" and subsection (2) says:
"Facilities are reasonable if (taking account of the Council's resources) … the Council can reasonably he expected to secure their provision".
So there is already a very serious constraint on who will receive "proper facilities" and who will receive "reasonable facilities" in the opinion of the council. There is a wholly legal defence for the council to say, "We simply can't afford it". It is just a matter of trying to find a way to put some focus on those young people, with or without learning disabilities, who, for one reason or another, have not achieved level 2 qualifications.
There are many people who must be considered personally culpable for not achieving—for example, not working hard enough, not attending well and truanting from school—and there is perhaps less sympathy for them. But even now the Government still say that we cannot as a society stand back and let those people become problematic and, of course, more costly to the community. However, there is another group of people involved. I have in mind those who, for many reasons well beyond their control, have not achieved level 2 qualifications. I have already mentioned long periods of illness, dislocation because of moving from one part of the country to another and even moving from one country to another. There are also those people described in Amendment No. 15, which refers to those with genuine disabilities.
It seems to me that the Government should find a way to give some flexibility to enable proper provision to be extended to a group of people who will be determined by a form of words on the face of the Bill, or, using the words of the noble Baroness, determined by the Secretary of State. In light of the fact that the Minister is not prepared to accept my amendment or Amendment No. 15, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Attlee, E.

Colwyn, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Courtown, E.

Biffen, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blaker, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blatch, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Boardman, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Fookes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Garel-Jones, L.

Bascombe, B.

Geddes, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hanham, B

1321

Harris of High Cross, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hereford, Bp.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hooper, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Howe, E.

Rawlings, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rees, L.

Howell of Guiktford, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Saatchi, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jopling, L.

Sharples, B.

Kimball, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Luke, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Stewartby, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Swinfen, L.

Montrose, D.

Tebbit, L.

Naseby, L.

Vivian, L.

Northesk, E.

Waddington, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Onslow, E.

Warnock, B.

Palmer, L.

Wilcox, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Grabiner, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gregson, L.

Alli, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Amos, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Harrison, L.

Bach, L.

Haskel, L.

Barnett, L.

Hayman, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Blease, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Brett, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brookman, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Burlison, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Islwyn, L.

Christopher, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jeger, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Crawley, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Lipsey, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Longford, E.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Desai, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dholakia, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Dixon, L.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dubs, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Elder, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Methuen, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Mishcon, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicol, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Orme, L.

Filkin, L.

Patel, L.

Gale, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Paul, L.

Goodhart, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

1322

Puttnam, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rea, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Tope, L.

Richard, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Uddin, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Varley, L.

Sawyer, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Shepherd, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Simon, V.

Whitty, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Wilkins, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.32 p.m.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert—
("() education (other than higher education) suitable for the requirements of persons with learning difficulties or disabilities (or both) who are above compulsory school age but have not attained the age of 25 and whose progress in education has been delayed by their learning difficulty or disability (or both).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I asked for my Amendments Nos. 15 and 93 to be separated from Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, as mine deal specifically with people with learning difficulties or learning disabilities, and the latter comprise a group in which I have a particular interest. I am saddened to hear in advance that the Minister will resist Amendment No. 15, even though I have not yet voiced my arguments.
Your Lordships may recall that I moved an amendment in Committee which was not dissimilar to Amendments Nos. 15 and 93 before the House this afternoon. My earlier amendment sought to extend fundamental learning opportunities up to the age of 25 for students with learning difficulties and disabilities. During the course of that debate the Minister was kind enough to commit to remedying a disparity in which students with learning difficulties and disabilities have to be turned down by mainstream providers in order to be deemed eligible for specialist provision. For this I, and I am sure other noble Lords, are most grateful. Important though this is, my amendment also sought to address another substantive issue, one on which I would welcome the Minister's specific attention, although to a certain extent I already have advance notification of that.
The amendments before the House this afternoon seek to make provision in the Bill for an entitlement to access further education provision for a narrow group of young people who are currently at risk of exclusion. The group of concern are young people whose early education has been inhibited or delayed as a direct result of their learning difficulty or their learning disability, with the consequence that they may not reach further education until shortly after the age of

1323
19, but would expect to move on before the age of 25. My amendment endeavours to capture only those students whose progress has been inhibited as a direct result of their learning difficulty or disability. I am therefore confident that it will not have the effect of opening the floodgates in terms of demand.
I believe that the proposed amendments, supported by appropriate guidance, confirm the principle of entitlement for students with learning difficulties or disabilities up to the age of 25, while providing a mechanism for limiting the numbers to whom the entitlement would apply.
The Minister kindly wrote to me this morning. I am aware that she is giving this matter serious consideration in spite of her earlier statement about resisting the amendment. I look forward to hearing her response from the Dispatch Box. I beg to move.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Those of us who are involved in one way or another with the provision of education for young people from the ages of 16 to 19 who have learning difficulties or disabilities—I think that your Lordships will be aware that I am the president of a charity which maintains a successful college for blind and visually impaired students—will know that students of this age group who have learning difficulties or disabilities travel at their own speed. By the age of 19 some will have acquired skills, or even possibly the level of certificated attainment; others will not, not through any fault of not trying but as a result of their learning difficulties. Yet the axe falls at 19 and they have to go. They may not even be able to acquire a job at that stage. I do not believe that that axe should fall.
I emphasise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, made; namely, that we are not talking about masses and masses of people. This is not a matter over which the Treasury need have nightmares. We are talking about a relatively small number of people who are, nevertheless, important as individuals. They should not be thrust out of colleges and told that it has all come to an end. I believe that the Government should move on this issue. I have had sight of a letter which the noble Baroness has sent to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Clearly the Government are moving in this area. We shall obviously ask for a little more, but, first, I should thank the Minister for what she has done. When you ask for more, you should begin by giving thanks for-what you have already received. That is an error that Oliver Twist made; not that the overseer of the Poor House would have changed his attitude in that particular case. I thank the Minister as she has made significant improvements in recognition of the problems that disabled students face, particularly as regards amendments to Clause 113.
I suspect that the noble Baroness will suggest in her letter of reply—I hope that she does not mind my saying so—that one way forward would be to make an assessment of the 19 to 25 year-old students I am discussing. That is certainly a step forward, but only a
1324
modest one. An assessment does not constitute an entitlement. It is halfway there. We wish to push for something more than a halfway measure.
As regards any amendments which the noble Baroness introduces at Third Reading, will she bear in mind some specific points? First, the measure should apply to all students from the ages of 19 to 25, and not to those who may just have been assessed in their final year under Clause 113 at 16. Secondly, I hope that she will make the process simple. The parents of many 19 year-old students find that they are embroiled in an enormous administrative nightmare in discussions with the FEFC to continue their children's education and training beyond the age of 19. It should be a simple and straightforward process.
Thirdly, I echo the point made by the noble Baroness on the Cross Benches on the previous amendment when she said that the provision should not be related to a student's attainment. The very fact that from the ages of 19 to 25 someone who has learning difficulties and disabilities is going through the process of education is in itself an enrichment process which should be continued until the age of 25. To give a little more teeth to the measure, apart from just making an assessment for 19 to 25 year-olds, I hope that there will be a requirement for LEAs to take that assessment into account. That takes the measure a little further. Without that requirement, the assessment will remain on the record book. Some LEAs will respond to such an assessment; others will not.
I support these amendments. I am sure that there will be progress, but we should like to go a little further than the Government have in mind at the moment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendments. This is a rather odd debate. We have a rough idea of the Minister's attitude towards the amendment and an idea of what will be her argument. Nevertheless, we should try to remind the Minister why we propose the amendment.
The amendment concerns young people who have not achieved their potential. It seeks to push the arbitrary barrier further back in order to give them another bite at the cherry. If those in a particular group of people have not attained a certain level of education through no fault of their own, surely extra opportunities should be extended for that group. If we take into account certain other groups, those with what are commonly called "hidden" disabilities—I know most about dyslexia, but one could bring in milder forms of autism—which are not diagnosed early enough, suddenly we are faced with a group of people who have not had a realistic chance of a first bite at the cherry. If we want to help them, we have to extend their opportunities.
I know that discretionary awards are allowed, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, virtually everyone involved in any charity dealing with education or any other kind of care, spends a vast amount of time advising parents or carers how to get through the bureaucratic system. If what the amendment seeks to

1325
achieve is contained in the Bill, such people will not waste anywhere near that amount of time. It also means that people with learning disabilities may not spend quite as many years up to the age of 25 in further education because they will have less trouble getting into it in the first place.
The amendment addresses real concerns about such people. It will enable them to get on with their lives as opposed to spending years chasing around trying to bully officials and crying on the doorsteps of local politicians in order to obtain something which should be theirs by right.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendment. The case has been ably put by those who have already spoken. I support the amendment. It would not be fair if these young people were left out. They would risk exclusion altogether. It is a terribly important amendment. The number of people affected is not very vast.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I support the amendment. It has been made even more necessary as a result of information which has reached me since we last debated the Bill in Committee. I should again declare my interest as the father of a 19 year-old Down's syndrome daughter whose future education her mother and I are now in the throes of trying to clarify after she leaves her present school in July.
As this is Report stage, I should perhaps save the detail of what I have to say for the further Bill that the Minister has said the Government are to introduce later in this Session. Nevertheless, two areas are sufficiently worrying to put before your Lordships now in support of the amendment.
First, there appears to be a growing habit among some local education authorities to cut off funding for students as soon as they reach their 19th birthday. My noble friend Lord Baker referred to this. If someone turns 19 in the last year, or even the last term, of a three-year course, funding may stop. This is obviously very disturbing for the student who cannot complete the course or take part in the special events which may take place at the end of it. It seems that such LEAs consider that their responsibility ends abruptly when a student reaches 19 and that they do not have any duty towards continuity. That must be fairly clear discrimination against students with mental handicaps or learning disabilities. I cannot believe that it would happen to ordinary students who are funded for a particular course regardless of when their birthdays fall. This practice must also waste resources because much of the good achieved by the course is wasted if the student cannot complete it.
I do not know yet how widespread is the practice. Apparently it has become more so in the past three years. I can reveal, however, that this problem hit three students when they were leaving my daughter's school. One has had to go onto a social services placement which does not have any educational component at all;
1326
another will turn 19 next January and the LEA will commit funding only until then. It is not a convenient month in the educational calendar in which to be cut loose.
The FEFC is not blameless either. The parents of a student in the year ahead of my daughter did not learn that the FEFC had granted funding for the requisite special residential school until last September when the course had already started in August. Apart from anything else, this must be traumatic for such a student. I am quite sure that the parents would have been trying to obtain FEFC approval for at least a year before that. Very late on in the negotiations, the FEFC required the student to look at two unsuitable local colleges, which must also have been very upsetting. These are clear examples of the post-19 gap or trap, to which I referred in Committee, into which fall so many of our young people with mental handicaps.
Together with other noble Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about the Government's intentions. If the Government could accept the amendment, that would go a long way towards meeting some of the problems I have outlined because the LSC would have a clear responsibility for solving them. Without it, I fear the muddle may continue. I support the amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I wish to add my name to the long list of supporters of the amendment. The Government have made huge improvements in the Bill. As we have seen, the duties amendment has gone way beyond what we asked for. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, it would seem from the Minister's letter to my noble friend Lord Rix that the Government are moving a little. However, we are rather sticking on the issue and not getting beyond a certain point. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, if a disabled learner does not complete his or her education, it is wasted. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, in the case of some people the problems have only just been discovered at this stage. They are not even beginning to get to grips with their education. This is a very important issue.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise for two reasons, one of which is to apologise to the noble Baroness because I am responsible for the fact that we elicited from her what her reaction would be to the amendment. That was unfortunate, but I wanted to know for good reason. I believed it important that we have some flexibility between the ages of 19 and 25. The interesting amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also sought to introduce flexibility.
People with such disabilities must be at the top of the list of the category of those who require proper provision rather than a provision dependent upon the resources and/or the priorities of the day of the provider. I believe that the Government's fears are unjustified. We are talking about the kind of people who, through no fault of their own, do not acquire level 2 or continue to have learning difficulties to the extent that they need proper provision. They should not be subject to the priorities of the day or the

1327
vagaries of budgeting. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, sufficiently defines a group of people whom the Government could take on board. I should like the provision to be wider. There are still people who do not have learning difficulties but who are sufficiently disadvantaged to require proper provision which is not dependent on the vagaries of budgeting. I wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
I admit my culpability for eliciting from the Minister her reaction to this amendment. An extremely powerful case has been put for the amendment. In the light of that, even at this late stage, I hope that the noble Baroness will rethink her response to it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we had a helpful debate in Committee about the ways in which the LSC and CETW will need to have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties in exercising their duties. I made clear then why the Government could not support an amendment which sought to extend the scope of Clauses 2 and 31 of the Bill so that they covered all students with learning difficulties up to the age of 25. At the same time I emphasised that, in exercising their duties under Clauses 2 and 3 and Clauses 31 and 32, the councils would, by virtue of Clauses 13 and 41, have to have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties and, in particular, to any report of an assessment conducted under Clause 113. I also referred to the councils' duties to take account of the abilities and aptitudes of different persons.
Moreover, I should add that given that Amendments Nos. 55 and 100 were accepted earlier today, the LSC and the CETW will also have an additional duty to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between persons who are disabled and those who are not. I am grateful for the support for those amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others.
In Committee, I made clear that the Government and the National Assembly intend to give guidance to the councils about the way in which they must exercise their duties under Clauses 3 and 32. It will address the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others about the position of individual students who begin a course at a later age than some of their fellow students, or need longer to complete their course. I am extremely sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said in regard to young people who reach the age of 19 and are then not able to complete a course. That is clearly unacceptable and action must be taken to ensure that it does not happen.
But the reservations that I expressed in Committee are similar to my concerns about Amendments Nos. 15 and 93. They are largely to do with difficulties of definition. So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will understand why I felt able to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her apology—that I should have to resist the amendments before I had actually heard what the noble Lord had to say. There would be enormous difficulties in drawing a line in individual cases between people who could legitimately claim that their
1328
progress in education had been delayed by their learning difficulty and those who could not. The councils would be placed in an extremely invidious position by the lack of a clear distinction. The description in the amendment is simply too general.
I have, none the less, been reflecting carefully on ways in which I might be able to meet the concerns that underlie the amendments while not accepting the amendments themselves. I am considering an alternative approach. In describing what I have in mind, I hope that I may be forgiven for looking forward from the beginning of the Bill almost to its end.
At present, Clause 113 does two things. It requires the Secretary of State to arrange an assessment of the education and training needs, and the provision which is required to meet those needs, of school pupils with SEN statements who are in their last year of compulsory schooling and who intend to move into other forms of education and training. It also empowers him to do so in the cases of other students with learning difficulties who are under the age of 19. I shall want to make clear when we consider Amendment No. 148 tomorrow that this power is one which we intend to put to good effect. I am presently considering, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has anticipated, whether we should extend it so that the power under Clause 113(3) covers students with learning difficulties up to the age of 25, rather than 19 as now. In other words, we might bring this older age group within the scope of eligibility for an assessment.
I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, have said. I shall want to look particularly at the point the noble Lord made about simplicity for parents and, perhaps more importantly, for students themselves—although I cannot guarantee that everything that noble Lords who have spoken in the debate would like will be incorporated into the government amendment.
hope that by that means we may be able to recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, emphasised in Committee, and again today; namely, that some pupils with learning difficulties might have a slower transition from school into further education or training; that some students take longer to complete further education or training courses; and that some people with learning difficulties return to learning after the age of 19, having left school earlier and stopped taking part in education.
As is the case with younger people, the extent of the needs of this older age group will vary. However, I accept that some will have needs which would be identified in an assessment under the existing Clause 113 duty or power were they under the age of 19. I believe that there is a case for recognising that.
As I have already said, the LSC and the CETW will have a specific duty to have regard to the needs of persons with assessments when exercising their duties to secure reasonable as well as proper facilities. In other words, where people aged between 19 and 25 were in possession of an assessment, the council would

1329
need to take that into account in allocating resources for post-19 education and training as a whole. That represents a clear and firm step towards meeting the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other noble Lords.
I hope that I have explained to the satisfaction of noble Lords the principle of what I am currently considering. The Government will introduce an amendment at a later stage. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say that what she has said is very helpful indeed. However, according to her final point, if a student aged between 19 and 25 receives an assessment—it is to be hoped on a simplified basis—the learning and skills council will then have to take that into account in the provision of resources. That is almost an entitlement. There is a wafer-thin decision between that and an entitlement. If in the future an entitlement is not given, what is likely to happen is that the parents of such a student, or the student himself or herself, will take the appropriate LEA or the learning and skills council to court and require that payment to be made. As the Minister is so close to saying "entitlement", at Third Reading she should be encouraged to make it an entitlement.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have not said that there will be an entitlement. We must be very careful about the language that we use here. Entitlements are normally universal for a particular group. What I have made clear is that some young people with learning difficulties would benefit from an assessment; but the reference is to "assessment" rather than "entitlement".
Lord Rix: My Lords, first, perhaps I may thank noble Lords on all sides of the House who have supported these amendments. I should like to thank the Minister, not only for her help throughout the passage of the Bill but also for her letter, which I received just before lunchtime today, and for her response to the amendment.
Obviously, I welcome any attempt to recognise the extra support that is needed for people with learning difficulties, and particularly for those with learning disabilities—known once upon a time, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would no doubt say, as those with a mental handicap, which places them in a slightly different category from any others.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, the Minister's proposal falls short of the magic word "entitlement". I am delighted that assessments can be made, but assessments can be left on shelves to moulder in the dust. The word "entitlement" would make a great deal of difference. I hope that in the weeks before Third Reading the Minister will reconsider her response in the letter and her response from the Dispatch Box to this amendment, and see
1330
whether the amendment that she is to bring forward at Third Reading can possibly include some semantics that embrace the word "entitlement".
I am delighted that we have advanced so far in this debate and only hope that we can take that further step forward. Again, I offer my thanks to all noble Lords concerned with these amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 6, after ("quantity") insert ("and quality").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 30 and 35. We return to the thorny issue of the intentional differences, as the Government told us last time, between Clauses 2 and 3 and the provision required for 16 to 19 year-olds and those over 19. We had a fairly full debate on this matter at Committee stage, and the Minister will be pleased to know that I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that I then made. He was careful to try to explain "proper", which I believe in the end he defined as "entitlement", and "reasonable", which he defined as "something slightly less". I believe that that was a slightly less than adequate definition of "reasonable". However, it was a matter which would not be determined by the needs of the learners but the resources which the LSC felt able to make available.
I have already made clear that we do not regard those differences as acceptable. We understand that inevitably there must be a difference in the quantity of provision but certainly not in its quality. I recognise that every government has priorities. The Government have made it clear that their priority is 16 to 19 year-olds. Be that as it may, priorities change over time and it is not helpful to have them written into law. At present the Bill does not propose differing priorities within a single lifelong learning system but a two-tier system, with adult learners being relegated to a second division and receiving additional resources only after proper facilities for young people have been secured. That is not a statement of government priorities; it is to be in legislation for all time. That will be so until such time as there is a change in legislation, not a change in the Government's priorities. I do not believe that that is a helpful starting point to advance the interests of adult learners in the long term.
The Minister was understandably concerned in Committee to try to provide correct definitions and did not explain as fully as I might have wished the Government's medium-term policies and aspirations for adult learning. I do not expect the Minister today to accept amendments which were so unacceptable to him in Committee. However, rather than spend time carefully defining "proper" and "reasonable" perhaps the noble Lord will explain the Government's priorities and medium-term aspirations for adult learning. It has been made clear to us that 16 to 19

1331
year-olds will have priority. However, do the Government endorse the proposals in the Kennedy report or the more modest ones set out in the third Skills Task Force report as explicit policy goals? If we knew the answer to that it might go some small way to allay the concern that adult education is, by legislation, being relegated to the second division. In moving this amendment—more in hope than expectation—I trust that the Government will take the opportunity to allay some of the fears and express their aspirations for the medium and long-term future of adult education. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I said previously at Committee stage—I was reminded of some of my comments and I now remind the noble Lord of others—the Government recognise that the country needs a substantial improvement in participation and achievement at every level of attainment. We expect the provision funded by the learning and skills council to build on the improvements now taking place in school quality and standards. The LSC will be required to give priority to the learning of 16 to 19 year-olds which will fulfil our commitment in the White Paper to give all 16 to 19 year-olds an entitlement to education and training, whether full-time or part-time. We expect the additional resources that we devote to post-16 learning to allow access to learning for all those who need it, whether adults or those in the 16 to 19 age group. We are making the biggest ever investment in further education: £3.9 billion in 2001–02 compared with £3.1 billion in 1998–99, which is an extra £800 million.
In discharging its duties, the LSC must take into account the differing aptitudes and abilities of all the people for whom it has responsibility. The local LSCs will have discretion to secure the right balance and mix of post-19 provision in their areas. To single out the needs of one group of adults and give them priority over all adults would be wrong, although the Government have some sympathy with what lies behind Amendments Nos. 30 and 35. We believe that it would restrict the LSC's ability and discretion to make judgments about what may be the equally, and perhaps even more, pressing needs of other adults, including those with special needs or disabilities. The LSC must be able to exercise discretion.
Although we judged it right to make a distinction between provision for the 16 to 19 age group and adults in much the same way as the previous government's legislation, it is certainly not the case that we regard learning for adults as unimportant. But we need to have some clear understanding of what constitutes "young people" for the purposes of this Bill and the work of the LSC as against adults. It is for the Government to give the lead on the policy, and we have done so. We have already announced an enormous increase in the resources available for adult learning in further education. I remind the noble Lord that in 1998–99 expenditure on adults in further education was £1.6 billion; in 2001–02 it will be £2 billion. That does not sound to me much like "relegation". That expenditure will enable the number
1332
of further education students to increase by 650,000 by the academic year 2000–01 compared with 1997–98. We need to go further. We expect to widen participation substantially, and the major part of that expansion will be for adults. I do not accept that we are in any way undervaluing the learning needs of adults.
However, we must get things right for younger learners in the first place. The challenge at 16 to 19 cannot be underestimated. Most noble Lords will accept that what I am about to say is accurate. Undoubtedly, noble Lords will be aware of the findings of the report of the Social Exclusion Unit, Bridging the Gap, but I should like to highlight a few key findings. Regrettably, in the 16 to 19 age group we still have some of the lowest rates of participation in Europe. We have a sharper decline in participation from age 16 to age 18 than many countries in Europe. Young people who do not participate are at increased risk of being unemployed, becoming involved in drug abuse and having poor physical health. We are clear that the LSC's priority must be the 16 to 19 age group and nothing must detract from that. Let us get that right and then focus the increasing resources devoted to adults on enhancing and developing higher level skills, not in tackling the results of earlier failure. If we can get it right, obviously we shall save on later expenditure. We shall pick up the pieces from that failure and be able to invest more in developing adult skills.
To extend the entitlement has substantial resource implications. Although it is attractive in many ways, that point must be taken into account. For young people alone, the council will be spending the best part of £4 billion on an age group that covers a two-year cohort. We have increased the resources for adults and will continue to do so. I hope noble Lords agree that that demonstrates the importance that we place on adult education. But with the best will in the world, no government—I venture to suggest not even a Liberal Democrat government—would put a commitment of this kind on the face of the Bill. It would be misleading and deceptive to make a provision that we could not deliver. Equally, it would have been misleading for us not to have made clear in the Bill our policy priorities. I hope that the noble Lord will understand why, as he suspected, I resist Amendments Nos. 30 and 35, and ask him to withdraw them.
I have not spoken directly to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. The comments made with regard to Amendment No. 12 and grouped amendments are relevant. I do not wish to repeat myself. The basic point is that, as with the earlier group, the amendments are worthy but unnecessary. The Bill already achieves what the noble Lord would wish.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am used to being told that my amendments are unnecessary. I suppose that it is a mark of progress that they are now worthy but unnecessary! I must take what small consolation I can from that.
The Minister's reply was not entirely unexpected. I do not want to take issue with too much of what the noble Lord said. I did not entirely understand his

1333
reference to the different categories of adults; I do not think that my amendment refers to that. Nor do I want to use this opportunity to argue with him about figures. However, while he talks about the welcome increase in total expenditure on adult education, I think I am right in saying that because of increased access the unit expenditure per adult is decreasing rather than increasing. But we can argue these figures in another place at another time.
Nor do I question the Government's honesty in setting out clearly their priority for 16 to 19 year-olds. They have been quite straightforward about that. There is a sense and logic to that. My concern is not that the Government are setting out their priorities. Of course, they must do so. It is that we are embodying those in legislation until such time as legislative opportunity arises to amend it. I have considerable doubts about that. It sends a message to adult learners and to the adult education world that they are in the second division. That is the distinction between Clauses 2 and 3. It is not simply a matter of the Government stating their priorities. They have ample means and opportunity to do so without enshrining them this boldly in legislation.
However, I do not intend today to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
("(bb) take account of the education and training required in different sectors of employment for employees and potential employees;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, a number of Peers raised the importance of workforce development for the LSC and the role of national training organisations in the new arrangements. I wholeheartedly agreed that the need for an adaptable workforce which has the capacity and opportunity to learn new skills must influence the way in which the council exercises its main duties.
In response to an amendment from my noble friend Lord Haskel I undertook to bring forward an amendment which would take account of the needs of different sectors of employment, recognising, of course, that national training organisations provide the leading expertise on sectoral issues.
The Government have already made clear in the LSC prospectus how we expect the LSC and NTOs to work closely together. I would also expect NTOs to play the leading role in advising the LSC so that it can properly take account of sectoral interests as this amendment requires.
The amendments also make the equivalent changes to the duties exercised by the CETW. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 22. I thank the Minister for incorporating the
1334
provision into the Bill. The national training organisations play an important role in training in different sectors of business and industry and the learning and skills councils will derive great benefit from working with them. It is important to remember that national training organisations deal with sectors of industry and business. The learning and skills councils deal with regions. It is important that they cooperate together. The amendment ensures that that will happen.
I have a letter from Mr Garry Hawkes, CBE, chairman of the National Training Organisations National Council, expressing his satisfaction with the Bill and thanking the Minister for dealing with the issue. He assures the Government that the NTO will give every support possible to the learning and skills council.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as one who expressed concern in Committee about the failure of the Bill to take account of national training organisations, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, in welcoming the amendment. I thank the Minister for listening to what we said. I am delighted to see that the provisions are incorporated not only in this part of the Bill but also later. I should like to record our pleasure.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendment. I hope that such a measure will lead eventually to students aged 16-plus who are considering entering a course of education being provided with information on the employability factor that it will add to their portfolio. As with some of the better FE colleges at present, they will know what jobs will welcome their qualifications and the employment records of students who have been through the course. That kind of quality "pull" is a great incentive to ensuring that the courses offered, in particular in FE, are those that industry wants. That information should be provided to a student who is being asked to commit two years to a specific course at an important stage of his or her life. If the Government are moving in that direction, I greatly welcome it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Yes, employability is an important concept these days. We are concerned to provide more information to students at all levels about their likely employability as a result of a course they have undertaken.
I express my thanks to all noble Lords who welcomed the amendment, which I commend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
("() take account of the education and training required to prepare young persons of different abilities and aptitudes for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life outside the workplace;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I probed the Government's intentions about the kind of education and training that the learning and skills councils would offer. The Minister indicated that the education and training offered would not be limited to a vocational or work-oriented education and training. However, the noble Baroness did not accept that any positive definition of education and training should be on the face of the Bill.
I have read carefully the Official Report and the prospectus for the learning and skills council published by the Government. I am now concerned more than ever that, whatever the Government intend, on the basis of what is stated in the Bill and the prospectus the reality will be that learning and skills councils will quickly become bodies devoted to preparing people for employment, and little more. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the issue. It is assumed that those councils are concerned only with employment. About 75 per cent of the prospectus is devoted to employment. I have read the whole prospectus, but perhaps I may quote from the introduction. It states:
"The key objectives underlying our proposals in Learning to Succeed are to create a new system which will: be responsive to the needs of individuals and employers; promote employability for individuals…;help employers".
It continues with another four or five objectives, but the first three objectives are clearly and solely employment related. After all, 40 per cent of the learning and skills council members, plus the chairman, will be employment or business related. Indeed, Amendment No. 22 adds fuel to the fire. It adds to the impression that the main function of the LSCs will be to prepare people for work. I fully recognise the nation's need for a fully trained and educated workforce. I also recognise the importance for each individual of being able to obtain well-paid and fulfilling employment. However, if the learning and skills council does not also genuinely address other social and personal needs, a great opportunity will have been lost.
Apart from skills for employment, the main emphasis in the prospectus is on exclusion and disadvantage and I cannot find fault with that. Indeed, I am enthusiastic about it. However, it does not make sense to fight to reduce social disadvantage today while failing to address potential social disadvantage for the next generation. Surely the knowledge and skills required to live together as a community, to be good citizens and, above all, to be good parents are also tremendously important.
In Committee, the Government rejected my proposal for a mission statement, which I believed would cover the issue, and for a definition of "education" to appear on the face of the Bill. I now bring forward a more modest proposal which would place on the face of the Bill a counterbalance to the repeated references to, and emphasis on, preparation for employment which appear in the Bill and prospectus. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Committee.
I shall now speak to two other amendments in the group. They are Amendments Nos. 38 and 72 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, to which I and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, also have our names. My noble friend Lord Sandwich cannot be in his place tonight and he has asked me to speak to his amendments.
These amendments address one of the dimensions of the wider aspects of education. I refer to global and international understanding, and the ability to communicate and be involved in the globalisation with which we are confronted. Global issues are part of our lives, be it via the food we eat, our jobs, the clothes we wear, television, sports, the Internet or increased opportunities for travel, to mention but a few examples.
The national curriculum document refers to learning in a global society. It states:
"education must enable us to respond positively to the opportunities and challenges of the rapidly changing world in which we live and work. In particular, we need to be prepared to engage as individuals, parents, workers and citizens with economic, social and cultural change, including the continued globalisation of the economy and society".
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give the House strong assurances that the wider cultural and international context of the national, international and global dimensions of education will not be omitted from the objectives of the LSC.
I beg to move Amendment No. 23.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I, too, put my name to the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and I am sorry that he cannot be here to move them. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for speaking to them so well in his absence. It may be that when the noble Earl reads what has been said, he may want to speak on these important issues at Third Reading.
I put my name to the amendments because they raise important issues. We find ourselves concentrating on preparing people for work without having a wider vision of global issues. I thought that we could have a useful debate on that subject and remind ourselves that learning for life involves learning about the world, global issues, international development and so forth.
I offer brief but heartfelt support to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I understand and share his concerns. It is right and probably inevitable that the Bill concentrates on preparing young people for the workplace. But we are not talking about learning for work; we are talking about learning for life. Work is part of life, but in this place it seems that work is not all of life. Therefore, if we are talking about learning for life, we must pay proper and full regard to the issues which are described extremely well in the noble Lord's amendment. I congratulate him on redrafting it.

1337
I am pleased that the noble Lord has raised his concerns because I share them. In terms of the Bill, I am not sure how best to approach them, but we are being given an opportunity to register them and to hear the Minister's response.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the others in the group. The danger is that the proper and admirable concentration on getting young people into work may give a wrong impression in particular to teachers and pupils in schools in which the new council will be responsible for pupils of 16 plus. It might seem to them to overemphasise the vocational aspects of education and to forget an equally important aspect; that is, to give young people interest, excitement, creativity and opportunities for pleasure and involvement in issues in which they would not otherwise have been involved or understood sufficiently if they had not been in further education.
I believe that in particular as regards this age group and those who may have been disaffected during adolescence, it is important to emphasise the pleasure and possible excitement of education as well as the monetary reward and the possibility of contributing to society. Therefore, I believe that in our discussions on education we should not completely omit the concept of life outside the workplace. That is why the noble Lord's formula is particularly important and I support his amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the best schools and colleges in this country get this aspect right and therefore the amendment is not necessary for them. A large proportion of children have the joy of support at home and in school and receive a good education. There is no concern about them, but the noble Lord has spent a good deal of his life concerned about other children who do not have support at home. For them, school and college are often their only anchor.
The point that is being made is therefore most important. The best schools and colleges deepen intellect, raise understanding, and widen young people's knowledge and experience. They are encouraged not only to read the textbook relating to a particular course, but to read around and wider than the subject and to gain enjoyment from that.
When I pressed for business representation on the council, the noble Lord expressed his anxiety that the Bill appears to be concerned only with getting young people into work. I want to support the Government in the sense that getting young people into work is a real mission. Nowadays, very few people can go through life without having to earn a living. We know that the quality of life for a large number of people and their families would be much enhanced if they could partake in the world of work. Therefore, I have no difficulty in supporting the Bill's main thrust of getting young people sufficiently equipped to take their place in the world of work.
1338
However, I do not want to see one aspect pursued exclusively, at the expense of the other. I believe that the widening and broadening of education go hand in hand and that the wording of Amendment No. 23 particularly brings that together. I have no difficulty in supporting the amendment. I believe that it would help all of us to understand that the Bill does not only focus narrowly on equipping someone to take their place in the world of work; it concerns improving the quality of life of the individual. I believe that that then spills out to the quality of life of everyone. There is a powerful argument for supporting the amendment. I do not believe that it at all inhibits the main policy aim of the Government to get as many of our young people as possible into the world of work.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, support everything that has been said in support of Amendment No. 23. It is enormously important that we do not focus only on the skills required for work, although the range of those skills is fairly broad. Other things that lie immediately alongside them, such as parenting and citizenship, are equally important for a child of that age. There is also a need to offer to someone who is just growing wings—someone who is gaining the ability to act independently and to be independent—the opportunity to catch a glimpse of what is out there in the world and what else is available to them beyond the confines of home, school and the town in which they have been brought up. It is enormously important that those things should be on offer to children of that age.
If she was involved in further education at the time when the FEFC came into being, the noble Baroness will remember the difficulties that sixth-form colleges had in preserving their extra-curricular curriculum, as it were, against the pressures of the funding formula, which were designed merely to fund units of work on A-levels. Sixth-form colleges were to be funded at exactly the same rate as FE colleges, but FE colleges provided none of the extra-curricular provisions available in sixth-form colleges. Finally, the problem was solved through various fudges and by allowing sixth-form colleges to be funded for courses outside the immediate A-level provision. In fact, that extracurricular provision has survived well in sixth forms.
However, when faced with a new piece of legislation and a new body, it is difficult to settle the argument between those who provide extra-curricular provisions and those who do not as to what the rate of funding for a particular course should be. I believe that the Government should make it quite clear that there will be separate funding for courses outside the main A-level or, indeed, the main vocational tramlines. To my mind, it would be much better if the opportunities available in sixth-form colleges were extended to those training in FE colleges, rather than, as almost happened at the time of the creation of the FEFC, a narrowing of opportunities for those in sixth-form colleges and, with this Bill, those in sixth-forms in schools.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am extremely sympathetic to a great deal of what has been said in

1339
this short debate on these amendments. The Government's vision of the learning age is to build a new culture of learning which should not only underpin national competitiveness and personal prosperity but also encourage creativity and innovation and help to build a more cohesive society. We want everyone to benefit from the opportunities that learning brings in terms of personal growth and the enrichment of communities. Certainly, I entirely accept that the issue of employability should not in any way preclude people from learning for its own sake.
Again, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, about the pleasures and excitements of learning. We want all our young people to realise that it is there if they would only reach out and take it. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that there should not be an exclusive emphasis on getting young people into work, important as that is. I do not believe that any of those things are mutually exclusive. Our aim is to equip people with the right skills for the global world in which we all now live. We agree wholeheartedly that the values and purposes which underpin education include enabling individuals to respond positively to the opportunities and challenges of our rapidly changing world.
However, both the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Northbourne, are quite right that education should engage on all levels with economic, social and cultural change, including changes that arise from being part of a global world. Those principles are already reflected in the national curriculum, and we should reflect them in post-16 learning as well. However, if noble Lords care to look again at the introduction to the Learning and Skills Prospectus, they will see clearly that our objectives embrace all the issues mentioned in this debate.
That is why the LSC will, for example, continue to support the various EU training projects and programmes, such as Socrates and Leonardo, which offer young people an opportunity to benefit from a different learning experience, not only within the EU but also in eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. Since 1995, over 80,000 young people from the UK have undertaken education, training, youth placements or exchanges abroad. I believe that that is greatly to be welcomed. In the future, those and similar ventures will be one route by which the LSC can encourage a sharing of experiences and effect a mutual understanding of the challenges to be faced in the context of the global world.
I very much welcome the valuable work of the Development Education Association in raising awareness of the need for people to have the skills for a global society. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who, unfortunately, is not able to be here today, has close contacts with the Development Education Association. However, I do not believe that the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others are necessary to achieve the objectives that we all share. As I said, the LSC prospectus sets out the values which we intend the
1340
LSC to pursue. They will continue to be reinforced by guidance which the Secretary of State gives to the council.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will recognise that much of what I have said already is relevant to his concerns. We do not view education in a narrow way, and the duties of the LSC and CETW are not framed in a narrow way either. The education which they are required to provide for young people must be suitable to their requirements and needs in a very broad sense. Those needs will vary greatly and, in many cases, provision will not be directed towards entering the workplace but rather to higher levels of education, whether at college or at university.
Such provision should certainly include the enrichment activities to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred. They are a very important supplement to formal education which leads to qualifications. In addition to vocational education, social, physical and recreational education will be included, as will organised leisure time occupations connected with such education. Therefore, the noble Lord should be in no doubt that our shared intentions and aspirations are already reflected in the Bill, taken together with the related legislation already on the statute book, and that "education" has the broader meaning that he seeks. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will not feel that he needs to press his amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am tremendously grateful to the noble Baroness for those very helpful and encouraging remarks. I wish also to express my gratitude to the number of noble Lords who contributed most effectively and who added to the thoughts that I have had on this subject. I believe we are all agreed that we need a balance between life skills for work and those for non-work. I am delighted that the noble Baroness shares that view.
Of course, I shall read what the Minister said. However, my view is that that is fine but it does not say so in the Bill. Therefore, I may very well bring back this amendment and press it at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 17, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
("(d) make the most cost-effective use of resources consistent with the effective provision of services.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 38A and 95 in my name. My noble friend Lord Pilkington will speak to Amendment No. 25.
The Minister will know that I have very real reservations about the phrase,
"make the best use of the Council's resources and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
One may be making provision for young people with learning disabilities. In sixth forms, one may be making provision for the teaching of minority subjects. A school may positively choose to have very

1341
small groups for a particular subject, perhaps due to fluctuations in numbers or it may be that only a small number of pupils want to take the subject but the school determines that that subject shall be taught. In those cases, disproportionate expenditure will be incurred. It seems to me that the test should be not whether the expenditure is disproportionate but whether it makes the best and most cost-effective use of resources consistent with the effective delivery of services.
If one has that test where expenditure is considered by those making the judgment to be disproportionate, it may be that there is a very good reason for that, and that should be a proper defence.
The wording in Clauses 2 and 3 and in the Welsh clause, Clause 31, merely refer to making the best use of resources. The meaning of the term "best use" is an extremely subjective issue. Therefore, I prefer the wording in the amendment which refers to,
"make the most cost-effective use of resources consistent with the effective provision of services".
That is a more objective test than trying to determine what is "best use". It certainly allows expenditure to be consistent with good service delivery; but it also allows the providers of education and training to be disproportionate in their expenditure if they have good reason for doing so. That good reason will be fully accountable through the inspection process, the budgeting allocations, and the inspectorate which will make value-for-money judgments.
I support my noble friend Lord Pilkington who will speak to his Amendment No. 25. In a way, that also touches on the issue of schools and colleges determining for themselves how they will spend their money as long as they are fully accountable for those decisions. As I say, the test should be more objective than that which is set out in the Bill. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, as noble Lords know, my great concern is school sixth forms. Like my noble friend, I am worried about the narrowness of Clause 2(3)(d) which refers to,
"making the best use of the Council's resources and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
The danger is that purely utilitarian judgments will be made. In view of the universal support for the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, of broader education, I believe that this business of finance governing everything should be looked at very carefully.
School sixth forms fulfil many of the hopes of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. They are more than just practical instruments for teaching. They have a wider agenda of orchestras, sports teams and religious and moral education. In sparsely populated areas in particular, they are often rather small and certainly, because of the extensive services which they provide, are somewhat more expensive.
1342
The Minister assured us in Committee that her intentions were not to follow pure economy and not to let the chequebook govern education. Therefore, Clause 2(3)(d) seems to me a contradiction of what she said so clearly in Committee.
My amendment would put into a very short phrase the noble intentions of the noble Baroness. In fact—dare I suggest?—I have done her a service in that I have placed her morality, of which she assured us in Committee, in a sentence and met all her noble hopes for the ideals of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. It would certainly help school sixth forms in rural areas, which are inevitably small but often excellent, to resist closure if the learning and skills council followed Clause 2(3)(d) to the letter. Therefore, I suggest that without loss of face and in this season of Lent, fulfilling a noble hope, the noble Baroness could accept my amendment and go to confession with a clear heart. I commend Amendment No. 25 to the House.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I do not think I want to follow that too closely, but I wish the Minister well in rather more secular terms.
I have much sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. I hope that the Minister will offer him the reassurance that he seeks. I certainly believe that school sixth forms should not be closed down solely because of their size. There are important issues here about the quality of provision. The virtue of being small does not necessarily mean that the quality is not good. Indeed, often, the reverse is the case. But it will almost always mean that such sixth forms have higher unit costs, which gives rise to the concerns to which other noble Lords have referred in relation to making the best use of the council's resources.
Perhaps I may return to the point which caused the noble Lord, Lord Bach, so much difficulty in Committee. I cannot see that it is necessary to add to the phrase,
"make the best use of the Council's resources",
the words,
"and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
If you are making best use of the council's resources, you cannot make provision which gives rise to disproportionate expenditure. However, I shall not make more of that. We got excited about it last time. I still think that it is unnecessary.
I turn now to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Perhaps this is about understanding the use of words and expressions. The words,
"the most cost-effective use of resources",
suggest to me, perhaps because I lived for so many years under a Conservative government—I use the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington—a "purely utilitarian" judgment. I much prefer the expression "best value". I did not invent either expression; neither did my party. The Bill refers to "best use" but perhaps the two are synonymous. However, "best value" implies a judgment which

1343
determines value as distinct from cost. It seems to me that my interpretation of the noble Baroness's amendment—I accept fully that it is not her interpretation or intention—would mean that a small sixth form will not often be the most cost-effective way of using resources, but it might be providing the best value under those circumstances. That is an important difference.
Therefore, although the two noble friends on the Conservative Benches believe themselves to be allied in their grouped amendments, were I ever to be a Minister responsible for this my view would be that they are contradictory and that the small sixth form of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is not the noble Baroness's most cost-effective use of resources. Therefore, if there are any more surprises tonight—if the noble Baroness intends to press her amendment to a Division, we shall on this occasion be with the Government.
Lord Bach: My Lords, having heard the comments—I nearly said "strictures"—of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to my noble friend, I wonder whether they are addressed to me also, as I have the pleasure of replying to these amendments. From our previous exchanges on a similar point, which went to a Division—the words are slightly different and although I should expect nothing less of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, we really have divided already on the issue—the noble Baroness will be aware that we consider formulations based around cost effectiveness to be lacking and too one-dimensional.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about the expression which the noble Baroness seeks to add to the Bill. It does not seem to support in the best possible way the case of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. Value for money is achieved though balancing economy, efficiency and effectiveness. I cannot resist the temptation to use "the three Es" yet again. In our view that is expressed most succinctly in the Bill as it stands.
However, the noble Baroness raised concerns about the meaning of "disproportionate expenditure". The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, expressed concern about the impact of the new arrangements upon sixth forms, particularly small rural sixth forms. The words we are discussing have already received—may I say it?—disproportionate attention in earlier debates on the duties of the LSC. It is evident that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord wish to be clearer about the meaning of those words. If they and the House will indulge me, I shall try to provide greater elucidation of them. It may take a little time, but I shall be as brief as possible. It is obviously an issue which is causing genuine concern.
First, let us consider the subsection in each clause where the words appear. In each case, we find that the LSC in England and the CETW in Wales must apply four considerations as to how they perform the relevant duty referred to in the opening words of the subsection. There are three matters of which the councils must take account: first, in relation to facilities; secondly, in relation to the ability and aptitude of different persons; and, thirdly, the facilities
1344
that might be secured by others. The fourth matter on which we are focusing attention follows. The exact words are,
"make the best use of the Council's resources and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
The key words are the first seven,
"make the best use of the Council's resources".
We remain satisfied that those words are the best formulation. For the reasons explained previously, we believe that that formulation is superior to terms such as "cost-effective" which would require perhaps a less balanced approach to the use of public funds, particularly in respect of quality.
Immediately following those first seven words there appear the words, "and in particular". Those three words carry a particular weight. The words that follow them do not introduce an entirely new and separate test which the council must meet. If that were the case, there would be five distinct and separated considerations which the councils would have to take into account. Rather, they refine the meaning of the first seven words. The qualification that they introduce is concerned with the reverse of achieving the best use of council resources. If the councils are contemplating expenditure which, in proportion to normal use of resources, would not be good value for money, then clearly such expenditure would be disproportionate to the norm and the councils must avoid it.
A debate over eight years ago covered similar ground. On 9th December 1991, at columns 569 to 572 of Hansard, the then government spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, who, I am sure, was a colleague of the noble Baroness and other Members opposite in that government, pointed to precedents for that type of formulation going back to the Education Act 1944. He gave a practical example of what was meant. His words are perhaps worth quoting:
"What the Bill requires is that a council should not build an expensive engineering laboratory for a handful of students when there is another laboratory just down the road. But if the provision is proportionate to the need, even if it be expensive, this clause would not rule it out".—[Official Report, 9/2/91; col. 571.]
That is good sense with which we agree. Those words would apply equally to a small rural school for which there is a need, or expensive provision for a disabled student. I say once and for the record, in view of concerns raised previously, that none of the Bill's provisions restricts either the LSC or CETW from spending money on expensive provision of whatever sort. We all know that sometimes we must pay more for something that is of the quality we want in comparison to a similar entity of shoddy quality. We all know that sometimes something is expensive by its very nature. I repeat: neither council is prevented from paying for expensive provision. But surely it is right that the council should be required to take such matters into account when spending taxpayers' money to ensure that it is not spending money unnecessarily. That made good sense then, and it makes good sense now.

1345
I hope that I have explained our thinking. It is on that basis that we invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I suppose that I should be flattered. This is about the fourth time today I have heard that what the previous government did was so good that we must repeat it. I must tell the Minister that my frustrations over many of these issues are well known in the department. I dislike intensely the argument produced for Ministers—it was produced for me—that because something has always been done a certain way, it should always be done that way and that because a form of wording has been the same since Adam was a boy, we should continue to use it. I do not accept that as an intellectually valid defence.
The Minister painstakingly explained the use of the word "particular". However, that word does not refer to the first seven words, but to what follows,
"make the best use of the Council's resources and in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
That is all that is stated. There is no other qualification whatever. It is true, as the Minister accepts, that there will be occasions when disproportionate expenditure must legitimately be made. The Minister gave my noble friend's example of an expensive engineering workshop being set up when there is another one close by. By anyone's judgment that would be deemed unacceptable, disproportionate expenditure. However, there are many examples where provision for young people with learning disabilities must be a great deal more expensive than that for young people without learning disabilities. There will be instances in rural areas where provision is disproportionately expensive compared to that provided for areas where schools are much closer together in towns and cities which have more facilities.
I do not believe that, on the face of the Bill, disproportionate expenditure can be avoided. I accept the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about value for money. I had hoped that through the wording of Amendment No. 24 I was introducing the notion of value for money. I did not use the term "cost-effective use of resources" on its own because that stipulation is linked with a second point relating to consistency with effective services; in other words, if a provision is not consistent with effective services then it is not cost effective. Putting the two together, I qualified the first part of my amendment by saying that it had to be consistent with the use of resources.
I am tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to find a way to introduce the words "value for money" as opposed to,
"cost-effective use of resources consistent with the effective provision of services".
It is important to make it clear beyond doubt that local authorities, councils when making funding provision, and even employers under the voluntary sector making provision should be allowed to do so
1346
quite legitimately, and on the basis of making good judgment on educational grounds. I believe that should be acceptable. The Bill states:
"in particular avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure".
For that reason, despite the fact that it has been used historically and by my government, I still do not believe that it is an answer to my concern. However, I shall go away and try to "Topefy" my amendment and bring it back at Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
("() Nothing in subsection (3) shall prevent the Council from providing facilities that only, by nature of their size, have higher unit costs than other facilities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there will be much discussion on the amendments and much work in smoke-filled rooms. Although I am not happy that my amendment is not to be on the face of the Bill, I share the concerns of my noble friend, and do not intend to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Education and training for persons over 19]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 35 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 2, line 41, at end insert—
("() in relation to subsection (1)(c) above, take account of any undue burden falling on small and medium-sized businesses, or voluntary sector providers:").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 36 deals with a concern which sounds like a small concern, but is important. Clause 3(1) states:
"The Council must secure the provision of reasonable facilities for".
The facilities are then listed. Clause 3(1)(c) refers to,
"organised leisure-time occupation connected with such education".
My particular concern is that some of the provision will be made by small and medium-sized businesses. Indeed, some parts of the voluntary sector will also be involved. I should like to think that there is flexibility here. My amendment provides that in securing such reasonable facilities connected with education, the burden of cost should not be a disadvantage to small and medium-sized businesses. Therefore, the council should take that into account when approving courses by other providers.
That is important. The Government cannot achieve their aims and objectives without the full involvement of the business sector. We all know that by far the largest proportion of companies in this country, over 90 per cent, have fewer than 100 employees. An even higher proportion, between 94 to 95 per cent, have fewer than 10 employees. Although the remaining few

1347
per cent employ almost half the workforce, we are referring to a large number of companies without which many local areas will not be able to achieve the Government's objectives.
We should not in any way downgrade the importance of the wider provision of facilities for young people in education. This refers back to the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about widening education and not being too narrowly focused on education and skills training. However, we should be mindful of the difficulty of providing in a workplace sports or leisure facilities, for example, which can be expensive. That is not to say that imagination cannot be used. Councils should take into account that if they need to hire a local football ground or local schools facilities, and so forth, there will be a cost. Such costs should be considered and taken into account in making such provision. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I hope that I can make the noble Baroness happy by explaining briefly how we see this clause.
Clause 3(1)(c) constitutes a duty placed on the LSC, not on providers. The LSC would be able to fund organised leisure-time occupation provided in connection with education if it was made by a small or medium-sized business or voluntary sector provider. However, it is important to note that no requirement is placed on such providers to make such provision.
Nothing is mandatory for them as a result of this clause. We are not placing any new burdens on them. It is the responsibility of the learning and skills council to ensure that reasonable facilities of this sort are available. Business and voluntary providers may want to make such provision, but that remains a matter for them. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, sought reassurance on this precise point in Committee. I am pleased to confirm, using her own words, that:
"there will not be a requirement on employers to provide leisure and recreational facilities which are entirely beyond their means".—[Official Report, 8/2/2000; col. 568.]
We shall certainly keep a close eye on the arrangements. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his hugely helpful reply. Perhaps I may state my understanding so that there is no doubt. I understand that the council will have to secure the provision but that the council securing the provision will not be the provider. The council will use local authorities, workplaces, the voluntary sector, other educational outlets, colleges and so forth, to make such provision. However, I understand that the council must ensure that all young people receive reasonable leisure facilities in addition to proper education and training.
I should like a specific assurance that the council will not use its funding arrangements to pressurise providers to make such leisure facility arrangements. In other words, not only must the council secure the provision of reasonable facilities, as the noble Lord
1348
stated, but in doing so, it will be the responsibility of the council to see that the provisions are funded and not that the funding will be required from the providers.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am happy to give that reassurance to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
("(bb) take account of the education and training required in different sectors of employment for employees and potential employees;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 38 and 38A not moved.]
Clause 4 [Encouragement of education and training]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert ("appropriate to their needs").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 39, I return to a debate we had at previous stages of the Bill. I am still concerned about the words "appropriate to their needs", which are important.
Much has been said about young people who are not finding their way into the world of work. A great deal of effort is being made by the Government, through their policies for inclusion, to persuade people back into the workplace. I gave examples of people whom I met in the north-east where I was involved as a Minister. Too often I met young people who were constantly being shunted into courses which were not relevant to their needs, which were wholly inappropriate, or which they had already done and were therefore repetitious.
Education and training should not only be appropriate to the needs of an individual, which will be subject to other amendments; it should fit in with the individual's work pattern and the work available in the area. Clause 4 states that the council must encourage individuals to undergo post-16 education and training. I do not want it to be taken as read that that will be appropriate to their needs. We know that in practice that is not always so. I believe there should be an obligation on the providers and on the councils, both national and local, to ensure as far as possible that education and training should be appropriate to the needs of young people. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, we debated this issue at some length at Committee stage. The point made at that stage still remains valid. There is much waste of resources involved in inappropriate education and training for those over 16 years of age. Young people often do not know what they want and receive little or no help in making choices. That is why they need information, advice and guidance about the choices available to them and which might best suit them as

1349
individuals, given their talents and preferences and the local situation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made clear.
What worries us is that the new Connexion service aimed at making sure that those who at the moment drop out of mainstream education and training are brought back in and helped to make those choices, does not necessarily provide for the 90 per cent who remain in mainstream education, but who still need guidance. At the universities we count the cost of poor decisions in the growing drop-out rate among first year undergraduates. It is a waste of time for these young people, who then have to start again on another course. It is a waste of public resources in terms of the costs of provision and support which are frequently borne by the state.
But there is a less obvious waste. I was talking last week to people from the ABPI. They have recently drawn attention to the unsuitable courses which many of their recruits take in modular degrees, pointing out that proper guidance at the appropriate stage is vital in making choices. Careers teachers in schools are not enough. They can provide information and advice, but they are not necessarily fully conversant with the guidance issues. We have trained professionals to provide guidance at postgraduate level, the so-called NVQ4, to provide precisely that sort of guidance. If we are going to make the best use of the potential of our young people, it is extremely important that the education and training that they receive is guided towards what is appropriate to their needs. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness will receive reiteration of the assurances that I made in Committee on this point. The clause places a specific duty on the LSC to promote lifelong learning by encouraging people to undertake education and training. As I said last time, it would be unreasonable for the LSC to promote learning which was anything but appropriate to the needs of the individual receiving it.
The education and training to which this clause refers must be, under the terms of Clauses 2 and 3, suitable to the requirements of those who receive it. In Committee the noble Baroness made the excellent point that people, especially young people, need someone to guide them—the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said the same thing today—about the appropriate kind of education and training to guide them into the workforce. We would agree. The principle of effective support and guidance for young people lies at the heart of our strategy for the Connexion service. I am not going to be drawn into a discussion on that service now, tempting though it may be. I believe that we shall have time for that when debating some of tomorrow's amendments.
Where the Government part company with this amendment is that we do not believe that adding a qualification to the duty on the LSC to encourage individuals to undergo education and training will have any effect in addressing the needs of young people
1350
for guidance. We see the position very much as the noble Baroness does, but we do not believe that we need to add this provision to the Bill itself.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is helpful because it reinforces a point that the Government have made. There is a flavour of naivety about the idea that all education and training from now on will be matched absolutely to the individual needs of a young person. But I accept what is intended. The matter is now on the face of the Bill at least twice and probably at Second Reading as well. That is important. I believe that it is something that will be returned to, perhaps, sadly, through tribunals, which is the only recourse that anyone would have to prove disproportionate provision.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the kind of examples I have in mind are not sufficiently powerful—though they may be a total mismatch for the individual—to take to a court or a tribunal. Who would be in a position to do so anyway? At the end of the day there would always be the defence that the procedure was followed and the course provider or the council responsible for making the provision had deemed it appropriate at the time to the needs of the young person and they were simply wrong. The Minister used encouraging words. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 6 [Financial resources: conditions]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 12, after ("may-) insert ("after consulting providers or their representatives and such other persons as it sees fit").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we move now to Clause 6 of the Bill, which gives the Learning and Skills Council quite sweeping powers to impose conditions on any funding which it provides. No one questions the right of a funder to impose reasonable conditions—I hesitate to define the word "reasonable"—or to ensure that they are met. That is quite right, normal and entirely proper. But there is widespread concern among providers over the extent of the powers suggested in this clause. There seems to be considerable erosion of the autonomy of the further education sector. There is particular concern about the specific reference to the imposition of fees and so on.
We know that the Government consider all this to be necessary and appropriate. The purpose of this amendment is to require the funder—the council in this case—before imposing such conditions, to consult with the provider or provider's appropriate representation. I do not believe that that is in any way an extension to bureaucracy; indeed. I would hope that it was normal good practice and could reduce possible bureaucracy caused by the imposition of unreasonable or unworkable conditions.
I hope that this amendment encapsulates what should be normal good practice and what should happen anyway. I urge the Government to accept it because it would go some way towards allaying the

1351
fears that have been aroused, rightly or wrongly, in the FE sector by the fairly wide-ranging provisions of this clause. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that this amendment would impose constraints on the ability of the Learning and Skills Council to exercise flexible judgment about the financial agreements that it will need to reach with providers. The FEFC has a financial relationship with the relatively homogeneous group of providers, principally colleges of further education and some institutions in the higher education sector. The LSC, through local branches, will have direct financial relationships with several thousand providers, including employers, colleges, LEAs and voluntary organisations. It must have the ability to tailor its arrangements and should be able to do that flexibly. We believe that it would be inappropriate to impose a superstructure of statutory bureaucracy—if the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will forgive me for using that word—around these arrangements.
Having said that, we expect the LSC to consult providers about funding arrangements. In the same way the department is currently undertaking extensive consultation about future funding arrangements, not least because the Secretary of State will need to consider carefully what conditions he may wish to attach to the funds that he will make available to the LSC. It did not take an Act of Parliament for such consultation to take place; it is the accepted thing to do. There is nothing unusual here. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I did not follow that explanation at all. I do not understand how a requirement to consult, which the noble Lord said would be the norm anyway and certainly should be the norm under good practice, "imposes constraints", to use his words. The Bill still gives the council the power to impose conditions. All I am suggesting is that before imposing the conditions it should discuss them with the provider. That is not in the least consistent with imposing constraints.
I understand the need to tailor arrangements, the need for flexibility and so forth. Again, discussing conditions with providers before they are imposed does not seem to inhibit that in any way; on the contrary, it is a co-operative approach which I thought this Government endorsed. It involves discussing with providers whether or not conditions are right and appropriate. If agreement is reached, so much the better; the situation will work well. If at the end of the day agreement cannot be reached, the council still has the power to impose such conditions as it wishes. It will be under no constraints that prevent it from doing so. I do not accept the explanation. I do not understand it. It is entirely unreasonable. But I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 4, line 15, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) require the Council to be allowed access to relevant accounts and documents and to be given rights in relation to computers, associated apparatus and materials which have been used in association with Council-funded provision:").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when we last spoke on this matter the noble Lord, Lord Bach, accused both myself and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, of becoming somewhat overwrought on the issue.
Lord Tope: My Lords, overexcited.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, overwrought or overexcited; I do not recall which. However, I plead guilty. I am concerned about this issue, mostly because in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said,
"We argue that … the effect of Amendment No. 64 would be to deny the council the ability to inspect relevant providers' records, whether written or held on computers so as to establish whether taxpayers' money had been used properly".—[Official Report, 8/2/00; col. 634.]
I refer to "relevant providers"; the Bill does not. The Bill simply says, in imposing conditions, that,
"The conditions may … require the Council or a person designated by it to be allowed access to a person's accounts and documents and to be given rights in relation to a person's computers and associated apparatus and material".
It is for that reason that I press my amendment. I want to remove the council's right to have access to,
"a person's accounts and documents".
and substitute for it rights to access documents and technology used in association with councils so that there is a relevance in relation to both the equipment being inspected and audited, and the specific person. We knew that there would always be a relevance to the institution, but the idea, for example, that if I were a lecturer in an FE college, someone could come to my home and inspect something which had no relevance whatever to the fact that all that I was doing in relation to the course was housed and located in the college and/or college-related buildings, is unacceptable.
I am concerned about the fact that the provision is not qualified in relation to relevance. It is because of the words the noble Lord himself used and his misunderstanding of what my amendment related to that I wish to press Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I shall try to avoid becoming overwrought again. I share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. As drafted, the provisions of Clause 2(a) are wide-ranging and far-reaching and I am not happy with them. Nor am I sure that the noble Baroness's amendment has it quite right. I am wholly with her in what she is seeking to achieve; I am not certain that the amendment achieves it.
I realise that I cannot now introduce an amendment, but I would be a little reassured if we took the last words from subsection (b) and included them within subsection (a); that is,
"for the purpose of carrying out its functions".

1353
That may provide some reassurance. I drop that into the debate now though it is possible that we shall come back to this at another stage. As I say, I cannot support the provision as it stands in the Bill; nor am I convinced that the noble Baroness's noble attempt to make it better—and it does make it better—is the right substitute. I hope we can consider this problem a bit further.
Lord Bach: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 involves two points. First, the noble Baroness is seeking to restrict the rights of access the learning and skills council would enjoy in connection with ensuring, the proper use of public funds. We appreciate the points she makes. She expressed concerns, as she did in Committee, among other things that the clause, as drafted, might extend to the home premises of, for example, a tutor at an FE college. I should like to reassure her that her anxiety is unfounded.
Clause 6 is underpinned by subsection (1), which secures that the conditions the council may set attach to its provision of financial resources. Under Clause 6(2)(a), the LSC will be able to ensure it could have access to the accounts and premises of those bodies it funds. But it will have a funding relationship with the governing bodies of FE colleges, not with the teaching or other staff that the governing body chooses to employ. Clause 6(2)(a) simply allows the LSC to have access to information and materials held by the bodies it funds—access it will need if it is to secure the proper use of those public funds.
The noble Baroness also expressed anxiety that the power would allow access to documents and other information that are quite unrelated to the education and training provision funded by the LSC. That concern is quite unfounded. The LSC is a statutory body and can only exercise the powers granted to it by Parliament as a result of this Bill. It may not act outside its power; that is ultra vires. Hence it may not examine materials that are unrelated to its functions. That goes without saying and applies to all statutory corporations like the LSC, and makes the amendment fundamentally unnecessary.
However, I remind the noble Baroness that we will later be debating government amendments to ensure that the Secretary of State can intervene if the LSC acts unreasonably. That will apply to this provision as it does to other LSC powers. It would be open to any LSC-funded provider to approach the Secretary of State if it considered that access rights were being misused. That is an important safeguard. Moreover, if the LSC acted ultra vires, that would also be grounds for an approach to the Secretary of State or the courts. That is yet a further safeguard.
Our second point is that we believe the amendment would have a serious impact which the noble Baroness may not intend. The LSC should of course exercise its ability to delegate access rights prudently and carefully. But the amendment would remove entirely the LSC's ability to involve third parties to act as its agents in this respect. In most circumstances, the LSC
1354
would be the body to use access rights to those it funds. Unfortunately, however, it is the case that, when things go seriously wrong, specialist resources and expertise are sometimes required and those may not be readily available within the council.
Although I cannot go into details of specific cases because of the risk of endangering current investigations, an example might be the specialist resources which the department has for investigating cases of suspected fraud. Those may be, and have been, purchased as needed by a body such as the FEFC, and in future the LSC. On occasion it is necessary to purchase specialist audit resources. A restriction such as this would have a real effect and might prevent current investigations from reaching a conclusion.
Obviously, the noble Baroness would not wish to hinder or prevent action that could lead to the recovery of misused public funds or the prosecution of those who have misused them. The £6 billion of public funds for which the chief executive must account to Parliament personally is a very large sum of money. The LSC must be able to investigate a case properly. On occasions it may need to deploy resources that are not available in-house. This is not a theoretical matter that we are discussing, nor is it simply a debating point. These are matters of actual practice and, of course, of genuine public concern.
To summarise, the provision that the noble Baroness seeks to amend in Clause 6 is well precedented and entirely standard. I wrote to the noble Baroness on 28th February to give details of the current use of comparable powers by the further and the higher education funding councils, the TECs and the access rights enjoyed by the National Audit Office, not to mention the European Commission and the European Court of Auditors. I assure the noble Baroness that there is nothing unusual here. I hope that this explanation may reassure her to some extent.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I repeat again that I have no wish to see people acting fraudulently or abusing or misusing resources provided by the taxpayer. Therefore, it is precisely for that reason that I want any inquiry to be focused where I believe the suspicion lies.
The noble Lord said that my amendment would deny the council the possibility of using a third body. All the way through this Bill, and all the way through most statutes, there are references to the Secretary of State using a power to do this, that or the other. In almost all cases we know that it is not the Secretary of State who, in person, will do it. It will be someone appointed by him, someone who will do it in his name. It will, in effect, be a third person.
The same applies to the council. Dotted throughout the Bill are references to the council being given powers to secure facilities, to provide this, that and the other. Again, it will not necessarily be the council that secures that provision. It will be someone delegated by the council. In some cases it will be someone at third and fourth remove from the council. If it was the wish

1355
of the council to call in the police, there is nothing in my amendment to prevent it doing that. If the council wished to bring in the auditors, there is nothing to prevent it doing that. I am not so sure that I accept that defensive argument from the Minister.
"require the Council or a person designated by it to be allowed access"—
with no word or aspect of relevance about it at all—
"to a person's accounts and documents and to be given rights in relation to a person's computers and associated apparatus and material".
One would expect, in practice, for there to be access to the college, college facilities, college-related premises and facilities that may be housed in them. But there needs to be some protection of the individual against the council or its appointee going to the personal belongings of a tutor. That is what is stated in Clause 6(2)(a).
I am decidedly unhappy with the provision. I am decidedly unhappy with the Minister's response to me. If I have the wording wrong, then I believe it is incumbent upon the Government to do something about the wording of Clause 6(2)(a). Perhaps they should even pick up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who linked it with Clause 6(2)(b). One way or another, this is wrong. For that reason I wish to press my amendment, in the hope that the noble Lord will either come back with something or accept my amendment, and then leave it to counsel to put it right.
7.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41: Not-Contents, 100.

Division No, 4

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Kingsland, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Attlee, E.

Lindsay, E.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Luke, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Burnham, L, [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Buscombe, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northbrook, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Cumberlege, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Palmer, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rawlings, B.

Fookes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saatchi, L.

Henley, L, [Teller]

Seccombe, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

1356

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Alli, L.

Amos, B.

Islwyn, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bach, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brett, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brookman, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Carter, L. [Teller]

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Crawley, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Orme, L.

Desai, L.

Patel, L.

Dixon, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Donoughue, L.

Puttnam, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Elder, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rix, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Filkin, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gale, B.

Simon, V.

Goldsmith, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harrison, L.

Varley, L.

Haskel, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hayman, B.

Warner, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitty, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in moving that consideration of amendments on Report be now adjourned, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Safety
7.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to promote their road safety strategy.
he noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I have the honour to be president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The society is a powerful force in promoting road safety and therefore has an unsurpassed interest in the development of this country's road safety strategy. However, the interest in which I am most delighted is that declared by the Prime Minister, who himself introduced the Government's road safety strategy a short while ago. It includes some very tough overall targets: to reduce in 10 years by 40 per cent all road accidents and to reduce accidents to children by 50 per cent over the course of 10 years.
It might be thought that the Prime Minister is particularly concerned about the latter due to the impending arrival of the Blairs' fourth child. There is no doubt that the issue focuses the minds of soon-to-be parents, but I am sure that the Prime Minister is responding to an even more profound public issue than that. I refer to the sense of shock that is felt throughout the nation at how poorly our figures for child safety compare with those of our European counterparts.
As we know, vastly greater numbers of people, both adults and children, are killed and maimed on our roads than on our railways, yet the most enormous public debate takes place after each railway accident. Such accidents are enormously tragic but involve much smaller numbers than the daily carnage on our roads. That partly helps to explain the wholly unjustified degree of complacency in society about our road statistics. The British feel that they compare rather well with other drivers. They feel that they are more considerate. It is the case that in our country, as in other developed countries, the number of road accidents per mile driven has been falling for a considerable period of time. There have also been improvements in in-car safety through the better design of cars. But we are surely not entitled to be complacent when we look at the child accident figures.
A ready excuse is sometimes offered for those too. It is said that our urban environment is more obviously intense and that cars are closer to where people live and move about on pavements. However, serious research shows that that factor probably accounts for only half the number of accidents involving children. The other half of those dismal statistics is due to our failure to train our children sufficiently well in road safety. It is also a matter of bad driving.
The Government have set several ambitious targets. However, one must remember that it took 20 years to implement the universal use of seatbelts and 20 years to make drinking and driving socially unacceptable. For that reason, to aim to take 10 years to secure a marked reduction in driving speeds is a pretty tall order, but it is an extremely important element of increasing safety in our urban and village environments.
There is no doubt that speed kills. It is a major factor in one in three accidents. In accidents involving pedestrians, at 20 miles per hour one person in 10 will be killed. At 40 miles per hour, nine out of 10 will fail to
1358
survive. Improvements in car safety may have benefited the occupants of cars, but they have done little for cyclists and pedestrians.
In their road safety strategy, the Government have placed great emphasis on the role of local authorities. I should like to ask the Minister to give an assurance that local authorities will be provided with sufficient specific resources to tackle these issues; that they will be effectively monitored on their performance; and that they will be assisted in implementing best practice. It is clear, for example, that we need the extensive deployment of 20 mph speed limits near schools. We also need extensive traffic-calming measures. We should not pretend that these are popular measures; yet we are asking local authorities largely to bear the brunt of taking decisions on these issues. Elected local authorities have the right to be concerned about their popularity. I say this only a couple of months before the next set of local elections.
The Government have taken a number of important factors into account in their strategy. We need improved training on road safety issues for our children. We also need training for parents. I point out in particular a matter identified in the road safety strategy; namely, the experiment carried out in Drumchapel, near Glasgow. That project showed how parents contribute to the safety of their children.
It is also quite clear that we need better standards of driving. That means that we should address in forthright terms whether the driving test is a sufficient test of motoring competence. I believe that it must be recognised that the present driving test is inadequate in several key respects as regards testing driving competence.
An area that has particularly concerned the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and which is also recognised in the road safety strategy, is that of the standard of driving among fleet drivers. That issue will need to be pursued with great vigour because improvements must be made. After all, those people drive the most on our roads. On average, a business or commercial driver will drive for many more thousands of miles than the ordinary private motorist. The management of occupational road risk is recognised in the strategy and is an issue on which the society has also been campaigning vigorously.
In addition, we need to address an issue which I raised in this House last year, but which did not meet with wholehearted enthusiasm on the part of the Government. If we are doomed to live with a situation where for so many people the car has become a mobile office, we certainly need to introduce constraints on how office techniques are deployed at 40, 50 or 60 miles per hour. I draw particular attention to the use of mobile phones. It is not possible to concentrate on the road while at the same time receiving what may be in some cases important messages.
Against that background, I emphasise that a great deal needs to be done. We need the Government to back their strategy with great vigour. Careful monitoring will be needed to see whether promises contained in the strategy are kept. I seek a reassurance

1359
from the Minister, whom I hold in high regard for the work that he has done so far, that the issues outlined in the report will be followed up.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for initiating this debate only a week after publication of the Government's road safety strategy. My contribution to the debate is offered from two perspectives; first, as chairman of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance—an associate parliamentary group dedicated to reducing vehicle crime, and, secondly, as a past president of RoSPA. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, now holds that distinguished position. I wish him the very best of luck.
I welcome in the strategy the extremely broad context across which the Government seek to reduce road casualties, especially the specific references made to both cycling and motorcycling, and the clear intention to seek support from all areas within both national and local government and society at large.
I shall focus my remarks on where I consider that a partnership approach can best provide effective education and training for young adults to become responsible road users on both two and four wheels. While chapters 2 and 3 within the Tomorrow's Roads—Saler for Everybody strategy refer to this issue, one must also be mindful of the Government's response to the report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Young and Newly Qualified Drivers: Standards and Training, an inquiry to which the European Secure Vehicle Alliance submitted both written and verbal evidence.
My assessment suggests, however, that there remains a significant gap in addressing the needs of 15 and 16 year-olds, especially as the new national curriculum makes specific reference to road safety only in key stages 1, 2 and 3—for children aged from five to 14 years. The Government's strategy papers outline in detail their thinking on how to increase the effectiveness of driver training once a candidate has applied for a provisional car driving licence at 17 years of age and older. However, little attention is focused on the critical years, those from 15 to 17, when the expectation and interest of young adults, as they anticipate becoming road users, is often overwhelming.
Reference to the expansion of the Driving Standards Agency schools programme is welcome, as is the commitment to the provision of Internet material. I should also like to commend the British School of Motoring's new SIGNAL programme targeted at sixth form and FE colleges. However, surely we should aim to do far more.
Perhaps I may remind the House that England and Wales enjoy one of the best road safety records across the developed world and yet have the worst vehicle crime records. Half of all convicted vehicle crime offenders are aged 16 or under. Over two-thirds are aged 21 or under. Bearing in mind that we are also aiming to achieve a targeted 30 per cent reduction in
1360
vehicle crime over the next five years, much will be gained by adopting shared strategies targeted at young people to reduce both vehicle crime and road accident casualties.
One example of such an approach developed within the Avon and Somerset Constabulary and called Operation Impact involved considerable police and community effort in encouraging young people to take a responsible attitude to road usage. On average, 13 young people lost their lives in accidents involving stolen vehicles between 1992 and 1994. In 1997, there was only one fatality involving a stolen vehicle. I have no doubt that a sustained strategy, aimed at both crime and accident reduction, can achieve extraordinary results.
The importance of communicating effectively with young people as they start to face the transition from school into adulthood has also been recognised by the Department for Education and Employment. Its concern in aiming to reduce truancy and school exclusions must be helpful in aiming to reduce crime and social exclusion. For a number of potentially disaffected students, an opportunity to learn about vehicles and road usage is undoubtedly effective in opening up pathways into employment or further training.
Further, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 illustrated the commitment of the Home Office to tackle more effectively youth justice issues while also encouraging local authorities and the police to work in partnership with other community leaders to reduce crime and disorder. One should also be mindful that the Department of Health has also set 10-year targets to reduce accident death and serious injury rates. I therefore recommend a strategy entitled, "Community Education Involving Vehicles", which could contribute to the related strategies of the government departments I have mentioned.
The ESVA has been associated with a number of community-based motor projects across the country, all working towards the shared objectives of reducing crime, collisions and social exclusion. I would commend the SKIDZ project based in High Wycombe. It has been able to take most advantage of the newly emerging strategies, as it has only been operating for the past 18 months. It aims to provide a staging post for 15 to 17 year-olds making the transition from school to college and/or employment.
In conclusion, I urge that all government departments adopt the challenge of harnessing coherently the interest that many young people from the age of 15 have in vehicles and in passing their "riding and driving" tests in order to make our roads safer while at the same time reducing crime and offering our young people a pathway to becoming responsible citizens.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for

1361
giving us such an early opportunity to discuss the Government's road safety strategy. In his foreword to the Government's strategy document, the Minister said:
"Safety is the most important responsibility of anyone involved in transport—whatever mode we are talking about".
In its review of policy on speed management, the Government say at paragraph 14:
"There are real benefits to industry, business, commuters and other motorists of being able to reach their destinations reasonably quickly".
In paragraph 16 we find the phrase,
"unnecessary suppression of speed could be damaging".
I am afraid that government policy seems to continue to give greater emphasis to the reduction of journey times, as against the promotion of road safety. Some commentators suggest that this may be out of fear of the media and lobbyists portraying the motorist as being persecuted. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I suggest that it is the children who are killed or injured on the roads in Britain in numbers twice as great as in Germany and Holland who are the real victims of persecution.
Of course we welcome the plan to reduce these casualty figures by 50 per cent by the year 2010, which, if achieved, would bring Britain to the same level that now obtains in Holland and Germany. But, in my opinion, the Government's road safety strategy is too timid a document and may be insufficient to achieve its objectives. I should like to give your Lordships two examples of faults in the present system.
I have been involved in the planning and consultation of the proposed bypass at Marcham, which is on the A415 between Abingdon and Witney. The scheme provides a road junction between the bypass and the village street. This was planned to be provided by a simple, centre of the road turning lane on the bypass for traffic turning right into the village. At the consultation meeting, the residents said that this would be unsafe with fast-moving traffic on the bypass and asked for a roundabout. The engineer believed that they were correct in their criticism. However, he had to tell those at the meeting that a roundabout would slow down all the traffic and increase journey times for travellers. Because of this the economic benefits of the scheme would be reduced and it might, therefore, not qualify for funding. Such benefits are calculated using cost-benefit techniques, which add together the small time savings of the people using the road. These are then set against the cost of the scheme to provide an economic justification.
The system is perverse. The journey time savings are very small and probably imperceptible to most road users. But there are a lot of users, and when the time savings are multiplied by lots of people you get a lot of money. The probability of a serious accident without the roundabout, or other form of controlled turning, is high; but, of course, it is unpredictable. The point that I wish to emphasise this evening is that the appraisal techniques being used need to be revised to
1362
give less weight to small time savings and to give greater priority and emphasis to safety. That will help to promote road safety.
Paragraph 60 of New Directions in Speed Management says that time savings are an important economic element in assessing the case for investment in roads and public transport. As an economist I would agree that such techniques may have value in comparing two or more alternative schemes, but to impute a monetary value to someone saving a minute or so on a journey home, while not making adequate allowance for safety, has very little intellectual respectability.
My other example concerns the new proposals allowing some small part of the income from fixed penalties generated by speed cameras to be spent on the costs of enforcement. This trial in six areas starts in April and is planned to last for two years. We are very grateful for this long overdue initiative. People are crying out for proper enforcement of speed limits, even if they do not always observe them when they are driving. Yet at the meeting held between the police and local authorities in the Thames Valley area to discuss the implementation of the scheme—and I quote from the unofficial notes taken at the meeting:
"The DETR also worried about the Thames Valley Police plan to prosecute 250,000 drivers in the second year so this has been reduced to 180.000".
I ask the Minister to repudiate that approach. As is well known, the cameras are already set with a threshold above the limit. Is it not right that those people who exceed the speed limit should have some action taken against them? We do not have a quota for prosecuting drunk drivers, so I do not understand why there should be one for those who speed.
While extra money will go to the police, magistrates' courts and local authorities to deal with the increased workload arising from the trial scheme, can the Minister say whether any extra funding will be allowed to the Crown Prosecution Service? This will be necessary to make the scheme successful; otherwise, the most serious cases—those which have to be taken to court—will not be pursued.
In conclusion, I want to suggest a development to the trial scheme for hypothecating some of the money raised by penalty notices for speeding, which may help to swing public opinion even more firmly behind the trial. Local authorities suggested that, as well as covering the additional costs of enforcement, a part of the hypothecated fund could be used to carry out physical improvements that would enhance safety and for which highway authorities will never have sufficient funds however generous the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made that point. We need better signing, road marking, application of skid resistant surfaces and minor engineering work at accident blackspots. However, as I understand it, that proposal was rejected.

1363
When the trial scheme relating to speed cameras is reviewed—I suggest it should be done at the end of year one, without waiting for two years—I hope that consideration will be given to diverting resources into positive accident prevention.
8.9 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, when the road safety strategy was announced some headlines suggested that the Government had chickened out and that a blanket reduction to 20 miles per hour should have been imposed on all 30 miles per hour-limited roads. However, this is not so. Britain has reached a stage in its road safety development where we now know how to work with society and not fight it. We no longer tolerate the drink driver and the police are now backed in seeking the hard core who still imbibe and drive.
The AA Foundation for Road Safety Research has shown that speed limits are not just poorly obeyed; their rationale is not understood. Some 50 per cent of drivers do not know the national speed limit for a single carriageway road and are puzzled about the archaic links between speed limits and street lighting. There is to be a new template offering guidelines for how and when limits are to be used. The guidelines are important not just to help lower speeds. The AA wants drivers to understand that limits on speed are there to help reduce death and injury. Where limits are at odds with the character of the road, the character must be changed or else drivers must be told the reason for the limit being set. Similar to the practice in some countries, the speed limits could be altered dependent upon the time of day. This has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham in respect of schools.
In reality it is not just lower speed limits we need; it is lower speeds where safety so dictates—a system where the prosecuted driver is seen as a fool and not as being unlucky. The Prime Minister has explained that the aim is to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink driving. And who would disagree with that?
The new road safety strategy is about more than just speed. It includes changes to the driving test, crash test legislation, penalties—I hope that it will be recognised that the fear of losing a driving licence through accumulating points is much greater than the fear of a fine being imposed—extension of health and safety into occupational driving, and much more.
If time permitted, I would expand on driver training and the relationship between the driving records of parents and those of their children as researched by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in the United States. The enthusiasm is there to ensure the success of the strategy. But are the resources?
I now turn to enforcement. Some noble Lords may recall my association with traffic officers and the fact that I go on patrol regularly. Resources dictate the number of traffic units on the road at any time of the day and this will vary from force to force. It is a matter of operational priority as to how the available funds are spent. However, divisional traffic units are being reduced on a regular basis not only because of the
1364
increasing cost of purchasing and maintaining the various types of vehicles but also because chief officers sometimes want to be seen as being politically correct.
Your Lordships may be aware that a few constabularies have about 10 per cent of their total strength engaged in traffic duties, with the average being about 5 per cent. However, are your Lordships aware that the Metropolitan Police have only 3.03 per cent of their strength as traffic officers? For reasons which are unclear to me, the Met is reducing its traffic division so that these highly trained and specialist officers can go on foot patrol and be more visible to the general populace. But how many people will see a foot patrol? And how many people will see a traffic vehicle in full livery? The reality is that many more people will see the car which can also reach an incident much more quickly than a foot patrol.
In addition, the commercial vehicle unit in the Met which, as its name implies, concentrates on all matters involving commercial vehicles, is being disbanded. These specialised officers will go to division and, in time, their skills will be completely lost. How does this tally with better enforcement? If other constabularies are also reducing their traffic divisions—as, indeed, they are—1 fail to see how enforcement can be improved. Enforcement on the roads will become similar to the position in the fire service—that of responding to demand and not patrolling our roads. So where does that leave road safety? Without sufficient traffic officers and suitable vehicles, enforcement will never be improved. It can be improved only if the saving of lives on our roads is taken more seriously, the appropriate resources are made available to all forces and chief officers are reminded of the high cost of each life lost on the road.
In the Australian state of Victoria motorists are used to zero tolerance. There was initial opposition to this apparently heavy-handed method of road policing but it has been widely acclaimed for its success and now has the general approval of motorists. Despite the high cost of achieving a dramatic reduction in lives lost and people seriously injured, the overall financial savings have been substantial. Until such time as a similar system is supported in this country it will be difficult to achieve our proposed figures. Lancashire constabulary has been awaiting Treasury approval for such a scheme for some time now. I believe that it seeks something between £6 and £7 million with an anticipated saving of at least £40 million. I hope that approval will not be withheld for too long and that not too many lives will have been lost before the money is made available.
In conclusion, I return to occupational drivers, who have already been mentioned. Years ago a company used to castigate its drivers who committed driving offences by transferring them from the company BMW to the company Lada. That tended to concentrate their minds!
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we should thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for initiating the debate. Brief as it is, I hope that it will

1365
elicit some interesting responses from the Minister to the points that have been raised. After all, that is the point of Unstarred Questions.
I give a general welcome to the strategy despite some of the doubts about detail which have been expressed. I am a little worried by the report itself which has a circular construction, as it were. That is almost bound to result from having a large number of solutions or actions which are repeated. I suggest that the Government should occasionally tackle these matters the other way round. At the end of a report of this kind they should list the actions and then all the problems which those actions will solve. Had that been done, we would be able to understand the report much more easily.
Before I go any further, I wish to say how much I support what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has just said about enforcement. My understanding is that road traffic control and enforcement is not one of the core activities of the police. It seems to me that a major benefit would be obtained if the police had the resources to devote to the enforcement part of the strategy.
The slickly entitled report, The Numerical Context of Setting National Casualty Reduction Targets—which, of course, I have read from cover to cover—clearly indicates that in the past 10 years three factors have been the most important in terms of our success in achieving reductions in injuries. Those factors are: safer cars, measures to reduce drink driving, and road safety engineering.
Looking ahead, the drink-driving campaign effect may no longer continuously reduce the number of accidents. I hope the Minister will comment on whether it is fair to say that the anti-drink-driving strategy has been replaced by a strategy to educate parents, children, young people, drivers, driving instructors and road users in general in an appreciation of the way in which dangerous behaviour, and especially speeding, can impact on one's own and other people's safety; in other words, another "hearts and minds" campaign. If that is the case, I should be glad to hear it, as there are far too many people who speed and far too many people who speed without any sense that they are doing anything wrong. Speeding does not seem to carry with it a connotation of guilt.
I also wish to welcome and, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, stress the report's emphasis on those who are particularly vulnerable, for example, children who walk and cycle, younger car passengers—that is an interesting statistic among those with which we have been presented—and all those, whether children or not, who cycle and walk. A comprehensive approach needs to be adopted here. There needs to be training—as I have mentioned—the adoption of local transport plans; area-wide and route-length traffic calming; better speed controls on rural roads and the new system of 30 miles per hour limits in villages—as someone who in the past has lived in a rural area, I very much welcome that measure—together with the new system of road classification.
1366
Attention should also be paid to the needs of those living alongside through-roads in urban and residential areas, who are very often some of the most deprived people in our society.
As to the issue of imposing new speed controls, I have another question for the Minister in regard to signing. Some of the signing of our roads at present is so confused as to be positively a detriment to the understanding of even the most attentive motorist. Not very long ago, I went along a road somewhere in western Gloucestershire where there were a series of six or seven signs, each only a few tens of feet away, some of them blocking one's view of the others as one approached. New guidance from the Government on how signing should be arranged so that it is not overemphatic but clear would be most valuable. Consistent signing across the country is extremely important. Many of us travel in more than one county and more than one metropolitan area and, moving from one area to another, I notice that even road signing is not consistent, and certainly traffic signing is very inconsistent.
I welcome the Government's emphasis on the use of good practice—for example, traffic clubs for parents with small children are an excellent idea, as is the Gloucester safe city approach to safer roads and traffic calming. As I said, I welcome the area-wide and route-length traffic calming approach, but I would counsel the Government against thinking that it is particularly easy to achieve. It is amazing how, in any given area, drivers want to obtain their own rat runs while preventing anyone from rat running through their own streets. I remember that the consultation process on this kind of area-wide traffic calming—I have the bruises on my body to this day—can take literally years to achieve. Surrey was one of the first counties to attempt to do it.
I welcome also the concern about inappropriate speed on various categories of road and the partial hypothecation of fines for camera surveillance, to which my noble friend referred. However, I do not want to steal the thunder of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I have a feeling that I know one of the points he will be making. In general, I have found about 15 areas where legislative proposals will be required. Can the Minister tell us whether at any stage he, his noble friend and his right honourable friend have considered whether the upcoming Transport Bill might be a good vehicle for legislation of this kind, even if it is a matter only of making provision for order-making powers? In some cases that may be enough. It is an important Bill; it has a number of diverse sections and it seems to me that some of the legislative burden the report indicates may be lightened by dealing with it in this way.
8.23 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for introducing his Unstarred Question in his lucid way this evening. It has been suggested that we on these Benches are not interested in road safety. I wish I had half an hour available to speak today because nothing could be further from the truth. As acknowledged in the

1367
Government's paper, the previous administration made remarkable progress in reducing casualties despite massive increases in road traffic and car ownership.
In the UK we have a better record than most of our continental partners, but there is one area where we know that we are weak—that is, the casualty rate for children, which is disproportionately high. Worse still, the most disadvantaged sections of our society are disproportionately affected. There is nothing much more tragic than a child or youngster killed or seriously injured by a motor vehicle. The paper quite properly devotes its first substantive chapter to addressing the problem. However, it has taken the Government nearly three years to say what is their strategy for dealing with it.
My noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux raised the vital point about the need to install a deeply ingrained sense of responsibility at an early age, and of course schools have a major part to play. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, raised important points in regard to the numbers of traffic police available, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, also referred to the core responsibilities of the police.
Chapter Three of the paper—Safer drivers—Training and Testing—is interesting to me as I am a qualified army heavy goods vehicle driving instructor. Accidents are caused by a lack of skill or poor attitude on the part of one or more drivers. It is interesting to note that organisations involved in fleet driver training programmes say that they are able to reduce the claims experience of a fleet by about 20 per cent with an average of no more than one day's training per driver, perhaps less. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that we are not doing enough driver training post-test. But there is only so much that the Government can do. I am not confident that the insurance market is working as well as it could. Surely the insurance industry has a role to play in insisting on proper driver training in order to reduce claims experience in high risk fleets.
Chapter Four covers drink, drugs and drowsiness. Again I agree with much of the paper. I have some anxiety about evidential roadside breath testing. I should need to be convinced that there are no changes that could be made to procedures in order to be able to best utilise police resources. One of my worries is that a serious RTA can be a confusing and distressing place, even for experienced police officers. What needs to be determined at the scene is who was actually driving what and whether any of the drivers might be under the influence. I should be much happier if evidence of blood alcohol or drugs levels was established at the police station and that there was no doubt about the identity of who supplied the sample.
However, I will keep an open mind. It might be possible to insert the necessary checks and balances. It might also be worth looking again at where the police can carry out an initial breath test, as suggested at paragraph 4.16. The chapter also discusses the problem of drugs. We must make sure that the powers and hardware available to the police meet the requirements.
1368
Speed is an emotive subject, but speed kills. During a recent Unstarred Question I explained that speeding was a problem of bad driving, unskilled driving, but I also rejected some of the more draconian penalties suggested. The paper recognised that some speed limits may be unrealistic and that that could lead to negative public acceptance. However, there may also be good reasons for a speed limit—normally a high accident rate of which the ordinary motorist would be unaware. Perhaps we could have some indices displayed to indicate the accident rate relative to the low rate of a good motorway. If a motorist knows that a road is dangerous, he will be much more willing to adhere to the legal speed limit. Conversely, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, drew attention to the difficulties local authorities have in setting speed limits.
The paper says quite a lot about penalties, and many road safety organisations advocate much stiffer penalties. There are two difficulties here. First, whatever is the maximum penalty, the court can only take into consideration exactly what the driver has done wrong—and we all know that a moment's inattention can have the most tragic consequences. Secondly, let us take, for example, the offence of driving without a licence. The Government's response to the Select Committee report indicated that for the lowest socio-economic group this offence may attract a fine of only £100, not a great deterrent if paid in instalments over a year.
We shall shortly be debating the Government's flagship Transport Bill, which will make a substantial doorstop but which makes no provision for road safety. We shall be tabling many road safety amendments and this paper will be a useful guide. I will be tabling amendments to provide for the impounding of illegally operated goods vehicles along the lines of the Bill I introduced during the last Session. I hope the Minister will be able to accept these amendments, as well as other helpful ones that I shall be tabling—with some thunder, I might add, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood.
We do not have much time this evening, but I suggest that the Minister should allow some considerable time for road safety amendments when he plans the progress of his Transport Bill.
8.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham for initiating the debate. It is timely in that it follows the Government's policy statement, to which many speakers referred—mostly in glowing terms, although with a few reservations and some quite severe ones on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. There are many aspects of the policy that people will welcome. There may be one or two that some noble Lords would wish to go further.
I pay tribute also to my noble friend, the representative on earth of RoSPA, and indeed to his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and

1369
Vaux. I very much regretted that some tedious business in this House to do with mailshots and the London election kept me from attending RoSPA's conference last week. I should have liked to meet many of the activists there.
The new roads strategy, as my noble friend Lord Davies said, was launched by the Prime Minister. It is important to recognise the importance that that places on it in terms of our overall transport policy. It is a comprehensive 10-year strategy. It will require some challenging policies to be followed through by the Government and by others. The targets we have set are: a 40 per cent overall reduction in serious accidents and deaths; a halving of the number of child accidents; and a 10 per cent reduction in the rate of slight injuries. All will be tough to achieve, because some of the easy gains have already been made—not that they were all that easy. I pay tribute to the previous administration, and in particular to Peter Bottomley, who launched the previous version of that strategy, under which many achievements were made. As a result, in many respects our road safety record is good compared with that of other countries, but it is appalling when one thinks that 3,500 people still die every year on our roads. That applies particularly to the figures for children, where, as has been said, we do not have such a good record internationally.
A radical attack is therefore needed on the remaining problems in the area of road safety. That involves not only the Government but local authorities, the police, other enforcement agencies, and the road safety organisations such as RoSPA. Above all, it involves those who use the roads, and drivers in particular. I hope that the strategy can attract the support of all those groups.
My noble friend Lord Davies referred specifically to the role of local authorities and asked whether they would have sufficient resources and powers. I should like to place it on record that there will be adequate resources. We have already substantially increased resources within local transport plans. I believe that that will be followed through in subsequent spending rounds. The gearing towards safety issues will be written into the heavy guidance that we give in our local transport plans. More powers will also be given, for example, in relation to speed limits.
The issue of child safety probably symbolises the approach of our strategy as a whole. It brings together a large number of different policy strands. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that there is some repetition. There is indeed some overlap between the various elements, and they reinforce each other. That is part of the importance and comprehensive nature of the strategy. We clearly want to change the environment in which children walk and cycle. That means better enforcement, lower speed limits, and traffic-calming zones in areas where children go to school, play and live. It means that local authorities must carry out child safety audits. It means more and better-designed pedestrian areas and better-designed roads. It means action on education, both for parents and children. It means attention in particular to safer routes to schools
1370
whether children travel by bus or bicycle, or on foot. Indeed, it means better car design, building on the improvements that we have seen, and in particular the use of seatbelts. In order to reduce the number of child victims, we need to intensify action on all of those fronts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to the change of mindset that we have achieved to some extent in relation to drink-driving and said that we need to apply that to speeding and other irresponsible forms of driving. I totally agree—not that we have entirely cracked the drink-drive problem. A number of recalcitrant drivers on our roads still habitually do not observe the drink-drive limit. We plan a robust package of measures to reduce further the dangers of drink-driving. That includes the Home Office review of penalties, and changes in relation to police procedures.
I hope that I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that the use of evidential roadside testing will not only improve the efficiency, but also the accuracy, rather than the other way round, of the drink-drive roadside testing procedure. I also reassure the noble Earl that we want to put the drug-driving regime on a similar basis to our reinforced and enhanced drink-driving regime. That is indeed a growing problem.
Probably the next change of mindset that we need to bring about relates to speed. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, majored on that, as did my noble friend Lord Davies to a considerable extent. Speed has to be seen in a wider context. Our review of speed policy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred, looks at all other aspects. It looks at economic and environmental, as well as safety, aspects. Not all aspects move in the same direction. It must be recognised that some balance has to be achieved. In relation to cost-benefit analysis, I say to the noble Lord that it is always invidious to put a price on injury and death. However, the new approach that we adopted in the Roads Review last year places a much higher premium on safety than used to be the case under the old cost-benefit approach. I hope that to a large extent that meets his point.
It is right that we should try to ensure that speeding is seen as irresponsible in most circumstances, in the same way as drink-driving is seen to be irresponsible. My noble friend Lord Davies referred to the differential impact if a pedestrian is hit at different speeds, and a child pedestrian in particular. Those figures are dramatic and they are not well known among the general driving public.
My noble friend Lord Simon referred to the fact that the aim is to reduce actual speeds rather than reducing speed limits for the sake of it. That involves education. It involves enforcement and road engineering. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, it also involves signing. We are engaged in looking at both urban and rural signing to see how we can make it more effective.
In this context, we are placing a great deal of responsibility on local authorities. Our whole approach to the new template of speed limits on our roads system requires local authorities to look particularly at those areas where serious road safety problems have been

1371
identified. They will be required to look particularly at urban residential areas. The noble Baroness is right: there are severe problems in densely populated areas where some of the most disadvantaged populations and populations of children live. Local authorities will need to look at those areas with a view to reducing speed limits and to provide home zones and other traffic calming measures in our villages, where the norm should be no more than a maximum speed of 30 mph; on rural lanes in appropriate circumstances the current default limit of 60 mph should be reduced.
Those changes, which will be introduced via the local transport plans and other measures that local authorities will apply, will help to change behaviour on the worst of our routes, those that are most subject to safety problems. It will also require enforcement—both self-enforcement in the sense of road engineering and signing, and police enforcement. We need to take tough new steps to ensure that speed limits are enforced and that we discourage dangerous driving generally. That is what the tougher penalties element of the package is concerned with. In particular, we shall be looking at a new offence of gross speeding: speeding well in excess of the speed limit.
Part of the enforcement involves the technology of cameras. We are introducing a new funding regime, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred. For the first time that involves hypothecation—back to the costs of the police, the local authorities, the courts and the CPS. That can also be used to deal with safety problems. It is not a revenue-raising operation. It is related specifically to safety problems and to installing cameras in areas where safety can be improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, focused on the number of people who would be caught on such cameras. That is not exactly the point. The point of safety cameras is deterrence and achieving a lower actual speed limit, and therefore achieving safer roads. Clearly, a large number of penalties will be involved, and there will be an enforcement aspect. The measure of the success of the new policy will be whether it deters people from driving at excessive speeds.
My noble friend Lord Simon and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to the role of the police in this matter, and in particular that of the traffic police. It is true that the number of officers specifically designated as traffic police has reduced over the past decade or more. This is primarily a matter of operational priorities for chief constables. Against that, one must look at the success of automated enforcement via safety cameras and other measures. The fact is that at the moment 2.2 million people are brought before the courts for Road Traffic Act offences. That is a significant increase compared with the trend in accidents in spite of the growth in traffic volume. It means that the police are becoming more effective in the detection and prosecution of road traffic offenders.
It is also true that the role of road safety in the priorities of police forces is being underlined by the Government and the Home Office in reports of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, in letters of
1372
advice from the Home Secretary to chief constables, and in the more general advice that goes to chief constables.
My noble friends Lord Davies and Lord Simon referred specifically to work-related safety issues. That is being addressed in this policy. We are bringing the Health and Safety Executive into this area almost for the first time. I am happy to report that the interagency group will he chaired by Mr Richard Dykes of the Post Office. I am sure that that will have a dynamic impact on the standards of work-related driving.
Both Front-Bench speakers made cross-references to the proposals in the policy and the Transport Bill. They are both right. Many of these propositions will require both primary and secondary legislation which will impinge on parliamentary time. The Transport Bill has already been introduced in another place and is a pretty hefty piece of legislation. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that appropriate amendments will be moved both there and in this House and we shall have to consider whether they can be incorporated into the Bill.
The bulk of the policy will require separate legislation, and the Government are committed to bringing that forward as rapidly as the parliamentary timetable allows. In particular, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will be aware that last year I supported his efforts in relation to impounding lorries to ensure that there are safer HGVs on our roads. I hope that in some guise that reappears on the statute book before this Parliament comes to an end. I say no more than that at this point. Should the noble Earl table appropriate amendments in this or other fields, we shall consider them with the usual consensual approach to road safety issues. I very much appreciate the tone of all the speeches made by noble Lords this evening. We have a common interest in improving road safety. We must build on what has already been achieved and ensure that we do so in a way that achieves the very challenging targets that have been set.
The only other matter to which I refer in this context is that alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux. When I referred earlier to education, I was concerned primarily with younger school children. The noble Lord referred specifically to a pre-motoring period in which school children might become interested not so much as pedestrians and cyclists, and therefore possible victims of the motorised transport system, but as potential drivers. I believe that this is an area that can fruitfully be explored further and that it is one in which the various partners to which I have referred can become much more engaged. The noble Lord and I met not long ago and discussed this matter informally. I should like to take those discussions further with both the noble Lord and other interested groups in this House and elsewhere.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for raising this matter. I much appreciate the time that he and his colleagues spent

1373
discussing the matter at a dinner the other night. I believe that that discussion was fruitful and that, with a bit of push and shove, we shall get somewhere.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope that it does not require much of a push and shove. However, pushes and shoves from the noble Lord are always welcome. With that, I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for initiating the debate.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
8.44 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert—
("() The criteria specified pursuant to subsection (3) above shall amongst other things take account of local circumstances.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 returns to the issue which the House debated before the adjournment in the context of an earlier amendment concerned with the powers of the learning and skills council in relation to funding issues. This amendment is related specifically to the requirement for colleges and other institutions to set fees and other charges according to specified criteria.
In his reply at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Bach, stressed the need for the learning and skills council to have flexibility and to exercise flexible judgments (as he put it) about the financial agreements that it needed to reach with providers. He rightly pointed out that the Further Education Funding Council dealt only with a relatively homogenous group of providers, namely the further education colleges, and that the learning and skills council would have a highly diverse group with which to deal. For this reason, the need for flexibility was all the greater. We do not deny that. However, it is precisely for that reason that we on these Benches tabled the amendment.
It has been put to us from a number of sources that, flexibility or no, the powers embodied in Clause 6(3) are considerable and give the LSC power to impose a fee structure on any provider, be it a college or other provider. Yet fees which might be acceptable in the south-east of England, where unemployment has fallen and incomes are high, would be wholly unsuitable in, say, Cornwall or Sunderland. For that reason we ask that the criteria which are specified in these cases should include local circumstances. It is vital that there is local flexibility. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, indicated in Committee that she would return to this issue and expressed concern that a national fee scheme could not work. National arrangements are already in place and operated by the FEFC in relation to fees for further education provision. For example, a national fee
1374
exemption policy applies to those who are unemployed and in receipt of benefits or to 16 to 19 year-olds who are undertaking full-time education. This amendment would obstruct those arrangements. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that fee exemption arrangements for the disadvantaged and vulnerable should not be a matter for local discretion but rather national policy.
There is a range of areas in which the LSC will need to make assumptions about fee levels by reference to national criteria and local discretion may not be appropriate. There will need to be arrangements for the fees of home and overseas students and it is likely that those will need to take account of the national fees and awards regulations already in place. More particularly—this will be the subject of further consultation that is to start in May—the LSC will need to establish benchmarks against which fee levels can be established for the many thousands of programmes that it will fund. Against those benchmarks it must determine the level of public funding that it will provide where there is a case for a contribution from the student or employer.
Let me try to illustrate the point by way of an example. The LSC may determine that the proper cost of a particular full-time course is £2,000. It would set that as the fee level. If one assumes that for a particular type of provision 25 per cent of that cost should be met by an employer, then it would be clear and transparent that the LSC would pay £1,500. Establishing national assumptions about rates of grant and about fee levels will enable everyone to know what the starting point is.
Of course, nothing in Clause 6 would prevent the LSC from responding to local circumstances by providing an additional contribution if that were warranted. That is why local LSCs will have the flexibility to vary from national funding tariffs so that they can respond to local circumstances and needs. We think that it is essential that they have the flexibility to make proper allowance for the variation in costs associated with different groups of learners and skill types.
As I have indicated, we shall be conducting a detailed consultation on these and other funding issues in May. There will certainly be a role for the local arms of the LSC in responding to local circumstances. But the present amendment would inhibit the establishment of policies which, quite properly, should be set at the national level. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. In some degree it conflicts with the evidence presented to us from a number of colleges. I need to talk again to them about their worries. We tabled the amendment because of worries expressed to us by those colleges.
The Minister assures us that the local learning skills council will have flexibility in its provisions. From her response, there seems to be sufficient flexibility written into the procedures. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I may wish to return to the issue later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Funding of school sixth forms]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert—
("() In making a grant to a local education authority, the Council must take account of a maintained school's choice to provide minority subjects or to provide mainstream subjects to low numbers of students when the consent of governors and parents is established.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return to the funding of sixth forms. Clause 7 states that the council may make a grant to a local education authority, and sets out the conditions. Clause 7(2) states:
"A grant made under this section may be made on conditions in addition to the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above (including conditions of a kind which could be imposed under section 6)".
Clause 6 sets out,
"for the provider to charge fees by reference to specified criteria; … for the provider to make awards by reference to specified criteria;… for the provider to recover amounts from persons receiving education or training or from employers (or from both)".
I do not know whether that provision refers only to a place of work. These conditions do not appear to have a great deal to do with sixth forms. Clause 7 refers to "section 6". Clause 6 states that the conditions may,
"require the Council or a person designated by it to be allowed access".
Clause 6(3) states:
"The conditions may require a person providing post-16 education or training … to make arrangements providing for all or any of the following".
I could go on listing the conditions in Clause 6. However, I return to the theme of local flexibility, referred to earlier today. Where a positive decision has been made which parents and governors have accepted and supported to teach minority subjects or to teach subjects to small groups, that policy should be properly recognised.
The amendment deletes Clause 7(2) and replaces it with the following:
"In making a grant to a local education authority, the Council must take account of a maintained school's choice to provide minority subjects or to provide mainstream subjects to low numbers of students when the consent of governors and parents is established".
I hope that the amendment speaks for itself. I am greatly concerned that the conditions set out in Clause 6 are in addition to the condition set out in Clause 7(1)(a). I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, on Amendment No. 43 I remind the noble Baroness that under the new arrangements LEAs will still have the same direct interest in the planning of school sixth form provision as they do now. They will need to consider ways of providing a wide choice of options for pupils when doing so. Small classes are not the only or indeed the best way for schools to be able to offer minority subjects. Where a sixth form cannot offer sufficient curriculum breadth, or pupils are being taught in isolation, LEAs and schools will be able to explore
1376
other, more sensible, means of provision. This includes collaboration or co-operation arrangements between one or more schools with sixth forms or between schools and FE colleges. Such arrangements can help ensure that the widest possible choice of options is available and that school sixth forms remain dynamic and attractive to potential students and their parents. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me that that is something we should encourage.
The noble Baroness has expressed concerns about how the LSC would react to a decline in numbers in a sixth form, and has suggested that it might automatically seek to close such sixth forms. She has also said that the Bill could be a threat to small sixth forms in general. I want to take this opportunity to reassure her once again that there is no such threat. The LSC does not have the power to propose closure in relation to size, only in relation to quality. The Government are committed to maintaining a broad base of learning provision for 16 to 19 year-olds and within that good sixth forms, whatever their size, will continue to play a vital role. The Bill is in no way an attack on small sixth forms. But we have made a commitment to drive up standards, and that means that the Bill contains clear measures in relation to poor quality sixth forms, whether they are small or large. As I mentioned in previous debate, those sixth forms which are struggling to make the grade will be given the opportunity to turn themselves around. We do not, however, want to see sixth form pupils let down by weak provision, and high standards must be the aim.
For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment the noble Baroness proposes. It would cut across the need for LEAs to make sensible judgments about their plans for local provision and it would discourage schools from selecting cost-effective means of offering a viable and attractive range of sixth form provision.
Turning to Amendment No. 44, the LSC will have a wide remit to fund a diverse range of providers, and school sixth forms are at one end of that spectrum. For that reason, the powers to impose conditions of grant, as laid out in Clause 6, need to exist, or there would have to be specific reference to every type of provider within the Bill. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that this would be unwieldy. However, under subsection (2) of Clause 7 we recognise the special nature of the grant made to schools and, in doing so, recognise the need for some continuity between the conditions of grant for pre-16 and post-16 funding for schools.
We are clear that LEAs will continue to make decisions, as now, as to the allocations to individual schools from their sixth form grants. These allocations will continue to be governed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. And we have said that individual schools may continue to vire money between their pre-16 and post-16 provision. Indeed, we have made clear that the overall system will work much as at present with the LSC providing funds to LEAs in the interests of coherence right across the post-16 learning spectrum. The conditions which the LSC might attach to its sixth-form grant to LEAs would not cut across any of that.

1377
By accepting the amendment and leaving subsection (2) out of Clause 7, we would be leaving the door wide open for LEAs to receive or spend their grant without reference to entirely reasonable guidance or rules of propriety. The LSC might want, for example, to require that LEAs supply evidence on pupil numbers and related data for their areas. The council would be put in a position to check such data. Another example might be a condition that the LEA in question supplies the LSC with copies of the published budget statements relevant to each school with a sixth form. Those are the kind of conditions which support the Secretary of State's funding guarantees to school sixth forms.
I understand that the noble Baroness might be concerned about the council having undue control over LEAs, but I assure her that that will not be the case. The conditions which might be made under subsection (2) would be those which rightly attach to public funding in the interests of protecting its proper use.
The noble Baroness might want to bear in mind the fact that we have no intention of imposing conditions on sixth forms that have not been fully considered. That is why we are consulting widely and are in discussion with key partners on a number of issues related to sixth-form funding. We have not made those issues plain on the face of the Bill because they are not matters for primary legislation. However, we shall issue appropriate guidance when the time comes and I shall ensure that the noble Baroness receives a copy.
I hope that the noble Baroness will support the need to ensure that public money is spent wisely and with proper accountability, including in school sixth forms, and that she will not feel the need to press her amendment.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I found the Minister's answer deeply worrying—even more worrying than at first. I thought that I was pretty neurotic about the provision, but there were many inconsistencies in the noble Baroness's answer. She said that the conditions would not cut across and that there was no intention of imposing conditions on sixth forms. She said that it might be necessary to provide information on pupil numbers and related data. My goodness, there is not a school in the land which does not provide such information! They state the number of pupils; their ages; their achievements in examination and at the key stages; attendance on any given day; the number in a class; the number of teachers available; and so forth. If the Minister is referring to information over and above that already provided specifically for sixth forms as well as for every other age group, it would be helpful to know tonight what that might be.
I have looked again at Clause 6 and find it worrying. The first part relates to access and checks on the technical equipment and the people who will be providing the courses. Subsection (3) contains the list to which I referred earlier about charging fees; making
1378
awards by reference to specified criteria; recovering amounts from people receiving education or training or from employers; and amounts to be determined by reference to specified criteria. None of that subsection can be applied to a sixth form unless there is an hidden agenda to charge fees and recover amounts of money.
Subsection (4) relates to disabled people. There are already requirements on local authorities to make provision for young people with disabilities. The statementing system, which we tried to have extended beyond the age of 16 outside schools, works extremely well in schools. Subsection (5) enables the council to require the payment in whole or part of sums paid by it if ally of the conditions subject to which the sums were paid are not complied with. It then requires the payment of any interest in respect of any period in which the sum was due to the council. Subsection (6) gives a definition of "disabled persons".
I find it extremely disturbing that the noble Baroness still defends the council's right to impose conditions and to relate some of them to Clause 6. Clause 7(1)(a) states:
"on the condition that the grant to be applied as part of the authority's local schools budget for a financial year".
However, I would accept that as read. Ministers in this House and in another place have constantly said that schools will continue to be funded at sixth-form level as they are at present. Therefore, Clause 7(1)(a) comes as no surprise and I am pleased to see it as some form of reassurance. If money were given to schools and not used for the purpose for which it was given, there would be considerable worries.
But why have Clause 7 at all? There is not a school in the land which does not receive grant for the education of children; which is fully accountable through the inspectorate and an auditing system; and which is accountable to its governing body, its LEA, its parents and the Secretary of State. What on earth is Clause 7 about, other than giving the council the power to make the grant?
I can understand that, but the Minister prayed in aid that Clause 6 should apply. She gave no reason other than the provision of information, all of which is currently provided. She did not say what in Clause 6 might be pertinent to conditions which may be imposed—that word is used in the Bill—on sixth forms by way of funding; in other words, funding given on the condition that certain things must be done. It is incredible to think that there is further information in addition to that which is already provided by school sixth forms. Can the noble Baroness say what part of Clause 6 would be pertinent to sixth forms in future arrangements?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am a little puzzled by what the noble Baroness said. Her amendment relates to Clause 7, but we are going into great detail about Clause 6. Clause 6 relates to funds going to LEAs not to schools, so it is not pertinent to sixth forms. It is about LEAs.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell me why Clause 7(2) states:
"A grant made under this section may he made on conditions in addition to the condition mentioned in subsection (I)(a) (including conditions of a kind which could be imposed under section 6)"?
I have read Clause 6, which appears on the previous page. It is not my doing; the Government referred to "section 6" in Clause 7.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, unlike the provision to which Clause 6 refers, the council needs a specific power to give funds to the LEA, because the LEA is not itself a provider. I believed that I had explained that we want to have consistency of funding across the whole of 16 to 19 education, and that is what this is all about. However, perhaps I can give the reassurance that I believe the noble Baroness wants. We shall not require schools to provide a great deal of additional information over and above what they already provide. However, it is important that the LSC can obtain from LEAs the information that it needs. It needs those powers in order to ensure that funds are properly spent.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was no answer. Again, the noble Baroness criticised me harshly for invoking Clause 6. Clause 6 is itself invoked in the paragraph to which I referred and which I wish to delete and replace with another paragraph. The noble Baroness gave not one single reference in Clause 6 as to what would be pertinent to the funding of sixth forms. The information which sixth forms are being asked to provide is all publicly available. I myself could probably provide it for most sixth forms in the land because, as I said, all the information, such as numbers of teachers and pupils, how many pupils there are in a class, how many groups there are and what subjects are being taught, is all publicly available. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Links between education and training and employment]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 5, line 19, after ("of') insert ("appropriate").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 45, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 46. These two amendments relate to Clause 8 and apply to work experience. However, they pick up earlier discussions that we have had this evening about what is and is not appropriate and about the need for discretion in relation to age limitations. I do not wish to go over those points again.
However, in relation to the word "appropriate", I wish to stress once again the importance of proper guidance in these matters. Work experience is often seminal in the choice of careers; to put it bluntly, "any old work experience" will not do. It can be vital in helping young people to decide upon careers, whether
1380
for or against a particular career. I have known several young ladies who were besotted with the idea of studying veterinary science until they had work experience with a vet. Then they decided against it. Equally, having had a two-week session of work experience in the subject, my own daughter decided to study electronic engineering and subsequently went on to gain a first-class degree. Therefore, when appropriate, work experience can be extraordinarily valuable. However, inappropriate work experience can leave nothing but negative feelings which, in a sense, can be disastrous.
I believe that it is important to have the appropriate back-up facilities for work experience arrangements. Again, the Careers Service currently plays an important part in ensuring that appropriate work experience is available and in advising young people on the options available. Underlying this amendment are the same concerns that I expressed earlier regarding the degree to which the Careers Service will in future be available only to those who present problems rather than to mainstream young people with respectable GCSE results. By putting the word "appropriate" on the face of the Bill, we ensure that all the aspirations of the Minister will be met.
I shall speak briefly about Amendment No. 46. In Committee the Minister stressed that this clause related only to young people in school and of school age through such organisations as educational business partnerships. She stressed the degree to which further education establishments are already linked to the worlds of work and learning and believed that the work experience arrangements mentioned in Clause 8 were therefore unnecessary and did not apply. Nevertheless, there are occasions when such arrangements may be valuable. In Committee we discussed the needs of those with learning and other disabilities and how they might be catered for separately under Clause 13. I stress again the needs of those who slip out of mainstream education when younger and return to it in their early twenties. This clause simply allows for a degree of flexibility and discretion in its interpretation. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I said in Committee, I am afraid that I do not believe that Amendment No. 45 is necessary. It would be unreasonable for LSCs to secure inappropriate work experience opportunities for young people. That much is implicit within the provision as it stands. Statutory bodies must act reasonably. It really is as simple as that.
I move on to Amendment No. 46. I see no reason for Clause 8 to provide for those over the age of 19. Our intention in this clause as drafted is to maintain and develop existing initiatives designed to support young people's learning, to give them an insight into the world of work and to help them to inform their career choices. It is explicitly for young people of school age.
Such arrangements are already available for those over 19 in FE and for those undertaking training, where contact with employers and business is automatically an integral part of the course.

1381
Employers, schools and organisations like Education Business Partnerships have worked closely over a number of years to ensure that a range of such activities is available locally to students. We are extremely keen to continue supporting young people through education business link activities. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Connexions, which will include careers advice, will be available in any event—and we shall return to that tomorrow—for all 13 to 19 year-olds and it will offer advice including, if appropriate, advice relevant to work experience.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I cannot say that I am surprised by it. As she says, we shall return tomorrow to the issues of appropriateness and the Connexions service and we shall have some lengthy discussion on that at that point. It seems more appropriate for us to discuss it then. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
EXERCISE OF POWER CONFERRED BY SECTION 11
(" . The Council may only exercise the power conferred by section 11 in a case where it has reasonable cause to believe that the governing body of an institution is managing the affairs of the institution or discharging any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of the Education Acts or this Act in a way which is having, or is likely to have, an adverse effect on—

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

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

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 98. Those amendments are grouped with Amendments Nos. 84 to 86 and 102 to 104. I shall speak briefly to my amendments because I know that the Minister has tabled similar amendments. I have looked carefully at the wording of those amendments and I am not entirely happy with the wording of them.
It is important—and now the Government have realised that it is important—to have triggering mechanisms and good reason for acting against an institution where there is reason to believe that either something is going wrong in the management or provision of education in the institution or there is good reason to believe that it is likely to happen.
My amendment refers to,
"the quality of education or training provided by the institution, or … the proper use of public funds under the administration of the institution".
Those seem to me to be the sort of reasons which should be established before there is any intervention. I am just a little bothered by the wording of
1382
Amendment No. 86, which links it with as yet unknown instructions which may be passed down from the Secretary of State. The amendment states,
"if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Council … has failed to discharge a duty imposed by or under any Act, or … has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of a power conferred or the performance of a duty imposed by or under any Act".
If one reads this Bill—but, of course, it applies to any Act—there are loose powers, powers which can be used in a way which is as yet unstated. One is concerned about what is behind all that.
The important factors in an institution are the quality of the education and training which is being provided and the proper use of the public funds, which is the real concern behind the Government's intention. That is honourable. I support the intention that, where abuse or misuse of funds is taking place, or is thought likely to take place, action should be taken. But I am worried about the wording of Amendment No 86. I prefer to reserve any further comment until I have heard the noble Baroness introduce the Government's amendments.
We support early intervention and the powers being used properly although, sadly, the powers which have been available to the FEFC in the past have not been fully used. That is to be regretted. It is extremely important that the institutions themselves know the conditions under which such action will be taken. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I wish to speak also to the government amendments to Clause 25.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has returned to the concerns which she and others expressed during our debates on Clause 11 in Committee that the power available to the LSC to appoint additional governors, where there were concerns about institutions, was open-ended and had no trigger mechanism.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would place restrictions on the use of that power. I made clear in our earlier debates on Clause 11 that the Government consider that there should not be any restrictions placed on the circumstances in which the LSC can make an early intervention, and our position on that has not changed.
We are clear that the LSC should be able to intervene at an early stage where there are concerns. It should not be constrained by conditions which could lead to the worsening of a problem. The Secretary of State and the National Assembly announced last year, as part of the revised accountability framework for FE colleges, that the FEFCE and FEFCW should be able to intervene at individual colleges by nominating up to two governors. Clauses 11 and 39 provide for the LSC and the CETW respectively to have the same capability but will provide for them to have the power to appoint up to two additional members to any college governing body as they consider necessary.

1383
Noble Lords must bear in mind that there are already powers for the funding council to provide for additional members on governing bodies. We covered that matter in Committee. The present arrangements allow an unrestricted power to nominate additional members. The power to appoint simply ensures that there can be no delay or blockage before new members take up their new posts. I am a little puzzled as to why the noble Baroness is still concerned. We debated this clause thoroughly in Committee. Indeed, I was most grateful during that debate for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and the pertinent example he gave from his own experience on the then Polytechnics and College Funding Council.
Since that debate, my officials have met with the AoC. Its representatives said that they understand the reasons why the Government want to give that power to the LSC and why we do not want to constrain its use with unnecessary restrictions. They have made it clear that they no longer oppose in any way the clause as it stands. Professor Melville, at the FEFC, has indicated also to the department that he welcomes the power to nominate additional governors.
Perhaps the noble Baroness is concerned that the power to nominate will threaten the autonomy of FE governing bodies. I do not believe that it will. We are allowing a maximum of only two additional members. The minimum number on any governing body is 12 and in many cases it is nearer the maximum of 20. An extra two members will not, therefore, have an effect on the autonomy of governing bodies. As I have explained, the power will allow the LSC and CETW to intervene; for example, where they consider there might be mismanagement or potential mismanagement by the governing body or where there are signs that the educational provision at the college is failing. The councils must be able to do so before the problem becomes so serious as to warrant intervention by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was fully aware of that provision and she was extremely helpful in conceding the desirability to intervene in such circumstances. Any constraints on that power would defeat that aim.
However, there may also be occasions when a college wants to invite the LSC to appoint an additional governor to assist with a difficult situation or to provide specialist expertise. Restrictions on the use of the power would prevent the LSC or CETW from making that kind of appointment.
I turn now to the government amendments. During our earlier debate on the clause I promised to bring forward amendments to ensure that the Secretary of State could intervene if he felt that the LSC was using its power to appoint members inappropriately. The amendments which I propose to Clause 25 will allow any college which considers that the LSC, in appointing additional governors, is not acting appropriately to take the matter up with the Secretary of State who, if he agrees, may intervene.
1384
Amendments Nos. 84, 85 and 86 will allow the Secretary of State, and Amendments Nos. 102, 103 and 104 the National Assembly, to intervene if the LSC or CETW fail to discharge a duty placed upon them by or for the purposes of any Act of Parliament.
Intervention would also be possible in the event that the LSC or CETW act or propose to act unreasonably in the exercise of their functions. If, for example, a college was concerned that the LSC had decided to appoint additional governors under Clause 11 without reasonable cause, they would be able to complain to the Secretary of State. If he agreed that the appointment was inappropriate, he would then be able to intervene and issue directions accordingly. Of course, this power of intervention will be more wide-ranging than this and will apply generally to all the functions of the LSC and CETW.
The amendments are clearly sensible in view of the wide-ranging powers of the new NDPBs. The Secretary of State has similar powers at present in respect of the FEFC and, indeed, over LEAs and governing bodies where they have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably in the exercise of their statutory powers. This approach follows current precedent provided for by the former government in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for, in a sense, provoking the Government to table amendments in this regard. They provide important clarification and will, I hope, address at least in part the concerns expressed in Committee by the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness is concerned that there is no qualification on the use of the power. The amendments introduce qualifications. Given that we will be placing a restriction on the power to appoint governors so that it may not be used unreasonably, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reconsider and withdraw her amendment.
Perhaps I may add that Section 496 of the Education Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State power to direct governing bodies, LEAs and head teachers if they fail to act in accordance with their statutory duties. We are simply replicating that approach in this power. The FEFC can be directed by the Secretary of State in similar circumstances, although the power of direction—Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the 1992 Act—is phrased a little differently but to entirely the same effect. I hope that that responds to the queries raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she can explain the meaning of the words in Amendment No. 86 which states:
"In such a case directions may contain such provision as the Secretary of State thinks fit as to the exercise of the Council's powers and performance of its duties".
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the point I have just made refers to Amendment No. 86. The approach is taken directly from Section 496 of the Education Act

1385
1996. It simply means that the Secretary of State can intervene if the council fails to act on a duty, not on a power.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall read carefully the words of the noble Baroness. It is comforting that the Bill now provides both a triggering mechanism and conditions under which the powers would be used. I believe that will be welcomed in Wales as well as in England. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Research and information.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 6, line 28, at end insert—
("()The Secretary of State shall publish any request he makes under this section.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 48, grouped with Amendments Nos. 49 to 51, returns to the issue of performance information. When we discussed this before, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made reference to the fact that some provision was entirely privately funded and stated that therefore it would be difficult to require this sort of information. My amendment therefore states that only publicly-funded education and training should provide such information.
As regards Amendment No. 48 it seems to me important that when asking for information, in the interests of open government and transparency, any request by the Secretary of State is made public so that the world at large, not least the institutions, can be privy to the information given in response to the request from the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 49 provides that the council must publish annually information about the number of students in each age cohort obtaining any publicly-funded qualifications approved under Section 90. That seems to me to be straightforward. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Again, Amendment No. 50 states:
"The Council must publish annually information about the number of students in each age cohort working towards any publicly-funded qualification approved under section 90".
That information,
"working towards [and achieving] any publicly-funded qualification"
gives some indication of what is going on in institutions.
Finally, my Amendment No. 51 asks that,
"The Council must publish annually information about the number and percentage of people in each age cohort achieving each level of publicly-funded qualification approved under section 90, making due allowance for individuals achieving more than one approved qualification".
It is really an argument for making this public information available to all. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is not here. I believe that he was equally interested in information. I noticed that he was sufficiently cogent in pressing his case that he gained a concession from the Government. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, Amendment No. 48 was tabled at Committee stage. I made it clear at the time that while we are fully committed to the principle of open government, due regard must be paid to ensuring the privacy of personal and commercially important policy information. That remains the case. It may not always be appropriate for the Secretary of State to publish every request; for example, if the request related to future expenditure or other commercial-inconfidence information. That is why we cannot accept the amendment as it stands.
Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51 are similar to amendments discussed in Committee. I undertook to consider any amendments that the noble Baroness tabled in the light of that debate. She has tabled amendments which refer only to provision which is publicly funded. I assure her that these amendments have been considered with care, as promised. But I will disappoint her when I say that the Government remain of the view that the existing provision is sufficient.
We agree with the noble Baroness's intention that achievements in post-16 learning should be monitored and evaluated, and we certainly intend that the LSC will be required to publish information at both local and national levels. But we do not require these provisions in primary legislation. Our guidance will allow us to ensure that the LSC publishes information to these and other ends. We suggest that that is a more appropriate means than the provisions in primary legislation that the amendments propose.
The noble Baroness's amendments are very specific about the information required and relate to a diverse range of circumstances in which external qualifications approved under Clause 90 of the Bill will be funded not just by the LSC but LEAs and other specified public funding bodies. We do not believe that bringing together the information in such a way will tell us very much that is of value. Nor will it provide a suitable alternative to existing measures of achievement such as the secondary and 16–18 performance tables or the measures of progress against the national learning targets for adults and young people. It will certainly be more than the LSC will need for financial and management purposes. We believe that we would therefore risk adding to the reporting burden on employers and institutions in order to obtain information that would have limited value. By having these requirements in primary legislation, we would be forsaking any flexibility to meet information needs which may change over time.
Moreover, the specification of the sort of information we will expect the LSC to publish is being developed now as part of the quality framework for the LSC and will be the subject of public consultation after Easter. It is therefore too early to say what these requirements should be.
Although we might expect some of the information referred to in these amendments to be gathered, the specific statutory requirements proposed would anticipate the outcome of the consultation and might not be compatible with changing information needs.

1387
Together with our earlier assurance that we will indeed be requiring the LSC to publish information, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accept the explanation of the Minister in relation to Amendment No. 48 and pass on to Amendments Nos. 49 to 51.
In relation to those three amendments, I regard the knowledge of how many young people gained a qualification, how many were working towards a qualification and how many young people as a percentage were achieving levels of publicly-funded qualifications as being basic information, some of which is already in the public domain. I would be somewhat reassured if my understanding of what the Government said is correct. If it is not, perhaps the noble Lord will write to me.
I understood him to say that the argument between us was more about means to ends than the required information itself, and that the information would be subsumed in the guidance that would be distributed; that that information would be part of other information which would also be elicited; and that no one piece of information would be regarded as otiose in terms of what the outcomes were from publicly-funded courses.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I give the noble Baroness that assurance.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Persons with learning difficulties]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 6, line 32, leave out ("and 3") and insert (", 3 and 8").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 52 and 99 and return to Amendment No. 54 when I have heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, spoke very eloquently in Committee about the problems faced by disabled people in securing work experience. The issue may be as fundamental as having support in deciding which kind of work to try. He proposed extending the provisions of Clause 13 to include the LSC's powers in respect of work experience. I am happy, in Amendments 52 and 99, to meet his request and to make similar provisions for the Welsh Council. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will welcome the Government's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can be extremely brief. In Clause 14 the council is required, in subsection (1)(a), to produce a report,
"As soon as is reasonably practicable [on] the progress made during the year in the provision of post-16 education and training for disabled persons; (b) the Council's plans for the future provision of post-16 education and training for disabled persons",
1388
and in subsection (2) to,
"send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State".
I believe that it is only right that a copy should be sent also to the local education authority.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in Committee when she raised the issue of the importance of work experience for learners who fall under Clause 13; in other words, those with learning difficulties and disabilities. I am delighted that the Government considered those arguments and are now seeking to amend the Bill.
This is one of those instances where a minor amendment could have a major long-term impact. The Government are dedicating substantial resources and applying innovation to encourage disabled people to work through the New Deal scheme, supported employment and so on. Work experience for disabled people who are in, or are about to leave, further education is a necessary corollary and I am delighted that this has been recognised.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I too welcome this amendment and echo the words of my noble friend.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in Amendment No. 54 the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, returned to a point that she made in Committee; that is, that the LSC's report on its provisions for disabled people should be copied to local authorities. I am afraid she will be disappointed that I have not changed my view since our last discussions. It is good practice and common sense for the LSC to follow the current arrangements of the FEFC and publish its report widely to many bodies, including local authorities. I would not want to pick out local authorities for particular treatment. But, more importantly, I do not believe that these arrangements should be a matter for legislation. I think that they are just common sense and a matter of normal practice now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
TRANSPORT PROVISION FOR PERSONS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES
(" .—(1) The Council shall secure the provision of financial resources to persons providing transport to enable people with learning difficulties to participate in all forms of post- 16 education and training and such support must be made available for all who would find it either impossible or unreasonably difficult to access educational and training provision without it.
(2) The Council must make and publish a plan for the delivery of appropriate transport services and support for people with learning difficulties.
(3) The Council may pilot dedicated transport schemes, in partnership with statutory and voluntary organisations, for people with learning difficulties up to the age of 25.
(4) In undertaking an assessment of the transport needs of people with learning difficulties and in establishing pilot schemes, the Council shall have regard to individual needs in relation to orientation and personal safety when utilising transport options, for example the prevention of bullying and abuse.
(5) Local learning and skills councils must secure the provision of mobility training requested by people with learning difficulties participating in post-16 education and training.
(6) For the purposes of this section transport includes—

(a) the use of public transport;

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

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

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

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

(7) For the purposes of this section recipients of financial resources shall include people with learning difficulties up to the age of 25 who have extra transport costs in accessing post-16 learning.
(8) For the purposes of this section mobility training includes enabling disabled people to access vehicles safely, orientate themselves on vehicles, travel in safety and deal confidently with the street environment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I shall not take up too much time on this amendment, because it is merely a redrafting of the wording of an amendment we discussed at Committee stage.
When we discuss transport provision for those with learning difficulties we are talking of a small group who actually need it—and such is defined in the amendment. It is for those who will benefit from the special support, particularly training.
This is necessitated by the fact that if one cannot reach a college, one cannot participate in education. It is as simple as that. It is a very basic part in the requirement.
This amendment is now drawn that little bit tighter so that only those who will really benefit from it are brought within the provision. We are not talking of vast numbers of people; at least, that is not the intention. If the wording is not perfect, I am prepared to give way on that. The intention here is to have a smaller group, so I hope that we shall not hear stories about too many people being brought in. If we cannot get people to these colleges, they cannot attend. They cannot do the course. It is as simple as that. Their education will not exist.
I have been given various case studies. One case was of a girl who had learning disabilities who was inclined to give everyone a big hug when meeting for the first time. She became very excited and stammered very badly when she spoke to people. One can imagine this combination for a person without training who is having to deal with the bus service. The amendment would give to local authorities—for those people involved—the ability actually to deal with these problems through training. It is a very basic step we are taking. I hope that the Government will be able to say something very positive. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, when on 10th February, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, withdrew his previous wider-ranging amendment, he urged us to go away, rack our brains and to come back with something else that would solve the problem. These two amendments are an attempt to do that. I should
1390
like to support both the amendments. I am more enthusiastic about Amendment No. 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because it is wider. It would help all disabled learners who otherwise could not, or only with unreasonable difficulty could, access an educational and training position. It is tighter than the previous amendment, as he said. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government.
I have added my name to Amendment No. 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. He apologises for not being present. He has asked me to speak briefly to it. He said that he would not move the amendment when the time came. It is a more pragmatic attempt to obtain half a loaf that would catch all young disabled learners in real need of help and would exclude those not in such great need. It is only half a loaf because it does not cover adult, older lifelong learners. Certainly, I hope the Minister may look kindly on Amendment No. 67 if she cannot accept the wider-ranging Amendment No. 63, and that she will acknowledge that more would still have to be done.
I know the Minister is very keen that disabled learners should be able to make the most of the educational opportunities on offer and is very aware that transport provision has long been a thorny problem and still does not work as well as it should. This Bill offers great opportunities to disabled learners. It has been strengthened today by the most welcome amendments, Amendments Nos. 55 and 100, which deal with the duty to promote equality of opportunity. One of the definitions of an opportunity is an occasion offering a possibility. It has to be within reach. I do not think that Tantalus would have described the bunch of grapes beyond his grasp as a gastronomic opportunity. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply she can accept Amendment No. 53 or Amendment No. 67 or can at least offer some positive solution so that the educational opportunities in the Bill can be grasped by disabled learners and do not remain an unobtainable dream.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, as I mentioned at Second Reading, learning to travel independently can make a tremendous difference to the life of a student with a learning disability. That applies even to those with a profound, multiple disability who may well require different forms of transport—private transport arrangements. They, too, need to be equipped with the skills to use transport. It is an interesting fact that 20 years ago the BBC and I dwelt on this point when we presented the programme "Let's Go" for people with a learning disability. Twenty years later, we still do not have it right, although I am happy to say that in her letter to me the Minister has given an assurance that the learning and skills council will use its powers to secure the future provision of mobility training. I hope that will be added to the necessity for life-long learning.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister has sent a helpful letter on transport. It refers to the difficult dilemma facing local authorities to which the Minister referred at our previous meeting. The first paragraph of

1391
the letter refers to the trials of the education maintenance allowance and to the new pilots, which will involve the additional integrated issue of providing transport for disabled students. There is hardly enough in the education maintenance allowance budget anyway. If the new pilots are to subsume yet another task, I should like to know from the Minister whether there will be additional funds.
In the top paragraph on the next page of the letter, the Minister says that she intends to provide learning partnerships with specific guidance on how they might tackle the provision of transport. Again, the issue will be money. It will not be will. The will almost everywhere, including among local authorities, is very much to do just that. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is fundamental. If a person is assessed, and if the provision is made but the person cannot get to where he wants to go, the provision is worthless. The issue will be one of finance; and not of discussing this with learning partnerships or of having joint reviews with a single budget—the education maintenance allowance budget—and tacking on to that the whole issue of providing transport for disabled people.
I have no quarrel with the Minister. She has been helpful in setting out some of the problems; but some of the ways forward sound more aspirational than practical.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken for their support for the Government's response so far. There are points which T could make about the detail of the amendments, but instead I want to concentrate on the central issue: how best to provide transport for students with learning difficulties. The amendments suggest that responsibility should be transferred to the LSC. I believe that students' needs will be best served if the lead responsibility for post-16 student support remains with LEAs.
There are three reasons for that. First, LEAs often do a good job in ensuring that transport is available for people with learning difficulties who need it.
Secondly, LEAs are responsible for arranging transport for pupils under 16 and will remain so even if the amendment is accepted. We could then have something of a mess: buses being laid on for school pupils by one organisation and quite separate provision being made by another organisation for students attending a neighbouring sixth-form college.
Thirdly, local authorities are responsible for the overall transport arrangements for their area and they take account of the interplay between the needs of students, shoppers, commuters and so forth. To take out any one of those components and give it to another party does not make a great deal of sense. If either of these amendments were to be accepted, it is likely that a number of services currently provided by LEAs would cease to be viable.
However, although I believe that keeping transport with the LEAs is right, I am very much aware that we could improve considerably on the present situation.
1392
Noble Lords will recall that in Committee I mentioned that from next September we will be augmenting our trials of education maintenance allowances with new pilots to assess the value of a specific allowance to cover transport costs. My officials have already met disability organisations to ensure that the needs of disabled students are fully considered in the design of the new pilots. If successful, I hope that EMAs and associated developments will become the basis of a national system for the support of learners. We will continue to keep in close contact with disability organisations about these and other relevant developments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about additional funds. She suggested that EMAs are already oversubscribed and that more young people are applying for them than local authorities have been able to fund. Local authorities have not adequately been able to meet the demand. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that EMAs are new money. Additional funding of up to £40 week has been made available in these pilots. A great deal of resource is being put into this area.
In addition to these developments, I believe that further action in respect of both learning partnerships and the learning and skills council would bring about an important improvement in the situation for those people with learning difficulties who require transport. Learning partnerships bring together all the main local players, including colleges and LEAs. I expect them to plan jointly to make the best use of their combined resources for transport and I intend to provide learning partnerships with specific guidance on how they might tackle the provision of transport. Again, my officials will work with disability organisations to prepare this guidance for issue as quickly as possible. I hope that by disseminating and encouraging good practice we shall be able to create rather better local solutions than those which exist at present.
Noble Lords may already be aware that my officials have been working with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on research into the provision of transport for school pupils with special educational needs. In view of the success of this work, I think that it is now right to commission a similar study of transport provision for post-16 students. In due course, I hope that it will supplement the advice that we shall be giving to learning partnerships.
I recall from the debate in Committee that the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Addington, were particularly concerned about the future provision of mobility training. In this respect, noble Lords will appreciate that we have taken care to ensure that the LSC will have sufficiently broad powers to make such provision, free from the uncertainty which has surrounded the FEFC's activities in this regard. As a result, the LSC will be able to use its broader powers to ensure that more people with learning difficulties are able to make use of currently available transport.

1393
The LSC will be able to achieve more than the FEFC. For example, as a matter of course local LSCs will consult learning partnerships in drawing up their local plans. Where local LSCs identify gaps in transport provision, they will have the ability to commit resources to transport initiatives. Moreover, noble Lords will appreciate that the Government have substantially increased the resources for access funds, which will be made available by the LSCs to providers. The existing Access Funds Working Group provides an advisory forum for guidance on funding allocations, as well as covering wider strategic discussions about the use and purpose of these funds. The group is currently managed and chaired by the FEFC, but in the future this responsibility will shift to the LSC. I should very much welcome the participation of a representative of disability groups on the LSC's Access Funds Working Group, when it is established.
In conclusion, although I cannot accept these amendments, I strongly support the need to make more effective transport provision for people with learning difficulties. I hope that I have explained why I believe it would be a mistake to undermine the position of LEAs and that noble Lords will welcome the measures that I have outlined. I trust, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking all those who have supported these amendments. However, I feel a little uneasy about the Minister's answer because, basically, its says, "Best practice. We will talk more and there will be guidance". I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, cast a very long shadow over that earlier today when he talked about duties and guidance and about what happens when and where. I have the same rather chill feeling running down my spine. I feel that some will do it well, while some will not; and some will interpret it, while others will not.
We will end up with that eternal situation that seems to happen to everyone involved in the field—namely, of going back and battling it out with your local authority. In some cases, where there are articulate parents who know how to work through the various organisations, they will get the right deal. That is something that all those involved in the disability lobby are heartily sick of seeing.
However, I thank the Minister for going as far as she could. Indeed, one should always congratulate someone on any advance, even if it is small. But it was not exactly storming through the barricades, though it might be a new entrenchment position from which to batter away. Having said that, I thank the Minister for going as far as she did go and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Disabled persons]:
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 55:
Leave out Clause 14 and insert the following new Clause—
EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
(" .—(1)) In exercising its functions the Council must have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity—

(a) between persons of different racial groups,

(b) between men and women, and

(c) between persons who are disabled and persons who are not.

(2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year of the Council it must publish a report containing—

(a) a statement of the arrangements made under subsection (1) and having effect in the year;

(b) an assessment of how effective the arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.

(3) The report must also contain a statement of the arrangements which the Council has made, or proposes to make, under subsection (1) in respect of the financial year immediately following that referred to in subsection (2).
(4) The Council must send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
(5) "Racial group" has the same meaning as in the Race Relations Act 1976.
(6) Disabled persons are persons who are disabled for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.").
[Amendment No. 56, as an amendment to Amendment No. 55, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 55 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Plans]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 7, line 31, leave out from second ("year") to end of line 33 and insert ("and which should reflect the education and training needs of each local learning and skills council area;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 58. The amendment seeks to delete from Clause 15(4)(a) the words,
"in conformity with directions of the Secretary of State or with conditions imposed under section 27".
Again, we return to the constant theme of everything emanating from the Secretary of State. Indeed, this is a very seriously top-down, bureaucratic set-up. It seems to me that this is yet another part of the Bill where it would make sense to change the position to provide a more local focus. Therefore, I believe that the provision should reflect the education and training needs of each local skills area if it is to be a meaningful plan; in other words, in relation to local areas, it should not conform with directions from some stratospheric central government office. That is an important consideration.
Amendment No. 58 deals with where the information should go. It provides for the council to send a copy of the financial plan to the Secretary of State and to each local authority. I am mindful of what the Minister said when responding to my Amendment No. 54. She agreed that the local education authority is important, but asked what would happen about all the others if we put it on the face of the Bill.
The Government see fit constantly to refer to the Secretary of State on the face of the Bill. They also see fit to refer to the RDAs on the face of the Bill. However, given that local education authorities are losing so many powers to the LSCs—yet they will still organize the provision and be responsible sometimes for standards within the institutions offering the provision—they seem to be completely sidelined. Under the terms of the Local Government Bill, new obligations are being placed on local authorities with regard to the economic well-being of their areas. It seems to me quite incredible that in the Bill we are discussing tonight local authorities are not properly recognised. I suspect that yet again the Government will find some reason not to allow local authorities to receive a copy of the plan that I am discussing. I believe that as regards,
"the Council's financial proposals for the year, and in particular proposals as to how it plans to keep to its budget for the year",
in the words of my Amendment No. 58,
"The Council must send a copy of the financial plan to the Secretary of State and to each local authority".
I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, Amendment No. 57 seeks to remove the requirement for the national LSC's annual plan to set out how it will achieve objectives set by the Secretary of State.
The LSC will spend £6 billion of public money and it is only right that in formulating its annual operational plan it should set out how it plans to achieve the Secretary of State's objectives for this expenditure. The plans of local LSCs as provided for in Clause 22 will set out how they propose to discharge their responsibilities in the light of the education and training needs for their area. There is no need to replicate these plans in the national plan.
As regards Amendment No. 58, I am only too happy to reiterate what I said in Committee: the LSC will publish its annual operational plan for anyone who wants to read it by making it available on the Internet. It is an unnecessary provision to specify that hard copies have to be sent to each and every local authority in England. I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel the need to press the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that this is very much a locally focused arrangement providing locally effective services to meet the needs of local areas because, as I said, everything emanates from the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness has just said that if the Government are providing this large sum of money, everyone must do what the Secretary of State dictates. I understood that there was to be a considerable amount of local autonomy in this matter. However, I was clearly wrong in that and my suspicions were clearly right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Supplementary functions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 59:
Leave out Clause 18.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, sent a helpful letter and a fairly detailed explanatory note on Clause 18, which I welcome. However, as so often happens, such detail begs even more questions. The noble Lord stated that the national learning and skills council, and in particular the local learning and skills councils,
"are to play a more important role in local partnership working than the current funding councils".
That is interesting. Will that role be more important than those of the TECs, of local education authorities, or of local authorities?
In the detailed explanatory note that I was sent, as regards the sentence that the council may,
"acquire and dispose of land and other property",
it would be helpful to know what constraints exist in that respect. Is it a totally open-ended permissive power to acquire and dispose of land and other property? What accountability would exist in that respect?
Paragraph (2)(b) of the note is headed "enter into contracts". In this paragraph the noble Lord says,
"FEFC contracts worth over £20,000 are normally listed in their annual report. As private companies TECs have entered into a variety of contracts with training providers, and others such as local authorities, and local partnerships involved in promoting training and employment".
I understand the need to enter into contracts, but what public accountability will be available? Indeed, who is liable? Where does the responsibility lie?
The next paragraph is headed,
"invest sums not immediately needed for the purpose of exercising its other functions".
Interestingly, it says:
"Public funds paid to the LSC will normally rest in a Paymaster General account until disbursed to providers. It may be necessary for some funds to be held in other bank accounts so as to be readily available for day-to-day purposes, e.g. petty cash. Such accounts may be interest bearing".
Who decides the funds that are to be deposited with the Paymaster General and the funds that are to be held? What control will there be over the amount to be held? The example given is petty cash, but what other examples are there? As I said, what rules will govern that?
The note goes on to say:
"As private companies, TECs are able to invest any funds".
Invest any funds in what? Stocks and shares? I shall ask a question about that issue later. It goes on:
"If the LSC receives funds from sources other than Grant in Aid it must be allowed to use these to the best effect, subject of course to standard financial control provisions applying to NDPBs, so as to maximise the resources available to secure delivery of its objectives".
Again, how will it know when such moneys are available for investment and what kind of investments will be available?
Paragraph (d) refers to financial "gifts". What kind of gifts? Again, where gifts are received, what accountability will there be for the acceptance of them? There is a reference in paragraph (e) to "gifts ofland and other property", where the same points apply.
But the council has no power to borrow money. Interestingly, the TECs had power to borrow money. So what makes the councils different from the TECs in this regard? The TECs had a great deal of flexibility. Are the Government to argue that the TECs abused or misused their powers? I do not believe that that will be the case. But it would be helpful to know why the TECs, with their great flexibility, are being swept away, and why the LSC will not be given that flexibility. What will be the restrictions on the council? Can the Minister say how the TECs operated under these powers and whether there were any problems?
The council does not have power to lend money unless, of course, the Secretary of State consents. The note states:
"TECs have the power to make loans in furtherance of their objectives".
Sometimes that is quite important.
"In the past loans have been made to training providers who have been experiencing short-term cash flow problems and to local partnerships or community groups where, for example, funding will be available from the European Social Fund but not until after set-up costs have been incurred".
What will happen to those people in the future? TECs will not be around; they will not be able to do that. If the power is not to be transferred to the councils, what will happen to training providers experiencing short-term cash flow problems? Will they have to go through a bureaucratic procedure to the Secretary of State?
Paragraph (3)(c) states that the council will have no power to hold shares in a company or to become a member of a company. The note continues:
"Unlike the FEFC which had no such express power, TECs with their standing as private companies were able to set up subsidiary and associated companies. However, contractual conditions operate to ensure that public funds are not put at risk as a consequence of the organisation incurring liabilities in respect of any other company. Many training and enterprise councils have significant holdings in, for example, Careers Service Companies which may be jointly owned by the TEC and the local authority. TECs may also be stake holders in companies set up to deliver other government measures such as the New Deal. Where the LSC can demonstrate benefits arising from participation in another company the Secretary of State will not … withhold his consent".
Again, the TECs did not have to go through this bureaucratic system. However, it looks as though the local skills councils will, making it a much clumsier arrangement. One wonders why a framework cannot be laid down within which the local skills councils can operate just as the TECs did. There are constraints: there is a great deal of bureaucracy; and there will be a built-in institutional delay. Regrettably, the powers of the TECs are not being replicated. I wonder why. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, in a tour de force the noble Baroness has asked the Government a stack of questions. I cannot pretend that I shall be able to answer
1398
all of them this evening. I thought that it was a good idea to send her a letter. I am not quite so certain now. We believe that the letter set out clearly the points that really matter. So we are rather surprised that the noble Baroness has moved this amendment to have Clause 18 removed entirely. Perhaps it is a vehicle for her questions.
As we indicated in Committee, our starting point in framing these provisions has been the supplementary powers currently available to both the FEFC and the HEFC, as set out in the 1992 Act. I gave more detail in the letter, a copy of which is available in the Library.
The clause gives the LSC the powers it needs to acquire and dispose of land and other property, for example, computers and furniture, for its own use; enter into contracts with third parties, such as training providers and local authorities; hold small cash balances as petty cash and invest sums it may receive from sources other than grant-in-aid; accept financial resources other than grant-in-aid, for example, from the European Union or in partnership arrangements with the private sector; and accept gifts of land and other property from any other sources.
The council will have no power to borrow money because it will be a non-departmental public body under Treasury control—unlike the TECs which were private companies so no such restriction on borrowing could occur. However, the council, with the Secretary of State's consent, will be able to lend money. It is obvious that it might want to lend money, for example, to local partnerships or community groups where funding will be available from the European Social Fund but not until set-up costs have been incurred. Alternatively, it might help training providers who have been experiencing short-term cash flow problems.
The council will also be able to become a member of a company, again with the Secretary of State's consent. That is an important flexibility currently enjoyed by TECs which will enable the learning and skills council to play a much more important role in local partnership working than the current funding councils.
The LSC may need to use that power to take part in local economic development or regeneration initiatives where a company structure is helpful in levering in wider resources. But we should not regard such arrangements as being widespread or the norm, nor do we want the learning and skills council engaging in widespread commercial enterprises. That is why we have made the ability of the LSC to hold shares in a company dependent upon the approval of the Secretary of State. That is an important safeguard, as I hope the House agrees.
If the noble Baroness is serious in wishing to delete Clause 18 entirely, which she is not, I should then go on to talk about the necessity of the LSC being able to buy paper clips, A4 paper, tea and coffee and all the other attributes of a modern office. The whole point behind Clause 18, and subsection (1) in particular, is to enable the LSC to do what is necessary to carry out its functions as set out in Clauses 2 to 11; namely, the securing of education and training. As I am sure the

1399
noble Baroness accepts, Clause 18 is a necessary part of the Bill. As to liability and responsibility, that matter lies with the accounting officer of the LSC.
The noble Baroness referred to my letter and quoted the words,
"more important role in local partnership working than the current funding councils".
The point that the letter seeks to make is that that is more important than the FEFC.
I promise to read in tomorrow's Hansard the series of questions posed by the noble Baroness and, if necessary, to provide the noble Baroness with answers in writing.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: M y Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and look forward to another detailed missive. It is becoming increasingly obvious that it is a great pity that the TECs are to be dissolved. They have greater flexibility of operation than NDPBs. If the Government had any concerns about them they could have dealt with the matter by modifying or redefining their role. However, they have pressed on with all the flexibility that is now being removed from the system in order to put a straitjacket on the new councils. If business people are to become members of both the national and local councils as the Government intend, they will become frustrated, especially if they are the same people who come from the TECs. They will not have flexibility and will be constrained; and they will also have to deal with a heavy bureaucracy, resulting in delays. Those councils will be unable to keep good business people, and that is very regrettable.
If the only example that can be dragged up to provide a rationale for the volume of money to be held back is simply the need to buy tea, coffee, paper clips and one or two bits and pieces to keep the office going, that seems to be a pretty poor do, given that all other surplus money to which they do not have immediate access must be deposited. In the light of the fact that I shall receive yet another detailed explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Local councils]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 8, line 33, at end insert ("and a co-ordinating mechanism for the local councils established in greater London").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 60 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp. We return to the issue of London and the need for some form of co-ordinating mechanism. We had a fairly full debate on this matter in Committee. The special case for London was then fully made and accepted by the Government and others. In view of the time I do not need to make the special case for London again. Suffice it to say that London is by far our largest city. For the time being it will be the only city region that has an elected mayor and assembly with
1400
statutory powers to produce and implement a regional economic development strategy. It will have a single small business service franchise.
London covers by far the largest travel-to-work area in the country and yet it will be the only city in the country to have more than one local learning and skills council. The nature of London is such that the boundaries of the five local councils will be primarily administrative. On the whole, natural boundaries no longer exist in a big urban sprawl.
I believe that the case for some form of co-ordinating mechanism is made out. The only reason why the Government have accepted the need for five local councils within London is that by a narrow margin that was the recommendation of the London Development Partnership, with the proviso that there should be a strong co-ordinating body. I am in some difficulty here. The more I look at the role, functions and need for a coordinating body the more convinced I become that all this would be unnecessary if we simply had one learning and skills council for London. That would remove Ministers' fears about unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, the need for co-ordination and so on. But, surprising as it may seem, I accept that that is not where we are now. The Government have made clear that London is to have five local learning and skills councils. I think the Government have accepted the need for a coordinating mechanism. The Minister has made clear—I have some sympathy with the point—that she does not want another layer of bureaucracy and administration.
The purpose of the amendment is twofold. First, I believe that some reference to the need for a coordinating mechanism for London should be on the face of the Bill. I say that from long experience in London politics. I was an opposition leader on a London borough council in the years running up to the abolition of the GLC. I became, coincidentally, a London borough council leader in the month that the GLC was abolished. One of my many early duties on behalf of my party was to try to establish some method of running London in the post-GLC period. I remember that only too vividly.
It may be obvious to most, if not all, of us now that there needs to be some co-ordinating mechanism in London between the five LSCs; and that that is best left to them to sort out. In a properly ordered world, I am sure that is the case. But I remember 15 or so years ago a strong prevailing view in London that no such entity was necessary; that London was a collection of villages (rather large villages perhaps); that there was no such single entity as London and therefore any such coordination should be kept to the absolute minimum.
I realise that it is hard for the Government to contemplate, but there may come a day when they are no longer in power. There may come a day when the view which prevailed 15 years ago will return. Indeed, the choice on 4th May of the person I suspect is likely to be elected mayor may hasten that day. I believe it necessary to have the safeguard on the face of the Bill. There needs to be a co-ordinating mechanism. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, moved a detailed amendment about the nature,

1401
membership and purpose of that co-ordinating committee. I have deliberately not done so. First, I do not think that the Government will accept it. Secondly, I am not sure that it is appropriate.
However, the second reason for moving the amendment is to press the Government a little further on what they envisage the role of the co-ordinating mechanism to be; and how and when they believe that it will come into existence. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something of her intentions in this respect. I am aware that the London TEC and others are working out options and proposals for a light touch coordinating mechanism to respond to the Minister's recognition of the need, but concern to avoid another layer of bureaucracy. I know that the matter will be discussed by the London Partners group. I shall be interested to know when and how any such agreed proposals will be implemented. Do the Government envisage implementing them in time for the creation of the LSCs on 1st April next year; or do they intend to wait until the national and local LSCs are established and running so that those LSCs can determine the mechanism? In that case, the system is unlikely to coordinate until nearly half-way through the mayor's first term. That would be a serious setback for London, which is working reasonably well under the circumstances.
I move the amendment for two reasons. First, I want the safeguard of having the provision on the face of the Bill so that, if so minded, future governments cannot do away with the system without legislation. Secondly, and with a little more hope of success, I hope to receive from the Government a clearer and more up-to-date view of the exact role and functions of the co-ordinating mechanism; and when they envisage having it in place. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we discussed the same amendment in Committee and I am afraid that I shall disappoint the noble Lord because I am able to add little to what I said in that debate.
The solution that the London Development Partnership recommended for local arrangements in London was, as the noble Lord rightly noted, five local councils with a co-ordinating mechanism to ensure that the pan-London issues were dealt with effectively. I am happy to reiterate that we accept the recommendation and I am equally happy to place on record my commitment to making the arrangement work in practice.
I have something in common with the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I, too, in an earlier life was involved in postGLC arrangements. In my case, it was trying to ensure that the ILEA, as it then was, was able to continue to operate and had in place the services which it had acquired from the GLC when the GLC was abolished. Therefore, I know what the noble Lord is talking about.
However, I do not believe that we need a provision on the face of the Bill to ensure that we have a proper coordinating mechanism. We have set out in the prospectus how we shall capitalise on the benefits of a
1402
strong national council and strong local councils. The Bill allows the council to delegate to local arms the appropriate powers and to establish other committees as it sees fit.
The light-touch mechanism which the London Development Partnership recommended, and to which the noble Lord referred, should be a matter for the LSC and its local councils to determine in order to meet London's needs. The exact form which the coordinating body in London will take has not yet been agreed. That will be for the LSC to determine, together with the five local London councils. However, we anticipate that it will be an internal LSC working group acting as a light-touch mechanism. I envisage the five London councils using it as a forum to agree common approaches to collective problems and then to inform the LSC's wider planning in London.
We also expect the London regional economic strategy to feed into the discussions of the group and the group to have a channel of communication to wider partners in the London theme. The boundaries of the local LSCs are not specified in the Bill. They may change somewhat in future. It is not inconceivable that the consensus might change and that the need for a coordinating mechanism might no longer exist. So there is no advantage in putting the provision on the face of the Bill. I am not saying that I anticipate such changes, but I am saying that if there were to be such changes, and if we accept the amendment, the situation would be inflexible and the law would have to be changed.
I hope that with my repeated commitment to ensuring that such a mechanism is effectively established, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but it has not taken us much further. I was aware of her experience in the ILEA, although I would not be so unkind as to draw attention to it. All I would say is, "Look at what happened to the ILEA". If I cannot convince her of the need for reassurance in the Bill, so be it. I am sad. She rightly says that there is no provision in the Bill for the boundaries of the local LSCs—I know and recognise that—and that circumstances could change and there may be no need for a co-ordinating mechanism. The only way in which that can occur is for the Government to make the right decision and to have only one LSC for London. In that case, it can coordinate with itself. The provision in the Bill may then be unnecessary, but it would not make it impossible to work. Therefore, I cannot accept her argument
I am not entirely surprised that the Minister was not prepared to put the provision on the face of the Bill. However, I listened to, and shall read carefully, what she said about the co-ordinating mechanism. My understanding is that the London Development Partnership did not ask for a light-touch co-ordinating mechanism, but for a stronger co-ordinating body. It has simply accepted that the Minister is not prepared to let us have that.
From what I understood of her reply, the noble Baroness suggested that the real work and the decisions on this matter will not get under way, and certainly will

1403
not be in place, until the local LSCs are up and running, working together and in a position to reach a decision on the best co-ordinating mechanism. As they do not come into being until April 2001 and it will be some time before they are in a position to make such decisions, I repeat my considerable concern that, whatever the coordinating mechanism, which we all accept is necessary for London, it will not be in place and operable until well into the first term of the GLA. I believe that we are missing important opportunities there.
I have made no secret of the fact that I believe we are making a mistake in the way that we are dealing with this matter. However, there is no need to make it worse. I urge the Minister to think a little more about trying to ensure that when the LSCs come into being in April 2001, as quickly as possible thereafter an effective coordinating mechanism is put in place. Thus, the learning and skills councils in London will be able to speak with a strong and united voice in what is likely to be a very lively and quite hard fought debate within London. If we have to wait for months—possibly longer—before they are in that position, I believe that they will get off to an unnecessarily bad start. However, this is not the time to pursue the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert—
("() Not less than 40 per cent. of the members shall include persons who have current or recent non-public sector business or commercial experience.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 61, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 62, 64 and 65. These amendments very much repeat previous ones. They concern the composition of the local skills councils. Again, I press the Government to place something on the face of the Bill both to recognise the present representation of business and commerce and, of course, to recognise some local democratic representation.
Secondly, I feel very strongly about Amendments Nos. 64 and 65. It seems to me that the national council will be relatively small. It will comprise between 12 and 16 people, one of whom will be the chairman and one the chief executive. Therefore, one is left with approximately 10 to 14 people. The idea that they should be members of the national council and a local council suggests that we do not have enough people to make a distinctive national council. They will, in any case, be very busy people, heavily involved in their business world or the particular worlds from which they come and from which they will bring their talents and expertise. It seems to me quite outrageous that they should have dual membership with the local skills councils. Therefore, I regard Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 as very important. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, both in respect of the national council and local councils, we have debated a number of times the merits of specifying in
1404
legislation the precise details of their membership. Nothing has made me change my mind that it is inappropriate to set out in legislation the proportion of the membership of a public body which should represent any particular group. I know from his comments during the Committee stage that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, shares my reservations about specifying numbers and proportions on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I reject the suggestion in Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 that we should specify any proportion.
That is not to say that we are drawing back from our commitment to seek to ensure through the appointment process that we have a membership in which 40 per cent of local council members are people from a business background. That is simply not the case. However, specifying that in law will only (if I may beg the pardon of my noble friend beside me) please the lawyers. With regard to Amendment No. 61, we have repeatedly made clear our commitment that at least 40 per cent of local council members will be people from a business background. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept our assurances on that.
There is a second aspect to Amendment No. 62 which I cannot accept. We do not want to give nomination rights to any body—to the GLA or anyone else. That would restrict the field of candidates and potentially diminish the quality of candidates. In the appointments process, we want individuals, as I said earlier in relation to the national council, who will serve the interests of the local LSC as a whole and not be representatives or delegates.
Some noble Lords claimed that there is a disparity in our approach to business and to local government. But let us look carefully at that for a moment. There is a real distinction between local authorities and businesses. Local authorities are statutory bodies which will have close working relationships with the local LSCs at every level. On the other hand, the business world consists of a multitude of individual firms which may have little or no regular contact with the LSCs, yet they represent a vital part of the demand side. That is why we have a policy of providing that 40 per cent of the membership of local LSCs should have a business or commercial background. However, they are not there to represent their own businesses but to bring with them their experience of the business world in all its many forms and interests. Similarly, we expect local councils to have members who understand the needs of local communities through local authority experience. Again, I am happy to repeat that here.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 65, about which the noble Baroness said she feels very strongly, seek to bar membership of a local council to any member of the national learning and skills council. As I suggested in Committee, having high calibre individuals who are members of councils at local and national level could promote co-operation, some cross-fertilisation of ideas, and enable the national council to have a better understanding of local concerns.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I regard dual membership as something which is not likely to take place very often and, indeed, as something rather

1405
unusual. But we do not want to bar or in any way discourage members of a local council, who may also have an enormous amount to contribute at national level, from becoming a member of the national council. Of course, in making such an appointment, the Secretary of State would have to be thoroughly satisfied that the individual in question had the time to devote to both responsibilities. But that is a standard criterion in any event.
In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall withdraw my amendment. As regards my amendments dealing with composition, I believe that there is now enough on the record for the Government to be held absolutely to what they have said about that. The business world, and indeed the local government world, will be looking very carefully at how that works out in practice.
I turn to dual membership. If I were appointing members to the national council, I should be deeply suspicious of anyone who was a member of a local council and also busy in his own right—because I accept that those people will be involved, in some way, in their own sphere. I should be equally suspicious of someone who was a member of the national council who then applied to become a member of a local council. I should be concerned about the amount of time that such people have to give and whether they were anything other than full-time committee gatherers. I regard that as not the most refreshing talent to bring to the national council.
However, I accept what the Minister said; namely, that that is likely to be a very rare occurrence, if it happens at all. I should like to think that that would be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert—
("() In appointing members of a local council, the Council shall ensure that the majority are representative of different providers of education and training in the area, and of local authorities, and that all members shall have experience relevant to the Council's functions.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, like those amendments just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, this amendment relates to Clause 19 and the membership of the local learning and skills councils. However, unlike them, it does not specify a proportion of membership. Indeed, it lays down very broad parameters for membership of the council.
As the Minister knows, on these Benches we are concerned, as we made clear in Committee, that local authorities should be represented on the council. After all, under the current Local Government Bill which has just passed through this House, local authorities have a duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area which they
1406
represent, and their members are elected to represent the local community. The Minister stressed that the local learning and skills councils should be driven by the needs of local communities and by the local economy. In that sense, the local authority has a community leadership role to fulfil.
When the amendment was discussed in Committee, the Minister said,
"We have already set out in the prospectus that we expect local LSC members to understand the needs of employers; employees, through trade union representation; local communities, through local authority experience; people who are disadvantaged or excluded, through voluntary sector experience; young people and adult learners; people with special learning needs, learning difficulties or disabilities; and people who face discrimination".—[Official Report, 10/2/2000; col. 849.]
As she said, the aim as set out in the prospectus is that the councils should represent the views of both providers and consumers.
The amendment does not seek to be prescriptive. It is a general amendment. We are asking for local authority representation, but not for specific representation by a particular interest group. We accept what the Minister says; that the councils should be able to provide vision and leadership. As she says, that is set out in the prospectus itself. However, I should stress that the prospectus is not the Bill. The prospectus has no statutory status. It is aspirational and visionary. As many of us remarked during Second Reading, that vision, sadly, is not represented in the Bill itself. An amendment such as this offers an opportunity to translate a little of that vision into the Bill. For that reason, I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I share the noble Baroness's surprise that Amendment No. 63 appeared on the Marshalled List in the second group of amendments which we debated earlier. I continue to believe that it would have been better to consider it in the context of the amendments dealing with local council membership which we have just discussed, but let us deal with it now.
I should like to begin by reassuring the House that members of local LSCs will certainly have the expertise and experience required to do their jobs and to do them well. The national council will be looking for no less in making its appointments and the Secretary of State will be looking for no less in approving them. I remind noble Lords also that all appointments to councils, whether national or local, will be carried out through open competition according to Nolan principles.
I hope that we have already made clear enough our approach to the representation of various interests on both the national council and the local councils. In terms of the amendment, we certainly agree that the views of local learning providers should be represented on the local councils and, as has been pointed out, we made that explicit in the prospectus. We have made it clear that we expect each local council to include at least one member with current local authority experience.
But the vast majority of those speaking on local councils should speak for the views of the consumers of the learning system; namely, individuals and employers. Therefore, we cannot accept the

1407
amendment, which could lead to our new system being dominated by the views and needs of providers. I know that a letter was sent by my noble friend Lady Blackstone to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, a copy of which was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has had an opportunity to see it.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Yes, I have.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am glad to hear it. The letter sets out clearly what we say about the matter. It states,
"You ask for clarification of our intentions in respect of local authority representation on the Learning and Skills Councils. As the LSC Prospectus makes clear, and as I reiterated during Monday's debate, we would certainly expect national and local LSCs to have members who understand the needs of local communities through current local authority experience. But this is not a matter for legislation. All appointments will be made under Nolan principles. We want to appoint the very best people we can find to the LSC from the candidates who come forward. We want to ensure that all members serve the interests of the LSC as a whole, rather than be representatives speaking on behalf of individual organisations".
That is a fairly sensible point of view to hold.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I believe that is a sensible point of view. I regret the fact that so much of this is spelt out in the prospectus and not on the face of the Bill. It seems to me that there are aspirations here and it would be nice to see some of them reflected in the Bill. However, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 64 to 67 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Clause 21 [Guidance to local councils]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 9, line 12, at end insert ("and in doing so must confirm the proportion of a local council budget which may be allocated at the discretion of the local council").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 21(1) states that in relation to each financial year of the council it must prepare guidance for each local council and in doing so, the guidance must set a local council's budget for the financial year.
There was much discussion early on in Committee about the degree of flexibility there would be at local level. If my memory serves me well, I remember Ministers arguing that there would be local flexibility. My understanding is that something like 10 to 15 per cent of financial flexibility was mentioned.
If I had tabled an amendment to codify 10 to 15 per cent on the face of the Bill, I expect that the Government would have said, "Absolutely not; this is not a matter to put on the face of legislation", and I would agree with that. However, I believe it is right to place an obligation upon the council in setting the budget, when producing the guidance, to confirm the proportion of the budget
1408
which may be allocated at the discretion of the local councils. I hope the Minister will find that an attractive proposition. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, local LSCs will ensure that local needs are met through the LSCs' funding and planning systems. The national learning and skills council will allocate the vast majority of its funds to local LSCs. They will have discretion over the allocation of their budgets within the terms of the council's funding methodology.
We are currently consulting, through the funding and allocations consultation paper, on how the learning and skills councils' funding system should work and what sort of local flexibility would be required. But, as was made clear in Committee, local LSCs will make important decisions about how the LSC's main budgets will be allocated. They will be able to exercise discretion to vary the rate of payment set out in the national tariff. They might do so, for example, where they think that is necessary to address shortages of good quality training for skills which are in particular demand.
We expect the allocation of resources at local level to follow the pattern of demand by learners. We have also said in the prospectus that the local LSCs will also have substantial discretionary funding which will amount to around 10 to 15 per cent of the overall funding for the learning and skills council. Local learning and skills councils will have a still greater degree of discretion over their allocation. These funds will support activities such as workforce development and improving access to learning and support for the regeneration of local communities. In those ways, local councils will enjoy different amounts of discretion according to the nature of particular activities.
We believe that it would be impracticable to quantify this in a simpler way—simple in the best sense—as the noble Baroness seeks to do. I would therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find that deeply disappointing. Clause 21(3) states that:
"The guidance must set a local council's budget for the financial year".
If a council is setting a specific local council's budget as stated in Clause 21(3)—not across the board—a great deal will be known about that budget unless it is to be so broad brush and crude as to make no sense at all. If it is to make sense at local level there should be some understanding of how much of that allocation is reflecting both what the national council deems it should do with the money and how much flexibility and discretion it will allow the council over the percentage of that allocated budget.
For the Minister to say that it is not possible to go into that kind of detail means that it will be impossible to determine whether it will be between 10 per cent and 15 per cent. It is important to know at the time of allocation whether it is 10 per cent or 15 per cent. I do not see it as an onerous obligation to have on the face of

1409
the Bill that when the guidance sets a local council's budget it should make some reference to the amount of flexibility to be allowed at local level.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked for confirmation of the proportion of a local council's budget. We do not say that that is impossible; rather, it is much too inflexible to confirm the proportion as a percentage figure. That would be inflexible and against the way in which this matter is intended to work.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was in local government long enough to know that, if government said that there was a great deal of flexibility at local level, I was always in a position to say that there was none if that was the situation because everything I had to do was so prescribed that there was not room to exercise local discretion.
The Government have said quite unequivocally that there will be local discretion between 10 per cent and 15 per cent. I assume that is as regards its budget allocation. If it is to be between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of the budgeted allocation, then it seems only fair at the time of allocating it that it is given some indication as to how much of it is prescribed—in other words, what percentage will there be over which local discretion will apply. That appears to be entirely logical. The only time at which that can be ascertained from the national council is when budget allocations are given to local councils. I see no difficulty there at all. The Government are copping out, if I may use a colloquialism.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 9, line 13, leave out ("the regional development agencies and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be very brief as regards this amendment except to put right something said at Committee stage. In the time between the two stages of the Bill I have yet to do something about it. I never enjoy reading Hansard after I have been speaking. I particularly did not enjoy reading the first paragraph of what I said that evening. I have yet to check the tapes. At col. 860 of the Official Report on 10th February, when referring to regional development agencies, I am alleged to have said,
"a long time ago, it was the policy of our Benches that there should be unitary authorities at local level".
I referred to the fact that I was not talking about parish councils, but district councils. Indeed, that is what happened. In parts of the country, district councils became unitary authorities and the county councils were dissolved.
My mistake is that I went on to say that we agreed that county councils should go and that there should be regional elected bodies. I belong to a party which has never agreed to regional elected bodies. The Minister is looking worried.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can do no other than to say that my understanding of what the noble Baroness said
1410
was precisely the opposite of what appears in Hansard. At times the noble Baroness could hardly get out the words "regional development agency", if I may use that expression, because she seemed to be so against them. Indeed, I believe I queried her party's policy on that issue during the course of the debate, so I am with her on this.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am greatly relieved because I only read this two nights ago and had one or two nightmares that the Government were building up a wonderful retort as to how I changed my party's policy on the hoof. It is interesting that nobody in my party picked it up and I have yet to receive the phone calls asking what I am up to.
Perhaps I can make it clear—the Minister helps me in doing that—that we do not agree with regional elected bodies. It is my recollection that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who was involved in the debate at that time, was very much a supporter of regional elected bodies and, at the same time, of unitary authorities at district level replacing county councils.
Having got that off my mind, perhaps I can say briefly that it will come as no surprise that I do not believe that there is a hidden agenda. There is now a fairly overt agenda; the paving is well in place for removing local authorities. Indeed, I have it on good authority that a person in No. 10 is alleged to have said that before we are much older, local education authorities will disappear.
All the way through the Bill one can see the downgrading of local education authorities and local authorities, and the building up of regional development agencies. This will be almost only a stepping stone away from completing the process. I therefore seek to remove references to regional development agencies. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 70 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tope.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, we do not want to see the elimination of regional development agencies; nor do we at the moment suspect that an unholy plan is arising from No. 10, although on occasion we have doubts about what is happening there.
Amendment No. 70 relates to Clause 21 and in particular to the question of who the proposed learning and skills council should consult in setting the guidelines that it is to prepare for local councils. Subsection (4) suggests that it should consult regional development agencies and local education authorities on such guidance. The amendment proposes that the council should also consult some of the providers of education and training in the area.
It seems logical that, given the role of colleges and other specialist providers such as the Careers Service in an area, in setting guidelines such consultation should take place. We are not suggesting that the council

1411
should consult every provider but that on occasions it should consult some of the providers. It seems to us to be a perfectly reasonable amendment.
Lord Bach: My Lords, this is a fascinating debate for late at night and I do not intend to comment about the future in relation to local government. The noble Baroness is making many assumptions and I am not surprised at her concern at being so gravely misquoted in Hansard bearing in mind her strong feelings. I should still like to know whether it is her party's view as well as her own that regional development agencies are a waste of time and should not exist. It would be interesting to know; perhaps we are entitled to know.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We have an aversion to elected regional government. I believe that what we have in this and other Bills are pavers for regional elected government.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making the position crystal clear.
We believe it is right that regional development agencies should be involved in shaping the national LSC's guidance to its local arms, as well as in working closely with the LSC in all sorts of ways. After all, an RDA has a statutory duty to,
"enhance the development and application of skills relevant to employment in its area".
What closer connection could there be to the learning and skills council than "skills"?
It is accepted that there are certain trends and factors which are plain, wider geographical areas than either local authority or local LSC areas. These factors and trends cross boundaries in determining, for example, economic growth. That is why this Government established RDAs. That is why we believe that close working between RDAs and the LSC will be for the benefit of everyone, individual learners, employers, local economies and communities.
Local LSC areas will not develop in splendid isolation from one another. When making their recommendations for local LSC boundaries, the RDAs did of course reflect issues of economic activity and development. However, as I have tried to set out briefly, some such issues are wider. It is only by engaging at both local and regional level that the full potential of any one area will be released. We cannot accept the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, as I do not think that she will be surprised to hear.
Amendment No. 70, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, deals with the issue of the national LSC consulting providers on its draft guidance. We want to establish a coherent and streamlined system in which key partners and stakeholders can speak authoritatively on the wide range of interests relevant to the planning and funding of post-16 learning. Clearly, providers of post-16 learning—to whom we assume this amendment is intended to apply—are one such group. They will have
1412
important contributions to make at both national and local level. To specify them on the face of the Bill as proposed would be less than meaningful. We ask the question: which providers should the national LSC consult—all several thousand of them or some at random? I assure the noble Baroness that we do not require this amendment to ensure that the LSC takes account, as it will, of the views of learning providers. I hope that on that basis neither of the amendments will be pressed.
11 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am disappointed, as always, but I did not expect to get very far with these proposals. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 70 and 71 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Plans of local councils]:
[Amendment No.72 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 9, line 23, at end insert ("which must reflect the skill needs of the local labour market").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, although Amendment No. 73 is grouped with Amendment No. 74, I shall not be moving it. I think that a rogue amendment crept in—two versions of the same amendment. Nevertheless, the meaning is well known. Clause 22 provides that,
"A local council must prepare a plan for each financial year of the Council".
That plan must include a statement of the needs regarding education and training of the population of the local council's area. I have added the words,
"which must reflect the skill needs of the local labour market".
If there is to be this match between the needs of people—the whole thrust is to make sure that the business and commercial needs are properly met—there needs to be some reading of those. If there is to be any meaningful plan, it must regard both sides of that same coin. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, on Amendment No. 73, I start by reminding the House of the Government's own Amendments Nos. 22 and 37 to Clauses 2 and 3. As has already been discussed, those amendments address the concern expressed in Committee that the Bill should make plain that the LSC's provision should take account of the skill needs of particular sectors of employment. Amendment No. 73 seeks to require that local LSC plans reflect the skills needs of the local labour market. The amendment is simply not necessary. The current provision in Clause 22(2)(a) requires the plans of the local council to include a statement of the needs of the population of its area. The population of a local area includes employers. The needs of the population of a local area include those which relate to the context of the local labour market. A local LSC would simply not be meeting its duty to plan for the needs of the local population if it failed to plan for provision to meet the

1413
skill needs of the local labour market. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not feel the need to press her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is again unfortunate that only one side of this coin is being recognised by the Government. Somehow or other it is important to mention one but not to reflect the other. That is unfortunate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 10, line 1, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) any strategy prepared by any relevant local authority under section 4(1) of the Local Government Act 2000.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 75 refers back to Clause 22 under which the local council must prepare a plan. There are many conditions and criteria for preparing that plan. But it must have regard to,
"any matter contained in guidance issued by the Council under section 21 (in addition to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) above".
The clause goes on to say that it must have regard to,
"the strategy prepared by any … regional development agency".
We are back to regional development agencies. So it will come as no surprise to noble Lords opposite that I wish to see that provision removed from the Bill.
I believe that the local council should have regard to any strategy prepared by any relevant local authority under Clause 4(1) of the Local Government Bill. I am not the only one. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred earlier to the read-across between this Bill and the Local Government Bill. There has not been any serious joined-up thinking about the impact of this Bill and the other Bill and the way in which they interrelate. It is important that in any planning strategy there should be proper recognition of Clause 4(1) of that Bill.
Amendments Nos. 75, 78, 79, 81 and 82 deal with removing references to regional development agencies from the Bill. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I must remind the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 76 and 77.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in addressing this group of amendments I shall speak first to the government amendments and then respond to the amendments from the noble Baroness.
In Committee the noble Baroness proposed that the local LSCs should not merely consult local education authorities when preparing their local plans, but all local authorities in their areas. That was in recognition both of the wider concerns for development issues which local authorities might have and their greater strategic role. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, proposed that in consulting local authorities the local LSCs
1414
should also take account of the new strategic plans which local authorities will be preparing under the powers contained in the Local Government Bill currently before the House. I agreed that such changes would offer useful improvements to the Bill and the government amendments, Amendments Nos. 77, 80 and 83, give effect to that commitment. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the amendments deliver the more positive aspects of her own amendment, Amendment No. 75, and that she will feel able to withdraw it. I note, however, that her amendment would also remove any requirement on the local LSCs to have regard to the RDAs' strategies. The Government believe—the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear this—that that would be a retrograde step for the reasons set out when we debated the issue in Committee.
Amendment No. 76 makes a necessary change to the provision requiring local LSCs to have regard to the strategy prepared by RDAs in order to take account of the new arrangements in London. Without this change we would actually exclude London from the scope of this provision, which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would find very regrettable, as would I.
When the noble Baroness brought forward in Committee amendments similar to Amendments Nos. 79, 81 and 82 she recognised that she would not win many friends in the House. I simply repeat that we cannot ignore the important statutory role that RDAs fulfil and continue to have in identifying skills needs. RDAs' economic strategies are a milestone in the Government's regional development agenda because they provide the framework for identifying skills needs which are essential for the prosperity and sustainable development of their regions. In practice this means that local LSC priorities and plans need to be consistent with RDAs' regional and sub-regional economic strategies.
RDAs also have an important strategic role in helping to ensure that the new planning and funding arrangements meet the challenges of the knowledge-based economy and address the legacy of low skills and disadvantage that many individuals, communities and regions face. This means that local LSCs and RDAs will need to work closely together to share information and economic assessments and ensure that funding decisions taken by the LSC and the RDA are complementary.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 78. I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Baroness by telling her that I am no more persuaded by her proposals for the local LSCs to have regard to the LEAs' education plans than I was when she made the proposal in Committee. Quite apart from the problem of definition and our reluctance to include more complexity in the planning arrangements, I simply believe that it is unnecessary. The Bill already includes obligations on local LSCs to include in their plans the education and training which LEAs will secure and to consult them in preparing those plans. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the provisions for close co-operation and consultation are more than sufficient to secure the necessary linkages that we all want to see.

1415
I hope that, with these assurances, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment and support the government amendments when I come to move them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, local government will not be much comforted by that. The LSC will not need to have regard to the local authority plan under the Local Government Act 2000. That seems to me to be absolutely monstrous. Indeed, the command and control nature of this Bill is almost Maoist in its style. There are directions from the Secretary of State, the national council and the regional development agencies. What flexibility will be left at local council level? All will be order, command and conformity with no room left for flexibility.
There is even a reluctance to match the words, "There will be 10 to 15 per cent financial flexibility". When it comes to asking whether the national council will prescribe that when they come to draw up the budget, the answer is, no, they will not.
A great many people outside this House will be mystified by some of the wording that appeared in the prospectus and the rhetoric that has been used, and the manifestation of the actual words used in the Bill. They reveal a total reluctance on the part of the Government even to reflect on the points that have been made about the importance of having flexibility for local services providing skills needs for local companies and recognising the new duty which has been placed on local authorities in a Bill which has only just gone through Parliament. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said earlier, they have a new duty to be concerned about the economic well-being of their local areas, but they will not have the wherewithal or the flexibility to influence that duty in any way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 76 and 77:
Page 10, line I. leave out from ("strategy") to end of line 2 and insert ("of any relevant regional development agency prepared under section 7 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 or published under section 7A of that Act").
Page 10, line 2, at end insert—
("(c) any strategy prepared by any relevant local authority under section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (strategies for promoting well-being).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 10, line 5, leave out ("education").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 10, line 26, at end insert—

("(d) "local authority" means a local authority as defined in section 1(a) of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Greater London Authority;

(e) a local authority is a relevant authority if any of its area falls within the area of the local council concerned.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.15 p.m.
Clause 25 [Directions]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 84 to 86:
Page 11, line 5, at end insert ("; and the directions may include any provisions described in subsections (2) to (2B).
Page 11, line 6, leave out ("include") and insert ("contain").
Page 11 line 10, at end insert—
("(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Council—

(a) has failed to discharge a duty imposed by or under any Act, or

(b) has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of a power conferred or the performance of a duty imposed by or under any Act.

(2B) In such a case directions may contain such provision as the Secretary of State thinks fit as to the exercise of the Council's powers and performance of its duties.
(2C) Directions may contain provision described in subsection (2B) despite any enactment making the exercise of a power or performance of a duty contingent on the Council's opinion.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 11, line 12, at end insert (", or
(b) the reorganisation of education for persons from the age of 16 to 19, where such education is currently the responsibility of the education authority").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to Clause 25, which I know has been amended by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. But, unfortunately, it has not been amended in quite the way I expected. I am concerned about the conditions that the Secretary of State can impose on local councils. I believe that the Secretary of State should not have the right to direct that local authorities should close sixth forms.
The Minister said that the clause could be made clearer. One of those unclear provisions related to some of the conditions that could be placed on a local council and the subjective nature of some of the judgments that would form the foundational basis for any directions made by a Secretary of State, or any conditions laid on a council. I regard that as a serious concern. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we discussed an identical amendment moved by the noble Baroness in Committee. I told noble Lords then that Clause 25 secures the Secretary of State's powers to direct the LSC, as a last resort, where the proper use of large amounts of public funds is in question. I also made it clear that there is nothing novel in such a provision. I also explained that a clear precedent lay in the current

1417
direction-making powers of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly in respect of the FEFCs, under Section 56 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
The noble Baroness has suggested that the Secretary of State would issue directions as a matter of course and that the council would be unreasonably constrained by them and have to make its routine planning in line with them. That is really not the case. However, as a last resort, it is essential that the Secretary of State should be able to intervene to direct the council. As the noble Baroness said, we have already debated government amendments that clarify that the Secretary of State would issue directions if he was satisfied that the council was in breach of any duty under this or any other Act, or had acted, or proposed to act, unreasonably.
The noble Baroness said that she is particularly concerned to prevent the Secretary of State issuing directions on how the LSC should exercise its functions in respect of any reorganisation of LEA 16 to 19 provision. In this connection, perhaps I should remind noble Lords that the LSC has three main functions in this area: first, it will be participating as a voting member on school organisation committees; secondly, it will be making proposals, where agreed with the governing body and the LEA, for the incorporation of LEA 16 to 19 institutions; and, thirdly, it will be making proposals for the closure of 16 to 19 LEA provision, which Ofsted has found to be inadequate in two consecutive reports. If, for example, the Secretary of State believed on receipt of a complaint from a parent or teacher that the council had acted unreasonably in respect of any of those functions, the government amendments to this clause ensure that he could intervene. However, the amendment of the noble Baroness would prevent him doing so.
On the previous occasion, the noble Baroness implied that, without her amendment, the Secretary of State would be able to direct the council to take action that would eclipse the responsibilities of LEAs for the 16 to 19 provision that they maintain. I cannot set out more clearly than I have just done the very limited functions that the LSC will have in respect of such provision. In Committee, we debated the way in which even these limited functions come with safeguards. I do not know how to set out more explicitly that the Secretary of State would direct the council in relation to these limited functions only if he believed that the council was acting unreasonably.
When we last debated this issue, the noble Baroness was also puzzled about how this clause protected public funds when directions may not concern the provision of financial resources in respect of activities carried on by a particular person or persons. I believe that there may be some confusion here. The Secretary of State may certainly give general directions about the use of public funds: and the LSC has powers of its own to ensure that public funds are used properly by individual institutions and providers. We have already
1418
debated some aspects of these in relation to Clause 6. The chief executive of the LSC will, of course, have his own personal responsibilities as the accounting officer.
However, we think that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Secretary of State to be able to tell the LSC how much money should go to a particular provider. That must be a matter for the judgment of the LSC, because it is the LSC that has the duty to make provision. If the Secretary of State could direct the LSC that such and such a college or school should have such and such an amount of money, he would immediately be open to accusations of favouritism and even of political interference. It is quite right that we should separate this out.
Much the same arrangements apply to further and higher education at present and we think that it is a sensible arrangement. But if there were serious and justified concerns about financial mismanagement which warranted the intervention of the Secretary of State, this would be possible under Section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
I hope that I have now made clear the distinction here. There is a difference between the decision-making required to make funding allocations to individual providers and the action that is required if those funds are considered to be at risk. In these circumstances, and in the light of the explanations that I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am becoming almost cynical as we progress through the Bill. It seems that the department works extremely hard to counter any reasonable idea of bringing some clarification and refinement to the Bill. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Committees]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 88:
Leave out Clause 26.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have stated my feelings clearly concerning the proliferation of committees and the most unbelievable bureaucracy that the Bill incurs. I do not think that I have come across a Bill that has set up such a bureaucratic superstructure. Clause 26 refers to the power to set up committees.
The most sensible way for the national council to go about its work would be from time to time to commission specific work to be done, for example reviews, surveys or in-depth thinking about a particular aspect of delivering services to young people and adults below and above the age of 19. It is depressing to see provision for more standing committees. The Bill contains the power to establish a standing committee and also the power to set up any other committees. The provision appears to be open-ended. There is little information on that in the financial memorandum.
These committees could last for all time. They are proper standing committees. We all know that once a standing committee is set up it will spawn work and

1419
certainly a secretariat. It will certainly require support, equipment and accommodation. Endless other people will attend the proceedings as observers. I do not believe that that is the most effective way to look for innovative ideas to develop and provide services for young people and adults. I have a total aversion to setting up standing committees in the way that is proposed and also to the open-ended commitment for the council to set up any number of committees as it wishes.
There is no reference anywhere in the Bill to a requirement to have regard to the cost of setting up such committees; to the life of such committees; to the number of such committees; or to the number of people who serve on such committees. The Secretary of State has yet another finger in a pie approving the appointments to the committees, the chairmen of the committees and the conditions under which they work. This is another example of the heavy-handed, top down approach with, as I say, yet more bureaucracy. I do not believe that this will genuinely further the needs of young people or of adult learners. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Baroness can get so upset about this part of the Bill so late at night. We had a full discussion at Committee stage about the setting up of these two committees, a young persons' learning committee and an adult learning committee. Her amendments would, of course, also prevent the LSC from setting up any further committees.
The young persons' committee and the adult committee are necessary to advise the council on how to attain the national learning targets for young people and adults. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that she was very worried about the costs that will be associated with these committees. I can reassure her that members of the committees will not be paid a salary; they will receive only allowances of the kind which are necessary to cover their general expenses—for example, to cover the costs of travel and subsistence. We think that that is only reasonable. It is surely right that, where committee members—who will be experts in their field—give up significant amounts of time for the benefit of the public, they are not left out of pocket. If this were not the case, I think it might be unnecessarily difficult for the council to obtain the services of people of the highest calibre, which it surely deserves. The nature, extent and eligibility of committee members for allowances will be under the control of the Secretary of State, not the LSC. He is accountable to Parliament for all his expenditure.
The amendments would also prevent the LSC from establishing any other committees to advise it on its functions. Given the range and depth of the LSC's responsibilities, we do not think that that is wise. It would seriously impair the decision-making of the LSC and put at risk both its obligations to learners and to the best use of public funds. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that she was very concerned that the committees of the LSC could create
1420
further committees of their own volition. I am happy to reassure her that that is not the case. Schedule 3 makes clear that the creation of any committees is a matter for the council.
I regret that the noble Baroness and I will disagree so far as concerns these committees. In the light of the explanation I have given her, I hope she will withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is obviously because of the lateness of the hour that the noble Lord has misunderstood so much of what I have said. I said that it is the council that will have the power to set up endless committees. There is no limit on the number of committees it can set up and there is no limit on its budget for setting them up. It simply has the power to set up other committees as it sees fit.
Neither my amendments nor the way I spoke to them would inhibit work from being done. My suggestion was that the council should commission specific work. It should determine what it wants to look into, what aspects of policy it wants to develop and what innovations should be considered. If specific work was commissioned, once it had been done the people carrying it out could be stood down and that would be the end of the matter. That would be a much better way. Volunteers could still be engaged to do that work and he paid on the basis suggested by the noble Lord for paying members of the standing committees. If I thought that the noble Lord would even partly accommodate my putting forward an amendment along those lines, I would do so in order to make it absolutely clear that I am not leaving a vacuum so far as concerns Schedule 3 and Clause 26.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that the members of the standing committees will be paid only out-of-pocket allowances for travelling, food and subsistence—of course that will be the case. But they will he serviced by a fully-paid secretariat and supported by fully-paid scribes, who will have to print agendas, liaise with other bodies and communicate on their behalf. There will be a good number of fully paid people. We shall stand back and watch with interest as they appear.
We shall be interested to know where they will come from. At the risk of some irritation to the Government, I return constantly to the matter of the £19 billion. During the course of the Bill we have heard much about money that will be taken from the so-called £19 billion over three years. If an issue concerning education needs funding, there is no other source that it can come from. We heard earlier about the new £40 a week for educational maintenance allowances; again, that is making inroads into the £19 billion. Every time that happens, more money is held back from core funding for our schools. It is no surprise that schools are wondering where the £19 billion is going.
I was deeply disappointed with the answer that I received, but it was no more than I expected. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Committees (England)]:
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
11.30 p.m.
Clause 30 [The Council]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 12, line 19, leave out ("not less than 10 and not more than 12") and insert ("up to 6").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships considered two of these amendments, Amendments Nos. 91 and 92, at a late hour on the second day in Committee. They did not find favour with the Government, although there are clearly strong arguments for making the membership of the council for education and training for Wales (CETW) commensurate in size, not only with the LSC, its English equivalent, but also with the 47 English regional councils. That is the aim of those two amendments. Amendment No. 90 is new, and specifies a maximum number of members—at 16, equal to the maximum of the English councils.
The case for parity between national councils in England and Wales is very strong. The duties and responsibilities of both national councils are much the same and so are the diverse interests for which they will have to cater: sixth-formers, further education students, their teachers and lecturers, local education authorities and colleges, training providers and employers, actual and potential, in the public and private sectors. Additionally, there is a string of bodies, from the Welsh Development Agency to the TUC, which will have an input.
I do not expect all those bodies to be directly or indirectly represented but their educational achievement and skill needs and those of the public and private sector concerns with which they are involved must be fully understood, appreciated and taken into account. Why it should be thought that Wales can make do with a smaller council than England in these circumstances frankly defies my understanding.
In Committee, the Minister referred to the geographical disparity between England and Wales, but at the same time she wisely acknowledged the diversity of interests within Wales. They will rightly expect their needs, which reflect those of one of the poorest regional economies in the United Kingdom, to be attended to. I must remind the House that a substantial part of Wales, the Valleys and the western parts, now meet the criteria for Objective 1 status, which means in brief that their GDP is below 75 per cent of the European average.
There is an enormous amount of work to be done in the education and training field in Wales if our economy is to thrive and our young people are to stay put rather than leave for greener pastures. "Depopulation" is a very ugly word in Wales, and we do not want to see a repetition of it.
There are other peculiarities in the Welsh scene that justify parity of membership between the two national councils. Let me preface my summary of them by saying that I do not argue for parity for its own sake; that is, just because England has a council of 12 to 16, Wales must have the same as a matter of right or pride. If the Welsh council could perform its tasks with fewer, I should be more than content. But I do not believe that it can, and there's the rub. Here we are, writing the minimum and maximum numbers into the Bill until such time as there is another Bill on these matters, which may be some years hence.
The great underlying difference between England and Wales so far as the Bill is concerned is that provision for business and employer interests has been made for England but not in Wales. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that the chairman of the LSC will have business experience and it is intended that about 40 per cent of the membership will be similarly qualified. We know that some of the functions of the training and enterprise councils in England are to be transferred to the Small Business Unit. That is a reasonably promising scenario. I regret to say that the Welsh scene is not so promising and that there is grave danger that our young people will suffer in consequence.
At worst, the charge in Wales is that the Assembly is unfriendly towards business. Whether that is true or false, the Assembly would be wise to counter it, as one Member of the administration, Mr Tom Middlehurst, has already done. But more than words will be needed to establish beyond doubt that the council will not have a built-in public sector institutional bias which may cause it to fail to meet employers' needs for skills. The CBI put the position as follows:
"The new system will succeed or fail to the extent that it involves and meets the needs of employers. Employers depend on a skilled workforce to survive and prosper—they are the ultimate customers of the system. They are important partners as well—in making apprenticeship and trainee places available, in providing labour market information to help individuals choose the best education and training for their employability and in developing young people's employability through education business links. Employers are the primary source of training investment. All this does not only apply to England—it also applies to Wales. The current proposals in Wales do not encourage employers to become involved. They could lead to an ineffective supplier-led system which fails to promote economic growth and employment".
That is a very serious piece of criticism which must be heeded.
Employers must be present within the council itself to ensure that there are policies in place to meet their requirements. The problem of regaining their good will is compounded by the fact that no firm decision has yet been taken about the future location of the various roles of the soon-to-be-abolished TECs. That issue is now to be considered at a leisurely pace by the Assembly's Economic Development Committee.
I do not attempt to put into the Bill the 40 per cent business membership requirement for which the CBI has pressed. That proposal was rejected outright by a vote in the Assembly and I have no wish to defy that decision. However, I have a great deal of sympathy

1423
with the proposal, as I suspect do the Government because they have given assurances on that score as far as concerns England.
During proceedings in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is now in his place, took the line that we should leave all these matters to the Assembly. We have no option but to do so. However, in this piece of primary legislation we can ensure that the Assembly is not so constricted and that it has scope with regard to the membership of the council. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 90 which would allow up to 16 members, as in the case of the English council. Incidentally, I have scoured the proceedings of the Assembly and of the Post-16 Education, Schools and Early Learning Committee and can find no substantial discussion of the size of council required to enable it adequately to perform its functions.
There are two other distinctive aspects of the Welsh scene that I mention briefly. First, the Welsh council will continue to have oversight of the higher education sector. That is totally different from the position in England. I entirely approve of that decision, not least because I had a hand in joining the funding of further and higher education in Wales eight years ago. But it means that the council will have control of a very large sum of money which is estimated by Professor Kevin Morgan to be about 10 per cent of the entire budget of the Assembly, and bigger than that of any other quango in Wales.
Secondly, it is laid down in the Bill that if the Assembly decides that there should be subsidiary regional councils or committees—the possibility is that there will be four—their chairmen will automatically be members of the main council. That will reduce the remaining membership to between six and eight. Such numbers will be totally inadequate and will result in an oligarchic set-up which will please no one. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I should inform the House that if Amendment No. 90 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 91 or 92.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for approaching me some days ago to discuss his proposed amendments. It has given me the opportunity to consider the very persuasive case he has advanced and to consult my colleagues in the Welsh Assembly.
Having considered the matter in depth, I do not consider that the right approach is simply to compare ourselves with the English regional councils. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has not suggested that we should, but there is always a danger of saying, "If England has something, Wales has to have the same". It is not a representative body in the sense that people will be specifically mandated to speak for particular points of view. We need to strike a balance between the public sector and the institutional bodies, and the business
1424
sector. Although the CBI in Wales is pressing for that 40 per cent proportion of the council, that is not a proper approach. A balance is required.
At the back of my mind is the argument that was always put against devolution in Wales: that we were simply creating jobs for the boys. So a balance has to be struck between the number of new positions created and the effectiveness of the organisation. I do not dissent from the government view that a council of 10 to 12 members will be effective and will not seem to the people of Wales merely to be creating new quango places.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for discussing the matter with me. However, I regret that on this occasion I cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am particularly pleased that at 18 minutes before midnight I am still able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on his birthday. I feared that it was not going to be possible to do so.
We have already debated Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 in Committee and while I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, considers that membership of between 10 and 12 is too small to reflect the diversity of bodies with a close interest in post-16 education and training, we cannot agree with his assessment. We have considered the issue and are convinced that this number will be sufficient for the Assembly to ensure that all the key stakeholders in Wales are represented, in particular within the framework identified by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Although the legislative powers of the Assembly relate only to secondary legislation, we must acknowledge that the devolution settlement puts the Assembly in a far better position than we at Westminster in assessing how many members will be needed to ensure that the education and training needs of the people of Wales are met.
The amendment would bring the number of council members in Wales in line with the number in England. But in Wales, the council's budget for post-16 learning, including school sixth form funding, will be in the region of £400 million—compared with the learning and skills council budget of some £6 billion in England. The post-16 population in England is around 40 million, more than 16 times that in Wales. The CETW will be responsible for a fraction of the number of providers compared with the LSC. Given these facts, it is eminently sensible that the LSC should have more members than the CETW, just as the existing FEFC for England has more members than its counterpart in Wales. With regard to the point made about the new council and higher education, the HEFCW will remain the same.
Although the local LSCs in England would vary considerably in terms of the population covered, they, like their parent body, will also have a membership of between 12 and 16. But comparing local and national arrangements in England with those in Wales is inappropriate. In Wales there will be voluntary local partnerships of providers and others who will work

1425
together to help the CETW—as remitted by the National Assembly—to plan the delivery of high quality provision. The size of these community consortia will vary from locality to locality and it is possible that some may exceed 16 members in certain areas of Wales. Given the entirely different roles planned for the CETW and these local partnerships, the membership of the community consortia has no bearing on what is appropriate for the National Council for Wales.
In Committee in this House, and again tonight, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, expressed concern that if the four regional committees of the CETW are established, each chairman will be a member of the national council, limiting to between six and eight the number of remaining places on the board to represent the full range of interests. This simply will not be the case. The National Assembly will appoint members of the council with relevant expertise and experience from the wide range of interests associated with post-16 education and training. From that membership, should the CETW decide to establish regional committees, the new council will appoint four of its members to take on the additional role of chairing its regional committees.
The noble Lord's alternative amendment, No. 90, would remove the requirement for a minimum number of members and bring the maximum number in line with that for the LSC in England. It is essential that the minimum number of members is specified to ensure that the Welsh council will be of a sufficient size to ensure that it has the breadth and depth of knowledge and expertise required to fulfil its functions. However, for reasons that I have explained, we have concluded that a maximum membership of 12 will be sufficient.
At this stage, it is not for me to comment on remarks made about the proceedings followed by the Assembly in consideration of these matters. With regard to the point raised about TECs, the position is complex. Therefore, the Assembly will give careful consideration. I hope that I have addressed all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and that in the light of my reply he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for tackling head on the points I made. Of course I accept the differences in size of population between England and Wales. However, the functions, duties and responsibilities of the national councils are much the same. It is my contention that the Welsh council must be of a size similar to the English national council.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the role of the regional committee chairmen, if they are established. I understand that they will be drawn from membership of the main council. They will have a
1426
difficult task playing both roles and we shall have to see how they are able to carry that out.
My own view is that the smaller Welsh council has a very difficult, if not impossible, task. When Dr Johnson was composing his dictionary, it was pointed out that 13 Frenchmen were composing an encyclopaedia. Dr Johnson turned upon his informant and said, "It only goes to prove that one Englishman is worth 13 Frenchmen". I do not believe that in Wales we have ever claimed that 12 Welshmen are worth 16 Englishmen—certainly not on the rugby field, according to the latest match result. However, I reiterate that the council will have a very difficult task.
Although it is not yet the delightful hour when the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, celebrates his birthday, I shall wish him a very happy birthday in advance and withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Education and training for persons aged 16 to 19]:
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 13, line 6, at end insert—
("(bb) take account of the education and training required in different sectors of employment for employees and potential employees;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Education and training for persons over 19]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert—
("(bb) take account of the education and training required in different sectors of employment for employees and potential employees;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Persons with learning difficulties]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 17, line 13, leave out ("and 32") and insert (",32 and 34(1)(g)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Disabled persons]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 100:
Leave out Clause 42 and insert the following new clause—
EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
(" .—(1) In exercising its functions the Council must have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity—

(a) between persons of different racial groups,

(b) between men and women, and

(c) between persons who are disabled and persons who are no.

(2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year of the Council it must publish a report containing—

(a) a statement of the arrangements made under subsection (1) and having effect in the year;

(b) an assessment of how effective the arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.

(3) The report must also contain a statement of the arrangements which the Council has made, or proposes to make, under subsection (1) in respect of the financial year immediately following that referred to in subsection (2).
(4) The Council must send a copy of the report to the National Assembly.
(5) "Racial group" has the same meaning as in the Race Relations Act 1976.
(6) Disabled persons are persons who are disabled for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 101, as an amendment to Amendment No. 100, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 100 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Directions]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 102 to 104:
Page 18, line 31, at end insert ("; and the directions may include any provisions described in subsections (2) to (2B)").
Page 18, line 32, leave out ("include") and insert ("contain").
Page 18, line 36, at end insert—
("(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if the National Assembly is satisfied that the Council—

(a) has failed to discharge a duty imposed by or under any Act, or

(b) has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of a power conferred or the performance of a duty imposed by or under any Act.

(2B) In such a case directions may contain such provision as the National Assembly thinks fit as to the exercise of the Council's powers and performance of its duties.
(2C) Directions may contain provision described in subsection (2B) despite any enactment making the exercise of a power or performance of a duty contingent on the Council's opinion.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Committees (Wales)]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 64, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I said earlier, in the business world in Wales there is growing concern about the absence of commitment, in this case to regional committees. That is highlighted by the option given to the council as to whether or not to establish such committees.
During the Committee stage of this Bill, I quoted the CBI brief at col. 902 of the Official Report for 10th February. Those words still stand and I shall not repeat them. Naturally, as I do, the CBI contrasts the provisions made for Wales with those made for England, and the contrast is glaring. The English structure of a national council with local councils allied to it is clear, firm and businesslike. Only today we have heard about the important role that local councils are to play in England in relation to new Clause 14. There is a similar new clause for Wales—
1428
Clause 100—which relates to equality of opportunity. However, there are no executive councils to carry that out at local level.
Therefore, as I said, the Welsh structure, by contrast, is, frankly, wishy-washy and indecisive. There is a looseness about it which reeks of a laxity of thought and the fear is that that will persist and permeate the implementation of the Bill and its operation on the ground. That would be disastrous, but such a disaster is now staring us in the face unless the Government make the change which we propose.
Of course, the Government's view is that they should not tell the Assembly what to do. But they have not been averse to doing so in the Local Government Bill, which received its Third Reading in your Lordships' House at the end of last week. The word "must" is used there in relation to the assembly. In Clause 45, it states that the Assembly "must" provide a model code of conduct for councillors. So the Government should have no qualms about using that word again as proposed in my amendment.
The position with regard to regional committees is made more ambiguous by the fact that it is believed to be the intention of the assembly to establish such committees. Indeed, in our Committee, the Minister said that,
"the National Assembly recognises the key input of the business sector and has pledged that each regional committee will have a chairman with a solid business background".—[Official Report, 10/2/2000; col. 905.]
in view of what she has just said, that means that there should be at least four members of the council with a solid business background.
But it will not be easy to find such people of real worth when business people realise that the regional committees in Wales are to be purely advisory and different from the local councils in England, which will have executive powers. But of course that is a separate issue.
The point I wish to make now, even at this late hour, is that there is a body of opinion in the Assembly, not necessarily of my party-political persuasion, which realises the need for regional committees. But there is a lack of wholehearted commitment to them. I believe that the Government would be wise to give the necessary leadership in this Bill and resolve in advance the difficulties which will otherwise arise.
Among the novel ideas developed in Wales as a result of extensive consultation and deliberations by the Assembly's post-16 education committee is that there should be what are called community consortia for education and training. I understand that there will be about 15 of them. They are the subject of my second amendment, Amendment No. 106.
The Minister described them with admirable clarity at 12.30 in the morning. She said:
"However, local consortia will not be part of CETW. They will be voluntary partnerships of education and training providers, employers and others which will help plan the delivery of post-16 learning in their areas. The distinct components of the consortia will have equal status and will be funded directly by CETW".
She went on to say:
"The CETW will be tasked by the National Assembly with deciding the actual size, boundaries and composition of community consortia, but it is the National Assembly's intention that no single interest will dominate. Community consortia partners, including employers and voluntary sector representatives, will together plan the provision for their local areas".—[Official Report, 10/2/2000; col. 907.]
I can ad` to the Minister's statement that the concept has been endorsed by the post-16 committee of the assembly and the relevant Assembly Secretary has been asked to produce a framework for the establishment of the consortia.
But it will astonish your Lordships, as it astonished me, that those community consortia, which are clearly to be an important feature of education and training in Wales are nowhere mentioned in this Bill. They are to be non-statutory but in receipt of public funds and therefore, I presume, accountable for their spending. They will not be an arm or section, but the council will set them up and decide their scope and composition and they, in turn, will plan provision for their area. But they do not seem to deserve a mention in the Bill. I have sought to remedy the situation by simply including them among the committees that the council may establish so that they may have some status, however casual, and recognition of their existence, if not of their potentially important role. But it is not to be unless the Government reject the advice to resist the amendment.
I must say that the consortia are not alone in being left out of the Bill. The task force, to quote the Minister,
"will advise on the practical measures which can be taken to ease skills shortages, to improve the extent and quality of learning in the workplace and to ensure that providers of education and training are responsive to the skills needs of employers and individuals".—[Official Report, 10/2/2000; cols. 907–8]
That, to my mind, is a major remit. The body which has it should have its place in the Bill. But your Lordships will no doubt be told that the task force will work for the council and whatever needs to be done will be done by the council, which is the fons et origo of all executive power under the Assembly. But I wonder what will happen if the task force fails in the proper execution of its remit. It is non-statutory and there is no remedy against it. That is part of the worrying dissemination of ministerial power to arbitrarily appointed people which, I fear, is rampant in the Government and will result in serious embarrassment sooner or later.
I am sorry to say that the picture of the future governance of education and training in Wales, which is emerging from our discussion on the Bill, is far from clear. The one thing that is clear to me is that there is a great deal of confusion and muddle. There is to be a strongly centralist council which may, or may not, but probably will establish regional committees with no real powers, which are advisory only, and voluntary, non-statutory, community consortia with an important planning and delivery role and a national
1430
advisory task force jogging the pantomime horse along. I have the gravest doubts as to whether it will work. I beg to move.
Midnight
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I cannot imagine a more genial way of spending the vanishing moments of my birthday than discussing the Learning and Skills Bill in your Lordships' House with particular reference to Wales. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for their good wishes. I wondered whether I might turn into a pumpkin as the notes of Big Ben struck.
Here again, I have had the opportunity of consulting with my colleagues. As I have said before—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred to my remarks—we on these Benches are anxious that the National Assembly for Wales should retain maximum flexibility. Indeed, it was noticeable that, when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, moved an amendment not so long ago to omit the whole of Schedule 3, she called for that very flexibility in her argument. When one considers Schedule 3, the first thing which strikes me is that the word "must" appears in paragraph 1(1)(a). The council in England,
"must establish a young people's learning committee and an adult learning committee".
That may be good enough for England, but the National Assembly for Wales requires the maximum amount of flexibility in order to determine what is best for Wales, having regard to the needs of Wales as the National Assembly sees it.
We recognise the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, but it is on principle that we oppose the amendment. As for the further amendment, which refers to community consortia, we are glad that that is a matter which the National Assembly has in mind. Clearly, community consortia will provide useful functions in post-16 education in Wales. We look forward to their being established. But we see no need for them to be marked out in the Bill itself.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it was for us, too, a pleasure to share the closing moments of the noble Lord's birthday. He says that he could not think of a better way to spend it. Had it been a year later, I am quite sure I would have given way to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who instead of singing some Gilbert and Sullivan could have sung a Beatles' song in celebration!
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, tabled these amendments in Committee. As then, I urge him to withdraw them. As both the noble lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I made clear at that time, and as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, made clear tonight, the provisions in the Bill reflect the will of the National Assembly which derives from thorough and careful consideration in Wales of the arrangements for the CETW's committees.

1431
The preference of the National Assembly is for the CETW to have a permissive power giving it the maximum flexibility to determine its own organisational structures to suit the particular circumstances in Wales. The Assembly has, however, made plain its expectation that the new council will indeed establish regional committees. The Bill reflects the Assembly's wish to work co-operatively with the CETW in the interests of the people of, and local circumstances in, Wales rather than by imposing inflexible structures on it. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to recognise the Assembly's wish and to withdraw his amendment.
I think that the noble Lord may have misheard me on the question of appointment by the Assembly of members of the council to chair bodies. The National Assembly will appoint members of the council with relevant expertise and experience from the wide range of interests associated with post-16 education and training.
Amendment No. 106 was also discussed in Committee and I have little to add to what I said at that time. The underlying principle of the community consortia, as endorsed by the National Assembly in its plenary debate of 1st February this year, is that they should be voluntary partnerships of existing education and training providers, rather than arbitrarily enforced alliances whose functions are specified and members appointed by the council. It would be wholly inappropriate to bring community consortia within
1432
the scope of the CETW's powers in that way. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to withdraw his amendment.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the task force. I can assure him that the aim is for it to work in partnership across all sectors. Therefore, particularly in Wales, it cannot possibly fail.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am delighted to hear of the Minister's confidence in what is proposed for Wales. I am sorry to say that I do not share it. I regard this as a somewhat messy Bill as far as concerns Wales. It does not reflect in its detail what will happen and how education and training will be provided.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining how the regional committee chairmen are to be appointed. I am now clear in my understanding of that position. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that flexibility is one thing; loose thinking, as he knows only too well, is quite another. As I have said, this measure reeks to me of indecision. I am very fearful as to how this will operate in practice. Nevertheless, I have had my say on these amendments and at this hour I am happy to withdraw them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes after midnight.

  British Embassy, Beijing: DfID Staff
  British Embassy, Beijing: DfID Staff
  Mozambique: Helicopters for Relief Work
  Mozambique: Helicopters for Relief Work
  Sudan: Debt Cancellation
  Sudan: Debt Cancellation
  Sudan: Humanitarian Need
  Sudan: Humanitarian Need
  Sudan: Diversion of Humanitarian Aid
  Sudan: Diversion of Humanitarian Aid
  Sudan: NGO Activity
  Sudan: NGO Activity
  Ethnic Monitoring in Business
  Ethnic Monitoring in Business
  Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Grant
  Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Grant
  Portable Humanitarian Mine Detector Development
  Portable Humanitarian Mine Detector Development
  Kosovo: Postal Service
  Kosovo: Postal Service
  UNMIK: Salaries and Expenses
  UNMIK: Salaries and Expenses
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Electoral Law
  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Electoral Law
  Albanian Prisoners in Serbia
  Albanian Prisoners in Serbia
  ABM Treaty: US/Russian Discussions
  ABM Treaty: US/Russian Discussions
  Burma: Genocide Charges
  Burma: Genocide Charges
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Sudan/Eritrea/Uganda Agreements
  Sudan/Eritrea/Uganda Agreements
  Gambling Review Body
  Gambling Review Body
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Immigration Detainees
  Immigration Detainees
  Plymouth City Council: Early Voting Pilot Scheme
  Plymouth City Council: Early Voting Pilot Scheme
  Asylum Seekers: Support
  Asylum Seekers: Support
  Asylum Applications: Individual Consideration
  Asylum Applications: Individual Consideration
  Asylum Seekers: Oakington Detention Centre
  Asylum Seekers: Oakington Detention Centre
  Asylum Seekers: Dependants
  Asylum Seekers: Dependants
  Asylum Seekers: Removals and Voluntary Departures
  Asylum Seekers: Removals and Voluntary Departures
  Immigration Offenders: Tracing and Removal
  Immigration Offenders: Tracing and Removal
  Asylum Seekers: Voucher Scheme
  Asylum Seekers: Voucher Scheme
  Asylum Seekers: Statement of Legal Rights
  Asylum Seekers: Statement of Legal Rights
  New Millennium Experience Company: Advertising and Design Contract Awards
  New Millennium Experience Company: Advertising and Design Contract Awards
  Child Support Reduced Benefit Directions
  Child Support Reduced Benefit Directions
  Sheep and BSE
  Sheep and BSE
  Pakistani Basmati Rice
  Pakistani Basmati Rice
  Arable Area Payments: Field Margins
  Arable Area Payments: Field Margins
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group: Report
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group: Report
  Epichlorohydrin: Stabiliser Use in Sheep Dips
  Epichlorohydrin: Stabiliser Use in Sheep Dips
  Road Building Schemes: Cost-benefit Analysis
  Road Building Schemes: Cost-benefit Analysis
  River Don
  River Don
  Hedgerows: Revised Draft Regulations
  Hedgerows: Revised Draft Regulations
  Teenage Mothers: Supported Accommodation
  Teenage Mothers: Supported Accommodation
  GM Maize: Evaluation Programme
  GM Maize: Evaluation Programme
  GM and Non-GM Crops: Distinction
  GM and Non-GM Crops: Distinction
  Magnox Fuel
  Magnox Fuel
  Life Peerages: Interim Appointments Committee
  Life Peerages: Interim Appointments Committee
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: House of Lords Investigation
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: House of Lords Investigation