Sitting of 31 October 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRITS
Ordered,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Preston in the room of Audrey Wise, deceased.
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Burgh Constituency of Glasgow, Anniesland in the room of the right hon. Donald Dewar, deceased.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Ordered,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of West Bromwich, West in the room of the right hon. Betty Boothroyd, who since her election for the said Borough Constituency has accepted the office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 7 November.

  ALLIANCE & LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC (TRANSFER) (BILL) [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 7 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Housing Grant (Slough)
    Fiona Mactaggart: How much grant towards the cost of house purchase will be available individually for (a) nurses, (b) teachers and (c) police officers in Slough. [133301]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am delighted that my hon. Friend is so keen to see the benefits of our new starter home initiative. Over the next three years, we will provide £250 million for this scheme to help key workers on modest incomes to buy their own homes in high-price, high-demand areas, and at the same time to help employers to address their recruitment needs. We are currently working up detailed proposals in the light of responses to the housing Green Paper. Full details of how the initiative will operate, including the groups of key workers who will be eligible and the areas likely to qualify, will be announced later this year.
    Fiona Mactaggart: As my hon. Friend will surmise, I put both the list of key workers and my constituency into the question to demonstrate the powerful claim that we have for the funds. In my constituency, there are 50 teaching vacancies not covered by permanent staff, and more than 100 in nursing and midwifery. The situation in policing is slightly confused by the fact that we force police officers in the Thames valley into Slough. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the claims of constituencies such as mine to become sustainable communities and have key public service workers will have a high priority in the details of the scheme?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the scheme was devised precisely to address the kinds of needs that she has identified. As she will be aware, however, the scheme will operate as a challenge fund. We will therefore look at the bids that are submitted in response to the detailed brief to which I have already referred. We will seek to get support for those schemes that give the best value for money and help the largest number of people in need in high-cost areas.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Can the Minister not see how unfair and illogical it is to single out certain categories of key workers and not others—for example, to exclude ancillary workers in the NHS and civilian police employees? Does not he understand that using taxpayers' money in that way will only fuel house-price inflation, and that it is the Government's failure to provide sufficient affordable housing, especially in the south-east, that is putting such pressure on recruitment in key public services? Is not that exacerbated by the Government's barmy plans to build millions of the wrong homes in the wrong places? Is not the home loans policy just another example of government by gimmick?
    Mr. Raynsford: That question illustrates the mistake that Opposition Members make when they write their questions in advance. Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my answer, he would have heard me say that the precise categories of people who will benefit will depend on the bids. We are not limiting arbitrarily the categories of beneficiaries: we will look at the proposals to judge which would be most effective in meeting real needs, irrespective of the category of public-sector worker or key worker that is involved.
    Our scheme is designed to address a real problem that the previous Government did nothing to attack while they were in office. Indeed, they presided over a period of unprecedented house-price inflation, followed by the disastrous slump of the early 1990s that caused record

    591
    repossessions and homelessness. We will take no lessons from Conservative Members when it comes to putting forward proper proposals to meet housing needs in this country.

    Home Improvement Grants
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: If he will make a statement on the action that his Department has taken to assist poorer home owners to maintain and improve their homes through grants to local authorities for home improvement agencies. [133302]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The Government attach great importance to the work of home improvement agencies, the prime purpose of which is to help elderly and disabled people remain independent in their homes. On 24 July, we announced a significant increase in the grants available to local authorities to support agencies, increasing the total available from £6.7 million this year to £8.5 million in each of the next three years. Bids for this money are presently being invited.
    Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that the Grasslands, Brooklands and Village neighbourhoods of the Jaywick area of my constituency have serious housing problems. Tendring district council has just completed a neighbourhood assessment study of that area, where other problems include a lack of proper roads and street lighting, and very poor drainage. Will my hon. Friend give very serious consideration to the findings of that study, and to the transport plan submitted by Essex county council? That plan is supported by Tendring district council and would permit further funds to be invested in the roads in that area.
    Mr. Mullin: We will certainly give serious consideration to the plans put forward by Tendring district council. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in representing the interests of his constituents in Jaywick, where, as he knows, major infrastructure improvements are required. The Government are willing to help, but we need Tendring district council and Essex county council to give a clear lead. There is still some way to go in that regard.
    I understand that my hon. Friend is meeting representatives of the councils and the Government office for the east of England on Friday. I hope that he will impress on them the need to come up with a detailed plan for the regeneration of Jaywick, and to give a clear idea of the resources that they are prepared to contribute.
    Mr. William Ross: The Minister in the past has paid some attention to affairs in Northern Ireland and will be aware that, some years ago, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive went over to a means-tested system for housing grants. He will also know that, to put it mildly, that has not been an unmitigated success. Will he therefore keep in mind that
    592
    any policy that he produces must also take account of the condition of houses, and that the amount of money per applicant should be strictly limited?
    Mr. Mullin: I shall certainly keep those points in mind. I should tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that my interest was not in matters Irish, but in the British justice system.

    Housing (South-east)
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What recent representations he has received from organisations concerning housing in the south-east. [133303]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We received almost 900 representations on draft regional planning guidance for the south-east. We have also received 397 responses to our housing Green Paper from people and organisations based in London and the south-east. Responses to both consultations covered a wide range of housing issues and other matters.
    Dr. Lewis: It is hardly surprising that the Government should have received so many representations about their appalling policy of bulldozing and covering in concrete areas of green belt in the south-east to try and make up for the mess that they have made in developing sensible housing strategies for those areas under Labour control. Why does not the Minister simply adopt the commonsense Conservative policy of giving local discretion to local authorities on such matters?
    Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the previous Conservative Government approved unprecedented levels of development by private developers on greenfield sites all over the south-east. The legacy of that Government's failed policies have quite rightly generated public concern. That is why this Government have instituted a 60 per cent. target for brownfield development and introduced new planning policy guidance. PPG3 gives clear guidance on how we should aim for development in the cities first, concentrating on urban renaissance rather than on profligate building on greenfield sites, which was the record of the previous Conservative Government.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason for high house prices is the lack of suitable, appropriate and affordable housing? Does he agree that it is important to build housing that is close to where people work and not in areas where there is no work?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the importance of the provision of affordable housing for people in need—a point that eludes the attention of the Conservative party—and of ensuring that new housing development is properly related to opportunities for employment, shopping, transport and all the other things that make decent communities. That is why we have introduced our new policies on planning, which are designed to create communities and to encourage urban renaissance. I am impressed by the efforts made by many local authorities, including that of my hon. Friend, to ensure that the opportunities for

    593
    sustainable urban development are used, rather than the profligate building on greenfield sites that was the record of the previous Conservative Government.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the Minister confirm that the Government's new planning procedures in PPG3 are intended to result in fewer houses being built on greenbelt land, that if those procedures were applied in Hertfordshire it would obviate the need to build 10,000 houses west of Stevenage on greenbelt land, and that senior counsel has advised that the Government's refusal to apply their own procedures in this case is illogical, irrational and contrary to the law?
    Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman, as has so often been the case in previous debates on this subject, is wrong. He will know that there is a distinction between greenbelt and greenfield land, although he clearly fails to note the proper distinction. He will be aware that the principle of sustainability requires an approach that reduces profligate use of greenfield land. That is one of the keystones of PPG3.
    The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the local planning authority in his county considered these issues in great detail and came to its view—not the Government's view—that it was more sustainable to develop in one location near to transport links and existing employment than to have a huge range of new development spreading throughout the rural areas in his constituency. He may not agree, but that was the decision reached by the local authority in his area, and he is quite wrong to blame the Government for it.
    Mr. Chris Pond: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Gravesham borough council and North British housing association for the provision of 51 high-quality but affordable rental homes in the centre of Gravesend? Is that not the way to provide much-needed affordable housing in the south-east, without eating into green belt and greenfield sites, as the previous Government obviously did?
    Mr. Raynsford: I congratulate my hon. Friend on catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, because I was able to see this very development with him in Gravesend only last Friday. It is exactly as my hon. Friend describes it—a new development in an urban, town-centre area in the Thames Gateway, which enables us to meet housing needs while at the same time reducing pressure on the countryside. That is exactly the kind of development that is the hallmark of this Government's policies.
    Mr. Damian Green: Given what has been happening in the south-east over the past couple of days, the Minister's response is breathtakingly complacent. Will he acknowledge that when, after the floods two weeks ago, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Ministers wrote saying that action would be taken, it was reasonable for people in the south-east to think that part of that action would be to cut the number of houses that the Government want to build in the wrong places in the south-east?
    594
    Will the Minister give the House an assurance on that? If he cannot do so, will he recognise that among the things washed away will be his reputation for competence?
    Mr. Raynsford: The Opposition have once again got it wrong. The hon. Gentleman knows that after the floods that occurred two years ago, we took action—we prepared new guidance on planning in relation to flood plains, which was issued for consultation in the normal way this summer and on which there has been extensive consultation. The hon. Gentleman also knows that those proposals make it clear that we expect developments to avoid flood plains when properties could be at risk. That guidance, which is in the public domain, was issued by this Government. It is time that the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition stopped their silly sloganising on this subject and focused on the real question—how do we meet genuine housing needs in a sustainable manner and protect the countryside? That is what we are trying to do. Everyone knows that the Conservative Government had a disgraceful record—they allowed profligate development all over greenfield sites, including flood plains. I am sorry that he did not apologise for the previous Government's record.

    Central Railway
    Mr. Philip Hammond: If he will make a statement on the proposed Central Railway project and his Department's policy towards it. [133304]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The amount of freight moved by rail has grown steadily over the period of this Government. Our 10-year plan for transport reinforces our commitment to ensure that that growth continues.
    Although we have received copies of Central Railway's consultation documents and seen some of its publicity material, it has not formally submitted details of its proposals. I understand that the company hopes to apply for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992. Bearing that in mind, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of the scheme at this stage.
    Mr. Hammond: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I appreciate his difficulty in commenting on the merits of the scheme. However, is he aware of the effect of current legislation on my constituents? Although a loss-making company with, effectively, no assets can propose to build a multi-billion pound scheme, there is no requirement to bring that proposal forward for formal consideration within a specified period. In the meantime, my constituents are blighted: they are unable to sell their properties. Does not that offend the Secretary of State's sense of natural justice? If so, what does he propose to do about it?
    Mr. Prescott: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, which I believe he made in an Adjournment debate, and which I read last week. I am happy to concede that most large infrastructure projects are affected, and that the problem is real. He suggested one or two solutions, but they did not fit well with our approach, which we believe can deal with the matter.

    595
    However, the difficulty is that we cannot do anything until an application is made and the applicant says what he wants to do.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is considerable support for the scheme in the north-west of England? It would take much freight off the roads and put it on the railways. Even in the north-west, however, there is considerable concern about trying to protect routes for that proposed railway, which could be used for other purposes, well into the future. Will he encourage Central Railway either to get on with the scheme or give it up?
    Mr. Prescott: I am, of course, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and I have to wait until Central Railway makes its application. The concern about the problem of blight could, I hope, be dealt with by a code of practice, which we have tried to get companies to agree to. However, until Central Railway makes its application—it said that it would produce it several months ago, but still has not done so—I can only suggest that it should bring the scheme before the House. If that were done, there would be a vote. If the House voted to accept the proposal, we would have to deal with the situation, but if it rejected the proposal—it did so on the previous occasion—that would be the end of the matter.
    Mr. David Lidington: When the Secretary of State takes account of Central Railway's proposals, will he also please give a fair hearing to the arguments that have been advanced by Chiltern Railways, which said that the scheme is incompatible with the current level of passenger rail service in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies? It also said that the scheme would have the paradoxical effect of driving many rail passengers back into their cars.
    Mr. Prescott: Frankly, I have a planning and judicial role and I cannot decide or even comment. When the House debated a different proposition from Central Railway, comments were made. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on his remarks.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem that faces the railway industry is a shortage of track capacity for the future? Would it not be a good idea to keep open all the options for the future, including possibilities such as Central Railway?
    Mr. Prescott: I can go a bit further in the sense that the Strategic Rail Authority has an obligation, now that the regulator has reported on the financing of the railways. Basically, he will shortly present a report on the strategic framework, which includes the contribution to be made by freight railway systems and extra capacity. The regulator is considering that matter as well as the financing.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: When the Government consider the proposal, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that environmental considerations will be uppermost in their mind? Does he understand that, in my constituency, the properties of hundreds of people in
    596
    the Byfleet and West Byfleet areas on the edge of the motorway are blighted because details of the proposal are included on local searches? Does he realise that it is an important issue, as is noise and the other environmental problems that affect so many individuals all the way along the M25? Their interests are really important, are they not?
    Mr. Prescott: I agree and, of course, an environmental assessment will have to be made alongside the other matters to be considered.

    Coastal Byelaws
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: When he will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the review of byelaws for the coast, published in 1998. [133305]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We are working towards developing legislative proposals. In the meantime, local authorities can use their existing powers to manage recreational activities on the coast. We have published a voluntary code of best and safe practice for leisure craft users, and we are exploring options for a voluntary boat registration and identification scheme.
    Mrs. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. May I draw his attention, however, to recommendation 12, which clearly states the need to consolidate existing coastal byelaws? Furthermore, does he agree that all users of motorised craft, including jet skis, should be required to have third-party insurance and proof of competency, as they are on most inland waterways and, indeed, on all our roads?
    Mr. Meacher: We have said that we will consolidate existing coastal byelaws. The proposed legislation, to which I referred, will certainly do so. The review proposes that local authorities should be given the power to require third-party insurance in various circumstances and we shall take that into account as we develop our plans. The review did not recommend proof of competency, but I assure my hon. Friend that we shall look at that when we develop our legislative proposals.

    Rural Transport
    Sandra Gidley: What steps he is taking to improve rural transport. [133306]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We have made an extra £175 million available to support the transport needs of rural communities. The 10-year plan for transport provides more, so that we can support more scheduled rural bus services, expand the rural bus challenge to support more innovative services and deliver up to 500 new community-based transport schemes in the next three years through the rural transport partnership fund.
    Sandra Gidley: Does the Minister agree that it would be exceedingly helpful if he extended the fuel duty rebate to include all forms of community transport, to aid people

    597
    in villages who rely on the community bus? Also, should not more money be invested in research on liquid petroleum gas and its availability?
    Mr. Meacher: The conclusion that we should draw from the fuel crisis is that we need to reduce our overdependence on oil and to speed the switch-away to alternative fuels and renewable sources of energy. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Lady. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will deal with that matter in the pre-Budget report and we shall soon return to the issue in the rural White Paper.
    Mr. David Taylor: Is the Minister happy that, in Transport 2010, to which he has just referred, sufficient emphasis is given to the potential for rural rail lines, such as the Ivanhoe line through west Leicestershire, south Derbyshire and east Staffordshire? Does he know that Leicestershire county council feels that present funding regimes are unduly restrictive and that they prevent the recreation of passenger services on this mineral railway, thus contributing to our overall transport objectives?
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right; the 10-year transport plan is certainly not confined to roads. We propose expenditure of just less than £60 billion on the rail system in addition; indeed, we should see a considerable increase in ridership and a doubling of the amount of freight carried by rail.
    As to the rail line to which my hon. Friend referred, I am sure that the extra resources that we are making available over the next 10 years will open the possibility of investment in precisely that type of railway.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Chancellor made much of the £15 billion a year rural bus grant. However, will the Minister confirm that that modest amount is dwarfed by the extra costs faced by bus companies, such as the cost of the working time directive and higher fuel prices, and by the fact that shire counties have had their rural transport budgets cut by the Government?
    Mr. Meacher: I entirely understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes, but I think that he is entirely wrong to suggest that the considerable expenditure that has gone into rural transport—£175 million—is swamped or dwarfed by what he refers to. VAT and duty on petrol now make up a lower proportion of the total price than in 1997. The UK has the lowest total tax burden in the European Union—far lower than the average. Foreign hauliers and others who operate abroad have to pay road tolls and are subject to higher VAT and corporation tax. When all those relevant factors are taken into account, the picture is very different from that suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of my constituents, who recently heard that Stagecoach gave only six weeks' notice of the withdrawal of all their bus services to Abergavenny, Chepstow and Monmouth, in order to secure as much money as it could from local authorities through the rural bus initiative? Does he agree that that matter must be
    598
    looked at, so that private operators such as Stagecoach, which exercise a monopoly, do not hold local authorities and the public to ransom in that way?
    Mr. Meacher: I very much support what my hon. Friend says. Although the 10-year transport plan is about the expenditure of substantial increases of money—42 per cent. in real terms on the previous 10 years—it must also take into account the restrictive practices or monopolisation that can exist and the need to deal with that. We certainly intend to look at the matter.
    Mr. Archie Norman: Despite all that the Minister said, will he confirm that rural passenger bus journeys have actually decreased every year under the Labour Government; that the countryside is in crisis; and that the grants for rural bus services are peanuts compared with the amount of extra fuel tax levied on country people by the Government? Will he confirm exactly what he meant during last week's debate on the fuel crisis—that the Deputy Prime Minister could not be bothered to attend—when he said that, far from being abolished, the fuel duty escalator may be brought back by the Government and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis in the future?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has, once again, got virtually all his facts wrong. First, there has not been declining ridership on bus services—he should get his facts right; the £175 million has funded 1,800 new and enhanced services. There has been increased ridership—an extra 16 million passenger journeys.
    Secondly, it takes a bit of brass neck for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the countryside is in crisis. In 1997, when his Government completed 18 years in office, only a quarter of parishes had a daily bus service.
    Thirdly, I repeat that since 1997 the level of duties has actually declined as a proportion of the total price. The reasons for the increase are the tripling of international crude oil prices and the shortage of petrol on wholesale markets. We intend to deal with that issue, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement.
    Let me clarify what the hon. Gentleman wrongly quoted me as saying in the debate last week. I did not say that the fuel duty escalator would be brought back; I specifically denied that. [Interruption.] That is on the transcript, so the hon. Gentleman can read it. I said that the Chancellor had abandoned the fuel duty escalator—which the Tory Administration introduced in 1993, and which is responsible for the largest part of the increase in petrol prices since then—and would now review the situation on a case-by-case and year-by-year basis. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make an attack, he should get his facts right.
    Mr. Norman: Again, the Government appear to be in denial both on the fuel crisis and on the crisis in the countryside. What could be more provocative than Ministers seeking to claim that the Government have not put up fuel duty in the past three years? Nothing could be more provocative for the protesters, and nothing could be more unwise, in advance of the events of next week. What could be more provocative than a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box claiming that the number of bus passenger

    599
    journeys in the countryside has increased, when the Government's own figures show that that number may have gone up in London, but has declined in the shire counties in the past three years? If the Minister disagrees with me, why does he not quote the figures in his response?
    Has the Minister disowned the comments in his 1996 document "Consensus for Change", which said:
    it is essential that taxation does not result in further isolation of those in rural areas…?
    Who does he think has been disadvantaged most by the Government's increase in the fuel duty, other than those who are most vulnerable—farmers and those who live in the countryside in relative poverty?
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister responds, may I point out that I want brief questions from those on the Opposition Front Bench, and brief answers from Ministers.
    Mr. Meacher: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, because it is easy to be so. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) made a very long, dreary and ineffective speech last week, and he appears to have the same habit when he asks questions. May I respond to the one point that he made? I did not say that there had been no increase in duty; I said that VAT and duty as a proportion of the total petrol price were now lower than in 1997. To blame the Government is completely wrong. The cause is the tripling of oil prices.

    Magna Project (South Yorkshire)
    Mr. Denis MacShane: What proposals he has to improve road access to the Magna project in south Yorkshire. [133307]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The planning permission for Magna granted by Rotherham metropolitan borough council requires access to the visitor attraction from the south to be via junction 33 of the M1. Some £500,000 of the resources available to Magna have been set aside for additional road works, signage and traffic-calming measures at that junction and on the road layout to the Magna project.
    Mr. MacShane: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer. She will be aware that Magna is a millennium project that, sensibly, is opening next year—the first year of the millennium—so as to avoid the curse of everything that opened in 2000. The access road to the project from the Meadowhall shopping centre is important, and Rotherham and Sheffield councils are working together. The project is essential for economic regeneration, so will my hon. Friend ask her officials to consider giving priority for the new access road in the first five years of the 10-year development plan for south Yorkshire? If she cannot answer that technical point from the Dispatch Box today, will she receive a delegation to explore the problem further?
    Ms Hughes: As I said, the success of Magna is not dependent on roadworks at junction 34, but my hon.
    600
    Friend strongly makes the case for improved links between Meadowhall and Magna. However, it is for the south Yorkshire local authorities, in the local transport plan, to set their priorities for the first five years and then for the second five years. They have indicated that there is a possibility for 2006 and beyond, but that is not in the first five years of the plan. They are considering priorities in relation to the objective 1 programme. I should certainly be happy to talk further to my hon. Friend, but the priorities for such schemes need to be set locally.

    Ring Roads
    Sir Teddy Taylor: When he plans to make a decision on the location of new ring roads; and how many of those have been determined so far. [133308]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): We have not determined the location of the up to 100 bypass schemes for which funding is provided in our 10-year transport plan. That will depend on priorities identified in developing regional transport strategies and local transport plans.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: In setting that programme, will the Minister accept that the south-east of England, and South-end in particular, has become about the most over-congested area of the nation, and the most neglected for road programmes? Bearing in mind the impact that that has on employment, is he willing to receive an all-party deputation from Southend to discuss possible solutions, including a ring road, which is urgently needed?
    Mr. Hill: It is up to Southend borough council to determine its transport priorities in seeking Government funding through its local transport plan. We have heard the judgment of Southend borough council, and the council's full local transport plan, which was submitted this July, includes proposals for public transport improvements in the A13 corridor and road improvements in the A127 corridor to assist freight movements, but no proposal for a northern A127 bypass of the town. The hon. Gentleman should address his concerns to the local authority. The Government's position is that it is for local people to find local solutions to local transport problems, and we shall do our best to support them.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend think that, in designing new ring roads, it is essential to agree that they should indeed be ring roads, so that they do not immediately become clogged with parked traffic and so on, which defeats the purpose of building such roads?
    Mr. Hill: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the sort of matter that we consider in our very careful appraisal of all proposals for ring roads—or, to use the more modern terminology, bypass proposals.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Given the appalling state of the nation's roads following the dreadful cuts in the roads programme inflicted by the Labour party, would not the Minister be well advised to give his attention to those road problems? When the nation's

    601
    railways are in crisis, and many of the nation's roads are flooded and covered by fallen trees, is it not extraordinary that he makes the announcement:
    My Department is proposing to make bells on bicycles compulsory…?
    At a time of transport crisis, has he not shown that the Government are losing their touch?
    Mr. Hill: A good try by the hon. Gentleman—but I should have thought that as an avid cyclist, he would have welcomed that announcement. Indeed, I have led him on my own bike through the roads of London. We are in a difficult position, we are taking it very seriously and we are addressing our immediate attention to the transport difficulties that we are now experiencing—but do not knock the cyclists.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: Would not the best possible thing that the Government could do for the city of Lancaster be to reverse the many years of Tory neglect, to aid the environment, to underpin a sustainable public transport system and vastly to increase the prospects of economic regeneration, by announcing the funding for Lancaster's western bypass in December, so that it can be built?
    Mr. Hill: Another day, another demand. That is the second time that I have heard that demand from my hon. Friend, who participated in an Adjournment debate on precisely the same subject in Westminster Hall this morning. I commend him on his assiduous representation of his constituents' interests. I must say now what I said to him earlier: the bypass is a proposal in the local transport plans, on which we will make our announcements before Christmas.

    Bypasses
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What plans for bypasses have been (a) cancelled and (b) proposed by the present Government. [133309]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Twenty of the 40 schemes in our targeted programme of trunk road improvements are bypasses. We cancelled the Salisbury and Hereford bypasses because of their impact on environmentally sensitive sites.
    Mr. Viggers: According to the Government's own figures, they receive £36.5 billion in taxation from motorists and spend £4.9 million a year on road building. Is that fair?
    Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that this Government are committed to a sensible and achievable programme of bypasses and trunk road improvements. Twenty of the 40 schemes in our £1.5 billion targeted programme of trunk road improvements will provide bypasses for local communities, creating safer and healthier environments for those suffering from the effects of heavy volumes of traffic.
    We are responding to local demands, and we have an achievable and realistic programme. We are not in the business of subscribing to fantasy lists of road schemes,
    602
    such as those in which the preceding Administration engaged. Indeed, nearly half of the schemes included in the 1990 "Roads for Prosperity" White Paper had bitten the dust six years later. This Government are about serious improvements in our trunk road system, and we are delivering them.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important reasons for bypasses is to relieve the narrow and ancient streets of small market towns and villages from the ever larger heavy lorries that must rumble through them? Will he confirm that the Government support such bypasses in the 10-year plan, and are prepared to fund them? Now that Suffolk county council has finally recognised the need for the Bungay bypass in its structural plan, I hope that some money will be found within a reasonable time scale to enable that project to become reality.
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend makes a fair point on behalf of his constituents. We agree in principle; we shall be examining the detailed proposal in due course and making an announcement.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: The Minister mentioned the cancellation of the Hereford bypass—a scheme that the previous Government downgraded. Given that there is much concern in the city of Hereford about the road traffic problem, will the Minister agree to meet representatives of Herefordshire council, of the local chamber of commerce and of business and environmental groups, to see which schemes, short of a full bypass, could be taken forward to help relieve that problem?
    Mr. Hill: I am, of course, open to any reasonable request for a delegation, and we are obviously perfectly happy to consider proposals made by the hon. Gentleman and the local authority. After all, our recently announced 10-year transport plan will ensure the funding of up to 100 bypasses on national and local roads and 130 other major local road improvements, and will deliver up to 80 major national trunk-road schemes to improve safety and traffic flow at junctions. Against that backdrop, we are of course a listening Government, and will certainly listen to his concerns.

    Local Authority Housing
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What role tenants will play in deciding the future of local authority housing. [133310]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Tenants should be fully involved in making decisions on the future of their homes. The introduction of best value and tenant participation compacts will ensure that they are fully involved in reviewing and developing options for future investment in housing.
    Dr. Iddon: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. On this issue, there is obviously clear blue water between the Government's policies and those of the Conservatives, who would flog off all local authority stock with little

    603
    consultation with tenants. When my hon. Friend consults local authority tenants on the options in the recent housing Green Paper, will there be a level playing field?
    Mr. Raynsford: The answer is yes. We have made it clear that local authorities and local authority tenants have a range of options to consider, including the new proposal for arm's-length companies and the possibility of investment through the private finance initiative, as well as the possibility of stock transfer. I know that my hon. Friend and his local authority have been exploring variations on those models with a community regeneration company in Bolton. I congratulate him and his authority on those discussions, and particularly on the fact that the Bolton Association of Tenants and Residents Associations—BATRA—has been fully involved. That, by contrast with the policies pursued by the Conservative party, is a model of the way in which the Labour party believes tenants should be involved.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister recall the Secretary of State, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, saying that "in the wake" of a Labour Government—I am sure that that phrase is appropriate—he wanted to see the return of council house building, and promised 100,000 council houses every year? Will he now admit that the Government have done a U-turn and adopted the Conservative policy of taking council housing stock out of local authority control?
    Mr. Raynsford: No, I will not. The Government have set a highly ambitious programme to deal with the entire backlog of substandard council housing within 10 years, which gives everyone living in council housing the prospect of having a decent home within that time. That is a major change from the previous position. We have said that it is up to tenants and local authorities to explore a range of options for the future of the housing stock. Some will pursue the option of stock transfer, and some will want to keep the property in council ownership and improve it, using the new arrangements that the Government have put in place. That is entirely in line with the principles of the housing Green Paper, which was entitled "Quality and choice: A decent home for all". It is precisely quality and choice that we are pursuing for public sector housing.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement that council house tenants will have a role in determining their destiny. Will he also take into consideration the fact that resources are needed to replace metal frame windows and improve bathrooms and kitchens? He noted the point that was made earlier, but will he give further consideration to providing resources to make sure that we can improve our council houses and bring them up to 21st-century standards?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I can assure him that through the spending review, we have secured continued substantial increases in resources to enable local authorities to improve their housing stock, and to allow an increased supply of new, affordable housing to be built. I can also tell my hon. Friend that from next April we are introducing the major repairs allowance, which will for the first time give local authorities a proper basis for the maintenance of their
    604
    housing stock, to stop the deterioration that was such a lamentable characteristic of council housing under the previous Government.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: The Minister knows that many tenants have already voted to transfer to housing associations, such as Banbury Homes in my constituency. Those housing associations have agreed and settled business plans with the Housing Corporation. Will the Minister give an undertaking that those business plans will be honoured?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is referring, I think, to the proposals for rent restructuring in the Green Paper. They are designed to ensure a more coherent framework in future for the rents that apply both to registered social landlords and to local authorities. We have had productive and detailed discussions with registered social landlords and other interested parties about the impact of the rent restructuring proposals, and I am pleased to say that they have been carried forward in a constructive spirit of seeking to achieve the Government's objective, to which everyone subscribes, and at the same time safeguarding the viability of RSLs.
    I have several times given assurances that it is not our intention to threaten the viability of organisations that have entered into plans for the future based on long-term financial arrangements. It is certainly our intention to see that their future is secured.

    Traffic Congestion (South-East London)
    Mr. Clive Efford: What steps he is taking to improve public transport and relieve traffic congestion in south-east London. [133311]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Our 10-year plan for transport provides substantial resources for transport improvement in London. The Mayor of London has a crucial role to play in deciding priorities for south-east London.
    Mr. Efford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. If we are to address some of the problems experienced by my constituents—notably the increasing traffic on the roads from Kent and East Sussex that come through my constituency—planning and powers beyond London and beyond the Mayor's sphere of operation will be required. It is for the Department to deal with that. Furthermore, in my hon. Friend's future discussions with London Transport, which he will continue to have in spite of the introduction of the Mayor, will he impress upon London Transport the need to improve links with the new North Greenwich underground station, so that people can access it for their travel to work?
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right to say that transport issues in south-east London must be considered in a wider context. Indeed, they are being considered in the context of the Thames gateway strategy. Links to North Greenwich station have proved an enormous success in this millennium year, and we are looking carefully at ways

    605
    in which they can be sustained. I am confident that effective transport links to that station will remain after this year has ended.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister agree that notwithstanding the recent problems caused by severe weather, public transport in south-east London was already in complete chaos as a result of recent work by Railtrack? Does he agree that if that work was necessary, it was incumbent on Railtrack and the train operating companies to provide the travelling public with reliable information? Was not the lack of information a disgrace? Does the Minister agree with my constituent, Mr. Steve Wharton, who suggested in The Guardian today that we now have a "notional" rail inquiries service?
    Mr. Hill: Those were exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in saying that the travelling public—or the would-be travelling public—deserve a better information service. That service did not work during yesterday's difficulties, and it ought to have done. Frankly, many aspects of the system ought to have been able to withstand yesterday's circumstances, and the Government are paying urgent attention to that matter.
    Joan Ruddock: May I tell my hon. Friend of the great relief in my constituency and throughout south-east London when Connex South Central lost its franchise? However, there was then some dismay because GoVia, the company that is to receive that franchise, has, in its operation of Thameslink in my constituency, a record of punctuality even worse than that of Connex South Central. Will the Minister give my constituents guarantees that rail services in south-east London will be improved?
    Mr. Hill: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and very much appreciate the way in which she has put them. Decisions on refranchising are for the franchising director, but I am sure that he took into account the totality of GoVia's offer, which includes an £800 million investment in new rolling stock, an undertaking to fit all trains with the train protection warning system, more than 100 extra drivers, station refurbishments, more other staff and more car parking.

    Housing Policy (Newcastle)
    Mr. Jim Cousins: What assessment he has made of the extent to which the clearance and new house-building policies of Newcastle city council are consistent with regional planning guidance. [133312]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The panel report of the public examination of regional planning guidance for the north-east was published in October. I am currently considering what changes are necessary, and will consult on that in due course. Once the regional planning guidance is finalised, local authorities should ensure that their plans and policies accord with it.
    Mr. Cousins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Like me, he will understand that there are great possibilities for regeneration in Newcastle. However, mass demolition of neighbourhoods against the wishes of the people who live there should never be part of our policies. The wishes of the people of the inner city, their hopes for the future and their aspirations for themselves and their children are the essential building blocks for reviving neighbourhoods—not property deals.
    Mr. Prescott: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes about inner cities—a point that he has made strongly to the House before. However, he will accept that, where there are an awful lot of empty properties that cost local authorities considerable resources, that provides us with an opportunity to have less density in city areas and provide more open spaces, as identified in Lord Rogers' plan. Inevitably, and rightly, that should not be done without the widest consultation and support of people affected by the plans.

    Road Building
    Mr. Tim Collins: When he last met the Royal Automobile Club to discuss road building. [133313]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): Ministers regularly meet the RAC foundation both bilaterally and in the context of the motorists forum. At those meetings various issues are discussed, including road building.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that the number one priority for RAC members and others in my constituency is the construction of the much needed A590 bypass at High and Low Newton? The Minister knows that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and I have made many representations to her on the matter. The bypass is supported by every tier of local government in the area. Will the Government give the area good news soon?
    Ms Hughes: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because the road provides a good case study for contrasting the action—or non-action—of the previous Government with the action of the current Administration. He knows that a public inquiry approved the building of the road, and that it was included in the previous Government's wish list of 500 schemes in 1993. However, there were two priorities on that list—priority one was maybe; priority two was never. The road received priority two status.
    The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the Government included the scheme in the programme that was initiated after the roads review. It was remitted to the regional planning conference for consideration of the environmental issues, which the hon. Gentleman will know about. The conference identified the scheme as of regional strategic significance and said that it should be implemented by 2010. Provided that that priority remains, the resources in the transport plan mean that it should be delivered.

Severe Weather Disruption
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the violent storms that hit much of England and Wales late Sunday night and early yesterday morning.
We offer deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who tragically lost their lives. There has been tremendous inconvenience and disruption, but our thoughts are especially with those whose homes have been flooded or damaged.
According to the Meteorological Office, the storm that we experienced was the most severe since 1987. There was widespread flooding, very high rainfall and high winds. There were blizzards in the north-west and tornadoes on the south coast. Electricity and gas supplies were disrupted, road and rail links were blocked, airports and sea ports were closed. There was considerable damage to property, especially in coastal areas.
From Sunday evening, emergency teams have been working constantly. There were teams from local authorities, the Environment Agency, Railtrack and the electricity and gas supply industry. The police, fire and ambulance services, and coastguard and lifeboat crews have, with their usual professionalism, provided valuable help and assistance. All have done a magnificent job. I am sure that the House will join me in recording not only our admiration but our heartfelt thanks for a job well done in difficult circumstances.
Normal services are now being restored. The Environment Agency reported that, overall, there has been a general improvement in the flood situation overnight. However, 33 severe flood warnings remain in place, and still more properties are under threat from flooding.
Early indications suggest that the new flood warning systems now used by the Environment Agency have been effective and that lessons have been learned from the past. The Environment Agency will draw up a report on the lessons to be learned from the floods two weeks ago in East Sussex and from the current floods. The report will be circulated to all hon. Members. I believe that an Adjournment debate on such matters took place last week.
The Bellwin scheme, which the previous Government introduced, is in place to provide financial help to local authorities in England in emergencies such as this storm. The arrangements also apply to police and fire authorities, and the National Assembly for Wales operates similar arrangements.
Money is available to help with uninsurable clear-up costs following a serious disaster or emergency. In March this year, my Department wrote to all local authorities to tell them about the scheme and how to use it. Under the scheme, each authority is responsible for expenditure on emergency work up to a threshold of just 0.2 per cent. of its annual budget. Expenditure above the threshold is eligible for 85 per cent. assistance from central Government. Several authorities are already in contact with my Department and we will ensure that their requests for help are dealt with as quickly as possible.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told the House last Wednesday, we are increasing funding for
608
flood and coastal defence. The Environment Agency's total flood defence expenditure was £261.8 million in 1998–99. In 1999–2000, that increased to £276.1 million. The budget for 2000–01 is £283.1 million, and planned expenditure for 2001–02 is £290.1 million.
There has been considerable discussion of the important planning issues that often arise in connection with these matters. We consulted earlier this year on draft new planning guidance, which will deal with the issue of development in flood risk areas. That considerably improves on the 1992 circular.
Our policy is clear: it is to discourage inappropriate development in flood risk areas. We intend to issue the final version of the new guidance in December. We are therefore—together with the Environment Agency—improving flood warnings; encouraging, and providing more funding for, flood and coastal defence; and encouraging development away from flood risk areas.
The storm that we experienced was certainly extreme. There is much discussion about the influence of global warning on our weather—[interruption] I mean, global warming. It is still very much a global warning—perhaps that is the word that I should have used. We cannot say that any one storm is due to global warming, but there is growing evidence that the pattern of weather around the world is increasingly stormy and extreme.
The UK is taking a leading role in securing the Kyoto global agreement to reduce greenhouse gases to limit climate change in future. However, we must take practical action now so that we are prepared for a future where extreme weather events are more frequent. That is why we have produced the climate change impacts study for the UK, and why we are producing a series of regional climate change impact studies on how different parts of the United Kingdom will be affected. We can now accurately predict and forecast extreme weather events.
We have to ask ourselves if we are doing enough to cope with the new situation. Should our power lines for trains and homes come down every time we have such storms? Should 1,000 trees fall across our railway lines in the south-east? Should we do more to prevent flooding? Are the drainage systems on our roads really adequate? The storm should be a wake-up call for everyone. Our infrastructure should be robust enough and our preparations rigorous enough to withstand the sort of weather that we have just experienced.
Tomorrow, I will be attending a meeting of the central local partnership with the leaders of central and local government, who have to deal with a great deal of this emergency planning and action. We will want to discuss how to undertake a more in-depth analysis of what is needed to be done. Together with my ministerial colleagues, the emergency services, the Environment Agency and others, we will want to look at how to review our systems for dealing with such emergencies. I have spoken with Sir John Harman, the chairman of the Environment Agency. He intends to play a leading role in this work.
We have measures in place to deal with the immediate effects of this storm. We need to take a longer term look at how we can as a country be better placed to deal with the extreme weather events which we expect to be more frequent in future.

609
The House will wish to join me in thanking local authorities, the emergency services and many others involved for their unstinting efforts, and in offering sympathy on the loss and suffering experienced by people in the areas affected.
Mr. Archie Norman: First, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. We are grateful for his unprompted and timely response. I join him in expressing sympathy for those who are bereaved or injured, and for the many thousands of people throughout the country who are suffering the misery of seeing their homes ruined by the flooding. In many instances, this is the second or third time in recent months that they have been flooded. I take this opportunity to join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking the emergency services for their magnificent response to the crisis.
The floods now form a pattern that perhaps first became evident in Easter 1998, with the extensive flooding in middle England. The writing has been on the wall for a little while, and we must recognise that this is a serious problem and will remain so for years to come. Today's response is very welcome, but I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to address a number of issues arising from what is now a very worrying trend.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister feel that there are any lessons to be learned now—I appreciate that these are early days—about the handling of the crisis? For example, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned power lines, and there are widespread reports from Kent today that the switchboard of the local utility company has been jammed solid for the past two days. People who are dangerously affected by power lines are unable to get through to the company to seek advice. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a case, perhaps, for looking into the co-ordination and integration of the crisis response, and providing a single information line to which the public can turn?
Secondly, although we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's confirmation that compensation for local authorities will be forthcoming, will he comment on the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who mentioned in the House last week that the process of compensation had been slow? The right hon. Gentleman said that he would respond swiftly, but can he reassure local authorities on what specific action will be taken to ensure that the response is swift and compensation is received?
In the light of the recurring instances of flooding, does the right hon. Gentleman think with hindsight—obviously, he has the benefit of hindsight—that the response of the Environment Agency is a cause for concern? Does he recall that, after the deaths and distress caused by the 1998 floods, the independent review team commented that some of the problem
can be attributed to weaknesses in the planning and delivery of flood and defence warning policies, and even taking into account all the mitigating circumstances described in this Report, the Environment Agency did not achieve its own performance standards.
Can he reassure the House that, in addition to the inquiry conducted by the Environment Agency, there will be an investigation into its performance, powers and effectiveness in dealing with future flood crises?
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the funding for flood defences are adequate? He mentioned that funds are increasing, which is true, but the figures suggest that
610
flood defence expenditure will rise by only about 7 to 8 per cent. over the next two years—I think I am right in that—which is scarcely enough to meet inflation in construction costs alone. The Environment Agency today reports that it has a substantial backlog of expenditure to be met. Does he think that current expenditure plans are adequate?
Finally, on the longer term issues, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the commitment to accelerate housebuilding on greenfield land in the south-east and south-west—against the wishes of local people and local councils—may exacerbate the risk of flooding? The Environment Agency warned in 1998 that the Government's estimates for new housebuilding were adding to the pressure and that an area of flood plain the size of Bristol—I appreciate that the guidelines have changed since then—could be built on over the next 20 years. Does he accept that decisions to build in river valley areas that may or may not be designated flood plains but which play an important role in absorbing rainfall—such as Lewes, Hertfordshire north of Stevenage, and the flood plains of Ashford and the Nene valley in Northamptonshire—are exactly what the Environment Agency warned against?
Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate and set out in full the relationship between housebuilding and the development of flood risk and, indeed, the effect of other development in the countryside on flood risk? In the meantime, will he suspend his plans to override the south-east regional planning committee and the wishes of councils in the south-east and south-west? Does he recognise that that is another reason why the Government should reconsider their plans to concrete over the countryside by building the wrong houses in the wrong places, and that doing so risks contributing to future misery caused by the loss of greenfield land and, more important, flooding in our towns and villages?
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his expressions of sympathy and support for the emergency services. All hon. Members would give their full support to those remarks.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Easter flooding in 1998. I visited Stratford at the time and saw for myself how bad the flood was. A main complaint when I was there was that no prior warnings were received. In light of last week's Adjournment debate on the earlier floods, it is clear that, on the whole, warnings have improved considerably. Sir John Harman has given me one or two examples of failure to give sufficient warning, but in the main there has been a considerable improvement.
The report to which the hon. Gentleman referred was acted on by the Government to ensure that more resources were provided and more warnings were given. It is clear that we have learned some lessons, but there are an awful lot more to learn. That is why I want to bring the parties together, which is important in the handling of a crisis. The Environment Agency now has a responsibility to produce a report at the end of the event to show how it dealt with the crisis. Hon. Members whose constituents were affected can read the report and conclude whether the Environment Agency gave sufficient warnings and acted effectively in the emergency. That demonstrates transparency and accountability. We will wait to see what the report says. I shall certainly be very interested to see it.

611
As every Member with a constituent who has experienced these problems knows, compensation always takes a long time—even for those who succeed in obtaining Bellwin funding—and there are constant complaints about that. Assessing all the damage obviously takes time, but I think that the complaint is legitimate. Ministers hide behind the Bellwin fund, saying, "Don't worry, there is a fund to help", but they know that it can be difficult to gain access to the money. I shall review the rules that apply in such circumstances in the forum that I mentioned.
We—my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—have increased funding from our own resources considerably, but what worries me is that we tend to plan for circumstances that are far less serious than we should reasonably expect. I do not think that what we assume to be extreme circumstances are being catered for by the present arrangements. For instance, are the pumps on the roads strong enough to disperse the floods that we are currently experiencing? Structures on the east coast railway lines are regularly pulled down because they were built on the cheap, and there was no proper investment. I am not making a political point—it happened under both parties—but the fact remains that we are not devoting the necessary resources to conditions that we may describe as extreme, but must now accept as normal.
I assume that the hon. Gentleman was making a political point at the end of his question, when he spoke of the housing requirements of the south-east. The Conservatives are getting very excited about them, but they are being discussed by local authorities and in the House, and we must make judgments about them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Serplan requirement was for 33,000 homes a year. Professor Crow suggested 55,000; we anticipated 43,000, and the current figure is about 39,000.
If the Opposition argue that local authorities should not be forced to accept a higher figure, why did Kent county council, in the last year of Tory government, increase the number of dwellings by 3,000 over and above the local authority requirement? I do not know whether they were built on the flood plains to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but who decided that houses should be built on flood plains? The answer is local authorities. That, I believe, is the Opposition's approach. They say, "Do not let central Government have a role; leave it to local authorities." Local authorities, not central Government, were responsible for building on the flood plains.
I could make my political points, but I do not think that that would help. Let us get on seriously with doing the job. The Opposition should look to their past as well as to the future, and show a little more humility.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as we speak, the River Aire in the Bradford district in the north of England is at a 50-year high, flooding many homes and cutting off bridges and towns including Bingley, Shipley, Baildon and Burley-in-Wharfedale? There are no rail services and few road services. There have been several evacuations, in which hundreds have been evacuated. Obviously, many local
612
people are very concerned. Will my right hon. Friend monitor the developments closely and liaise with the local authority about the financial implications?
Mr. Prescott: I shall certainly do those things. Monitoring is very important. As I said in my statement, I consider this to be a wake-up call. I think that all of us—the Government, local authorities and public and private operators—should ask ourselves whether we could do more to prevent the misery which many of our citizens suffer on such occasions.
Mr. Don Foster: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, especially given that only yesterday the Prime Minister's official spokesman told journalists that there were no plans for such a statement to be made. Interestingly, Mr. Alastair Campbell used a rather cryptic expression, saying, "The weather has been devolved." I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman understands what that means.
I join the right hon. Gentleman in offering sympathy to the bereaved families, and to those who have been injured. I also join him in congratulating both the emergency services and local authorities. Does he agree, however, that we should thank the many private individuals who have voluntarily given a great deal of support to those in greater need? In particular, will he congratulate Lewes council, which has had to deal with the problems of floods for more than two weeks?
Given that the right hon. Gentleman has rightly addressed, perhaps for the first time, genuine concern about the impact of global warming, leading to these particular problems, who does he think the Minister for the Environment had in mind when he said in The Guardian today:
It is…remarkable that, during the recent fuel crisis hardly anyone mentioned the environment…?
I wonder to whom the Minister for the Environment was referring.
Why did the Deputy Prime Minister say in his statement that the Government are offering more money for flood defences, when the figures, which he even read out, demonstrate that there is no increase whatever over and above inflation? Does he accept that, given that he has admitted that there is more likelihood of severe weather, there should be an increase in funding?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the Deputy Prime Minister, may I say that every hon. Member has a constituency interest in the matter. I want to call everyone. I can do so with the co-operation of the House, if hon. Members' questions are brief.
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for his support for the emergency services. I—no one else—make statements to the House. I am responsible to the House—no parliamentary or news spokesman is. If I decide that it is right to make a statement to the House, that is what I do. That is what I have done. I did not consult anyone else. [Interruption.] Sorry, Alastair.
Like the hon. Member for Bath, I give my support to the voluntary organisations. They are always there. Individuals helped, too—I should have mentioned them

613
in my statement, as I did in the previous statement on rail. They play an impressive role in such circumstances. They are at home doing nothing and then, all of a sudden, they become heroes. I am sure that the House wishes them well and thanks them for all that they do.
I congratulate the local authority in Lewes. In the past couple of weeks, it has had difficulties; those difficulties did not start just at the weekend. I read about the events to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
With regard to what my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was referring to in The Guardian, I am always a bit sceptical about what we can believe in any paper, including The Guardian, but I asked him whether he meant the Liberal party. He said he did not; he meant non-governmental organisations. I might add that it was the Minister for the Environment and I who convened an environmental conference in London during the dispute, so we were constantly making our points. I am not sure that the green groups were, but I shall leave that aside; I have made my point about that before.
As for the giving of more resources, if we put all the groups together, the total amount of money that I should have reported to the House is about £400 million—considerably more than just taking inflation into account.
Mr. Eric Martlew: We all know that a massive amount of work was done on the railways this weekend, and then we had the crisis because of the weather. May we thank the workers who have been on the railways, out in all weathers?
We still have chaos on the rail railways. Is that because we do not have the number of workers with the skills required? If we are going to maintain a railway—it is crucial that we get lines back working as quickly as possible—we need more skills. Will my right hon. Friend look at the situation, do a skills audit to find out how many more railway men we need to maintain a modern railway, get the industry together and ensure that we get those workers.
Mr. Prescott: I am sure that the House will want to agree with my hon. Friend's comments with regard to the many thousands of workers at the weekend—20,000—who got on with attempting to deal with all the problems with the track. Indeed, on Monday, 10,000 of them were transferred to deal with problems that arose from the weather. There have been difficult circumstances, but I think that we would want to congratulate all those people on their efforts. Ultimately, it will be for the inquiries to determine what factors contributed to the accident.
Nevertheless, contracts and the availability of skilled workers, particularly engineers, are matters of grave concern. I have asked the industry—including the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack, railway companies and the health and safety authorities—to report back to me, on Thursday, with a Railtrack recovery programme. When we have that programme clear in our minds, we will be able to develop an emergency programme dealing with train arrivals. I think that that is what people want, and that is what I hope to be able to give them very shortly.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. It will be some consolation to those who have been flooded, or who are
614
about to be flooded, that the alarms work better than they used to. However, could we look more thoroughly into the causes of flooding? Specifically, has the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions been able to assess the contribution made by overhead power lines to global warming?
Mr. Prescott: On the effectiveness of alarms, I quite agree that it is far better to prevent damage. However, there has been very considerable rainfall in the past couple of days, and, as the hon. Lady will know, the run-off of that rain has considerably increased water levels in rivers, such as the one at York. Such conditions are very difficult to deal with, but we should look into whether there is more that we can do, and I shall do that.
I am sorry, but I missed the hon. Lady's point on power lines.
Miss McIntosh: What is their effect on global warming?
Mr. Prescott: I shall write to the hon. Lady.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the misery of the past few days is a clear indication that he got it spot on at Kyoto? Can he tell us what he intends to do, at the follow-up next month, to persuade all the other countries to co-operate to lower CO2 emissions? What is the United Kingdom going to do to give a lead in the matter?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and for his congratulations on the efforts that we have made on the Kyoto protocol. The process now moves to The Hague, where we will have to get an agreement. Although that agreement will be between the developed countries and the developing countries, it will be up to the developed countries to lead the way. I hope that the complications presented by some developed countries do not lead to suggestions that the developing countries will have to sign up to the agreement, as that will make it extremely difficult to reach an agreement. An awful lot of work is being done, however, and the prospect of agreement looks promising—although one can never tell until one gets into the negotiations.
I think that every incident demonstrating climate change reminds everyone, whether he or she lives in a developing or a developed country, that we are all affected by climate change. Climate issues have no national boundaries and affect people everywhere, whether they live in China, Nigeria or America. All those countries will have to reach an agreement on climate change issues.
Lately, I have done quite a bit of travelling—for which I have been criticised—to try to achieve agreement on some of those issues. If a lot of the work is not done before such conferences, they can break down. We were successful at Kyoto because of that type of work. I think that everyone realises that success at The Hague requires a lot of hard work and commitment, and that, if we are not successful there, an awful lot of children in the future will not forgive us.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give very special consideration to people who have properties that have been damaged or who have suffered uninsurable losses? Will he also bear in mind that

615
many farmers' crops have been totally destroyed and that those crops were not insured? Additionally, people whose houses may or may not have been on a flood plain have suffered losses that they never expected, because they never expected such a freakish storm.
Mr. Prescott: Of course, the Bellwin fund is about covering local authorities and uninsurable losses; ultimately, however, to be honest, it does not cover farmers. I think that MAFF and other bodies offer other forms of compensation, which should be taken into account.
Mr. Peter Snape: What comfort can the Deputy Prime Minister offer us in relation to the railway's problems in dealing with inclement weather? Earlier, he referred to things being done on the cheap in this country. Does he agree that it is no coincidence that, as soon as we had anything greater than a summer breeze, the overhead railway lines—not the lines causing global warming, but the ones propelling trains—were the first to collapse? Will he suggest to Railtrack management that they go to Switzerland, where the Swiss have been stringing wires up the sides of mountains for many years, and where the wind has been known to blow without causing undue damage? What can we do to get a decent railway?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. In opposition, we both made it clear when we felt that cheap options had been taken to the detriment of the long term. A good example is the electrification of the east coast line. Frankly, that was the second cheaper option that was taken. Those of us who use that line regularly have to face the fact that it keeps coming down. It does not seem to take a very strong wind, certainly not gale force. I think that the wrong option was taken and that we should learn from past mistakes. In my statement I suggested that we should invest in building more security and safety into the infrastructure.
Mr. Norman Baker: May I add my gratitude and admiration for the emergency services and Lewes district council for their work during the terrible tragedy that hit my constituency, where 400 houses were evacuated and the entire retail and business area of the town remains shut to this day? May I gently suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that I am pleased that it served as a wake-up call?
In two Adjournment debates last year, I warned the House that the river defences in Lewes were inadequate, but nothing was done. I hope that will now be corrected. I have just come from a meeting with business leaders in the town who tell me that they are losing £3 million a day. They and the residents of Lewes want a pledge from the Government that there will be a strategic overview of the river Ouse and Uck system and that when recommendations are made for improvements—quickly, I hope—the Government will find the money to introduce those improvements so that there is no repetition of the floods that hit my constituency.
Mr. Prescott: I am advised that the Government are looking at proposals, but I shall write to the hon.
616
Gentleman, as he raises a point that I am not too conversant with in detail, except that I am aware of the problems in respect of private property ownership in the area.
Ms Joan Walley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his continuing work to deal with this catastrophe. We now have a new concept for emergency planning. Will he look closely with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Environment Agency at the criteria used to justify expenditure on new flood defences? In respect of the warning that we have now had about global warming, it is essential in the context of the fuel crisis that we have an informed public debate in this country. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to lead that debate and put the issue on the national agenda?
Mr. Prescott: On the latter point, my hon. Friend is aware that the issue is very much on the agenda. I was very careful to make that point, as was my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. It is difficult for politicians to suggest that global warming may be to blame as it looks as if we are finding an excuse, but the general public read the papers and realise that there is something in it. Those of us who have argued that case for a long time are pleased about that. We are looking at new criteria on cost benefits. It is exactly what we need to do.
Mr. Nick Gibb: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and the Minister for the Environment for coming down to Bognor Regis on Sunday to see for himself the damage done to hundreds of homes by the tornado that struck the town on Saturday evening.
The Secretary of State is right to praise the emergency services. On Saturday evening and throughout the weekend the police, fire and ambulance services and trading standards and housing officers worked closely together repairing roofs, closing roads and finding alternative accommodation for people who were evacuated from their homes.
Until recently, tornadoes have been very rare in Britain, but the Secretary of State will be aware that in Pagham, just a few miles west of Bognor Regis, there was a small tornado last year. There were also tornadoes in Selsey in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). Clearly, weather patterns are changing. On the coast we are now seeing much greater extremes of weather, with storms delivering quantities of rain in very short periods of time.
Therefore, we should be taking measures to deal with changing weather patterns. As well as extra sea defences, surely we should now reconsider the level of new housebuilding that the Secretary of State is demanding for the south coast. It is resulting in houses being built on land that has traditionally been regarded as a flood plain because there is simply nowhere else to put them. Will he now take into account the consequences of more building on flood management policies and reduce the number of houses that he is demanding to be built in West Sussex and the coastal counties?
Mr. Prescott: I note that the hon. Gentleman got in his political postscript, but I am grateful for his remarks about

617
my right hon. Friend's visit to Bognor Regis. The House would want to express its sympathy for the people there, who faced great difficulties with the tornadoes. He made a valuable point about the increasing number of tornadoes. They are very difficult to deal with, whatever preparations are made. We should remember that France lost 10 million trees last year in a tornado that would have hit the south-east but changed direction at the last minute. We must not assume that tornadoes will not hit this country. They are much more difficult to deal with than the flooding and some of the other problems.
Presumably, the hon. Gentleman believes that we are trying to force more housing on his local authority. As I said to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), the previous Administration increased housebuilding in Kent, against the wishes of the local authority, so they must have thought that more houses were needed than the local authority thought. Also, one must not make the assumption that more houses mean more land. We made it clear that the amount of land considered necessary for housing in Serplan and in our calculation is the same. We simply need a higher density of housing.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the experience of the fragmentation of the railways enhance the case for the privatisation of air traffic control?
Mr. Prescott: No.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Secretary of State please take a personal interest in the lack of joined-up government which is having a serious effect on Lindfield in my constituency, where an on-going dispute between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Environment Agency has led to no action being taken, for a very long time, on a serious flooding problem? I join the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) in calling for urgent work to be done on refining the criteria for flood defences.
Will the Secretary of State consider seriously the points made by other hon. Members from Sussex and elsewhere about overbuilding on the flood plain?
Mr. Prescott: It would help us all if I assumed that every Tory thought that, so they would not have to bring it up in every question.
I do not know the details about the flooding in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I am concerned about it, so I will investigate and write to him.
Mr. Huw Edwards: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. This morning I visited a constituent, Mr. Alan Butt, who runs the Anchor inn, beside Tintern abbey. The inn was severely flooded a couple of days ago and has been flooded eight times in the past 10 years. The flooding was caused not by the River Wye but by excess water running off the local hillsides. That reveals the lack of investment that local authorities have been able to put into flood prevention. In his review of these matters, will my right hon. Friend consider the powers and resources available to local authorities, so that they can have a similar flood prevention role to that of the Environment Agency?
Mr. Prescott: On local authority finances, we have increased the amount for flood management in the
618
standard spending assessment. My hon. Friend makes an important point about water from hillsides, and buildings can also cause flooding. We shall certainly consider those matters in the review.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I remind the Secretary of State that the first instance of flooding this year was on 15 September in my constituency and that the Environment Agency has still failed to report on the causes. Will he ensure that the agency has sufficient resources to deal with the matter properly, quickly and effectively? Will he investigate the role of Southern Water and the incompetent way in which it failed to protect the Portsmouth pumping station, causing many hundreds of people to go through the traumatic experience of losing their homes? Will he also consider the fact that many of those people were not properly insured or not insured at all? Will the Government sympathetically consider supporting the hardship funds that have been set up to help those people through this very difficult situation?
Mr. Prescott: I do not know in sufficient detail the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall certainly investigate it. Sewerage was more of a problem than flooding, but the point is academic if the water is coming in through the front door. I shall certainly investigate Southern Water's inefficiencies in dealing with the problem.
In respect of insurance, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the answer is not to have blanket cover for those who have failed to take out insurance. However, I am concerned that an increasingly serious problem will be that insurance companies might tell people regularly faced with floods that they were not prepared to insure them.
Mr. Martin Salter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only reason that my town of Reading is not suffering the serious flood damage experienced elsewhere is that many millions of gallons of water at present cover the ancient water meadows to the south of the town? Does he agree that that wholly justifies Labour-controlled Reading borough council's decision consistently to oppose development on that vital flood plain? Such development is suggested every year by Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors in Berkshire.
Mr. Prescott: That sounds correct. I will go along with it.
Mr. Charles Wardle: May I add to the praise for the emergency services? The Deputy Prime Minister knows that Robertsbridge in my constituency has been flooded four times in a year, and twice in the past three weeks. I am sure that he will understand the sense of devastation among local residents. Will he assure them that he will eliminate delays in Bellwin scheme assistance? Will he urge the Environment Agency to hold a meeting in the village as soon as possible, to ensure that the questions raised in last week's Adjournment debate can be answered and that local voices are heard in planning what else can be done to try to prevent the flooding happening again?
Mr. Prescott: Sir John Harman has told me that the agency does hold meetings, but I shall take up the matter

619
with him. What the hon. Gentleman suggests certainly should happen, and I believe that it will. The agency's relationships with Members of Parliament and constituents are very important.
I shall also look into the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about what we can do to improve what has already been achieved. No hon. Member ever believes that the Bellwin mechanism is fast enough, and I shall certainly look into the matter.
Mr. Andy King: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to do everything possible to alleviate the suffering caused to people by floods. I was amazed at the near hypocrisy expressed by Conservative Members about building on flood plains. I urge them to come to Kenilworth to see for themselves what has happened there as a result of building on the flood plain by Conservative councils and under the previous Conservative Government.
The Environment Agency is working very hard to implement a flood alleviation scheme in Kenilworth, to which it has allocated £200,000. However, the scheme has run up against an obstacle in English Heritage, which is talking about a scheme that would require much more in the way of funds. Will my right hon. Friend use every power available to him to bring the two agencies together with the local authorities so that a flood alleviation scheme in Kenilworth can be put in place that will end my constituents' suffering?
Mr. Prescott: I shall certainly see what I can do to bring the agencies together. There is no reason why they should not come together to reach some agreement, even if it is one that is not acceptable to my hon. Friend. I reserve judgment on the matter, but it is important and I will do what I can.
My hon. Friend makes some powerful points about flood plains. The House should remember that the previous Administration merely published a circular—a type of advice note—on the problem in 1992. Most houses on flood plains were built by Tory councils under a Tory Government. The Opposition still want local councils to make such decisions, even though difficulties such as my hon. Friend described tend to arise. However, 10 per cent. of the population live in houses built on what are presently defined as flood plain fields, and we have to take that into account.
Mr. John Burnett: The regulator apparently puts repairs to foul water and surface water drainage low on the list of priorities contained in his guidance to water companies. Given the increased incidence of flooding, will the Deputy Prime Minister invite the regulator to reconsider those priorities and to encourage water companies to give repairs to drainage pipes for foul and surface water a far higher priority than hitherto?
Mr. Prescott: One of the first things that the Government did on coming to office was to make it clear to the water authorities that there was far too much wastage of water, and that they had to start mending the pipes. They have done that, and wastage has fallen from something over 30 per cent. on average to nearer 20 per cent. That is a step forward.
620
I do not know enough about the point that the hon. Gentleman makes to be specific in my reply, but I will draw what he has said to the regulator's attention. I will then write to the hon. Gentleman with the regulator's response.
Sir David Madel: At his meeting on Thursday, will the right hon. Gentleman urge Railtrack to have an extensive local advertising campaign so that commuters may know how long it will take to do this vital work and when the rail timetables will be restored to normalcy?
Secondly, does he agree that if we are to make real progress on the reduction of global warming, somebody has to find a way of persuading the Americans to use less energy?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I have made constantly to the Vice-President and others, about how America must lead the way in these matters. The Americans have committed themselves to targets; however, it is one thing to do that but another to achieve them, particularly where the use of oil and energy is concerned. Still, we have to continue with the arguments. Some people said that the Americans would not sign up for anything, but they did. Now we must ensure that the policies are implemented. That is what The Hague meeting is about.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about getting Railtrack and others to give more information. I went to my railway station on Sunday to find out about the trains on Monday morning. There was a big queue, but only one person was giving advice and selling tickets. I should have thought, given the crisis, that more people would have been available at the stations to give such information. We have asked Railtrack to report on that on Thursday. People are entitled to know what is happening and what is causing problems—not knowing leads to frustration, and we intend to try and end that.
Mr. Andrew Miller: I join my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his tremendous work in taking a lead in Kyoto. Now that it is clear from nearly all the scientific evidence around the world that climate change is real and is here to stay, we must redouble our efforts to improve public understanding of some of the issues so that people can use direct measures to reduce their energy consumption. We need to improve the debate about the future of power generation in this country to ensure that we do more and more to improve our contribution to the future of Kyoto protocols.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes important points. Perhaps we could start here, by reducing the temperature in our offices and in the House of Commons. That would be a step in the right direction. With regard to power and energy efficiency, our climate change levy is designed to do precisely that.
Mr. David Heath: Speaking for a constituency that floods each and every year, I suggest that prevention is better than cure. We will not deal with the problem simply by building higher and higher walls.

621
Should we not look at the management of whole river catchment systems and consider involving more than one Department in that process? For instance, we could use farms that would otherwise be lying idle to retain water and prevent the flooding of places where people live.
Mr. Prescott: I support the hon. Gentleman's idea, and we will look at it seriously. It is not just about building banks—the rise and fall of water is so great—but about how much water is getting into our waterways and whether we can manage the system more effectively. I think that we can, and it means looking again at planning and building regulations and other things that need to be considered to manage the situation properly, and we intend to do that.
Mr. David Chaytor: Is it not the case that the real cause of these extreme weather conditions has very little to do with housebuilding in Kent and far more to do with 100 years of burning fossil fuels such as gas, coal and oil? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, when the Government consider their future policy on fuel duty, the principles of the Kyoto protocol and the tough targets on CO2 emissions will underpin that policy?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend can be sure that that is exactly the course that I advocate with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment.
Mr. Michael Howard: For my constituents in Folkestone, the considerable disruption and inconvenience caused by the weather were aggravated by the closure of the M20 motorway for use, yet again, as a lorry park under Operation Stack. Now that Kent county council has identified alternatives to the motorway for this purpose, will the Government take action to put an end to a state of affairs which, for my constituents, is quite unacceptable?
Mr. Prescott: It is difficult to deal with such problems unless the lorries can be moved on. That is probably the best way to deal with the matter. I am prepared to listen to other ideas, although it is hard to think what they might be. I support the action.
Mr. Hilary Benn: My right hon. Friend referred to the many homes built on flood plains. Bearing in mind our current knowledge, does he think that those who, contrary to the advice of the Environment Agency, build homes on flood plains, bear some responsibility towards those whose homes flood? Might that responsibility include making a contribution towards compensation?
Mr. Prescott: The Environment Agency has objected to building on flood plains in relatively few cases. Our new planning guidance, which I mentioned in my statement, will make it clear that our preference is against building on flood plains and that the approach has to be scaled in different ways, because there are many different types of flood plain. For example, although Holland is one entire flood plain, houses can be built everywhere because the appropriate investments are made to deal with water dispersal.
Mr. David Chidgey: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in extending the House's
622
sympathy to the residents of Allbrook, which is in my constituency? They and their properties were engulfed by 5 ft of mud and water on Monday morning. I am sure that other hon. Members have similar stories. Will he also congratulate those residents on using their own resources to clear out their homes with equipment and pumps?
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman suggested in his statement that 0.2 per cent. of a local authority's annual budget should be allocated for contingencies and emergencies. If that is correct, what plans does he have to upgrade or modify the guidelines that are issued to local authorities to ensure that they have adequate contingency and emergency plans in place to deal with such events?
Mr. Prescott: That is a fair point. In such situations, we make statements in the House but the reality is that people may have to spend weeks drying out their homes with heaters or pumps. I learned many lessons in Stratford, and I shall take up the points that the hon. Gentleman made in my discussions with local authorities.
Mr. John Redwood: What immediate action will the Deputy Prime Minister and the Environment Agency take to ensure that, the next time there are heavy rains, we can keep open the M25, the A3, other motorways and main trunk roads, and railway lines? It is his responsibility to offer protection against flooding. What will he do to ensure that my constituents can get to work and school next time that there are heavy rains, although they could not do so this time?
Mr. Prescott: It is becoming increasingly clear—I referred to this earlier—that roads, including the M25, were flooded because inadequate pumps were used in an attempt to save money. The right hon. Gentleman should consider whether he covered every eventuality when he was in government. On the railway system, it is certain that inadequate investment for a couple of decades at least—more, I think—resulted in the failures that we are trying to deal with today. It is a pity that he does not show a bit more humility.
Mr. Simon Thomas: The Deputy Prime Minister earlier said that he had had to travel a lot recently. Does he accept that there is a link between increases in air travel and global warming? Will he note that there is no tax on air fuel and that the present system wastes fuel? What ideas will he take to the Netherlands next month to secure an international agreement on that, and what proposals do the Government have to regulate the current waste of air fuel and its environmental consequences, and on the polluter pays principle?
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important point. We have argued the international case in all the national and international arenas. All nations need to reach agreement—we need a global agreement and a global solution. Although that matter is not in the Kyoto agreement, we are pressing the case very hard.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the sympathy that he expressed for those, including the hundreds in my constituency, who have suffered great loss in their homes and of their possessions because of flooding. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Epping Forest district council

623
emergency response team, which was able to go straight into action late on Sunday night because of good early warning systems, and which helped to alleviate problems? Will he also pay tribute to the many voluntary organisations, including the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Red Cross, which helped people who had to be evacuated, and the Royal Engineers? Will he also thank those who provided lifeboats? We do not have any in Epping forest, because we rarely need them.
If the Secretary of State is right about the fact that flood alleviation schemes are not suitable for the more severe weather conditions that he has predicted, will the Government give us more money to provide more efficient schemes?
Mr. Prescott: I have already told the House that we have been giving more funds, but in the end it is about reorganising. Of course I will join the hon. Lady in thanking all the people who helped. They are the unsung heroes, and I hope that she makes the front page.
Dr. Peter Brand: The Deputy Prime Minister has had to make a statement because of exceptional weather circumstances. Does he recognise the anxiety of the people in Ryde in my constituency, who live in fear of flooding every time that there is moderate rainfall because they rely on pumps that are 30 years old for their land drainage? Will he ensure that, when we finally have an agreed scheme, that is funded? In the meantime, will he look sympathetically at the plight of people who cannot insure their homes, not because of exceptional weather circumstances but because of the failure of the public authorities to install a proper drainage scheme?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and it is one to which I referred. If one is constantly under threat, one cannot get insurance. Those are the people who face real difficulties in areas where flooding is likely. I imagine that the matter comes under the flood defence authority, or perhaps one of the drainage or water authorities. I will make inquiries and write to him.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Secretary of State knows that Selsey in my constituency has now been hit twice by tornadoes in three years, although yesterday's was much less severe than the very worrying tornado that did great damage three years ago. Given the huge amount of water that has fallen on the downs, Chichester will be vulnerable to flooding for the whole winter. My constituents were heartened by the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last week in an Adjournment debate. He said that grant aid was ready and waiting to ensure that the scheme to alleviate the danger of sea flooding in Selsey and the Chichester flood relief scheme are not delayed.
Let me bring the Secretary of State back to building in the flood plain. I am not making a party political point and I hope that he will take it in a non-partisan way, but if huge numbers of extra houses are demanded in an area such as Chichester, where large areas are virtually off-limits for construction because they are areas of outstanding natural beauty—part may soon be a national
624
park—much of the construction will have to be in places that are vulnerable to flooding. Therefore, when he looks at planning policy guidance 25, will he reconsider the level that he is demanding for the construction of new housing in my constituency?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman raised the matter in an Adjournment debate, which was answered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. As I understand it, the funding is available, but it is a matter of getting the preferred option and agreement so that it is there. We will put on pressure to achieve that as quickly as possible and we will get a settlement. On Chichester and housing, I do not know the exact details. The hon. Gentleman knows that, in December, we will respond to the various controversies concerning the amount of housing to be available. I am not sure of the allocation for Chichester. In general—this is a sound point—we have made it clear that our housing requirements could be met with the same amount of land used by Serplan by imaginative planning and much higher density housing. I suspect that the housing density in Chichester is one of the lowest in the south-east.
Mr. Paul Keetch: Yesterday, homes in Ross-on-Wye in my constituency were flooded for the first time and, in the city of Hereford, the Belmont roundabout was again under water, causing a traffic gridlock at the junction of two trunk roads. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Environment Agency has applied to become the navigation authority for the River Wye and that the public inquiry into the matter closed in July 1997. The Government have not decided whether to accept the recommendations of the inquiry. Will he look into the matter, consult with his colleagues in the Welsh Office and the Welsh Assembly and ensure that that gridlock is soon past?
Mr. Prescott: I do not know the reason, but I will certainly look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether a navigation authority would have a direct effect in cases such as the flooding to which he referred, but I will look into the matter.
Mr. John Bercow: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the consequences of the floods—by no means the most serious, but not insignificant—is that many right hon. and hon. Members, certainly those with offices in No. 7 Millbank and possibly those in other buildings, received no delivery of mail yesterday and that it was a source of particular distress to me to be deprived of the concerns and opinions of my Buckingham constituents? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake to talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to find out whether we can establish from the Post Office how much, if any, mail was damaged or destroyed?
Mr. Prescott: That is a matter for the House authorities. I have no doubt that, as the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter in this way, it will be brought up, although perhaps we are all glad that he was not able to get his mail out.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the Minister aware that, in mid-Wales, where we regularly experience flooding, we have experimented with lowering the water

625
level in one of the reservoirs and that has helped a little? Will he consider a similar experiment in other places that suffer heavy flooding? Will he also ensure that some of the £400 million comes to mid-Wales, where we regularly suffer a great deal because the water table is already saturated?
Mr. Prescott: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that matter is devolved to the Welsh Assembly, where a statement is being made on it today. Nevertheless, he makes a central point and I shall take it into account.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: In my constituency, there are at least 12 flooding hot spots, which flood regularly when there is heavy rain. First, may I again draw the Deputy Prime Minister's attention to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett)? As the regulator has told Thames Water that, within its pricing formula, for the next two years, it can protect no houses from the threat of sewage flooding, the matter must be addressed. If the proposed water Bill is the right vehicle to do so, I hope that it can be used in that way.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman restore to the borough of Reigate and Banstead the money earmarked for flood defences that was removed from the standard spending assessment about 18 months ago?
Mr. Prescott: In these circumstances, it is possible for local authorities and people affected by flooding to take an interim determination. I am not sure how that works or whether it fits the present circumstances, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and try to spell the matter out.

Stem Cell Research
4.33 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to allow the use of early embryonic tissue for the purposes of research into the development of regenerative therapies.
I welcome the opportunity to bring before the House the recommendations of the Donaldson report on stem cell research. The report of the chief medical officer, published in August, made a series of careful recommendations that the Government have fully supported. It is to the Government's credit that they have stated their support for those proposals—some of which are contained in the Bill—despite media hype on the issue and despite some of the misinformation put out by some opponents of even carefully regulated progress on the matter.
Many hon. Members will have received letters opposing the Bill from their constituents; some—if not most—of those people were organised to lobby on the subject by so-called pro-life organisations, as is their legitimate right. However, I urge the House to remember that—on the other side of the argument—people feel equally strongly that ethical, scientific progress be allowed.
On such matters of conscience, people with similar political views can hold different opinions based on what each person feels to be right ethically and morally. In such circumstances, parliamentarians are generally allowed a free vote on the matter and it is non-party political.
Many of my constituents will feel very strongly in favour of extending the existing law on embryo research and others will feel very strongly against such a change and may wish to repeal the laws that already allow research to take place. In cases such as this, Members of Parliament will not be able to satisfy both sides, and they must come to a considered view. However, those constituents who take a different view to mine have a right to expect three things when I vote on such an issue of conscience: first, that I respect their viewpoint; secondly, that I give a straight answer; and, thirdly, that I have carefully thought about the issues.
I ask the House to support moves to allow stem cell research on early embryos and to support moves to reaffirm the existing prohibition on reproductive cloning where such embryos would otherwise be allowed to developed well beyond the legal 14-day limit. It is understood that the Government will introduce regulations to implement those recommendations. That will not be before time, because Parliament has not had the chance to consider this matter since the issue of so-called cloning hit the headlines more than three years ago, since when seven expert ethical and scientific bodies have called for those changes in the law. Today's short exchange is a long overdue start of public and parliamentary discussion of the proposals.
I wish to discuss the benefits of stem cell research. It is hoped that this research can find ways of allowing patients with cancer, organ failure, degenerative diseases—such as Parkinson's disease and arthritis—or spinal cord injury to have a so-called transplant of some of their own cells that have been reprogrammed to replace the missing, failing or cancerous cells. In that case, there is a real prospect of finding cures—without the problem of rejection or drug

627
toxicity—for debilitating, painful and/or fatal diseases that affect hundreds of thousands of patients every year. Groups representing patients with those diseases, such as the Parkinson's Disease Society, leading medical authorities, such as the Royal Society, campaigning and research charities, led by the co-ordinating Association of Medical Research Charities, and major funding bodies, such as the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, all support my view of the enormous value of the research.
There is confusion about the legal situation and I wish to clarify that. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which was introduced by the previous Government, the use of the test-tube baby, or in vitro fertilisation, technique inevitably leads to the creation of more embryos than can be safely implanted back into the mother's womb. Under the Act, the spare embryos must be frozen for future use or be destroyed within 14 days. In the interval, the Act allows research to be carried for five—and only five—medical purposes: infertility, miscarriage, congenital disease, contraception and genetic abnormalities.
Three separate authorities, all of which have had both medical and theological input, have considered the question of whether stem cell research should be added to that limited list. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the chief medical officer's inquiry—the Donaldson report—have all come to the conclusion that there is no moral or ethical barrier to extending the list of purposes to cover stem cell research, but that the existing ban on reproductive cloning should continue. Leading ethical bodies, such as the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the British Medical Association, have also considered the matter and agree.
Clearly, there is much mainstream support for an extension of the research purposes permitted and it is impossible to ignore that body of opinion. That may indeed by why the Government have supported the proposals and said that they plan to recommend this law change to Parliament.
However, there are several things that my Bill and the proposals are not about. They are not about undermining the special status accorded to the embryo. Embryos of up to 14 days are much smaller than the head of a pin and the 14-day cut-off is chosen because that is the earliest time at which the first beginnings of the structure—the primitive streak—that would eventually turn into the central nervous system can appear. Research on the cells involves microscopic techniques and there is no question of experimenting on anything that remotely resembles a foetus or of there being sentient life involved. The Donaldson report points out that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority must ensure that the research proposals are the only way to achieve progress on this matter.
Many people—although not I believe a majority—sincerely and consistently believe that life begins at conception and that the fertilised egg and early embryo have exactly the same rights to life and integrity as a viable foetus, baby or adult. That appears to be the view of some here, and I respect it. However, it is not a view that I share, and nor is it held by most religious and ethical authorities in this country.
628
Some have argued that embryos should not be used as spare parts for surgery or treatment, but it is not the intention to use embryos as the source of cells to cure degenerative diseases, organ failure or cancer. If such research is successful, it will be possible to derive all the stem cells needed from the patient's own cells, without the need to use embryos. However, as the only source of appropriate stem cells at present is from early embryos, some limited research on embryonic tissue is essential if our medical researchers are to achieve an understanding of the conditions under which adult stem cells can be derived.
Even if it were desirable to use embryo-derived stem cells to cure disease, the very short supply of donated eggs or embryos would prevent that. Such a donation is a very significant step for a woman to take. Hon. Members can therefore be reassured on that point. It has been suggested that adult stem cells can already be used and that there is therefore no need to undertake research on embryonic stem cells. That is not the case according to the overwhelming majority of medical and scientific opinion that I have cited.
Adult stem cells hold real promise, but there are some significant limitations to what can be accomplished with them. However, if the research is successful, it is hoped that it will be possible to derive all the stem cells needed from a patient's own cells. Embryonic stem cell research would be a temporary step necessary to develop ways of using adult stem cells. Some have claimed that that would be a step on the road to reproductive cloning. On the contrary, I support the proposal that the existing ban on reproductive cloning should be reinforced with a new law against it, as recommended by Donaldson and supported by the Government.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, under which such matters are regulated in the United Kingdom, is widely recognised as the most comprehensive legislation in the world and as being effective at preventing abuses of the technology. Donaldson and the Government are right to follow the path of a further ban on reproductive cloning.
Some point out that the European Parliament has voted in favour of a ban on stem cell research. However, the European Union does not have precedence over the United Kingdom's laws on such scientific research. The EU motion opposes not only stem cell research but abortion, which has been legal in this country for 33 years, IVF techniques and our own 1990 Act. That Act provides among the strongest safeguards against illegality in such matters to be found anywhere in the world. The vote was narrowly won by a majority of seven, and expressed an opinion of politicians from the mainly Catholic countries of southern Europe. Almost all Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of the European Parliament voted against it.
The proposals in my Bill would not suddenly allow what is called therapeutic cloning. That is already legal under the 1990 Act. They would simply allow that technique to be extended to research into regenerative therapies. I believe that the Donaldson report is a serious one and that the Government are right to support it, and I commend the Bill to the House.
4.42 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I appreciate that this is a very difficult issue for the House; we are now entering a moral maze. I also appreciate the great

629
knowledge and commitment brought to such matters by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). Many hon. Members will be desperately concerned about the appalling diseases, especially in children, that could be dealt with by such research. The hon. Gentleman has done the House a service in bringing the matter forward. However, I shall oppose the Bill for three reasons.
First, I believe that it is unethical. I shall deal with that in a moment. Secondly, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, I believe that it could pave the way to human cloning. Lastly, also contrary to what he says, I believe that it is unnecessary; the use of adult stem cells represents an alternative.
The House will agree that the ethical issues are probably the most important. Every hon. Member was once an embryo, and we are talking about people who could develop into full human beings. I, and many others, believe that the use of early embryonic tissue—or unborn children, for that is what they are—purely for their cells is morally and ethically repugnant. The process proposed involves taking the stem cells of young embryos, growing them into other body tissues and experimenting on them to develop new body parts for the sufferers of some diseases. However, that will involve the artificial creation of thousands of human embryos purely to use them and then kill them. I believe that that is wrong.
If, like me, the House believes that one cannot draw a line during the development of an unborn child and say that one day it is a human being and the next it is not, or that one minute it is a human being and the next it is not, the only logical and ethical conclusion is that life begins at conception.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cut-off point of 14 days. Photographs recently taken by a Swedish photographer clearly show the development of the brain and an obvious distinction between the two lobes in a 14-day-old foetus. The hon. Gentleman is talking about research into an embryo in which brain cells are growing at the rate of 100,000 neurons a minute. Surely it cannot be said that such growth is not that of an unborn child. We were all at that stage once, and we developed into fully grown people. It surely cannot be argued that it is ethical to perform experiments on such unborn children and to harvest them purely for their stem cells. To allow the creation of life purely for commercial ends and research would take away the inherent value of individuals and their right to life. It would be to treat them purely as a means to an end; as something to be used and then discarded.
As long ago as 1956, the World Medical Association argued that the interests of society should never take precedence in research over those of the individual. It clearly included in its definition of the individual "identifiable human material". That, therefore, included embryos. All of us in this House totally reject the claim by past totalitarian societies that medical research could put the interests of society over those of the individual. To pass the Bill and to argue that embryos—each of which is capable of developing into a full, sentient human being—should be so used would be very dangerous indeed.
The use of early embryonic tissue is thus ethically reprehensible because it allows the creation and destruction of human life on a vast scale. No fewer than 277 embryos were used and destroyed in the creation of
630
Dolly the sheep alone. That takes away the inherent value of the human being and raises the spectre of abuse of the individual in the name of the good of society. That is not acceptable.
My second argument, with which I hope some will agree, is that to allow research into early embryonic tissue would be to allow the development of human cloning, which would inevitably lead to full reproductive human cloning. The process is the same; the difference is only a matter of degrees. The cell nuclear replacement process involves the insertion of a cell from someone into the emptied egg cell, which then divides and multiplies, just as any embryo would. The development of therapeutic research requires the extraction and use of the stem cells that are formed by the egg as it multiplies. It would be only one stage further to allow the egg to develop, implant it into a foster mother and allow it to be born. Thus, we would have the full clone of a human being. Many scientists believe that that is inevitable. Surely, in this of all places, we would want to draw a line to prevent human cloning.
Finally, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's comments, the greatest tragedy of this debate is that research with early embryonic tissue is not inevitable. It is not even essential to development of the life-saving cures of which we hear so much. There is an alternative that is far less ethically controversial: the use of adult stem cells. Such cells are similar to embryonic stem cells, but in some ways better suited to the job. They are more stable and it is easier for scientists to control them.
Recent research has shown that adult stem cells can be just as effective at developing into new tissue. Scientists in Florida have shown that bone marrow stem cells taken from adults can be turned into immature nerve cells and so could be used to help combat diseases such as Parkinson's. As more research has been conducted, adult stem cells have proved to be far more effective than scientists believed. The beauty of the alternative is that it deals with consenting adults; people give permission. The danger of the hon. Gentleman's Bill is that it would deal with people who, by definition, have no control.
I ask the House to reject the Bill on three grounds: it is unethical and morally repugnant, it could lead to full human cloning and, above all, it is not necessary. I appreciate all the vigour and concern that the hon. Gentleman brings to the debate, but as C.S. Lewis said:
The softest road to hell is the gradual one, the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without sign posts.
I believe that the Bill is a gradual, soft and inevitable road to hell, and I urge the House to reject it.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 83, Noes 175.

Division No. 315]

[4.49 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Begg, Miss Anne

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Ashton, Joe

Bercow, John

Banks, Tony

Beresford, Sir Paul

Barnes, Harry

Blackman, Liz

Barron, Kevin

Boswell, Tim

Beard, Nigel

Brake, Tom

631

Brand, Dr Peter

Lansley, Andrew

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

McDonnell, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Mallaber, Judy

Chidgey, David

Maxton, John

Clapham, Michael

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Clwyd, Ann

Miller, Andrew

Dalyell, Tam

Mountford, Kali

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Oaten, Mark

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

O'Neill, Martin

Öpik, Lembit

Donohoe, Brian H

Plaskitt, James

Drown, Ms Julia

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Rendel, David

Efford, Clive

Robertson, Laurence

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Rogers, Allan

Etherington, Bill

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Fabricant, Michael

Sarwar, Mohammad

Flynn, Paul

Savidge, Malcolm

Follett, Barbara

Sedgemore, Brian

Forth. Rt Hon Eric

Sheerman, Barry

Foster, Don (Bath)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Gapes, Mike

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Gidley, Sandra

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

Godman, Dr Norman A

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Harris, Dr Evan

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Todd, Mark

Iddon, Dr Brian

Tredinnick, David

Illsley, Eric

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Tyrie, Andrew

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Mr. Crispin Blunt and

Keetch, Paul

Dr. Ian Gibson.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Cotter, Brian

Amess, David

Cox, Tom

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Crausby, David

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Cummings, John

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Baker, Norman

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Beggs, Roy

Dawson, Hilton

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Day, Stephen

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Dismore, Andrew

Benton, Joe

Duncan, Alan

Best, Harold

Duncan Smith, Iain

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Edwards, Huw

Brady, Graham

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Brazier, Julian

Evans, Nigel

Breed, Colin

Faber, David

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Fallon, Michael

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Fearn, Ronnie

Browne, Desmond

Flight, Howard

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Burnett, John

Fox, Dr Liam

Burns, Simon

Fraser, Christopher

Burstow, Paul

Galloway, George

Cable, Dr Vincent

Gill, Christopher

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Godsiff, Roger

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gray, James

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Green, Damian

Cann, Jamie

Greenway, John

Cash, William

Grieve, Dominic

Chope, Christopher

Hammond, Philip

Clappison. James

Hancock, Mike

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Hayes, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Heald, Oliver

Collins, Tim

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Colman, Tony

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hepburn, Stephen

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hood, Jimmy

632

Horam, John

Prior, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Quinn, Lawrie

Hurst, Alan

Randall, John

Jenkins, Brian

Rapson, Syd

Jones, Mrs Fiona(Newark)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Robathan, Andrew

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Kidney, David

Rowlands, Ted

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Roy, Frank

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

St Aubyn, Nick

Lammy, David

Sanders, Adrian

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Sayeed, Jonathan

Leigh, Edward

Shaw, Jonathan

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Shepherd, Richard

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Skinner, Dennis

Lidington, David

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Loughton, Tim

Spicer, Sir Michael

Luff, Peter

Spring, Richard

McCabe, Steve

Steen, Anthony

Macdonald, Calum

Streeter, Gary

McFall, John

Stunell, Andrew

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Swayne, Desmond

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Syms, Robert

Mackinlay, Andrew

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

MacShane, Denis

Taylor, David (NW Leis)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

McWalter, Tony

Taylor, Sir Teddy

McWilliam, John

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Malins, Humfrey

Trend, Michael

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Tyler, Paul

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Tynan, Bill

Martlew, Eric

Vis, Dr Rudi

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Walter, Robert

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Ward, Ms Claire

Meale, Alan

Wardle, Charles

Mudie, George

Wareing, Robert N

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Waterson, Nigel

Nicholls, Patrick

Webb, Steve

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Wells, Bowen

O'Hara, Eddie

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Olner, Bill

Wilkinson, John

Paice, James

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Paterson, Owen

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Pearson, Ian

Tellers for the Noes:

Pond, Chris

Mrs. Ann Winterton and

Pound, Stephen

Mr. Jim Dobbin.

Question accordingly negatived.

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

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  PRISONS
  That the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Amendment of Section 10) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2024) dated 25th July 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th July, be approved.
  PRISONS

    INVESTIGATORY POWERS
    That the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Notification of Authorisations etc.) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2563) dated 20th September 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd September, be approved.
    That the Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2665) dated 28th September 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th September, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Children Leaving Care Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Children Leaving Care Bill [Lords]
    Clause 1

      FURTHER DUTIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TOWARDS CHILDREN WHOM THEY ARE LOOKING AFTER
      5.2 pm
      Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
      '( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify persons or classes of person who are and persons or classes of person who are not suitable to act as personal advisers under the provisions of sections 19C. 23B(2), 23C(3) and 23D(1).'.
      Three months have elapsed between Committee and Report. I am sure that all hon. Members need to cast their minds back to the issues that were raised three months ago. The gap means that the Government have had extra time in which to reflect on some of the excellent points that we made in Committee, and it has also allowed for some fresh thinking by us.
      The Bill has a strong measure of support from all parties. We recognise that the system fails care leavers dismally. The facts are worth repeating for any hon. Members who did not participate in earlier stages of our consideration of the Bill, or for whom July is a long time ago. Seventy-five per cent. of young people leaving care have no educational experience and 50 per cent. are unemployed. I am especially struck by an appalling statistic—that up to 25 per cent. of young women leaving care are pregnant or have a child. We, as a corporate parent, are not doing a good job for care leavers. That is the reason for the Bill.
      On Report, we want to press several amendments and hear the Government's views on them because they cover points that, on reflection and careful re-reading of all the records of proceedings for the Committee stage, would leave the Bill less effective than it would be if we could persuade the Government to accept the amendments.
      Amendment No. 11 would add the provision:
      The Secretary of State may by regulations specify persons or classes of person…who are not suitable to act as personal advisers…
      We believe that that is important. As parliamentarians, I am sure that we know that care leavers are among the most vulnerable people in our society. We therefore need to be extremely streetwise about putting them in a position of trust with a personal adviser. We have all learned some hard lessons from our experience of children's services, especially in north Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom where it has been revealed that unscrupulous individuals prey on children.
      We need to understand that the role of personal adviser is one that could be attractive to unscrupulous persons who seek to prey on vulnerable children or young persons. The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen that understanding. We remain concerned about the specific training and qualifications required of young persons' advisers. It is a particular concern of the National Children's Bureau.

      635
      It was made clear by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on Report in the other place, that in his view the majority of personal advisers would be drawn from persons who now work with children in care or those leaving care. That was put forward as a point of reassurance to their Lordships. Lord Hunt was saying that those still concerned about the matter need not be.
      I still have two residual concerns. Although there are planned changes to the training and development of social workers under the Care Standards Act 2000, it has been acknowledged by the Government that child development has been an area in the training of social workers that may not have had the full attention that it requires. That will be especially important in relation to the new role of personal advisers. If the majority of them are to be drawn from the group of people whom we would now regard as social workers, we need to be sure that in the course of their training attention is drawn to child development. Understanding the needs and predicaments of young persons leaving care has much to do with understanding how children behave, particularly when they have had poor experiences of family life and bad experiences from the past, which they carry as luggage when going forwards.
      That is why we endorse the concern of the National Children's Bureau that the training and qualifications of personal advisers should be spelled out more clearly. Although Lord Hunt sought to reassure their Lordships that the majority of personal advisers would be drawn from among those who already work with young persons in care or leaving care, a minority of others could come from completely different walks of life. That is desirable, but some of them may be volunteers. We need to be sure that even those who volunteer to undertake the important role of personal adviser are trained and qualified to do the job. We would regard somebody as not suitable if he or she did not have appropriate training.
      Mr. John Bercow: I warmly welcome the amendment. Would the regulations that my hon. Friend has recommended be subject to the negative or affirmative procedure?
      Mrs. Spelman: As my hon. Friend knows, and as we discovered at an early stage, as parliamentarians we need to have a belt-and-braces approach. It is not enough in this instance to let things go through on the nod. That is one of the motivations behind the amendment. We feel that there is too much latitude for inadequacy in training people for the important role of personal advisers. They must be qualified and they must be suitable.
      Save the Children Fund is another charity that has a real concern. It has said that there could be a situation in which a personal adviser has a conflict of interest. The example that it has given could genuinely arise. If a personal adviser is a social worker and an employee of the local authority, it is possible that he or she may be under considerable pressure to stay within a budget. That is not unusual for a local authority employee. That may compromise the preferable choice that that personal adviser would make in addressing the need of the care leaver for suitable accommodation. The fact that Save the Children Fund recognises that there is a conflict of interest
      636
      should lead us all to reflect on the matter. A conflict of interest could be an important reason why someone might not be suitable for the role of personal adviser.
      Another important practical consideration has come to light through the work of charitable organisations, which have a great deal of experience in this area. The National Children's Bureau has said that there is no mention in the Bill of the links between advisers of young people who are involved in other recent Government initiatives, such as the youth support scheme which will be established by the Learning and Skills Bill. There is a risk that young people may face a veritable army of advisers. For example, they could find themselves with a social worker, a personal adviser, a case supervisor, a home link worker, a foster carer and, indeed, a Connexions adviser, although that role might double up with that of personal adviser. I invite hon. Members to put themselves in the position of a vulnerable young person who has so many different people to answer to for his or her actions, to consult, to take account of and to get to know. In addition, that young person has to cope with changes in personnel as those advisers change.
      It is fair to ask the Government to reassure us that the approach will be streamlined. There is a danger that an array of different people will intervene in a young person's case when it is crucial that that person does not become another statistic in a system that has failed him. The arrangements must remain personal. Young care leavers will undoubtedly view an array of such people as representing the establishment, for which they may not have the warmest regard. There is a danger that young people will feel no more cared for and supported than they were before.
      We should reiterate that children have a right to expect unsuitable advisers to be screened out. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that protective measures exist in other parts of the legislation. We know that terrible mistakes have been made. In Committee, I cited the example of how, almost by chance, a local authority uncovered the fact that an employee of another local authority, who held a position of enormous trust looking after vulnerable children, had a criminal record. It took more than a year for the local authority that employed him to do anything about the fact that he was in charge of children despite having a criminal record that would render him completely unsuitable for working in close proximity with children. The criminal record was only uncovered when the individual applied to Wandsworth council to become a foster parent. The council ran the proper checks and discovered that he had a criminal record, of which Lambeth council was completely unaware. We are talking not about theory but about mistakes that happen in practice. Children were let down in that case and we must ensure that they are not let down in the same way again.
      All the evidence surrounding inquiries into the running of children's services in which there have been problems has taught us that some local authorities do not have a good track record in this area. I would be the first to acknowledge that great steps have been taken to protect children. People who have contact with children should now be rigorously checked. I have first-hand experience of that because, wisely or unwisely, I volunteered to help with the Sunday school in my local parish church. I have been interested to go through the whole process that requires me to declare whether I have a criminal record,

      637
      a health reason why I should not work with children or have had a different name in the past. I even have to supply my birth certificate. I therefore know that checks are made even when an individual is volunteering, but I am nevertheless concerned about the fact that the appointment of a personal adviser relies on such checks by local authorities.
      5.15 pm
      During the Committee stage of the Care Standards Bill, we learned of the terrible dearth of social workers. They are in short supply, and much of the legislation that we have passed requires them to do more and more. There is a huge demand for their skill, and I should hate the need for them as social advisers to be compromised because of a shortage of time for checks to be made. The amendment will help to ensure that local authorities take seriously the process of establishing whether a person is suitable to act as an adviser.
      I want to make another practical point about timing. The Minister explained in Committee how changes in the checking procedure could be helpful, but there is no doubt that there will be a time lag between the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau and local authorities needing to know whether someone is suitable, and has passed the police checks.
      On 26 October, a ministerial answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) suggested that the new bureau would be in a position to issue criminal records certificates by around July next year, but the Minister involved said that detailed planning was continuing. That leaves a bit of doubt in my mind. I know that the time is coming, but the needs of care leavers have been clearly identified and the role of personal adviser is key to the success of this part of the Bill. There must be a huge temptation to get the system going, perhaps before the establishment of the very best protection which we hope will be afforded in future. I should like the Minister to reassure me that there will be no gap during which unsuitable persons might be appointed.
      We understand how crucial advisers are to the workability of the system. I cannot emphasise that enough. They will be responsible for ensuring that care leavers' pathway plans develop and for adjusting those plans to young persons' changing needs. An adviser will have a close relationship, involving trust and understanding, with a vulnerable care leaver. Advisers will represent the human face of what I have described as the corporate parent. As I said earlier, as a corporate parent we have not done very well in the past in relation to the group that we are discussing.
      If the Minister is receptive to our amendment, we shall, I hope, help to remove elements of risk that might cause unsuitable people to gain a position of influence, and to aggravate an already bad situation. A number of care leavers fall through the net, causing the sad statistics that I cited earlier. They may become unemployed, they often become homeless, some become pregnant, and some have young children.
      We tabled a similar amendment in Committee, but the Minister rejected it, saying that the Government did not want to be too prescriptive and wanted to leave the matter to the discretion of local authorities. As I hope I have made clear, we remain anxious about the discretion of
      638
      local authorities. We feel that our amendment would strengthen the Bill and would leave less room for manoeuvre.
      One of our major concerns with the Bill is that we have to take quite a lot of it on trust. The Government stated that they would resolve the matter that we are concerned about through statutory guidance, but the question is: what will that be? We do not know. It is yet another example of an empty box. We are being asked to agree the contents without having seen them.
      We were invited by the Minister to help him to ensure that the guidance was correct. How can we do that without knowing what it is? Perhaps we shall hear what it is and perhaps that will give us some reassurance. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
      The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for the spirit in which she has moved her amendment. She started by saying that we all had to remind ourselves about the nature, scope and range of the Bill. That is true for those on the Government Benches, as I am sure it is true for those on the Conservative Benches. A long time has elapsed between the Committee stage of the Bill and Report. We all know the reasons for that, but the hon. Lady showed her customary grasp of the detail. I congratulate her on that.
      The hon. Lady is right to say that there is a powerful sense of deja vu about the debate: she made exactly the same speech in Standing Committee. I do not want to antagonise her, but my response is likely to be similar to my response to her amendments then, although I shall try to deal specifically with the particular reassurances and assurances that she asked me to give in relation to two particular concerns. One was about the relationship between the young person's adviser and the Connexions service that the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health strongly support and encourage. The other was about the progress of the Criminal Records Bureau and the facility that local authorities will have to check the names of potential young persons advisers against the database that the bureau will maintain.
      As I said in Standing Committee, the hon. Lady's argument with the Government is one of process rather than substance. I do not think that her argument is one of substance in relation to the role of young persons advisers, their training, qualifications and suitability to do the job. As I understand it, her argument is essentially that she would prefer those issues to be dealt with by regulations—she is right; if we took that action it would be subject to the negative procedure—instead of setting the procedures for appointing young persons advisers and the detail around that in guidance.
      The hon. Lady was slightly wrong to say that I suggested in Standing Committee that all those matters would be left purely to the discretion of local authorities because, as she went on rightly to say, I made it clear that we intended to issue statutory guidance to local authorities on how that discretion should be exercised. Of course, that is guidance that local authorities are required to follow. We are aware, as she is, that substantial issues of policy and consistency need to be addressed around the appointment of that new person—the young person's adviser—who will have, as she rightly said, an important and substantial role in overseeing the implementation of the new arrangements.

      639
      What is clear—I agree with the hon. Lady—is that the young person's adviser must be able to build the right relationship of trust with young people. The Government believe that there is no monopoly of those skills and characteristics in any given professional group, or in the public, private or voluntary sectors. In our consultation document entitled "Me, Survive, Out There?" we produced a fairly comprehensive and long list of people who could potentially act as young persons advisers. We must allow for flexibility in the system, so that individual needs and circumstances can be best met.
      I believe—I made it clear in Standing Committee and I repeat it—that that is not a suitable matter for regulation, but that statutory guidance is a better mechanism to build in the flexibility that we want. We shall be clear that we envisage a wide field for potential young persons advisers and that the critical point in each case will be whether they are able to work successfully with the individual young person. I believe—it is a matter of common sense, and I am sure that this is where most Members would want to draw the line—that those judgments about suitability are best made through local recruitment and selection processes.
      As for defining groups that may not be young persons advisers, that issue has been largely overtaken by the Protection of Children Act 1999, which, subsequent to our discussions in Standing Committee, became law on 2 October.
      The hon. Lady was right to say that it is important that vulnerable young people, such as those who have been looked after, should be protected from unsuitable people. I am confident that the legislation will do that. We have taken account of that need and safeguards are already in place—such as police checks, to which the hon. Lady referred and about which I shall say a few words in a moment, and the provisions of the 1999 Act.
      We do not envisage that young persons advisers will be recruited to specialise in different age bandings. Indeed, the ideal will be that a young person keeps the same young persons adviser from 16 to 21, or whenever he or she stops receiving support from his or her responsible authority. Consequently, young persons advisers must be able to work with the entire age range, and recruitment will have to take account of the safeguards in place to prevent unsuitable people from working with children. Therefore, I do not think that there is any need to make separate regulations for that purpose as amendment No. 11 invites the House to do.
      The hon. Lady asked two specific questions and expressed a particular concern about the Connexions personal advisers. The role of the Connexions personal adviser and that of the adviser appointed under the Bill clearly will be largely similar. It is proposed, therefore, that the advisers for young people aged 16 and over living in and leaving care should usually be their Connexions adviser.
      The precise nature of the relationship between the employing authority—for example, a social services department—and the Connexions service is still a matter for consideration. We are examining the details of that relationship. Additionally, proposals are being developed for a major training programme for Connexions advisers, to include those who are appointed as advisers for the purposes of the Bill.
      640
      As for the training of young persons advisers who are not going to be Connexions advisers, we made it clear in the "Me, Survive, Out There?" document that local authorities would be able to use an element of their children's special grant—the quality protects money—to ensure that young persons advisers receive the training that we all know they need to receive.
      The project remains on target for the Criminal Records Bureau to begin issuing greater numbers of certificates by about July 2001. Meanwhile, the Home Office is examining possible methods of minimising delays in local police forces. I think that it is very important, for reasons that the hon. Lady has rightly identified, that police checks are conducted as expeditiously as possible. That is a basic safeguard which we expect to be in place.
      I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured by the particular responses that I have made on the Criminal Records Bureau and the Connexions advisory service. She is less likely to be satisfied with my arguments on why we prefer to deal with the matter in statutory guidance rather than in regulations. However, I think that it would be wrong to characterise statutory guidance as an ineffective tool. It is not ineffective—it has proven its worth on many occasions and in many settings in which Governments of all persuasions have used the section 7 route to provide guidance to local authorities.
      The hon. Lady asked me specifically about how she could know whether the guidance would be appropriate. The fact is that the guidance is not yet ready. If it were, we would certainly let her see it, so that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends could comment on it. I meant what I said in Committee: when the guidance is ready, we shall certainly seek her view and that of other Conservative Members on the appropriateness of that guidance tool. We shall do that not because of nostalgia or sentiment, but because it is the right thing to do.
      We want to ensure that consensus on the Bill is maintained. The hon. Lady identified consensus as one of the strong characteristics of our proposals and we are anxious to maintain that. I am sure that she will not mind me saying, however, that we do not think that Conservative Members necessarily have a monopoly on wisdom in the matter. She said that I asked her to help out, but I think that she might have misinterpreted that, as we have very strong ideas about what we want the guidance to cover. Nevertheless, we should certainly welcome her advice and opinions and those of other Conservative Members.
      I therefore cannot recommend my right. hon. and hon. Friends to accept amendment No. 11. However, I hope that the hon. Lady has at least been reassured about our intentions on maintaining proper and effective safeguards and that the legitimate points she has made on training and suitability will be properly dealt with in the guidance that we shall be issuing.
      Mrs. Spelman: I am grateful to hear the Minister's clear reassurance that there will be some streamlining in the number of advisers who will be working with vulnerable young people and his identification of funds to finance additional training. I have been reassured on both those points.

      641
      5.30 pm
      There would have been no need to debate the amendment had we seen the draft guidance. One of the problems throughout our consideration of the Bill has been that quite a lot of detailed background information has not been available. Of course, three months have elapsed since we debated the Bill in Committee, but I hope that this evening's debate, which has highlighted some of the Opposition's concerns, will serve to inform the Government as they draft the guidance, to which we wish to contribute by dint of their invitation to us.
      To be realistic, we are unlikely to see any draft guidance until it is pretty well in its final stage, so perhaps tonight's debate has served the purpose of enabling us to make a contribution, even if we have reiterated some of the points that we made earlier this year. We feel that they are important and we look forward to seeing the draft guidance. As we have had some reassurances on streamlining, funding and training, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN CHILDREN.
      Mr. Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 30, at end insert—
      '23CA.—(1) Any person aged eighteen or over who makes a valid election not to be treated as a former relevant child shall not, so long as such an election is in force, be a former relevant child for the purposes of this section.
      (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the procedure for the making and withdrawal of elections under subsection 1.
      (3) In respect of a person in respect of whom a valid election is in force, a local authority shall not discharge any of the duties in subsections (2) and (3) of section 23C.
      (4) Subject to subsection (1C), a local authority may in respect of any person in respect of whom a valid election is in force offer services or assistance of a type required or permitted to be provided under this Act to former relevant children, but shall be under no duty to do so.'.
      I cannot allow the Bill to progress without raising what I believe to be an important issue, although in anticipation of what the Minister will say, I have to confess that we debated the matter on Second Reading and in Committee.
      The Bill originally focused on children aged 16 and 17. During its passage through the House its scope has been considerably extended to place on local authorities all sorts of duties in relation to people over 18 who left care before reaching that age. We have broadly supported the Government in those changes to the Bill. Indeed, our noble Friends were partly instrumental in making the changes in the other place. However, I fear that in their enthusiasm to ensure that the Government facilitated proper support for care leavers over 18, those in the other place may have lost sight of a rather important and fundamental principle: when we talk about people over 18, we are dealing not with children but with adults who have to be treated as people capable of making decisions for themselves, with all the respect that that implies.
      In his reply to the previous debate, the Minister spoke about his desire to build a consensus around this and other measures that seek to protect children. We fully support
      642
      that view, but I would suggest to him that to be durable, a consensus must be not merely a consensus between the different views represented in this place at any particular time, but must sit comfortably with the traditions of our legal system.
      The Bill places on local authorities a requirement to maintain pathway plans in respect of former relevant children—people who were relevant children when they left care and who are now over 18. It also requires local authorities to keep in touch with former relevant children and to re-establish contact with them if that contact has been lost. I acknowledge, as I have done before, that that would be a positive measure for the vast majority of children leaving care and we welcome it, but upon becoming adults some children leaving care may wish to put their past behind them and sever the link with the local authority that looked after them during their childhood. The Minister may think that it is right or wrong, helpful or unhelpful, in their best interests or otherwise, but the point is surely that as adults they have that right. The intentions of others, and the outcomes, may be good, but we should not subject a singled-out group of competent adults to compulsion, simply because something is for their own good. We do that only when people's competence is in question.
      The essence of the Bill is to normalise the position of care leavers as far as possible and make their treatment as close as possible to that of other, perhaps more fortunate, individuals, and not to single them out for compulsory treatment in a way that marks them apart.
      Currently, we have no way of knowing how assiduous local authorities are likely to be in seeking to keep in touch with former relevant children. Without wanting to be too cynical, I must say that much may depend on the financing mechanisms yet to be announced. Local authorities may take a relatively assertive line in seeking to discharge their statutory duty to take reasonable steps to stay in touch with former relevant children and to re-establish contact if it is lost.
      We raised these issues on Second Reading and in Committee, and the Government argued that an opt-out, allowing an adult who is a former relevant child to choose not to be included in the provisions, would allow some local authorities to avoid their responsibilities under the Bill. Clearly, we do not want that. A balance needs to be struck. Local authorities must not be given a route that is open to abuse, but fully competent adult care leavers who do not want to participate further in the scheme must be given the right to free themselves from contact with their social services authority. There was a consultation conference on the Government's document, "Me, Survive, Out There?". One of the comments recorded in response to a question about whether it was right to have a plan was:
      Some young people have good reason for not wanting anything more to do with Social Services. They shouldn't be forced to have a plan or maintain contact. Their decision should be respected.
      We believe that that is right when we are talking not about 16 and 17-year-old children but about 18-year-old adults. The amendment would modify the statutory duty on local authorities to allow for the making of an election by an adult who is a former relevant child, in a manner to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. That is important, because it addresses the Government's legitimate concern about creating a loophole through which recalcitrant local authorities might escape. The Secretary of State would

      643
      prescribe the way in which the election was made, and indeed the way in which it could be withdrawn. An election in force would relieve the local authority from its obligations to maintain or re-establish contact, and to maintain a pathway plan and appoint a young person's adviser, and indeed would prevent that authority from pursuing those duties. It would not prevent them from offering other types of assistance.
      I must draw attention to an error in the amendment. The reference to subsection (1C) should be a reference to subsection (3). The numbering changed between the blue and the white copy, but the subsequent reference in the amendment was not changed.
      The amendment is not in any sense intended to be a wrecking amendment. It would recognise the real and important difference between the treatment of care leavers who are still children—minors—and of those who are have attained majority. In the first instance, the local authority must take on the role of the parent and discharge that duty diligently; in the second, the local authority's role is to be supportive, where such support is welcomed by the individual.
      This is the third time that we have discussed this matter. I have as yet heard no case for requiring local authorities to maintain plans for, and to keep in touch with, competent adults who have expressed through a mechanism to be defined by the Secretary of State a clear wish to the contrary. The amendment would recognise the fundamental right of a competent adult to choose to be left alone by a local authority.
      As I have said before to the Minister, it is imperative that the Bill be in accordance with the spirit at least of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which gives the right to privacy and respect for family life. Therefore, a person who has attained the age of majority should be able to express a desire not to be included in the scheme proposed by the Bill.
      My attempts to argue that case on two previous occasions were met with torrents of abuse—not from the Minister, but from Labour Back-Bench Members. Perhaps their absence today means that they have decided that they have lost the argument. However, nothing is more typical of the tendency to interfere and nanny people—so unhelpful in creating good and durable legislation—than this attempt to coerce competent adults into something that they may express a desire not to have.
      A moment's reflection shows that it would be wrong for a local authority to monitor competent adults against their express wishes. I thought about the matter at some length over the summer recess, and could think of no circumstances in which it would be morally right to do so. I hope that the House will think carefully again about the implications of what the Bill proposes.
      Dr. Peter Brand: Fewer hon. Members are in the Chamber this evening than attended the Committee deliberations. That is clearly a measure of the general support for the Bill. At the risk of going over old ground, I want to say that I support proposed new subsection (1) of the amendment, although my argument is not that advanced by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). Clearly, in an ideal world, an unruly 17-year-old in care can become a
      644
      competent adult on his 18th birthday, but that does not square with my experience. The argument in favour of support for young people is as relevant for people of 16 as it is for those aged 18 or 19.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman presumably accepts that the law sets a watershed for people at the age of 18. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, people who attain majority are regarded as competent adults.
      Dr. Brand: Clearly, I recognise the law, but perhaps my definition of competence differs from the hon. Gentleman's. According to my definition, a competent person can make well-informed decisions for himself about how to lead his life, and can do so without support. I would be worried if all parts of the amendment were accepted. The local authority would then have a licence to have nothing more to do with a particular young person. I would be as worried if parents suddenly said to their child when he or she turned 18, "Never darken our doors again; we have no interest in you." There is a great difference between the requirement to receive all one's sustenance, benefits and means of sustaining oneself from the ages of 16 to 21, as the Bill provides for leavers, and the duty of caring about the outcome of the decisions that they make in their lives.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to 16 and 17-year-olds. We are not talking about them, but about 18-year-olds. Will he concede that an 18-year-old who wished to distance himself from his family would be entitled to expect his family not to harass him, if that was his clearly expressed wish?
      Dr. Brand: Absolutely. I would not give licence to parents to harass, either. However, there is a great difference between continuing care and harassment. I hope that the Bill does not give a power to harass.
      What concerns me—which is why I support the first part of the amendment—is that the powers that the Bill gives local authorities over young people who are over 18 are greater than those of the average parent. If young people are in education or are in need of benefit because they are not self-sustaining in the work place, their only means of support is not—as it is for children with parents—a benefits system into which everyone can plug, but through their local authority.
      In Committee, I moved an amendment that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge described as a wrecking amendment. When young people—it does not matter to me whether they are 17, 18, 19 or 20—become disaffected with the local authority and refuse to accept its help, is there a mechanism flexible enough to ensure that they are supported in a legitimate way? That is what my amendment was designed to test with the Minister, because I am extremely concerned that when young people who cannot go to a Benefits Agency office, do not qualify for social loans and refuse to be in touch with their local authority take flight, their only means of support is through drug dealing, prostitution or stealing.
      We had some discussion on this in Committee. The Minister talked about exceptional arrangements or, by regulation, listing exemption groups. However, having reread Hansard, I am not sure whether that exemption can

      645
      be made for individuals when the situation has broken down. Will the local authority and the Benefits Agency liaise when a young person is clearly in need of financial support, and can such support be forthcoming other than through direct contact with the local authority if the authority cannot meets its commitments, even if it wants to, because of that young person's bloody-mindedness?
      Mr. Hutton: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) is in the classic Liberal Democrat position. He supports some parts of the amendment but not others. Unfortunately, the rules of the House do not allow him to choose which parts he supports. He either supports the whole package or he does not.
      Dr. Brand: I am always happy to be rebuked and to learn, but I thought that one of the opportunities available on Report was to explore further with Ministers their approaches to amendments and the Bill. That is why I am happy to support only part of an amendment. How I will vote is a matter that will become clear should we be called on to do so.
      Mr. Hutton: I look forward to finding out how the hon. Gentleman intends to vote if the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pushes the amendment to a vote.
      I must begin from where I would not choose to start by correcting the assessment of the Bill made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It is not true to say that we did not envisage this part of the Bill extending to people aged 21. We always saw it that way. The argument in the other place was over whether that should be made explicit in the Bill or implemented through the regulation-making powers that we had originally said we wished to use. His description of a Bill whose character and nature had been fundamentally changed by the amendments accepted in another place is not right. As is made clear in the Bill and in the document, "Me, Survive, Out There?", we always had those points in mind.
      Secondly, and more substantially, the hon. Gentleman fundamentally misunderstands this part of the Bill, and his concerns are therefore misplaced. He characterised the local authority in conducting its responsibilities as an intrusive arm of the nanny state that would harass and monitor people in some covert, police-style operation. That is completely inaccurate. We do not expect local authorities to exercise their functions and duties in that way.
      We argued that point on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, and I am sad that we seem to have seen no progress in the hon. Gentleman's thinking on it over the summer. However, his friends in the other place did not raise that argument at all, although they had plenty of opportunity to do so. He seems to have got his arguments into a twist. His perfectly understandable arguments about civil liberties are misplaced.
      I must also argue with the hon. Gentleman's amendment on the grounds that his attempted solution to the civil liberties deficit that he says that he has identified would be likely to make matters worse rather than better. We explored the reasons why that should be in Standing Committee, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has rightly said. The attempted solution might in fact operate as effective encouragement to some local authorities to
      646
      make young people leaving care exercise the choice that the amendment would provide. In that case, the amendment might deny the local authority the opportunity to provide the sort of help that we would wish to vulnerable care leavers—the very people who prompted our concern to legislate.
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but they traduce the duties that we want local authorities to have for young people. He misdescribed, in particular, the way in which we expect the duty to keep in touch to operate. We shall deal with that through statutory guidance, which we intend to issue as soon as we can. We shall consult the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the nature of that duty.
      The hon. Gentleman did not address the point that we are trying to strike a balance. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight, to his credit, did mention that, and, to be fair, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge alluded partly to it. We accept that we are striking out into new territory. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and his party had 20 years in which to address deficiencies in the system for leaving care, and did not do so. We have tried to strike a balance between the needs of young people leaving care, who are often vulnerable, socially excluded, damaged youngsters, and what we expect of a responsible parent—in this case, the local authority.
      Miss Anne Begg: Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment misses the point that a vulnerable young person of 18 may want nothing to do with the local authority, which will in turn be unsurprised by that. Two years later, at the age of 20, having grown up a bit, the person may seek support. It is not unusual for 18-year-olds to leave home wanting nothing to do with their parents, but for the same people, in their early 20s, to realise that they have cut off all support and seek to return in some way. We must build into the Bill the possibility of rapprochement, should the young person want it.
      Mr. Hutton: I agree. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that a recent assessment by the National Children's Bureau, which was published in September, showed that young people who have left care often admit, when they look back, that they were far less ready to live independently than they had thought at the time. Under the amendment, it might be difficult, once the young person has taken an option, for the local authority to discharge the responsibilities that we expect a good parent to deliver.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was right to say that a competent adult may say that he or she wishes to lead his or her own life exactly as he or she chooses. The Bill will not stop any young person doing that. We are concerned with the duties that a corporate parent, acting as a good and reasonable parent, should have. The hon. Gentleman is a parent himself, and I cannot imagine that he would accept a situation in which he would make no effort to keep in touch with one of his own children should something happen that resulted in that child not wanting to remain in touch. I should certainly wish to remain in touch. No matter what the

      647
      difficulties in their relationship, we should expect a parent to make some effort to keep in touch. That is a hallmark of a good parent.
      The hon. Gentleman's concerns are misplaced, and he has misdescribed the nature of the duties, particularly the duty to keep in touch. He has characterised that duty as if it were some covert, police-state duty, which it clearly is not. We shall ensure that it is not when we issue statutory guidance.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: What would happen if a young adult in the pathway plan made it clear that he or she did not want contact with a local authority? Would that fit with how the pathway plan might work? Does not that point provide a response to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)?
      Mr. Hutton: Those issues will arise, as the hon. Gentleman knows from experience. We cannot legislate for good relationships between children leaving care and local authorities. We must put in place the right framework of duties and responsibilities, and that is all that we seek to do. We expect pathway plans to be kept under regular review, and if difficulties arise, the pathway plan should reflect them. The plan can ultimately record only the agreement reached between the parties.
      Mr. Hammond: I want to be clear on this point. Is the Minister suggesting that the pathway plan could provide for no further contact, which, I think, was the import of the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)?
      Mr. Hutton: We should wish to ensure that the duty to keep in touch was preserved at all times. That is an extremely important principle. How it would translate into practice would vary from case to case. In some cases, a young person leading a successful, independent life may feel that minimum contact is necessary, and that could be reflected in the plans. We are not dogmatic about telephone conversations or visits every hour or every day. That would be absurd. We need to tailor arrangements to suit the particular circumstances of the young person concerned. We want flexibility. I suspect that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is not reassured by all that, and I know that he feels strongly on these matters. I hope, however, that he will draw some comfort from the fact that we intend the arrangements to operate sensibly and realistically but in a way that achieves our fundamental objective for the Bill, which is to ensure that local authorities act in future as responsible and good parents. I argue strongly that it is characteristic of a good parent that he or she should at least try to keep in touch with a child.
      Mr. Hammond: I have listened carefully to the Minister. He and I approach the problem from fundamentally different points of view, but I acknowledge, as I hope he would, that we are both well-intentioned.
      The Minister referred to the pathway plan of an individual who was leading a successful, independent life, saying that it might propose minimum contact. In whose view would that life be successful? It is the local authority's view. It draws up the pathway plan. That is
      648
      precisely the point. It is the nanny approach. The local authority will decide when, if and how one is entitled to break free.
      6 pm
      The Minister is not correct when he characterises my position as that of having misunderstood the Bill. I understand it well and I agree with him that, whatever it states, it will not prevent young people from going their own way—probably successfully—if that is what they want.
      As the Bill is drafted, the local authority will retain a statutory obligation to use its reasonable endeavours to maintain or re-establish contact with the young person. It will retain a statutory obligation to appoint a young person's adviser. The young person's adviser for all those who have gone away and asserted their rights to be completely independent will have a good job because he will not be busy. There will also be a statutory obligation to maintain and update the pathway plan for the young person. Essentially, in the case of someone who has clearly stated his intention to set himself apart from the process, as the Minister has acknowledged young people will de facto be able to do, the local authority should be relieved of its statutory obligation to continue to do all those things laid down in clause 2 and, in case there are over zealous local authorities, should be prevented from pursuing aggressively—not all authorities would do so, but some might—the person in question.
      The Minister got himself a little confused when he suggested that his resistance to the amendment was based in part on his desire to avoid abuse by local authorities. At one stage he told us that he did not want to create a mechanism that would allow local authorities to encourage individuals to make an election that would prevent the authority from providing the advice and support that it would like to provide to the young person. If authorities want to provide that, they will scarcely encourage the young person to make an election. I am not persuaded by the Minister's argument. We come at the problem from fundamentally different points of view.
      The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made a good point. I hope that we have dealt with it through the proposal that an election could be withdrawn as well as made. A young person who changed his or her mind would not be permanently excluded from the system.
      I take exception to the Minister's remark that it took us 20 years in government to protect children effectively. He may want to remind himself of the date of the Children Act—1989—which is, I think, by consensus the basic building block from which we start. Indeed, the architecture of the Bill builds upon that Act. Most hon. Members—I include the Minister—have sought, in debates on this Bill and on others, to emphasise the consensual nature of most of what we do in the House for children.
      Of course, the Minister was right to say that the regulations will determine the substance of the matter that I have raised. If they are drafted in such a way as to ensure that local authorities do not pursue individuals who express a clear wish to break free and they do not give authorities incentives to pursue people whom they should not pursue, the practical effect that I am seeking will be achieved. Therefore, although we have to disagree, I am

      649
      mindful of the Minister's reassertion today of his commitment to consult with Conservative Members and hon. Members from other parties to produce those regulations.
      I will withdraw the amendment and thus spare the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) the embarrassment of having to decide which part of it is most important to him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mrs. Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 2, at end insert—
      '() The assistance given under subsection (4)(a) and (b) may be subject to such conditions regarding adherence by the former relevant child to his pathway plan as the local authority shall reasonably determine.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 4, page 7, line 39, at end insert—
      'in accordance with his pathway plan'.
      No. 4, in page 7, line 44, after "training", insert—
      'in accordance with his pathway plan'.
      No. 5, in page 7, line 46, at end insert—
      'in accordance with his pathway plan'.
      Mrs. Spelman: The amendments are a matter of common sense from the perspective of the corporate parent. The compliance with the pathway plan that we want to achieve will be instrumental in the effectiveness of the Bill.
      All eligible relevant and former relevant children and young people must have a pathway plan under the Bill. It will take over from their existing care plan and will run at least until they are 21, covering education, training, career plans and help needed, for example, to move into supported lodgings. Regulations may be made on the review of pathway plans, but it is envisaged that they will be reviewed only every six months.
      Having reflected on the matter since the Bill was in Committee in July, we have decided that, from the perspective of the corporate parent and given all the effort and resources that go into drawing up a pathway plan, we need to ensure that it is adhered to. If the Bill is not strengthened in that way, a more minimalist attitude towards compliance with this part of the Bill may result.
      This is a classic role for a corporate parent. Many hon. Members will be in a similar position—seeing their children go on to further and higher education and becoming heavily involved in the cost. Parents are diligent in reassuring themselves that their money is spent on the purpose for which it was intended. Many of us who went through further and higher education remember our parents holding us to account about what we had done with the money—not necessarily every penny, but we certainly had to reassure them that we were following the course that we had together agreed. Sometimes, child and parent face the difficult decision to change course halfway through. Changing our minds had consequences—the implications might have been to increase the financial load on the parent. It is no different for corporate parents.
      We want to encourage vulnerable young people to obtain educational qualifications. Statistics show that they are often very short of such qualifications. One of the
      650
      purposes of the pathway plan is for the young person's adviser and the care leaver to agree together the appropriate development plan. There is little point in all that activity if the young person is simply allowed to depart from the plan. Such a departure might go undetected if the review does not take place more frequently than once every six months.
      Mr. Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Lady's colleague, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), asked who were the local authority to judge whether a pathway plan had been successful. He accused the Government of acting like the nanny state. The amendment seems to state that we must judge failure. Is that not a contradictory perspective? If we say what is successful, we are being the nanny state, but if we judge something to be a failure, we are not.
      Mrs. Spelman: We do not want to use labels as brutal as "success" or "failure" for this group of young people. Statistics show that 15 per cent. of them are unemployed and 75 per cent. do not have educational qualifications. On the face of it, that looks like failure if one is putting it baldly, but it will not be particularly helpful to attach that tag to such vulnerable young people.
      The amendment's purpose, of which the hon. Gentleman seems to have lost sight, is to assist the young person's adviser to see through the investment made jointly with the vulnerable young individual—let us not talk of success or failure—so that the individual keeps on the agreed course. One of our concerns is that as a review is planned only once every six months, much could come unstitched. I invite the hon. Gentleman to think back to his own further or higher education—during a six-month period much can happen to a young person.
      The amendment will help the young person's adviser to take a proactive approach to the implementation of the pathway plan. That is not to say that that would not entail change. If we consider the matter realistically, young people often make their choices quite late in the day, at short notice and so on. My understanding of the explanatory notes supporting the concept of pathway plans is that that is all perfectly possible within the role that the personal adviser would have under the plan.
      Such changes should, however, be agreed, just as they would be discussed by a parent and child, who were looking together at further or higher education—as I pointed out. Such changes might be made when young people who had completed one term of a course in a further or higher education establishment came to the conclusion that, at the end of one term, or even after half a term, the course was absolutely not for them. Such occurrences are not unusual.
      As matters stand, if the young person's adviser was unable to undertake a review more often than once every six months, half an academic year would be lost. That is important in relation to further education choices. Such courses may last for only two years, so a quarter of that potential for academic furtherance could be lost.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: Given the spirit of the hon. Lady's remarks, does she also argue that her proposal would help the young person's adviser to put pressure on a local authority to provide resources for a young person who was following the pathway plan?
      Mrs. Spelman: There is no dispute about the Bill placing a duty on local authorities to provide assistance,

      651
      but having given public money—both to support the role of the young person's adviser and for the whole process of working together to produce a suitable plan for the young person's development, training and furtherance—it is perfectly reasonable for that local authority to determine whether the assistance is correctly applied and whether benefit is being gained from it. The amendment is clear on that point.
      Dr. Brand: I seek clarification. I understand that if the relevant child is receiving money for education or training needs that are not being taken up, there may be an argument for withdrawing the money. However, does the hon. Lady really suggest that
      assistance of the kind referred to in section 24B(2), to the extent that his welfare…needs require it
      is included under her amendment? If so, that would worry me greatly.
      Mrs. Spelman: Welfare is difficult to define precisely, although of course it must be the paramount concern. The focus of our amendment is on consistency between the pathway plan on education and employment choices and what the young person actually pursues. That is a perfectly reasonable position for the corporate parent to adopt and one that a young person will meet in later life. There is accountability for money spent on, or invested in, a person—whether in a business or public service context. There is accountability for resources invested to pursue a particular path of development. It is wholly reasonable that the authority committing those resources should ensure that the outcome reflects the agreed purpose of the initial commitment.
      6.15 pm
      There will always be accidents, in education or employment, when young people begin a particular course of action and, for good reasons—such as a course being wrapped up for lack of participants—do not complete it. In my constituency, I have encountered that. However, such cases are in the minority; we do not want to multiply them, but to add strength to the Bill and to tighten the role and responsibilities of the adviser.
      The amendment, which is a small but important alteration to the Bill, will ensure consistency between the pathway plan and the eventual outcome for the care leaver, to the benefit of that young person. It will increase the responsibility of the adviser to follow up the agreed course of action and to be satisfied that it is being pursued. It is very much in the interests of the welfare of the young person. The amendment is a practical and realistic proposal; it will help to improve the Bill's effectiveness in practice.
      Mr. Hutton: This amendment and amendment No. 1 demonstrate some of the turmoil and tension among Conservative Members as to whether they want to take a libertarian view on these matters or whether they are more in favour of the control freak tendency view on the power and role of the state. Amendment No. 1 would have allowed young people to opt out of the arrangements altogether; amendment No. 2 would enforce their compliance with arrangements.
      652
      I want to reassure the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on one or two points on the way that we envisage the operation of the legislation. I hope that then she will not feel the need to push the argument further.
      In essence, as I understand her arguments today and during our Standing Committee debates, she and her hon. Friends are concerned that the pathway plan will represent a one-sided bargain and that it will require the local authority to make available significant resources and other support, care and assistance to a young person who might either choose to disregard the terms of the pathway plan or fail in some way to comply with it. That would thus be an unacceptable use of public money and would not encourage the rights and responsibilities that we think necessary in this matter. We are talking about a good parent and the children for whom that parent has responsibility.
      The pathway plans will not be one-sided bargains. I make that clear to the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends. There are responsibilities and rights in this matter. They need to be addressed and we intend to do that.
      As the hon. Lady knows, the pathway plan will set out whatever assistance—for example, with education, training or employment—the responsible authority agrees to provide. The young person's adviser will keep in touch with the young person. There will continue to be reviews of the pathway plan—at least every six months—but a review can, of course, be initiated either by the young person or by the council itself.
      If the council became aware that a young person was not complying with his or her plan—either because he was abusing the council's support or for some other reason—of course the council would be able to call a review and, if necessary, to revise the terms of the plan. We intend that type of rolling revision to happen. It is one of the reasons that a young person's adviser would keep in touch with the young person and one of the factors that would determine the level of contact that he and the young person would wish to maintain.
      The amendment would affect former relevant children—young people aged 18 and over. Those young people will no longer be dependent on their responsible authority for accommodation and maintenance, because those duties—as the hon. Lady is aware—cease when the young people turn 18. The assistance for that group of young people, therefore, will consist of help with employment, education, training or general matters. Such help will normally be agreed between the young person and the responsible authority and will be given for specific purposes.
      Councils are under a duty to provide such assistance to the extent that someone's welfare or his educational and training needs require it. If someone is not co-operating with the council, the council will be entitled to consider that his welfare does not require that assistance. That is hardly, therefore, a blank cheque. A pathway plan, setting out such assistance, will be reviewed regularly and as frequently as necessary. Clearly, that is not a licence for former relevant children to stay in bed all day—that is what the hon. Lady seemed to suggest—while limitless funds flow into their bank accounts. That is not likely to happen and it is certainly not what we intend. There is therefore no need to make specific provision in the Bill for that eventuality.

      653
      Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 would affect councils' powers—not duties—to help care leavers under section 24 of the Children Act 1989. The amendments seem to reflect some confusion and I bring that to the hon. Lady's attention. Of course, it is true that section 24 can still apply to former relevant children, but the proposed new section 23C sets out councils' duties to that group. In essence, the proposed new section 23C translates councils' section 24 powers to assist into duties to former relevant children. Section 24 will, therefore, apply in practice to care leavers who do not qualify for the new arrangements because, for example, they do not meet the eligibility rules that we will set out. That being so, I am sure that it is obvious to the hon. Lady that such care leavers will not have pathway plans and that it would be wrong for any help that they receive under section 24 to be contingent on their conforming to the plans. If they did, it would be perverse and unjustifiable.
      We spent some time on this matter in Committee. I hope that I have been able to set at least one or two of the issues straight. We want very much for the new arrangements to work in the context of a relationship based around rights and responsibilities. I hope that my remarks will, to some extent, reassure the hon. Lady about the issues that she has raised.
      Mrs. Spelman: I assure the Minister that there is no turmoil among Conservative Members, and there was no confusion until he started speaking. Although I shall ask for clarification on one point, I was pleased to hear that he understands exactly what we were driving at, something about which there is absolutely no confusion. We wish to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities. He used exactly the same language in that respect, and there is a clear consensus on that point. I accept that he does not take a one-sided view of this issue.
      I take on board as a comfort the Minister's point that a review every six months will, in practice, mean a rolling revision process. However, such a process will have cost implications. As we are unsure about whether resources will be made available to make it successful, I underline to the Minister the fact that local authorities will consider the increased burden presented by rolling revision as a practical matter of resources.
      I seek clarification on something that the Minister said. He seemed to suggest that if a care leaver did not co-operate or comply, the council could be right to assume that his welfare did not require support. If I understand him correctly, his point will not give comfort to the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). However, I wish to point out to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that our amendment No. 2 deliberately did not refer to subsection (4)(c), because we are interested in adherence in relation to education and employment. We are sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I am left with the distinct impression—unless I am very confused on the matter—that the Minister said that the council could assume that the care leaver's welfare no longer required support if he did not comply with the agreement established with the personal adviser in the plan. Will the Minister help me on that point?
      Mr. Hutton: I shall certainly try to help the hon. Lady. I tried to make the position clear and she can examine my
      654
      remarks in Hansard. It is important that she understands that the issue will be addressed as part of the rights and responsibilities agenda that I have described. I do not want to be prescriptive about individual cases, and I am sure that she will understand that. However, the degree and extent of compliance with a pathway plan and a local authority's obligation to provide support for training and the other issues identified in the Bill are bound to be connected.
      Mrs. Spelman: We may be reaching a degree of consensus on this point. I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow, but the Minister has probably articulated the points that we were driving at in our amendments. My reading tomorrow will make the matter much clearer, but the Minister sought to finesse his reply. I think that I understand it correctly when I suggest that the balance of rights and responsibilities that we sought in our amendment is the same balance that he seeks to achieve. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 4

      ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS AGED 16 OR OVER
      Mr. Hutton: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 25, leave out "registered" and insert "private".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 14, 20, 19 and 21 to 23.
      Mr. Hutton: I am rather sorry that I have to move the amendments. They are necessary only because the Care Standards Act 2000 received Royal Assent before this Bill and we had assumed that this Bill would reach the statute book first. I assure the House that the amendments are technical.
      The Care Standards Act amended the definitions of residential care homes, nursing homes and registered children's homes to care homes, independent hospitals and private children's homes. I am sure that the hon. Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will remember the debate on that point—I will never be able to forget it. This Bill, in restating section 24 of the Children Act 1989, deployed in the proposed new sections 24(2)(d)(ii) and 24C(2)(c) the existing definitions of such homes because it was introduced ahead of the Care Standards Bill.
      Amendments updating those references were made to the Children Act in the Committee considering the Care Standards Act. As I said at the time, those amendments were drafted on the reasonable assumption that the amendments to the Children Act made by the Children (Leaving Care) Bill would become law first. In the event and as we all know, that did not happen so the amendments refer to new sections of the Children Act that did not, in fact, exist at the time the Care Standards Act obtained Royal Assent. The consequence is that the amendments have no effect. We therefore need to amend this Bill to bring the references to such homes into line, and to remove the now incorrect amendments to the Care Standards Act.

      655
      I hope that I can assure the House that the amendments are simply technical: they have no new policy implications of any kind. They are necessary simply because the Care Standards Act received Royal Assent before this Bill.
      Mr. Hammond: This is a complex series of amendments to achieve, as the Minister said, precisely nothing in policy terms. We are happy that they achieve their technical purpose and do it well.
      I am moved to pass a comment because in the previous debate the Minister felt able to remark on the turmoil, as he saw it, among Conservative Members. What turmoil is going on among Labour Members that enables a Minister of the Crown to say, "We were assuming that the Children (Leaving Care) Bill would reach the statute book first"? Who are the "we" who made that assumption? The "we" have to be the Government. Presumably, the Government could determine which of those two measures reached the statute book first.
      6.30 pm
      It is a bit rich for the Minister to say that the Government drafted the Bill on the reasonable assumption that one Bill would reach the statute book before the other and that the Bill must now be amended otherwise it would not make sense because, by implication, someone else arranged that that would happen the other way around. If any turmoil is being revealed, it is that which lies at the heart of the Government's management of their overcrowded legislative programme.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 14, in page 6, line 31, leave out from "any" to second "or" in line 32 and insert—
      'care home or independent hospital'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
      Mr. Hutton: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 8, line 11, after "full-time" insert "further or".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 16 to 18.
      Mr. Hutton: We all know by now that the Bill is all about improving the life chances of young people who have been in care. Of course, education is the best way to do that—helping them into jobs, careers and a fulfilling and productive role in society. Skills and knowledge are now the commanding heights of the new economy. We want looked-after children to have exactly the same opportunities to receive a good education as anyone else. That is why the Bill is assiduous in creating duties to help with education and training even beyond the point at which young people leave care.
      The new duties for qualifying care leavers aged 18 and over specifically include a duty on councils to assist with education and training to the end of the agreed course, even if that takes a young person past the age of 21. The Bill, as originally drafted, backed that up with a new duty to provide vacation accommodation for care leavers in higher education. That duty was introduced because we were aware of cases in which young people who had left care were unable to take up university places simply
      656
      because they could not find somewhere to live during vacations. That is why the duty applies to all care leavers, not just those to whom the rest of the Bill applies.
      While the Bill has being making its passage through Parliament, we have been made aware of the fact that vacation accommodation can be an issue for some further education students as well. I am grateful to those who have drawn our attention to what might have been an omission in the Bill's drafting.
      For the most part, students take further education courses near to home at their local school or college, usually studying from home. Those students do not usually have special accommodation needs during vacations, and these amendments do not affect them. However, some agricultural, horticultural and arts courses are run at residential colleges and those students are clearly in the same position as many university students during vacations in needing to find alternative accommodation. Therefore, following the representations made in Committee and elsewhere, we have decided explicitly to extend the duty to provide vacation accommodation to care leavers who require it to those further education students as well.
      Under amendment No. 18, the Secretary of State will be allowed to make regulations defining further education for the purposes of the Bill and the intention is to define it in terms of the sort of residential FE courses that I have described.
      Amendment No. 16 will add the qualifier
      because his term time accommodation is not available to him
      to establish the reason why a student would need to call on that duty. Most students have the option to return to their family home during vacations—an option that is not available to care leavers. These amendments are intended to create a more level playing field by ensuring that care leavers are not left with nowhere to go during vacations.
      Mrs. Spelman: I have hung on the Minister's every word because this parliamentary occasion is a first for me. I have seen the Bill through Committee to Report and, as an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I have articulated the need to amend the Bill to include further education. Therefore, I was interested to find out how the Government would handle the fact that the Opposition had previously drawn their attention to the need for such an amendment. In the human transactional way of things, I suppose that what the Minister has said is the closest that we will get to an apology.
      The Opposition first brought the proposal to the Government's attention in Committee, where they rebuffed it but, on reflection, they have now accepted it. That is an important point for the Opposition. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that an Opposition make great play of an amendment being accepted in Committee. We go to the country and say, "Hooray, draft legislation has been changed because we brought something to the Government's attention."
      Therefore, it is disappointing that the official Opposition have not been given adequate credit. The Minister spoke of those who had made him aware of the matter, but the word "those" refers to me. Others may have been involved, but the fact is that I and my hon. Friends tabled the amendment in Committee, and we should have liked to have heard about that. Obviously, the most important point is that the change has been made.

      657
      I do not wish to embarrass the Minister too much but, in Committee, he said that further education accommodation was
      not a significant problem…New express duties are not required.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 July 2000; c. 110–11.]
      He also said that any adjustment would be made "through additional guidance."
      I rejoice at a parliamentary occasion on which, for once, we have achieved a change in the Bill. That is important because much of the Bill represents an empty box and the Opposition have had to depend on the guidance that is produced to understand its implications. We welcome the amendment because the label on the box will be clear to everyone.
      For the benefit of hon. Members who were not present at the initial debate in Committee on the need to include further education, let me emphasise that only 1.1 per cent. of care leavers enter higher education and, therefore, the requirement on the local authority or the corporate parent—the term that we chose to use—to provide vacation accommodation will be taken up by a small percentage of care leavers. Of course we should like more care leavers to enter higher education, but the reality is that a far larger percentage enter further education. The Minister said in Committee that 40 per cent. do so.
      The amendment represents an important change in the Bill, which is why we welcome it strongly. As I said, this is the first parliamentary occasion on which I have had such an experience, but I should have preferred credit to be given in the right quarter. I have no doubt that other organisations brought to the Minister's attention the need to include higher and further education, but the official Opposition tabled the original amendment, which was rebuffed in Committee. It would have been nice if the apology had been fulsome, but I welcome the change. It was certainly part of our policy ambition that further education should be included and there is no doubt that a much higher percentage of care leavers will benefit from the provision than would have been the case if the Bill had not been amended.
      Dr. Brand: I certainly welcome the amendment and share the delight of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in having had some output from the many hours that we spent in Committee. It is important to make residential provision available not only for particular courses but for people living in isolated or rural areas. I gave specific examples in Committee, as did the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). Therefore, I totally support the Government's change of mind. I hope that it will achieve a tremendous amount; it is probably the one proposal that will make a real difference to the life chances of young people leaving care and help to encourage them into the further education that they need.
      Mr. Shaw: I very much welcome the amendments. It will be quite a challenge for local authorities to implement plans before a course starts for a young person who will need accommodation during a vacation. In order to complete a course, one certainly needs to know where one will live during the summer. We do not want a young person to approach the end of term saying, "I've nowhere to live; I'd better ring the council." With the best will in the world, no council would say, "There's the accommodation; we've sorted it out immediately."
      658
      The remarks of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) were not particularly fair to my hon. Friend the Minister. On a number of occasions during proceedings in the Committees considering this Bill and the Care Standards Bill—the hon. Lady and I served on both Committees—my hon. Friend conceded points, sought further information to reassure her and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), and changed the Bill as a result of amendments that they had tabled. For example, during proceedings on the Care Standards Bill, the hon. Gentleman made a point about including residential schools, and my hon. Friend immediately responded and made the necessary changes.
      We ought to recognise that, as has been said, further rather than higher education is the principal route at the moment for most of the young people about whom we are talking. We hope that, as a result of the Bill, more such young people will enter higher education.
      In July, my hon. Friend the Minister met a young man, Mark Kane, who was a care leaver, in further education and a member of the board of management for Kent county council's 16-plus service. He was a strong and passionate voice for care leavers throughout the county. He had not always received the best deal in services but, rather than be angry for himself, he chose to channel his energy into something positive to bring about changes for young people. He was very much a positive role model for many young people leaving the care system in Kent.
      Sadly, on 26 September, Mark Kane took his own life, leaving his friends, social workers and all those who were associated with him devastated. He was a young man who had great hopes and someone to whom we thought we could point as a success of the care system. Despite his confident persona, that articulate young man clearly had difficulties and problems, which resulted in such a tragedy. He would very much have welcomed the amendment, as he would the whole Bill. I had a couple of opportunities to discuss the Bill with him. I hope that its powers will serve as a campaign in Kent in his memory. The amendments are very welcome.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall be more generous in my thanks to the Minister than the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was correct in saying that she and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) tabled in Committee the original amendment, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) and I were delighted to support. The Government have listened and tabled the necessary amendments, and that is welcome. They do not have an excellent reputation for listening to rural voices at the moment, but on this point they have done so.
      The point that I made in Committee was not just about vocational courses, such as those offered in Aberystwyth, where the foremost agricultural college happens to be located, which I know many students travel some distance to attend. If rural-based students are to access the best courses, including vocational ones, they will need to travel. Some of my constituents travel 60 miles to Carmarthen, for example, in order to undertake the right vocational course, which means that they must stay there during the week. There are obligations to provide vacational accommodation for such people, and I am pleased that the Government have listened on that point.

      659
      In Committee, the Minister had the unenviable task of trying to defend shades of difference between further and higher education, when his Government are in fact increasingly blurring the distinctions. Certainly in Wales, with the abolition of training and enterprise councils and the establishment of a new sixth-form system of education over the next few years, we shall see the difference between further and higher education alter greatly.
      Care leavers' access to such education will change too. I would imagine that one aim of the Bill is to encourage more care leavers to access both further and higher education. We must acknowledge further education as the route, on occasions, into higher education, particularly for care leavers who may have fewer GCSEs, and so forth, to start with.
      The amendment is essential, and I am pleased that the Government have listened. The Bill will be seen, certainly in rural areas, as stronger as a result, ensuring that there are not more examples of rural social exclusion about which, on occasion, we must argue.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken on the amendment and for the support that they have expressed for the changes that we are making. Obviously, I am less than pleased with the comments of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), but I dare say that I will get over that. I say to her and her hon. Friends that this is probably not one of those occasions on which we should worry so much about who should take credit for the changes. The important issue is that the Bill will be amended.
      I acknowledged the comments and arguments put to us. We have listened to those observations, and changed the Bill accordingly. That is the right, responsible way for Governments to act. We have tried to discharge our responsibilities seriously and fairly, and I hope that, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, the Bill has been strengthened as a result.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 16, in page 8, line 12, after "vacation" insert—
      'because his term-time accommodation is not available to him then'.
      No. 17, in page 8, line 14, leave out "then" and insert "during the vacation".
      No. 18, in page 8, line 18, leave out ""full-time higher education"" and insert—
      "'full-time", "further education", "higher education'".
      No. 20, in page 8, line 31, leave out "registered" and insert "private".
      No. 19, in page 8, line 35, leave out from "any" to "or" in line 36 and insert—
      'care home or independent hospital'.
      No. 21, in page 8, line 44, at end insert—
      '() If subsection (1) comes into force before the commencement of section 11 of the Care Standards Act 2000—

      (a) until that commencement, the references to a "private children's home" in sections 24(2)(c) and 24C(2)(a) of the 1989 Act as substituted by subsection (1) are to be read as references to a registered children's home; and

      660

      (b) until that commencement, the references to any "care home or independent hospital" in sections 24(2)(d)(ii) and 24C(2)(c), as so substituted, are to be read as references to any residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home,

      and paragraph 14(4) of Schedule 4 to the Care Standards Act 2000 (which amends section 24 of the 1989 Act) is repealed.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

    Clause 5

      REPRESENTATIONS
      Mrs. Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 9, line 9, at end insert—
      '(1A) Every local authority shall make arrangements to ensure that any person qualified under subsection (1) to make representations has access to appropriate independent advice and support to assist him in making such representations.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 9, line 10, after "subsection (1)", insert—
      'and in making arrangements under subsection (1A)'.
      Mrs. Spelman: Those who observe these debates will be pleased to hear that the consensual tone will return—certainly on the question of independent advice, which we debated in Committee.
      Even in Committee, there was quite a lot of understanding of the importance of independence. We certainly believe that looked-after children should have access to independent advice and support if they feel that they must make a complaint about their personal adviser and the services that they are receiving. That was our purpose in tabling amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
      I am sure that all hon. Members are all too aware of the poor experience of children in care in trying to obtain access to independent advice. Many children's charities and those who work with children are strong advocates of independent advice being made available to children. We maintain that view; it was our motivation behind tabling the amendments.
      Save The Children Fund is even anxious about the over-dependency that might be created in the relationship between the care leaver and the personal adviser. It is concerned about whether the balance in that relationship is right without the existence of independent advisers to whom the care leaver may turn, should that relationship break down. Its uneasiness is easy for us to understand.
      In Committee, there was quite a deal of debate about how the complaints procedure—should there be need to make one—would be developed. If, in the course of replying to my speech, the Minister explained a little more about the Government's thinking on that point, we would be greatly illuminated. It remains rather unclear in the Bill.
      We have reached an important point in the outworking of a Bill designed to protect children and provide a satisfactory complaints procedure. There has been consultation about the form that the complaints procedure should take, but that has not left me reassured that the complaints procedure will be just and speedy enough to satisfy an unhappy care leaver that the complaint is being dealt with fairly and independently.

      661
      The personal adviser is the human face of the corporate parent, as I described it, and therefore represents the corporate parent—the state or the establishment—to the care leaver. It would not be unnatural for the care leaver to feel anxious and even to lodge a complaint about the adviser, who represents the corporate parent with whom the care leaver felt that he or she had fallen out.
      Without an independent adviser to whom to turn in such a situation, and unable to see a fair and speedy way to have the complaint investigated, the care leaver might be tempted to swallow the complaint, go to ground, drop out of the agreed pathway plan or become estranged from the local authority, whose duty it would be to keep in touch. Whether or not the complaint was legitimate, the lack of an independent adviser would place the care leaver in a weaker position. For that reason, we have returned to the need for independent advisers.
      The charity Action on Aftercare Consortium stresses the importance of developing a complaints procedure that is not unwieldy, bureaucratic or long. As I understand it from the consultation process, the dispute is not about whether independent advisers or advocates should be available to children who have complaints, but about the stage at which independent advisers would be made available. In the consultation document, there are choices to be made about whether that should take place at the first, second or third stage. We should put ourselves in the position of care leavers, for whom the process is likely to seem extremely intimidating; they may have to go through it on their own, possibly opposite a panel that will decide whether the complaint should be upheld. The process may reach the third stage before an independent adviser suddenly pops up out of the woodwork to provide help.
      The term "independent adviser" is carefully chosen. The difference between advocacy and independent advice is that an advocate speaks for the complainant, but an independent adviser may be able to bring some objectivity to the process, and that would be extremely helpful.
      I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how far the review of the complaints procedure has progressed and the role in that complaints procedure for independent advice, as envisaged in legislation to protect children. We consider it important to recognise in the Bill the need for independent advice, so that a just and speedy way can be found to address a complaint felt keenly by a care leaver, which otherwise may result in his or her being disillusioned with what is made available to help care leavers with their needs. Such disillusion would result in the failures of the system that have unfortunately all too often characterised the experience of care leavers.
      Mr. Hutton: Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her amendment and the way in which she has presented her arguments. There is probably not a great deal of difference between us on the issue. The debate is about whether we want such a provision written into the Bill, or whether we should develop the arguments about advocacy through other means.
      In the Standing Committee, I drew the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that we are consulting on the complaints procedure for the entire Children Act 1989. That consultation has included specific questions about the provision of advocacy services. I do not want to second guess the outcome of the consultation, as we want
      662
      to give careful thought to the comments made about those services. However, I make it clear to the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends that there is no question of a lack of Government support for advocacy services in this area. She helpfully allowed the Standing Committee to have a full debate on the matter when we discussed the Bill in the summer.
      We have taken significant steps to encourage and support the use of advocacy services. The hon. Lady knows, because she and I have debated the issue extensively, that we have given a firm commitment to making it clear in the statutory guidance that will be issued in support of the Bill that young people should be given access to the services of an advocate if they require it when making a complaint under the complaints procedure.
      Once the consultation on the complaints and representation systems is complete, we shall be able to use the powers built into the Bill to describe its complaints procedures, so we can take forward the argument about advocacy at that stage. We do not need new powers in the Bill to do that, as the amendment suggests.
      I accept many of the arguments that the hon. Lady put to the House this afternoon about the importance of advocacy services in the arrangements. I do not want her or her hon. Friends to think that we are lukewarm about the importance of advocacy services; we are not. We want to make sure that the revised complaints procedure is capable of addressing as promptly and expeditiously as possible some of the urgent complaints and problems that may arise in future around the operation of the legislation.
      There is no point in introducing a complaints procedure that cannot address properly, fairly and squarely the concerns of young people leaving care. We want to make sure that the complaints procedure does that much more effectively in future than it has been able to do in the past. Advocacy services will clearly have an important role to play in that. We have made that position clear and, in the light of the reassurances that I have tried to extend to her, I hope that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will not consider it necessary to press the amendment to a Division.
      Mrs. Spelman: I am sure that those listening will be encouraged to hear the return to a consensual tone. I am encouraged to hear that the Government are not lukewarm, as the Minister said, about advocacy.
      I want to impress on the Minister a practical point that arises from what he said. Perhaps he will take this as an informal contribution to the consultation, although the official Opposition do not usually participate in Government consultation processes. The phraseology that he used suggests that when the relationship breaks down between the personal adviser and the care leaver, and the care leaver wants to make a complaint, he or she will not have adequate protection, unless the complaints procedure under review is altered or the guidance is changed.
      The Minister said that care leavers will have access to advocacy services if they require it, but who decides whether they require it? If it is the personal adviser who decides whether the care leaver requires independent advocacy services, there will be insufficient arm's length

      663
      or independence for the care leaver to have confidence in the system. All the charities that are concerned about independent advocacy may be disquieted by that as well.
      Mr. Hutton: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and allowing me to correct a misapprehension. I am trying to preserve our position as we have not yet made a decision on the new arrangements, but whatever they are, we want them to command the confidence of young people. We shall make sure that that is the case. The important principle is that the young person feels that the system serves his or her interests, and we shall ensure that it does.
      7 pm
      Mrs. Spelman: That is a bit better, and I am encouraged. I am glad that I gave way, as the Minister has shown clearly that he has understood that it is extremely important that the care leaver feels that he or she has unfettered access to independent advice when the chips are down and a complaint is made. That would not be the case if the person against whom the complaint was lodged were in a position to make a decision about whether independent advocacy services should be rolled in. It is certainly satisfying to hear the Minister's clarification of that point. I accept that he wants care leavers and all those involved in this process to have confidence in the system. His reply makes it a lot easier for me to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 6

      EXCLUSION FROM BENEFITS
      Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 9, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 9, in page 9, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert—
      'is

      (a) disabled within the meaning of section 120(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000, or

      (b) a mother of a child under four years of age.

      (3A) Where the Secretary of State provides by regulations that this section does not apply to a person by virtue of subsection (3)(b) he may provide by regulations such conditions as he shall determine to be in the best interest of that person and her child and if that person fails to comply with those conditions she shall cease to be a person to whom this section does not apply.'.
      Mr. Hammond: May I start by drawing the House's attention to a typographical error in amendment No. 9, which refers to section 120(2) of the Care Standards Act? In fact, that reference should be to section 121(2) of the Care Standards Act. I am advised by the appropriate authorities that in a case where a typographical error is made but the meaning is clear, there is no reason why we should not debate the substance of the issue. If necessary, there will be opportunities later to correct what is written in the amendment. Responsibility for the error is entirely mine, so I apologise, I apologise, I apologise.
      Mr. Hutton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said about
      664
      his amendment, will you confirm that although he acknowledged that there is a typographical error on the Order Paper, we shall be debating the wording that the hon. Gentleman proposed, not that which he originally intended?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will have heard what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said about his amendment. Technically, however, we must debate what is on the Order Paper.
      Mr. Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Clearly, the Bill will have to go back to the other place as Government amendments have already been accepted, so there will be an opportunity to correct the technical error in the Order Paper later. I hope that the Government will not seek to shelter behind a technicality in a debate about an important issue of principle. The House should discuss the important issues in the amendment, not the technicality of what is obviously a typographical error.
      Clause 6 removes the right to means-tested benefits, consisting of income support, housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance, for 16 and 17-year-old care leavers, bringing their position broadly into line with that of other 16 and 17-year-olds. That is entirely consistent with the Bill's objective of providing a concept of support that is broader than entitlement to cash benefits. Of course, we accept that that support may, and almost invariably will, include a cash element. However, that should not be an entitlement, as it should be negotiated between the young person and the young person's adviser, who will seek to put together a package of measures that provide proper support, in the broadest sense, for that young person.

      We accept a point that the Minister made many times in presenting arguments for the Bill, and agree that the rigidities of the social security system and the sheer difficulty of navigating a way through it mean that it is often not the ideal way of dealing with the needs of particularly vulnerable young people. Care leavers clearly fall into that category. Under the present system of support available to non-care leavers, there is an entitlement to benefits for disabled young people and young people who are lone parents when they live at home with their families, meaning their own parents.
      In introducing clause 6, the Minister's intention is to give the Secretary of State powers to exempt groups from removal of eligibility for benefit so that they can be brought more into line with the treatment of other young people who are not care leavers. My amendment and our debate are triggered by a separate issue that the Minister raised in Committee, when he indicated that his intention was to go significantly further than matching the support that other young people receive. He said:
      I have made it clear that we intend to exempt lone parents from the benefit entitlement provisions, as it is right and proper that they should continue to be entitled to benefits. If such a young person was living at home, he or she would continue to be entitled to benefits. That should apply also to young care leavers who are pregnant.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 July 2000; c. 137.]
      The Minister therefore indicated that exemption from the provisions of clause 6, which removes the entitlement to means-tested social security benefits, should be extended to 15-year-old girls who are pregnant when they leave care. That does not bring the position of care leavers

      665
      into line with that of non-care leavers; it sends a confusing signal to some vulnerable 15-year-olds. The Minister's own consultation document, "Me, Survive, Out There?", reports that some studies show that between 25 and 30 per cent. of 16-year-old girls leaving care are already mothers. I have not been able to find a figure—it may not be available—that tells us how many of those girls are pregnant at the time of leaving care.
      Whether we like it or not, some young people will see the loss of entitlement benefits as a negative thing. There is a consensus in the Chamber, as there certainly was in Committee, that the package of support, consisting of cash benefits and non-cash support, available under the Bill will, on an objective basis and from an adult perspective, be superior to that which might otherwise be available under the means-tested social security system. The Minister, myself and other hon. Members who have taken part in our debates all agree on that.
      Although the Minister disagreed with me strongly in Committee, the removal of an entitlement to cash benefit, which will be replaced by a discretionary benefit payable by the local authority that will be negotiated with the young person, will not be seen by all young people as positive. Indeed, if the Minister considers which young people might feel that removal of entitlement benefits and replacement with discretionary support packages was not beneficial or did not suit their particular desires at that stage of their life, he will find that the most vulnerable young people are the most likely to see merit in trying to hang on to cash benefits.
      We accept that care leavers who are disabled or lone parents who live at home with their own families constitute a special case. Before the summer recess, I tabled amendment No. 9, which seeks to limit the Secretary of State's powers to those groups and exclude the group which, as the Minister revealed in Committee, the Government intend to include. I spent some time in the summer consulting various outside bodies about the issue. The need to discuss a wider issue became clear to me and I therefore tabled amendment No. 24.
      If the system of support for which the Bill provides is so superior to the means-tested, social security support, which it will withdraw, why would we want to give the Secretary of State the power to exempt from that arrangement those who are perhaps most vulnerable—those who are disabled or lone parents? Many organisations that deal with disadvantaged young people have made the point that the benefits system does not tackle the complex needs of vulnerable young people well, even if they can find their way through it.
      It may be better to provide, if appropriate, a cash-based support system, but within the structure that the Bill establishes. That would obviate the need to create exemptions from clause 6. The underlying ethos of the Bill is that those for whom it provides should be better off than they would be outside the system for which it provides, despite the change in the level of entitlement to cash benefits.
      Amendment No. 24 would achieve the objective of dealing with the cash needs of vulnerable groups of care leavers within the architecture of the Bill. It recognises the need for special support for those groups, and that a system that is more cash based may be appropriate for some. However, that system can be provided within the scope of the Bill. I hope that the Government can accept the logic of that argument and support the amendment.
      666
      We would find it unacceptable for the Secretary of State to have discretionary powers to exempt groups from clause 6 without specifying them in the Bill. The Minister, who is in charge of the measure, told us clearly in Committee that he believes that those powers could apply to young care leavers who are pregnant. We would resist that. It would have a more pernicious effect than exempting care leavers who are disabled or lone parents. It would send a negative and undesirable signal to vulnerable 15-year-old girls and would contrast starkly with the Department's campaign to discourage sexual activity among the under-16s.
      Positive, continuing contact between the care leaver and the young person's adviser would be less likely if young people did not perceive that they received their stream of benefit payments—in kind or in cash—through that medium, but were able to gain access to them through the entitlement systems of the social security structure. The Government's consultation document, "Me, Survive, Out There?", made no reference to including pregnant care leavers in the category that should be exempted from the withdrawal of cash benefits. I hope that the Minister will be able to agree this evening that there is no need for powers to exempt categories from clause 6. If he is unable to go that far, I hope that he will agree that the Secretary of State should not have the power to exempt pregnant 15-year-old girls simply because they get pregnant while in care.
      From every discussion that I have held with the Minister, I believe that he must agree that that would send the wrong signal to a vulnerable and exposed group of young people. I am sure that he would join us in wanting to do everything possible to discourage inappropriate behaviour among 15-year-olds, whether in care or not. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Bill, when read in conjunction with his comments in Committee, clearly gives a negative signal to 15-year-olds. We must tackle that tonight, notwithstanding the typographical error in drafting amendment No. 9.
      I hope that the Minister will deal with the substantive points and acknowledge that there is a simple and adequate opportunity to make the typographical correction when the Bill goes to another place. I am confident that, if amendment No. 9 is accepted, my noble Friends will co-operate in ensuring that the typographical error is corrected.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Hutton: It appears that the origins of the amendment are some comments that I made in Committee about pregnant girls leaving care. I shall deal with that point later, and I hope that I can give the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) the assurance that he seeks. If he spent the entire summer expressing anxieties about my words in Committee, I am surprised that he did not raise them with me then. I could have given him the assurance, and we might have spared ourselves some time and effort today.
      I shall not deal with the amendments on the basis of their technical drafting. We know what life can sometimes be like in opposition. We all make mistakes with amendments; I have certainly made such mistakes. I want to do the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of giving him a full and proper response to his arguments.
      Notwithstanding the comments I have just made, the amendment is horribly defective. We must be clear about that. The attempt to align the definition of disability in the

      667
      Care Standards Act 2000 with clause 6 of the Bill is a complete failure, because the section that the hon. Gentleman identifies as defining disability does not do that. As defects go, that is rather substantial. However, let us draw a line under that and try to deal with the arguments that he raised.
      Amendment No. 9 would replace the general power to make regulations about the groups to be excepted from the new benefits regime with a far more restrictive power, which would identify only two categories of care leavers in the Bill. That approach runs counter to the way in which legislation on social security entitlements has often been drafted in the past. Primary legislation sets out the framework and establishes the principles, and secondary legislation tends to fill in the details. That is important if the law is not to become a blunt instrument. I am not in favour of that, and I am sure that hon. Gentleman is not.
      We anticipate that the principles that the measure establishes will stand the test of time. However, matters of detail may change over time. We may find that we need to make minor adjustments in the light of experience. We therefore want to allow for some flexibility in the Bill so that implementation of the new provisions can take advantage of growing experience. That means putting the detail into secondary legislation so that, if necessary, it can be changed in future.
      We have been clear throughout that we plan to make exceptions for disabled young people and for lone parents who will continue to be eligible for benefits. The benefit system recognises that they have special needs and permits them to claim benefit when they are living at home with their families. We are trying to treat these young people consistently. The new arrangements will continue to recognise these special needs. I think that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that he recognised these special needs and that the young people concerned should continue to be eligible for these benefits.
      I want to correct what the hon. Gentleman may have understood from my remarks in Committee. He was anxious about the matter. It seems that he gained the impression that we intend to exempt pregnant care leavers from the new funding arrangements in the Bill. We do not. I apologise to him and to others if that was their impression. It is technically possible for a pregnant care leaver to be eligible for income support and other benefits on the ground of a disabling condition to which, perhaps, the pregnancy itself might give rise. However, we have made it clear that disability and the fact that a young care leaver is a single parent—a lone parent—will be the conditions that we intend to exercise in terms of coming to a view about who should continue to be eligible for benefit entitlement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is clear now about our intentions.
      For disability, we plan to use the existing Department of Social Security eligibility criteria for claiming income support for the sick and disabled. As we are thinking about who is not to be excluded from benefit, it would be sensible to be consistent with the rules that say who can claim benefit. The amendment, which attempts to provide a new definition of disability, could be confusing. That would not be a helpful way in which to proceed. Definitions should be consistent. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who was a DSS
      668
      Minister in the previous Administration, might be advancing a similar argument if he were standing in my shoes.
      On lone parents, given that we are talking in this context about young people aged 16 and 17, it seems completely otiose to prescribe the age of a child in order for the parent to be able to claim benefits. That is what the amendment would do. Having decided that lone parents are a special group who should have access to benefits, it does not seem right to impose any additional conditions. If they claim income support or jobseeker's allowance, they will be expected to meet the normal conditions of entitlement for the benefit concerned. We see no need, therefore, for extra conditions for this particular group of lone parents.
      Interestingly, amendment No. 9 talks in terms of mothers; the Government talk about lone parents. The point of principle on which we consulted in "Me, Survive, Out There?" was that we are setting up new arrangements that mirror as closely as possible the sort of support which young people would normally be able to expect from their parents. In the case of lone parents, their special needs are recognised in that they are able to claim benefit even if they are living at home, and that right is what we are reproducing for lone parents who have been looked after.
      It would be a retrograde step to limit the provision to mothers. In reality, it is mothers who will be the ones looking after children—I accept that overwhelmingly that will be the case—however, it is possible that a lone father might be bringing up a child alone.
      Mr. Hammond: In care.
      Mr. Hutton: Yes, possibly in care. We do not want this legislation to discriminate against any such person. The amendment would allow a mother to continue to claim benefit if she had a child under four years of age, but not a father bringing up a child on his own. I accept that those cases might be exceptionally few and far between, but in fairness to those people we could not accept the amendment. There is no logic or fairness to it.
      Under the terms of the Bill, these lone parents will have a young person's adviser, a pathway plan and all the support that will go with that. They will have a needs assessment like any other eligible or relevant child, and their responsible authority will agree with them a package of support, just as it does for anyone else. That package will be devised to meet the young person's individual needs and it will take account of the benefits to which he or she is entitled, just as someone else's pathway plan would take account of any income or resource that was available to them. It would not be helpful to single out this group to impose special conditions on them.
      I hope that, at least in one respect, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge might be reassured by my response. It is clear that we have a different view. He prefers a particular way of dealing with the matter in the Bill, and we have tried to provide an alternative approach, which would preserve the issues of principle that he and I share and have in common. I suspect that I might be wrong, but I hope that he will not feel it necessary to push the amendment to a vote. If he insists on voting, I shall strongly advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.
      Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the substance of the amendment and not

      669
      seeking to shelter behind a technicality. He has always shown great courage in taking that line in Committee and in the House in dealing with the issues that need to be discussed. However, I am disappointed with his condemnation of our use of the definition of disability that is contained within the Care Standards Act 2000. It seems to be an eminently appropriate definition. It reads that
      For the purposes of this Act…a person is disabled if…his sight, hearing or speech is substantially impaired;…he has a mental disorder; or…he is physically substantially disabled by any illness, any impairment present since birth or otherwise.
      That seems to be quite a good definition of disability.
      Mr. Hutton: It is a very good definition because I tabled the relevant amendment. However, it is not the definition that the DSS uses in determining eligibility for benefits on the basis of disability. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts the need for some consistency in those cases.
      Mr. Hammond: Perhaps that is an argument for joined-up government from the Minister.
      The Minister wondered aloud why I had not contacted him during the summer to discuss the confusion that may have arisen in my mind about what he said in Committee. There was no confusion. I do not believe that there was any confusion in the minds of hon. Members on either side of the Committee. The position seems pretty clear. The Minister said:
      I have made it clear that we intend to exempt lone parents from the benefit entitlement provisions.
      He added:
      If such a young person was living at home, he or she would continue to be entitled to benefits. That should apply also to young care leavers who are pregnant.
      There is not much scope for misinterpretation there.
      In response to an intervention from me, he said:
      Many young girls leaving care are pregnant…I am told that as many as one in four girls who leave care are pregnant.
      A column later, I said to the Minister:
      Has he given any thought to what message is sent to young girls aged 15 in local authority care, their co-residents in the children's home and others who are pregnant will anticipate receiving benefit because of the exemption, but those who are not pregnant will not expect benefits?
      The Minister said:
      I am not convinced that young women will get pregnant because they might then be entitled to income support.
      A column later, I said:
      That sends some strange messages. I do not suggest that 15-year-old girls in care will automatically think that they have one year left in which to become pregnant, but there will be serious consequences to anything that seems to people's peers, however misguidedly, to reward them for a type of behaviour that we would not seek to encourage.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 July 2000: c. 137–39.]
      Nowhere in those exchanges over three columns of Hansard did the Minister seek to retract the statement that he made in column 137 that the exemption should apply also to young care leavers who are pregnant.
      The Minister has said that he wants to allow in the Bill for some flexibility in how the Secretary of State seeks to use his power to make exemptions. Having heard what the Minister said in Committee—that he would intend to
      670
      apply the exemption also to all young care leavers who are pregnant—we specifically do not want to leave the Secretary of State any flexibility in interpreting how he uses the exemption.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 24.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am satisfied that the debate has covered both amendments in the group.
      Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 9, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert—
      'is

      (a) disabled within the meaning of section 120(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000, or

      (b) a mother of a child under four years of age.

      (3A) Where the Secretary of State provides by regulations that this section does not apply to a person by virtue of subsection (3)(b) he may provide by regulations such conditions as he shall determine to be in the best interest of that person and her child and if that person fails to comply with those conditions she shall cease to be a person to whom this section does not apply.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 312.

      Division No. 316]

      [7.29 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Garnier, Edward

      Amess, David

      Gibb, Nick

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Gill, Christopher

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Baldry, Tony

      Green, Damian

      Bercow, John

      Greenway, John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Grieve, Dominic

      Blunt, Crispin

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Body, Sir Richard

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Boswell, Tim

      Hammond, Philip

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Hayes, John

      Brady, Graham

      Heald, Oliver

      Brazier, Julian

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Horam, John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Burns, Simon

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Butterfill, John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cash, William

      Johnson Smith,

      Chope, Christopher

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Clappison, James

      Key, Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Collins, Tim

      Lansley, Andrew

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Leigh, Edward

      Cran, James

      Letwin, Oliver

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Lidington, David

      Day, Stephen

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Duncan, Alan

      Loughton, Tim

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Luff, Peter

      Evans, Nigel

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Faber, David

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Fallon, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Flight, Howard

      Madel, Sir David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Maples, John

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Mates, Michael

      Fraser, Christopher

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Gale, Roger

      May, Mrs Theresa

      671

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Norman, Archie

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Page, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Paice, James

      Trend, Michael

      Paterson, Owen

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Pickles, Eric

      Viggers, Peter

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Walter, Robert

      Randall, John

      Wardle, Charles

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wells, Bowen

      Robertson, Laurence

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Whittingdale, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Wilkinson, John

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Willetts, David

      Ruffley, David

      Wilshire, David

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Yeo, Tim

      Shepherd, Richard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Swayne, Desmond

      Mr. Keith Simpson and

      Syms, Robert

      Mr. James Gray.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Chaytor, David

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Chidgey, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Clapham, Michael

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clwyd, Ann

      Austin, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Baker, Norman

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Banks, Tony

      Coleman, Iain

      Barnes, Harry

      Colman, Tony

      Barron, Kevin

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cooper, Yvette

      Beard, Nigel

      Corbett, Robin

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Corston, Jean

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cotter, Brian

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cousins, Jim

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cox, Tom

      Benton, Joe

      Crausby, David

      Best, Harold

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Betts, Clive

      Cummings, John

      Blackman, Liz

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Darvill, Keith

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Breed, Colin

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

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Browne, Desmond

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dobbin, Jim

      Burgon, Colin

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Burstow, Paul

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Doran, Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Efford, Clive

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ennis, Jeff

      Caton, Martin

      Etherington, Bill

      Cawsey, Ian

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      672

      Fisher, Mark

      Livsey, Richard

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Flint, Caroline

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Flynn, Paul

      Lock, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Love, Andrew

      Foulkes, George

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gardiner, Barry

      McCabe, Steve

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gerrard, Neil

      Macdonald, Calum

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McDonnell, John

      Gidley, Sandra

      McFall, John

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McIsaac, Shona

      Godsiff, Roger

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Goggins, Paul

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McNulty, Tony

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      MacShane, Denis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Grocott, Bruce

      McWalter, Tony

      Grogan, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Harvey, Nick

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Healey, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Maxton, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Heppell, John

      Meale, Alan

      Hill, Keith

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hood, Jimmy

      Miller, Andrew

      Hope, Phil

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

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

      Hurst, Alan

      Hutton, John

      Mountford, Kali

      Illsley, Eric

      Mudie, George

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jamieson, David

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jenkins, Brian

      Norris, Dan

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Oaten, Mark

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pike, Peter L

      Keetch, Paul

      Plaskitt, James

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pond, Chris

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

      Pope, Greg

      Pound, Stephen

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kidney, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      King, Ms Dona (Bethnal Green)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rammell, Bill

      Lammy, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Raynsford, Nick

      Laxton, Bob

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Lepper, David

      Rendel, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Levitt, Tom

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rogers, Allan

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rooney, Terry

      673

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Roy, Frank

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Ruane, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Salter, Martin

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Todd, Mark

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Sawford, Phil

      Trickett, Jon

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tyler, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tynan, Bill

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Webb, Steve

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

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

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wills, Michael

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Winnick, David

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stevenson, George

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Worthington, Tony

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Stringer, Graham

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mr. David Clelland.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 9, line 41, leave out subsection (7).
      At present, the Bill applies only to England and Wales—with the exception of clause 6, which, because social security is a reserved matter, applies to the United Kingdom as a whole.
      The Government clearly expect the Scottish Parliament to produce legislation similar to that in the Bill. That is an arrogance in itself. In Committee, when we discussed issues relating to this matter, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) accused me of displaying—in an amendment that I had tabled—a lack of faith in the devolution settlement. He confidently assured me that the Scottish Parliament would ensure that legislation mirroring the Bill was introduced. I understand from my colleagues in Scotland, however, that no progress has been made, and that consultation is still going on.
      As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, it is clear that in the Scottish Parliament there is nothing like the consensus in favour of the legislation that exists across the parties in England. Perhaps in a moment the Minister will be able to give us his latest anticipated timetable for getting similar legislation through the Scottish Parliament.
      As drafted, clause 6 would be applied in Scotland before legislation equivalent to the rest of the Bill had been passed by the Scottish Parliament. That would mean children leaving care in Scotland being left with no means of support, because clause 6 would withdraw their
      674
      entitlement to means-tested social security benefits before legislation had entitled them to benefits from local authorities on a model parallel to that established in England and Wales. We all agree that that would be unacceptable.
      The Government's solution is not to wait until they can get their act together and ensure that appropriate legislation exists throughout the United Kingdom, but to give themselves a power to prescribe, by order, certain groups that are to be exempt. In our last debate we discussed the exemption of certain groups, such as lone parents and people who are disabled. Clause 6(7), however, specifically enables the Government to exempt groups by providing powers to make different regulations in different areas of the United Kingdom. In other words, it enables the Government to exclude people living in Scotland from the provisions of the clause.
      Although social security is a reserved matter—in the devolution settlement, it was considered appropriate that social security matters throughout the United Kingdom should be dealt with by this Parliament—the Government's proposal is to block exempt Scotland from the effect of clause 6. Social security was kept as a reserved matter because it was obvious to those drafting the Scotland Bill that, if social security regimes differed in different parts of the country, it could lead to unfortunate examples of people migrating to find the benefits that were most advantageous to them. It was felt that the appropriate solution was to have a uniform system of benefits throughout the UK.
      The fact that the Government have had to seek a regulation-making power to allow them to impose Scotland's exemption from clause 6 highlights a problem in the devolution settlement. The problem arises when legislation comes forward where delegated and reserved areas of policy making interact in a way that will leave one area stranded high and dry if the devolved Parliament does not co-operate with the Government in Westminster to ensure that appropriate legislation is in place in time.
      The Government's proposal is to give themselves, through subsection (7), powers to make regulations that make different provisions for different areas and to use the subsection—they have freely admitted that it is their intention—to exclude Scotland. Means-tested cash benefits as an entitlement would continue to be payable in Scotland, although they would not be payable in England.
      We have a clear and perhaps genuine disagreement across the House on the likely effects of that. There are those—they spoke both on Second Reading and in Committee—who believe that the entitlement to means-tested cash benefits is not likely to be important to people leaving care, and that they will see the common sense that we all agree on: the package of support on offer from local authorities is likely to be, taken in the round, superior to the value of the cash benefits that are on offer under the social security system. However, common sense tells me that some people at least who are faced with the prospect of leaving care at 16 and who have been expecting to be entitled to receive means-tested cash benefits will not see that arrangement—which requires them to keep in contact with their local authority, to negotiate with it about what they need for their support, how they are going to use and to spend it, what part of it will be cash and what part will be in kind—as a benefit to them.
      As I said in the previous debate, common sense tells me that it will be the most vulnerable, the most at risk, who are likely to resist most the move from a cash

      675
      entitlement benefit to a package of support provided by the local authority. The cash entitlement system gives no-questions-asked cash, albeit perhaps not particularly generous sums, rather than the alternative of accessing support on an agreed basis with an agreed package through the young person's adviser.
      I predict that there will be a steady trickle, if not a flood, of young people from England seeking to claim cash benefits in Scotland—perhaps, for example, when there has been some conflict or disagreement between the young person in question and the young person's adviser or the local authority. The Bill's intention is clear—that no cash alternative will be available to care leavers in England and Wales—but the practical effect of creating an exemption for Scotland will be that there is an alternative, always tantalisingly available, to the care leaver in England. That is to go north, to obtain an address in Scotland and then seek access to means-tested social security benefits in Scotland. That seems to be undesirable.
      One of the Bill's main purposes has been, rightly, to arrest the drift of children leaving care from areas where they have been brought up and cared for, to London and other big cities—where they are much more vulnerable to people and things that prey on them—and to keep them in contact with their local authorities. We support that objective. It seems to be madness to put in place a mechanism that will offer them an opportunity to access means-tested benefits precisely by moving away from the area where they have been brought up and away from the influence of their local authorities. It seems that that has been done simply to try to paper over the cracks in the devolution settlement, which the Bill has exposed by combining areas that are delegated and areas that are reserved.
      The Government cannot have it both ways.
      Mr. Shaw: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman referred to agencies that had various concerns about aspects of the Bill. That was one of the reasons why he was tabling amendments. I wonder, in relation to amendment No. 25, whether he has been in contact with any child care agency that feels that there will be a flood from Runnymede to Roxburgh to find those benefits. That is for the birds, as I said in Committee.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman's views on the matter are well known to me. I would be more interested in him seeking to deal with the point of principle. It may be a trickle, not a flood. I said that it may be a trickle rather than a flood, but I wonder if it sends the right message to young people leaving care that the Government think that it is right that they should not have access to means-tested cash benefits.
      The Government have put in place a system of probably more generous support—we do not know the details yet—but that means that young people leaving care have to keep in contact with their young persons adviser; essentially, they have to negotiate that package with the adviser. The Government argue—I tend to support them in the argument—that that is a positive thing. That will ensure that the young person is better supported and better able to make the transition from being a young person in care to being an adult finding his own way in society, but it is perverse then to create that one loophole.
      676
      In Committee, the Minister said that he anticipated a short transition; in other words, he anticipated the period between the introduction of the legislation in England and the passing of similar legislation in Scotland to be short, but, at the same time, he rejected an Opposition amendment that would have required the Secretary of State to give a certificate whereby legislation having substantially the same effect was in place in Scotland before legislation was brought into effect in England, so requiring the Secretary of State to wait until the uniform regime could be applied throughout the UK. It was clearly the intention of the drafters of the Scotland Bill, in reserving social security to this Parliament, to avoid a situation—precisely the one that the Minister proposes to create—where the social security regimes on offer were different in different parts of the UK, creating unnecessary tensions.
      The Minister told us that it would be only a short transition period. Perhaps, then, he can tell us precisely when he expects the legislation in Scotland to be passed, how he expects that legislation to be passed, given the different views that prevail in the Scottish Parliament, and why he did not accept a proposal that required legislation to be in place in both countries before the Bill came into effect.
      8 pm
      The Government should wait until they can treat all the people of the United Kingdom similarly on a reserved matter such as social security. Anything less undermines one of the important principles that was established when certain types of legislation were reserved for this Parliament.
      Mr. Hutton: The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) started his remarks by expressing concerns about clause 6(7). I assure him that subsection (7) uses a standard form of words for social security legislation, and that its inclusion in the Bill is to allow the Secretary of State the flexibility to react flexibly to future developments. It also allows, for example, the Department of Social Security to pilot new benefit schemes. Therefore, there is nothing alien or fundamentally unsatisfactory about the clause. It is also certainly not in the Bill to exclude Scotland en bloc, as the hon. Gentleman said.
      As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the provisions of clause 6 will commence in England and Wales, but not in Scotland until Scottish legislation is in place. As I said, subsection (7) is simply a standard power in social security legislation to allow that type of flexibility.
      The hon. Gentleman's remarks seemed to indicate a concern that the Government envisage that different groups of young people will be exempted from the Bill's benefits provisions in the different countries of Great Britain. I assure him that that is not the case. We intend to re-harmonise benefit provision across Great Britain as soon as it is feasible to do so. I also assure him, in answer to his question, that, on 5 July, Scottish Ministers gave a very firm commitment to introducing legislation providing for support for care leavers as soon as possible—in the next Session of the Scottish Parliament,

      677
      I believe. Once that has been done, we shall be able to commence the use of the terms of clause 6 of the Bill in Scotland, as it will be commenced in England and Wales.
      Mr. Hammond: Surely the Minister does not purport to be able to assure the House that the Scottish Parliament will pass such legislation.
      Mr. Hutton: Of course not; that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. However, the hon. Gentleman asked me when I thought that legislation would be presented to the Scottish Parliament. My information is that it will be introduced in the next Session of the Scottish Parliament.
      In Committee, the hon. Gentleman made very clear his feelings about devolution. I think that Labour Members and some Opposition Members have detected where he and other Conservative Members stand on devolution. Although that is not a matter for this debate, I suspect that we shall return to it in the next few months.
      The hon. Gentleman believes that some matters were reserved to Westminster to ensure that there could be no possibility of any variation in them across Great Britain. The Bill deals not only with devolved matters—support for children who are being looked after—but with reserved matters—welfare benefits. We have been very careful to keep in close touch with the Scottish and the Welsh devolved Administrations to be quite certain that they are content with the way in which to handle that new complexity. They are so content. We have also been at pains to ensure that no child is accidentally disadvantaged because of the Bill. We are confident that the Bill will achieve that aim.
      The Government have made it clear that it is right in principle that social security benefits should be available on a common basis across the country. However, we recognise that there may be occasions when Edinburgh cannot legislate for the same provisions to our own timetable. We need, therefore, to consider the circumstances on a case-by-case basis to decide whether it is essential that the provisions are implemented countrywide. In this case, it is not essential. Rather, we prefer to proceed with implementation of legislation in England and Wales that will benefit very many children for whom the state is responsible and who have to date not always received the best care and support.
      Consequently, as is obvious to everyone, there will be a transitional period in which benefit entitlement for 16 and 17-year-olds who have been looked after will be different on either side of the Scottish border. The Government agree that the sooner entitlement can be harmonised, the better. However, we do not believe that it would be right to deprive English and Welsh looked-after children of all the benefits of the Bill's provisions, which have received widespread support in both Houses of Parliament and more widely during the Bill's passage. The Government have also been at pains to ensure that, during the transitional period, no child will find himself disqualified for support when he moves across the Scottish border in either direction.
      The principle is clear: we do not propose to hold up implementation in England and Wales. The practicality will be that the traditional period will be short. As I said, we have assurances from Scottish Ministers that they will legislate for Scotland at the earliest possible opportunity.
      We had a long and extensive debate on this issue in Committee. I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to proceed with
      678
      implementation in England as soon as we can, from next April, because the benefits for English and Welsh children are very substantial. We hope to re-harmonise the situation in Scotland at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister talked about needing flexibility in the Bill to deal with future developments. However, it has been made very clear—I do not think that the Minister would deny it—that subsection (7) will be used to deal with the transitional phase.
      It is simply not good enough for Ministers to wheel out the devolution slur every time we raise issues that are bound to arise as we all get used to dealing with the situation that has been created by the Scotland Act 1998. We are exploring what happens when the House is asked to consider legislation in which—this Bill may be the first such example—most of the provisions deal with devolved matters, for which the Scottish Parliament has full authority and jurisdiction, but one provision deals with a reserved matter.
      We have to address the issues of timing and of United Kingdom Ministers' inability to give assurances on the passage of appropriate legislation in the other Parliament. I think that it was right to raise the issue. I also do not think that the Minister's comments on devolution and on my comments in Committee will bear scrutiny. By highlighting the issue, we are pointing up—and will continue to point up, whenever the need arises—the inherent instability of the devolution settlement and the need continuously to address such issues.
      I entirely agree with the Minister when he says that he does not want to deprive Welsh and English children of the legislation's benefits simply because of any tardiness in the Scottish Parliament. I entirely understand his motivation in saying that.
      In requesting to withdraw my amendment—although I am far from satisfied—I simply say that the Minister has today demonstrated the confusion in the Government's legislative programme. He told us that, when this Bill was being drafted, it was intended that it should receive Royal Assent and be implemented before the Care Standards Act 2000. Events, however, have been the other way around. One might think that the Government should be in sufficient control of their legislative programme to be able at least to determine which of their measures is implemented first. The Minister is now asking us to believe that he can give effective assurances—a nod and a wink—on what will happen in the Scottish Parliament.
      The Minister may have different information from mine, but my understanding is that—although Scottish Ministers have been given orders by No. 10 Downing street that they have to have legislation mirroring this Bill as soon as possible—the arithmetic in Scotland and the views held there on the withdrawal of cash entitlement benefits from 16 and 17-year-olds are such that the Minister cannot predict with confidence that that legislation will be passed.
      Dr. Brand: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there might be a Machiavellian plot to phase the transfer? If it

      679
      results in a flood of care leavers moving to Scotland to go onto benefits, would that not be a powerful incentive for the Scottish Parliament to pass the same legislation?
      Mr. Hammond: No, I think not. Having made the point—it has been made before, as the Minister rightly said—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 7

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 22, in page 10, line 27, at end insert—
      '(5) In the Care Standards Act 2000, in Schedule 4 (minor and consequential amendments)—

      (a) in paragraph 14(4), the words ", as it has effect before the commencement of section 4 of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000"; and

      (b) paragraph 14(5) and (6),

      are repealed.'. —[Mr. Hutton.]

    Clause 8

      INTERPRETATION, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT, WALES AND SHORT TITLE
      Amendment made: No. 23, in page 10, line 29, after "from" insert "section 7(5) and".—[Mr. Hutton.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      8.10 pm
      Mr. Hutton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      At the heart of the Bill lies one simple but powerful idea—that children in care deserve the same chance to get on in life as any other child; but that has never been the reality. Very few young people in care have ever enjoyed the opportunity to thrive and develop. The facts speak for themselves.
      Children in care make up 25 per cent. of those sleeping rough on the streets of London. Young men previously in care make up 22 per cent. of the prison population and that figure rises to 39 per cent. of those under 21. Fewer than one in three leaves care with a single GCSE pass, compared with 95 per cent. of children overall. That is not the failure of the child in care; it is a failure of the system of care. At long last, we are now beginning to address that.
      The Bill, together with the other measures we have taken to strengthen and improve children's social services, will lay the foundations for new opportunities for young people in care to get a good education and a good job, to have a stake in and some hope for the future, and to enjoy the same on-going support and help that other children receive as they become adults and move towards independence. It has been in those areas that the care system has let down children in care, often with terrible consequences.
      By passing the Bill tonight, we have the opportunity to say that we will no longer tolerate those failures in the care system, that we have acknowledged our responsibility to see to it that young people in care get a
      680
      decent chance in life, and that what is good enough for our own children must, in future, become good enough for every child in care.
      Children get only one chance in life to grow up—and for them to grow up safely and realise their full potential, they need the active care, help and support of their parents. The new duties and responsibilities placed on local authorities under the Bill will, I believe, help to ensure that looked-after children receive this from their corporate parents.
      We all recognise that achieving those objectives will take more than a change in the law. Neither can we afford to be complacent about the scale of the challenge, which is real and significant, but the changes made by the Bill will provide a strong impetus to the new approach and culture that we want to see spread across children's social services, where we have higher ambitions for looked-after children so that social services provide young people not just with care, but with a real chance and opportunity in life, equipping them with the skills and knowledge that they need for their future success.
      The Bill will allow local authorities to do all that for the children in their care and, backed by the new resources for children's social services in the spending review, we are now taking the necessary and essential steps towards meeting the collective responsibility that we owe as a society to looked-after children.
      Many people have helped ensure that we have taken those steps forward—not only with the Bill tonight, but with the Government's other measures in this area. I should like to thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), for both his leadership and his commitment to children in care throughout his time as Secretary of State for Health. He, more than any other person tonight, is entitled to take credit for the Bill.
      I should also like to thank young care leavers such as Marie Piper and Tommy Turner, who helped us to prepare the Bill and make sure that it addresses the concerns of children in care. Finally, I should like to thank members of the Standing Committee for their positive and helpful scrutiny of the Bill.
      The Bill marks the beginning of a new deal for young people in care. It signals our determination not only to end the all-too-obvious failures of the past, but to build a new and brighter future for some of the most vulnerable and socially disadvantaged people in our country. It is a good and decent Bill and I ask the House to support it tonight.
      8.14 pm
      Mr. Hammond: I welcome the Minister's remarks. All Opposition Members support the idea of a level playing field and seek to redress some of the disadvantages that children leaving care clearly face compared with those who have been more fortunate and perhaps have had more opportunity to enjoy their childhood and prepare for adult life.
      We welcomed the Bill when it was introduced. We have consistently welcomed measures that improve the protection of vulnerable children in our society, but that does not mean that we have no significant issues to raise. Some of those issues involve important points of principle, but there has never been any doubt that we support the underlying purpose of the Bill. The Minister has acknowledged that on many occasions.

      681
      My noble Friends in another place played an important part in mapping out the final shape of the Bill. It builds on the Children Act 1989, which remains the basis of our system of child protection and child support. I am glad to say that there has been a large degree of consensus even when we have needed to debate the details. We have identified weaknesses and failures in a system that is supposed to protect vulnerable children, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that it is time to correct those weaknesses and failures or collectively share the responsibility for allowing them to continue.
      I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to consult Opposition parties on the regulations. As so often happens, an unnecessary level of tension is created during the passage of the primary legislation because we do not have sight of the regulatory structure that will inform its operation. We have to assume the worst, but I hope that we will be satisfied and reassured by the regulations in respect of many issues on which we have expressed grave concern. In general, if it were possible for Departments to produce draft regulations for hon. Members to consider alongside the primary legislation, we might find that we needed to spend rather fewer hours arguing about things that might never happen, but which we cannot be sure will never happen until we see the precise form of the regulations.
      I am grateful to the Minister for emphasising his desire for consensus throughout the proceedings on the Bill. As I have said before, I believe that on a matter such as child protection we can only proceed by consensus. The Opposition certainly hope that we will proceed in that way in future, to continue to strengthen and reinforce the body of child support and child protection legislation.
      8.18 pm
      Mr. Dawson: It is useful to spend a little time reflecting on the importance and qualities of what everyone should regard as a fine piece of legislation. It is a particularly fine measure not only because the Government have drafted it well, prepared it well and consulted on it well in the first place, but because they have altered it and improved it in response to well-informed opinion. Frankly, the best-informed opinion and the highest quality of advice that the Government have received have come from young people with experience of the care system.
      I dismiss entirely the view that the Government are arrogant or do not listen, and I can cite examples of some of the most vulnerable young people in our society who have been welcomed by Ministers and civil servants and have been fully involved in the crucial work of the Department of Health on areas of concern about which they know so much. That is tremendously to the credit of the Government and those officials.
      This is very fine and much-needed legislation. I first had formal responsibility for young people in care in 1987. We had in-care meetings and conferences, and young people's concerns about leaving care were always the same. They were left bereft and felt that they were pushed out into the world without support, training or induction or any on-going involvement from local authorities. They were expected to cope independently at an age at which none of us in the Chamber would have been able to cope.
      It is a testimony to their bravery and resilience that a proportion of those young people came through that experience successfully. Some of the finest people I know
      682
      have been through the care system and coped with experiences that would daunt anyone, in care and after leaving.
      There are some individuals who make great efforts. A woman in my constituency runs a children's home, and every Sunday young people and adults as old as their late 30s go back to the home to visit. That is a matter of working way beyond the call of career and duty, through professional and caring values. Of course, we also try to find solutions and put measures in place with housing authorities.
      I started working with young people in care before the Children Act 1989. There have been many references to that Act tonight. It is a great piece of legislation, embodying the finest principles and making children the focus of concern, with their needs made paramount, but it was left full of holes. Section 24, in particular, which gave powers to local authorities, did not change the situation for children leaving care.
      There are good and decent people of all parties in the House, but the care system in which I worked up to 4 April 1997 was a disgrace. It was completely inadequate. There may be consensus now on the broad basis of the way forward, but the Labour Government inherited a care system that had palpably failed. When I was working in the system, it did not seem that the Government were listening to our concerns. They seemed not to care about the vulnerable people in the system. They had other values, expressed in statements about there being no such thing as community or society. Their priorities did not include young people in care.
      When I came to the House, I saw it as a fantastic opportunity to try to change the care system. At a conference three years ago, I outlined what changes I wanted in the care system. I wanted investment, and we are getting an extra £290 million in a five-year programme through quality protects. I wanted attention to standards, and we are getting that through the Care Standards Act 2000. I wanted more money for training, and we are getting that. I wanted attention to be paid to children's rights, and the Government, to their enormous credit, are funding a children's rights director and a new national organisation for children and young people in care. I wanted attention to be focused on the issue of leaving care. If there is one outstandingly excellent thing about the Bill, it is the extension of statutory duties to local authorities for young people up to the age of 21. That is profoundly important and good, and the Government should receive the great credit that they deserve for this excellent measure.
      8.27 pm
      Dr. Brand: I join the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) in rejoicing in the Bill. We have gone a long way since the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) gave evidence to the Health Committee and made a commitment to extend local authorities' duties of care to people up to the age of 21. We have had a hiccup or two, but I am glad that we have arrived where we have.
      There are one or two disappointments. It is sad that the collective brilliance of parliamentary draftsmen could not come up with some way of describing this group of people as young people, rather than children. Nowadays, when people reach 16 they no longer see themselves as children,

      683
      although technically they might still be so. It is a pity that we have to stick to old-fashioned definitions even when we are discussing what is undoubtedly progressive legislation.
      Our debates here and in Committee have been very interesting. The concept of a local authority as a corporate parent interests me greatly. One could interpret that in more than one way. One could be corporate in the sense of being a corporation. Sometimes, one got the impression that we were discussing not care plans but business plans, that something had to be delivered against a target, and that there would be no reward unless the target was met.
      I hope that the framework is firm enough where it has to be, but flexible enough in other areas, so that the corporate parent can act as a tolerant parent. My experience of young people in care is that they are there because their parents were either totally intolerant of them or ignored them, neither of which is very acceptable. The worst situation would be to have a rigid framework in the care planning that disaffected the young people even further.
      That raises my main concern about the implementation of this excellent Bill. How will it cope with the care leaver who is not motivated to be the good son or daughter of an excellent corporate parent? Most of us have the privilege of 16 years' experience before we start looking after a 16-year-old. It will be a very hard learning curve for local authorities to be able to meet this very important responsibility, which goes far beyond handing out resources and telling people what they can or cannot do. Careers advisers or representatives of the Benefits Agency can do that, but more is involved in the task facing local authorities.
      Resources are important, and there will never be enough cash resources, but I am more worried about having enough human resources. The Minister has been most helpful in that he has not been too specific about what type of human resources are required. However, the human resources involved should be of high quality, and they should be supported. Our deliberations have not touched on the need to support the advisers and social workers who will have to implement the Bill and work with the children involved.
      The House has done its best with the Bill, which will pose major headaches and responsibilities for local authorities. We must be tolerant of those authorities and support them as their new role evolves. It is easy to pass legislation that tells people what to do—but much good legislation has failed because the difficulties of implementation have not been resolved. Many hon. Members have experience of the real world. However, I hope that Ministers, who have been so flexible in the guidance that they have created, also understand the need to support the people charged with the vital task of helping children leaving care.
      Finally, I congratulate the Minister on steering the Bill through the House, and all the members of the Standing Committee. The Minister will not wind up the debate. I am used to ending my contributions by saying that I look forward to what he has to say, but I have heard it all now—often more than once, but then the question has often been asked more than once too.
      Mr. Brian White: Yours have.
      Dr. Brand: I am usually pretty selective in my questions. However, I and my party support the Bill entirely. I hope that its implementation will be a great success.
      8.33 pm
      Ms Julie Morgan: I shall be brief. I welcome the Bill very much. Like other hon. Members, I was a social worker for many years, in both the statutory and voluntary sectors. In that work, I saw how much we failed the young people in our care. I can think of young people who were cast adrift on society and who ended up in prison or on the street. The Bill is a tremendous tribute to the Government, and I rejoice in its passage through the House today.
      I am especially keen to pay tribute to the young people who came up from Wales to the House. They put their views forcibly to hon. Members, from Wales and elsewhere, and were instrumental in some of the amendments that have been made to the Bill in its passage through the two Houses of Parliament.
      The consultation on the proposals for regulations is taking place in Wales, and issues remain to be worked out. For example, three local authorities have suggested that professional advisers should be volunteers, while others have suggested that they should be paid. Such matters need to be sorted out, in consultation with the young people.
      I hope that children will never again be cast out into society in the way common when I was a social worker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and everyone involved in the Bill—and especially the young people whom I mentioned earlier.
      8.35 pm
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I, too, welcome this Bill. I am pleased that it has gained so much consensus in the House, and I look forward to its early implementation.
      Some of the worst care scandals happened in Wales, but it has since been revealed that similar problems have happened in England as well. One of the Government's primary tasks was to restore the confidence and trust of the public—especially of young people—in the care system. That had been lost over the years, for reasons that hon. Members set out in the debate tonight.
      This Bill and the Care Standards Act 2000 mean that that trust is being restored. The Government are paying attention to what young people and hon. Members have said, and the Bill is part of a package of measures that will improve the lot of young people in care, and of those leaving care.
      The Bill is slightly better now than when we first considered it three months ago. I welcome the amendments that the Government have made, especially the one that takes account of the need for further education to be considered alongside higher education. That was an important issue, especially for young people leaving care in rural areas.
      As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said, much of the Bill's implementation depends on the guidelines that the Government will set out. The situation

      685
      in Wales is slightly different from that in the rest of the country, as devolution means that the National Assembly for Wales will decide what those guidelines should be. The hon. Lady mentioned advisers, but the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) also made an important point about advocacy. I hope that the guidelines in Wales, at least, will seek that independent voice in the advocacy services. The right organisations exist in Wales to provide that service, if they are given the right responsibility under the Bill.
      I am pleased that the Government have resisted the more sanctions-based approach advocated by some hon. Members, and that they have rejected an approach that is based more on the stick than the carrot. Although some young people may not be able to cope with the pathway plan and will not therefore emerge from the system with the proper support, the Bill means that every effort will be made to encourage those young people to work in co-operation with the people charged with looking after them.
      That is a much better approach. We have to accept that there will be some failures in the care system, but we must ensure that the legislation that we pass is as permissive, enabling and empowering as it can possibly be. The Bill goes a long way towards achieving that.
      My one concern is that the Bill misses an opportunity to assist former relevant children—young people leaving care—by helping them with training and education up to the age of 24. The Bill is permissive on that account, but I should have liked it to place a duty on local authorities to offer that support.
      We have some experience of the permissive and discretionary role that local authorities have, and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) mentioned the opportunities in the Children Act 1989 that have been missed. That small chink in the Bill was explored in Committee. I know that the Government are keen to ensure that it does not become a gaping hole, but the Bill could have placed a duty on local authorities to support former relevant children up to the age of 24. We know that 75 per cent. of care leavers have no qualifications, and one of the Bill's primary tasks is to provide a framework to improve their lot.
      However, that is the only weakness that I can detect in the Bill. That is a wonderful thing to be able to say. The Standing Committee discussing the Bill was my first experience of such work, and I was very pleased to serve on a Committee considering such a progressive and empowering piece of legislation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  West Coast Main Line
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  8.39 pm
  Ms Claire Ward: I was beginning to think that the uncertainty about what time this debate would start was part of a conspiracy to ensure that I was away from my other constituents this evening, who are following the fortunes of Watford football team, which is playing Manchester United at home. However, I shall not detain the House for long, certainly not until 10 o'clock, as I am sure that other hon. Members are keen to know the results.
  Many of those who have seen the title of the Adjournment debate will believe that it refers to the chaos and disruption seen on the west coast over the past few days. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe will be pleased and relieved to know that it does not. This debate is about the chaos and disruption that will be caused to the people in my community by the works required to achieve the upgrading of the west coast main line.
  First, may I say that I fully support the project to upgrade the west coast main line? The opportunity to improve services along the line must be welcomed, and in Watford we expect to see a substantial extension to services as a result of the upgrade. Although I have some concerns about the capacity available to local services, that is not an issue for tonight. I recognise, too, that sometimes there must be disruption in order to gain those benefits. However, we expect our public utilities, notably Railtrack and the National Grid Company, to do all within their power to minimise disruption and seek the most suitable means of carrying out works so that, wherever possible. communities are protected from the upheaval of the track improvements. However, there are two areas along the line in my constituency where proposals from Railtrack are causing great upset and concern to residents.
  The first is an issue on which I have already made representations to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. As part of improving the power source for the railway, a series of electrical transformers is being sited along the line. Railtrack has applied to the Secretary of State for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to authorise a package of projects for improving the power supply to the line. One such project includes the siting of an electrical transformer in Gypsy lane in the north of my constituency. Gypsy lane, for those who do not have the advantage of knowing Watford, is a beautiful country cul-de-sac that leads out to greenbelt land, and people regularly walk and cycle there. It is a single-lane road, with no footpaths and no turning spaces, other than those of the residents' own driveways.
  Railtrack originally planned to site the transformer on the east side of the track and took some soundings from a few residents. They expressed concern, not so much about the position of the transformer as the access to it. Residents have never opposed the fact that a transformer needs to be sited in the area, but have always opposed the plan that access to it should be via Gypsy lane, which is inappropriate for use by huge vehicles. Railtrack considered that and moved it to the west side. Residents have never supported that site and access to it would still be required via Gypsy lane.

  687
  Railtrack has estimated that the work will take about six months. Once built, the transformer will require regular maintenance. That would all need access along this narrow lane. It is no wonder that the residents have opposed Railtrack's proposals.
  The site favoured by residents—the original site identified by Railtrack—could be accessed from private land and would be more suitable for construction and maintenance vehicles to use. The land is part of Leavesden aerodrome, now used by Leavesden film studios, and using it would cause less disruption. Equally, using that site would minimise the visual obstruction in this attractive area.
  I have supported residents in their discussions with Railtrack. The Transport and Works Act 1992 will now be considered by a public inquiry. However, we continue to urge Railtrack to reconsider the alternative position now, rather than wait until the inquiry, which will not be considering the issue until August next year.
  The second issue relates to the south of my constituency, in Oxhey village—another quaint and attractive part of the constituency which is being threatened by Railtrack's proposals. There are two areas of concern. First, a further transformer is required near Bushey station. Although residents had been led to believe that it would be sited near the end of the platform, more recent proposals—without consultation—indicate that it is due to be built further away from the station but nearer to homes. Residents are understandably concerned about the loss of their visual outlook by the erection of such a large building. Some have also expressed concern about the health implications of being so close to a fairly high electromagnetic field.
  Secondly, Railtrack has asked the National Grid Company to provide a high-voltage electricity supply to the line. The cables will be run from Elstree sub-station to Bushey railway station. Unfortunately for my constituents, it is proposed that trenches be dug to put the cables along the middle of those narrow Victorian streets. Not only will that cause disruption, increased noise and dirt to residents, but the parking problems in the area will be magnified by the displacement of cars due to the works. Although the majority of the area is residential, a number of businesses such as newsagents, specialist shops and takeaways rely on passing trade and the ability of customers to stop close by. The cabling works would not only make the road almost unusable but would prevent cars from parking in any relatively close proximity. Those businesses will be severely affected and, as yet, they have not been advised of what assistance, if any, Railtrack or the National Grid Company will provide.
  Watford borough council has also expressed its opposition to the proposals, and is considering whether to grant the necessary planning permission for the National Grid Company to cross the recreational ground, owned by the council.
  Although the National Grid Company claims to have sought to keep the community fully informed of the proposals, it has not been much of a consultation. Residents have stressed the disruption and chaos that will result from the works and have suggested alternatives that have been refused by the National Grid Company and Railtrack.
  688
  The first option that we asked them to consider was the use of tunnelling equipment. We are aware that, on other stretches of roads in St. John's wood, the National Grid Company is using the technology available to it by rotary drilling and steel casing a borehole through which the cables are threaded. Equally, when the cables cross the major A41 road under the proposed route, the National Grid Company will tunnel underneath. Residents rightly want the National Grid Company to minimise disruption by using the best technology available to it in undertaking this work. Yet the National Grid Company and its customers, Railtrack, refuse to do so.
  Residents and the council have also requested consideration of alternative routes where fewer residential areas would be affected by the cabling. To date, there appears to have been some reluctance to provide exact costings and details of the alternatives and the technical reasons why they are not practical. Neither Railtrack nor the National Grid Company appears interested in those alternatives.
  Mr. Brian White: Does my hon. Friend agree that similar problems are occurring in many communities up and down the west coast main line upgrade route? Does she agree that, if Railtrack were to treat those alternative suggestions seriously, it would have far better support in those communities? Instead, people suspect that Railtrack is not up to the west coast main line upgrade.
  Ms Ward: I agree with my hon. Friend. Although there are not as many Members in the Chamber as one would wish to be present for an Adjournment debate, I am confident that there are many other constituencies, up and down the west coast main line and elsewhere, where Railtrack and the National Grid Company have not taken due consideration of the concerns raised by residents about the disruption in their area. Indeed, people would be more willing to engage in discussions with Railtrack if they felt that they would be listened to. Negotiations will continue over several months, and I hope that Railtrack and National Grid will be interested in talking to residents and the council.
  People in Watford have been told that the proposals are the most cost effective. It seems that Railtrack is not prepared to spend extra money to reduce disruption and protect the environment. The companies are making millions of pounds in profits for shareholders each year, and they have statutory powers allowing them to gain access to private land and highways to carry out their work. On refusal, they can apply to the Secretary of State. That gives the companies immense power over communities that are expected simply to accept proposals and be grateful that they have been informed of the plans.
  As a result of my securing the debate tonight and delays by the council in deciding its course of action, Railtrack has written to me to advise that, if we do not accept its plans, it will seek permission to use an alternative and even more disruptive route. Bullying by such companies is quite appalling, and is not conducive to achieving a solution. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe will recognise that when she replies to the debate. It is the unfortunate result of their serving the interests of their shareholders rather than those of the communities in which they work. It does not seem appropriate that companies in private hands,

  689
  acting in the interests of their shareholders, should have statutory powers far in excess of any held by other companies or industries.
  In preparing for this debate, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were unsure about which of them could most appropriately respond to the issues that I intended to raise. I understand the confusion, and it seems that my right hon. Friend has drawn the short straw. I realise that she cannot easily answer some of the points that I have made, particularly on planning, and I should appreciate it if she would pass on those concerns to the DETR.
  The local community, councillors and I oppose the proposals. Yet the power of the council to refuse planning permission to National Grid, should it decide to do so, can be easily thwarted by the company's ability to turn to the Secretary of State, who would be placed in a difficult position. It cannot be right that a private company, supposedly acting in the public interest, can use the Secretary of State to justify its desire to keep costs low and profits high while being unable to explain to the local community why alternative proposals are not suitable. I hope that my right hon. Friend will stress that point to her colleagues in other Departments.
  I should be interested to hear what standards of consultation and action my right hon. Friend expects from public utilities that are now in the private sector. Does she agree that such companies, with the benefits of wealth, power and lack of competition, have a duty to consider the effects of their actions on the environment and local communities? Does she agree that, when companies make large profits, it is not unreasonable of my constituents to expect the best service rather than simply the cheapest?
  In the words of National Grid, the present route was chosen because most of it—approximately 90 per cent.—fell within sparsely populated roads or rural land, with the aim of minimising disruption to the community as a whole. The remaining 10 per cent. of the route passes along residential streets in the immediate vicinity of Bushey station. I believe that it is possible for National Grid to make the extra effort to reroute the cables away from residential areas, so that the route from Elstree sub-station to Bushey railway station causes minimum disruption. That is the view of my constituents, and we hope that my right hon. Friend will encourage National Grid and Railtrack to reconsider the proposals with local residents, me and Watford borough council.
  8.53 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) on obtaining the debate. She is known across Government for the vigour with which she has pursued these matters, which may be why a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry rather than the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is answering the debate. I well understand the strength of her feeling about how her constituents have been dealt a hand that they regard as unfortunate.
  As my hon. Friend generously pointed out, her concerns cover two distinct but interrelated issues. She is concerned about the Railtrack plans for modernisation of the west coast main line—in particular, how they will
  690
  affect her constituents. As she rightly points out, that is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  I undertake to my hon. Friend and to her colleagues who are supporting her in this debate to ensure that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport is made well aware of the matters that she raised. They are important and, were I in a similar situation, as a constituency Member I would pursue a similar course of action to that of my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend is also concerned about the disruption that would be caused by the National Grid Company's proposals for the laying of underground power cables in Oxhey as part of a power upgrade for the west coast main line. That is a matter that falls directly to me as the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe. I am replying for the Government, but, by my so doing and by my concentrating on the Department of Trade and Industry aspects, she must be assured that, across Government, we share many of her anxieties and we will try to consider her arguments as fully as possible, especially the points of substantive policy for the future.
  As my hon. Friend knows, Railtrack has applied to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to authorise that range of works to upgrade and modernise the west coast main line. Indeed, although Railtrack is a private company, it is regulated by the rail regulator under the Railways Act 1993. Although the Government recognise that the promotion of schemes such as the west coast main line upgrade are matters for the company, where they affect third parties Parliament has provided a procedure under the Transport and Works Act to permit individuals affected by the planned works to make representations.
  A public inquiry into the application is to be held next year, starting in January. I understand that the inquiry is scheduled to take place at 10 different venues along the route, to ensure that the proceedings are accessible to all those who wish to take part. Once the different venues and dates have been settled, my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will write to all the interested parties to inform them of the arrangements.
  I understand that, arising from that application, a number of my hon. Friends's constituents have registered objections to the proposed siting of an electrical transformer at Hunton Bridge, Kings Langley. That is one of the works included in the application for a Transport and Works Act order. All interested persons will have an opportunity to make their views known on that and any other proposals in the application at the public inquiry. My hon. Friend will be pursuing that matter with her characteristic vigour.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that it would not be right for me to comment in advance of the inquiry on any proposals included in the Transport and Works Act application. To do so could prejudice the proper consideration of the application in light of all the evidence that has to be presented to the inquiry or made in writing. In the usual way, the inspector who is making the inquiry will provide a full report on the proceedings.
  I am sympathetic to the concerns of my hon. Friend and her constituents about the disruption that is likely to be caused by the works. We all know the great upheaval

  691
  that can be caused to local communities because of such works. However, checks and balances exist in legislation to ensure that the rights of landowners and occupiers are not ignored.
  Under existing legislation, electricity companies must first seek to make contractual arrangements with landowners or occupiers for rights to install electric lines. Such arrangements are called wayleaves, which also confer access rights for the purpose of inspection, maintenance, repairs and anything else that may be required.
  I understand that the National Grid Company has obtained all the wayleaves that it requires voluntarily, except for one, covering the section of the route from Attenborough fields to Oxhey. That land is owned by Watford borough council, and its policy and procedures committee met yesterday to decide whether to agree to grant the wayleave on a voluntary basis. I understand that the committee referred the matter back to the full council, which will meet on 13 December.
  Should Watford borough council decide not to grant the NGC a wayleave, the company can then apply to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for the grant of a compulsory wayleave. I cannot discuss the merits of that case, as, if an application for a compulsory wayleave is made in due course, it may come before the Secretary of State for decision.

  It might, however, be helpful to my hon. Friend and her constituents if I outline generally the procedures followed if an application for a compulsory wayleave is made, to illustrate that the current provisions encourage negotiation—as my hon. Friend wants—rather than compulsion and to ensure that such procedures are conducted fairly and independently.
  Applicants for compulsory wayleaves for new lines must first give a period of notice to landowners of at least 21 days. If voluntary wayleaves have not been agreed at the end of the notice period, application can then be made to the Secretary of State. Should the—usually—on-going negotiations between the parties be unsuccessful, my Department will, if requested, arrange a hearing at which the parties can make their cases. That hearing would normally be conducted by an inspector from the DTI's engineering inspectorate, who acts independently in such matters, and who, after hearing the evidence, submits a written report to the Secretary of State with his or her
  692
  recommendations. The Secretary of State's decision is then conveyed to the parties. We do not yet know whether that procedure is likely to be required.
  In summary, I cannot comment on the merits of the decisions that have to be made, because of the Government's quasi-judicial position in the matter. I have listened carefully to the debate and will ensure that my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are informed as to the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend and of her constituents—especially in relation to the rather cavalier way in which my hon. Friend believes that her constituents have been treated by Railtrack.
  If a wayleave is received by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the normal procedures will be followed. I understand that the NGC has already discussed the route options publicly and has consulted organisations such as the traffic police.
  The substantive point of my hon. Friend's criticisms relates to the performance of companies such as Railtrack and the NGC. Regardless of whether utilities are in the public or the private sector, companies have certain responsibilities that flow from the performance of their public service obligations. We expect them to supply on demand; to provide a high level of service and, in doing so, to take the needs of individuals into account.
  We are all grown-up people who realise that, in the real world, there will be a need for development work, and that such work causes disruption. Such matters can be dealt with under various statutes, such as the Electricity Act 1989, the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Those measures can all be used, but they do not diminish the criticism correctly made by my hon. Friend: when any company undertakes works that will cause not only economic but social disruption, it has an obligation to take that disruption into account. Companies must behave considerately and sensibly towards people such as my hon. Friend's constituents.
  I again congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving the debate. I have listened to it carefully. The Official Report will be made available to my colleagues in other Departments.
  In conclusion, as Airdrieonians football club is not playing tonight, I can, without hesitation, wish my hon. Friend's team every success.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Nine o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Pensioner Poverty (London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
10 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: I start the debate by noting that not as many hon. Members are present in the Chamber to discuss pensioner poverty in London as I would have liked, but let us hope that more will come and join in the debate as we proceed. It is an important topic and one that we should spend some time discussing, not least because next Wednesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his pre-Budget statement to the House. In July, the right hon. Gentleman announced an additional £43 billion of investment in public services through the comprehensive spending review, a great deal of which I welcome—especially the investment in health and education. However, not a penny more was announced for pensioners—in a year when their basic state pension has risen by only 75p. We know that the Prime Minister has got the message about the anger that pensioners feel about that miserly increase, but the question is whether the Chancellor can now assure us that the Government have understood it.
As a London Member of Parliament, I make no apology for making London the focus of this morning's debate. I am not saying that pensioner poverty elsewhere is any less of an issue. Indeed, some of Government's own indicators show that that is clearly not so. However, one indicator of pensioner poverty overshadows all others. More pensioners die in London as a result of the cold than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. According to the warm homes campaign, on average 5,486 London pensioners die prematurely each year due to the cold. Research recently published in the British Medical Journal found that London had the worst record for cold-related deaths anywhere in western Europe. Even when compared with Scandinavia where the winters are longer and harsher, London comes out worse.
Research makes it clear that the cold will continue to cause thousands of deaths every winter unless effective steps are taken to improve protection against it. When reading such facts alongside the results of the 1996 English house condition survey, which shows that one in five pensioners lives in poor housing and that a higher concentration of that poor housing is in the oldest parts of London—mainly inner London—we begin to see how such conditions make matters worse.
An important part of the picture is not only poor housing but isolation. One in three of London's older people lives alone, which is above the national average. In its report on isolation and older people, Age Concern London stated:
Isolation in old age is commonly associated with frail, housebound older people but it is in fact more widespread. Older people find themselves isolated in a range of circumstances—their
156WH
isolation may be triggered by the death of a partner or the loss of close friends, by a change in culture or social situation, or by a loss of health or mobility.
Those who are most likely to live alone are elderly women. Moreover, older people in inner London are more likely to live alone than their outer London contemporaries. The Sutton seniors forum is an active pensioners group in my outer London constituency. It holds meetings each month at which more than 200 to 300 seniors discuss a range of issues. From a survey of its members, the forum found that 10 per cent. of pensioners never received visits from friends or members of their family and that as many as 50 per cent. of those pensioners were visited only occasionally. The chairman of the forum, David Dombey, said that that was
a terrible indictment of today's society.
I agree. Isolation increases vulnerability. It can fuel the mental and physical decline that, in turn, leads to crisis and even premature death. The impact of isolation on older people, and the need for a multi-agency approach to tackle the complex range of causes, warrants a debate of its own. There is certainly no time to do the subject justice today.
Organisations such as Age Concern London and others do much to highlight the issues and to develop and promote good practice on the ground. I want to focus on one of the causes of isolation, which is pensioner poverty—the subject of our debate. It does not take a genius to link London's appalling death toll with fuel poverty and its concentration among the older population. According to the 1996 English house condition survey, 52 per cent. of single pensioner households have to spend more than 10 per cent. of their income to achieve satisfactory indoor heating. The only way to tackle fuel poverty and poor housing, and to cut winter deaths, is to raise pensioner incomes.
This is not the first time that I have highlighted pensioner poverty in the House. I was fortunate enough to secure a debate on the issue early last year. Since then, the Select Committee on Social Security has cast its critical eye on pensioner incomes. Its report puts on record many key facts that should inform this debate and many others in this place on the subject.
There is no such thing as a typical pensioner. Statistical averages mask at least as much as they inform. The Select Committee found that the bulk of pensioners were in the bottom half of incomes, and that there was a widening gap between the relatively few rich pensioners and the rest. The majority of pensioners during the past 20 years have not become well off. The poorest have seen their incomes rise by less than half the rate of the better-off. The gap between the better-off and less well-off pensioner has much to do with age and length of time in retirement.
Older pensioners, even those fortunate enough to have a second pension such as an occupational pension, have fallen behind people who have retired more recently, let alone the wider population. Index-linking the basic state pension and occupational pensions to prices has eroded their value, and will continue to erode them. Using evidence from the National Pensioners Convention, the Select Committee's report identified a difference of £54 a week between the incomes of a recently retired person and someone aged over 75.

157WH
Beyond that gap is the fact that the oldest pensioners tend to be women. Half of women pensioners in London—310,000—receive less than the full rate of basic state pension. Of those, 186,000 receive a pension of only £40.50 a week, and a further 93,000 receive even less. That is due to broken contribution records. As a result, many women rely on their husbands' contribution records to claim a full spouse basic pension set at 60 per cent. of the full personal basic pension.
I am sure that the Minister will point to the minimum income guarantee and the Government's take-up campaign. As I meet older people in my constituency, I take every opportunity to encourage them to avail themselves of that provision. However, figures from Age Concern England show that as many as 120,000 pensioners in London are entitled to the minimum income guarantee, but are not receiving it.
In 1998, a Department of Social Security report called "Helping Pensioners: Contextual Survey of the Income Support Pilot Areas" drew on 10 pilots in various parts of the country and found that 40 per cent. of pensioners would definitely make a claim. However, it also found that 36 per cent. would not make a claim in any circumstances, for reasons such as stigma, uncertainty and an unwillingness to deal with the Benefits Agency. Therefore, we can begin to question a strategy that relies so much on the minimum income guarantee.
The people who do not claim and will not claim are, according to the Department's own research, the poorest of our pensioners. They will derive no help from MIG. The non-claimers are older pensioners; six out of 10 non-claimers are over 75. It seems strange that a take-up campaign should fail to look for entitlement to benefits such as attendance allowance, which extends a person's entitlement to a minimum income guarantee.
The Select Committee also highlights the difficulties faced by ethnic minorities in terms of pensions, which is an especially appropriate topic in a debate focusing on London. Sadly, there is a dearth of information about the extent of pensioner poverty among ethnic minority groups. Given that London will see an 80 per cent. increase in ethnic older people between 1996 and 2006, it is vital that more research be undertaken by the Department to ensure that the take-up campaigns are properly tailored to deliver the extra help that is needed, especially if the evidence from the Minority Ethnic Black Elder Strategic Alliance is correct. Last year, it reported that 67 per cent. of black and other ethnic minority elders received a pension, compared with 88 per cent. of their white peers. The only way in which we can help the poorest pensioners—those who miss out on the minimum income guarantee—is by giving a substantial boost to the basic state pension.
The Government's own research shows that that is what people want. According to research report No. 83 on pensions and retirement planning, almost no one wants the state to withdraw from pension provision. On the provision of a basic foundation pension, the research found that the fairness, universality and dependability of the basic state pension counted for a lot. The research bears out the views of many of the members of the Sutton seniors forum and many other pension campaigners across London. The research document states:
158WH
Most people feel that a state pensioner should not need to claim income support—indeed, they see this as paradoxical.
That is right, yet Government policy is driving more pensioners into means-testing. Indexing the minimum income guarantee to earnings while the basic state pension remains tied to prices will, year by year, increase dependency on means-testing.
The basic state pension is set to rise next April by at least £2.25, but that will do little or nothing to arrest the long-term decline in its value. I want to make it clear that, unlike the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats are not calling for the winter fuel payments, free television licence or Christmas bonus to be scrapped to pay for an increase in the basic state pension. Those payments and concessions should continue, because they are making a difference.
The November issue of Saga Magazine reports that, when the details of the pension plans proposed by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) are explained in detail to its readers, 72 per cent. reject them out of hand. It is worth bearing in mind that pensioners have seen through the Conservatives' plans and understand that they are not being offered new money, but that this is the first case of robbing Peter to pay Peter. When the plans are boiled down to their core, we find that pensioners would receive just 42p on top of the £2.25 inflation increase next April. A real increase is needed. Pensioners need extra cash, not smoke and mirrors.
This year, Age Concern published work that it had commissioned from the Family Budget Unit, which set out to measure objectively the level of pension required to achieve a low-cost but adequate standard of living. The point is that a pension should do more than simply keep pensioners alive; it should add life to those years and enable older people to take part and pride in their community, not feel shut out and isolated. The FBU research suggests that a single pensioner needs £90 a week and a couple needs £135 to avoid living in poverty. I hope that the Government will incorporate that approach in their strategy for tackling pensioner poverty. The research seemed to persuade the Select Committee.
I am delighted that the Minister has taken down from the shelves the Department's copy of the Liberal Democrat manifesto for the 1997 general election. I am sure that reference will be made to it. It is correct that the position taken by the Liberal Democrats at the previous election is not dissimilar to that taken by the Government in the past three years, particularly on targeting extra help through the minimum income guarantee. However, I think that we put our hands up and admitted that we got our policy wrong. We have reviewed it; it is right to keep policies under review.
We increasingly take the view that targeting extra help through the basic state pension is the right way forward. Given the erosion of its value, an across-the-board increase is needed now to halt the decline. That increase should be at least £5 on top of inflation. However, given the clear evidence that old age and poverty go hand in hand, the Government must go further. Targeting extra help on older pensioners through the basic state pension is far more cost-effective than relying on means-testing. Evidence about fuel poverty reinforces that view. The 1991 English house

159WH
condition survey found that eight out of 10 people over 80 were living in fuel poverty. The 1996 house condition survey suggested that that figure had improved. The winter fuel allowance may have improved it further, but not enough.
Age additions are not new to our social security system. Since 1971, pensioners have received, at the age of 80, the princely sum of an extra 25p on their basic state pension. Twenty-five pence was worth something in 1971, but today it does not even pay for a first-class stamp. In his evidence to the Social Security Committee, the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, who has responsibility for pensions, rightly described that 25p as a festering sore on the social security system. However, the Government would be wrong if they concluded that they should scrap that provision; instead, they should increase it substantially to at least £10 a week. Six out of 10 of those eligible for but not claiming the minimum income guarantee are 75 and over; there should be a new age addition at 75 of at least £5 a week.
Those proposals are affordable, and the Select Committee has shown one way in which they could be paid for—by applying some of the £3 billion surplus in the national insurance fund. Indeed, the Department of Social Security research note No. 83 is also helpful on that matter. Most participants in that research favoured raising the basic state pension to between £80 and £120 a week for a single person. When asked about the cost, working participants said that they were willing to pay more in national insurance to fund a pension increase of £10 a week, or even a £20 to £30 increase.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the surplus in the national insurance fund might cover the costs of his proposals in the first year, but would not do so in the long term. What would the Liberal Democrat policy be on that? Where would the money come from for long-term increases?
Mr. Burstow: I am happy to deal with that point. We would reintroduce a new tax rate of 50 per cent. for those earning more than £100,000, which would unlock additional resources. Those people who have done well in our society should pay a little more in tax to allow our pensioners to have a decent income.
Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman says that that additional taxation could be used for the pensioners—but would it be used for them, in fact? If it were, it clearly could not be used for other spending plans, such as education or health.
Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman needs to get down from the shelf the document that was discussed at our conference in September, if the Department has a copy. That document shows the way in which our various proposals for additional spending on education and pensions would be funded. All too often, the Government conveniently confuse our proposals to increase to 50 per cent. the tax rate for those earning more than £100,000 in order to fund pensions with our proposals for a penny in the pound on income tax to
160WH
fund education. Those tax increases are not the same; the proposals would achieve different things and would earmark specific funds for specific purposes.
Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is extremely generous in giving way.
How much money would be raised by his 50p-in-the-pound income tax proposal, and how much would be spent on increasing pensions?
Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman knows from the figures published in our alternative Budget earlier in the year and from our detailed costings that that tax increase would generate sufficient funds to cover the cost of the age additions and the £5 across-the-board increase. That proposal is based not on costings plucked out of the air but on detailed costings checked by the Library. If the hon. Gentleman would like to see those costings, I would be happy to pass them to him later.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burstow: As we have had a debate on this issue, I will be happy to take one more brief intervention before I conclude my remarks.
Mrs. Lait: I am most grateful. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to feel that he is under a pincer attack. Will he clarify whether the Liberal Democrats plan a one-off increase in the basic state pension, which would continue to be linked to prices, or whether they plan to link the basic state pension to another figure?
Mr. Burstow: The hon. Lady will know that we propose to use the work done by the Family Budget Unit to provide a much more transparent method that would enable pensions to rise in relation to the growth in the economy. It would provide an affordable, low-cost pension package that would relate to the various extra costs that pensioners face and ensure that pensioners were given sufficient income to play an active part in the community and enjoy some leisure time. The figures suggest a pension of £90 for a single person and £135 for a couple. Anyone who reads this speech can do the sums and I am the first to admit that our proposals will not reach that stage in one go. The increases are not viewed as a one-off increase for ever. We need a less blunt mechanism than indexation to prices, which has brought rough justice over the past 12 months and has caused much anguish, anger and fury among pensioners. We know from our surgeries that pensioners viewed 75p as an insult. It was the product of an indexation system related solely to prices and not flexible enough to take account of the overall growth of the economy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I issue a gentle reminder? I remind hon. Members that today's subject is pensioner poverty in London, and it would be better if we focused more on that.
Mr. Burstow: Thank you for that reminder, Sir Alan.
I was concluding my remarks by referring to further evidence of pensioner poverty in London. I was arguing that directing extra help to the basic state pension would

161WH
eliminate any danger of a low take-up. Clearly, take-up would be universal. There would be no stigma and administration costs would be low. That is not just my view of administration costs; it is also the view of the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, as expressed in the House earlier this year. He said:
The figures for 1997-98 show that the administration costs of income support were 6 per cent. of benefit expenditure. The figure for retirement pensions is 0.9 per cent. A means-tested benefit will inevitably cost more because of the calculations involved.-[Official Report, 3 April 2000; Vol. 347, c. 685.]
Directing extra cash through the basic state pension will also address another issue identified in the DSS research report, which states:
There is also often disquiet about the fact that Income Support thresholds can leave those who have worked to provide for themselves with a small occupational or personal pension worse off than those who have made no provision at all. This appears unfair and demotivating.
It certainly is, as many of my thrifty constituents have made clear.
I began by referring to the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement next Wednesday. The Chancellor has an opportunity to demonstrate to pensioners that the Government have not only got the message, but have understood it. One in three of London's pensioners lives in poverty. There are 300,000 pensioners in London—20,000 more since the last general election. Pensioners deserve more than a subsistence pension. Tackling pensioner poverty is the only way to stop the scandal of preventable premature death from cold of 5,400 of London's elders.
10.22 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I shall remember today with some sadness because my post this morning included a letter from the Benefits Agency about my retirement pension. It tells us all that I am nearly 60 and tells me about the handsome and princely sum of £48.41 to which I shall be entitled as my state pension. I have not read the detail so I do not know how it was calculated. I am one of the lucky ones because I have an occupational pension as well as a pension from Parliament. I certainly do not include myself in the category of pensioners in poverty in London, but it was interesting to receive that letter on the same day as speaking in this debate.
I was a GP many years ago and used to witness pensioner poverty in London on a daily basis. It is still there. We used to call it the burnt legs and bacon sandwich syndrome. Pensioners still live in fuel poverty and single bar electric fires with dangerous wiring are still about. That is what causes the burnt legs syndrome, when the rest of the body is freezing cold; pensioners do not have enough money or energy to make meals other than, perhaps, a bacon sandwich and a cup of tea. I have checked with my hon. Friends, who confirm that that is still a common finding in many parts of London.
I admit that that is not such a common finding in my very affluent constituency, but some elderly people in their 80s and early 90s live in extremely valuable houses in Richmond Park on the minimum income. They have a very poor life style, in a house that drives them crazy because it is crumbling around them while they are
162WH
unable to do anything about it because they do not want to move out of the neighbourhood or because they are terrified of not having something to leave to the children. If they can hang on as long as possible, they know that they will be reported in the local paper as having left a little bit to their children, which is desperately important to older people. Very old people want to be able to leave their mark when they die; they want to be able to say, "Well, I have done something in life and I can leave something to my children." Although the burnt legs and bacon sandwich syndrome is not prevalent in Richmond, there are other problems.
I came across someone recently who was living on £129 a week, which is extremely difficult to do, but whose house was worth in excess of £400,000. Some people, even though they are extremely poor and on a limited income, try to scrape out of that meagre income a contribution to a club for the elderly so that they can get out and meet other people, which is essential to prevent their becoming isolated. Some may go the adult education college in Richmond upon Thames, which provides many courses and activities for older people, but it is expensive. I want the Government to tackle that problem, because these courses are so important for people living in poor circumstances in the London area, yet they are getting more and more expensive. Taking courses and participating in activities helps people to have a useful and vibrant old age, but the increasing cost of some of the education courses means that many elderly people cannot take advantage of them. Do the Government make that connection?
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) mentioned the problem of income support. We know that 200,000 pensioners living in London receive income support, and it is estimated that a further 62,500 people are eligible for it but do not claim it. In London, 18 per cent. of people over the age of 60 claim income support; the figure for England as a whole is 15 per cent. People need to be encouraged to claim that extra benefit and we must consider the reasons why they do not do so. Many have been brought up to feel that they must be self-sufficient and that they must not depend on charity; they do not want to go to the state for more help than they already have. Some may not claim extra benefit because they do not know about it or because their eyesight is too poor or they are too feeble and frail to fill in the necessary forms.
Several people, especially men, who had failed to claim their winter fuel payment came to my surgery last winter—I do not know why men are so un-sharp about these things. When they went to their local post office to inquire about it, they found that it was no longer available to them. They had to go through a great rigmarole to be able to receive the payment. The Government should tackle that problem. Some people are not getting their winter fuel payment because they do not know about it in time, or because they have been ill and unable to claim it.
There is also the problem of reduced retirement pensions—I would come into that category. If the state pension were my only pension, it would be a great problem for me. I would have to do something pretty swiftly about income support. Of course it is not, but if

163WH
it were and I did not know what to do to increase my income, the stuff that I received this morning would not be much help. It is difficult to read. It says:
Have your pension paid straight into your account.
Yet I know people who still do not have bank accounts at the age of 60. That is a problem. They will argue that they do not trust banks with their money and that they like to go to the post office for their weekly allowance. I will not carry on along those lines, as that is not a London problem, but a national problem.
As has already been pointed out, there is an excess of winter deaths in London as a result of pensioner poverty. That is a disgrace. I urge the Government to do something nationwide about not just fuel poverty but the insulation of houses. Our housing stock in London is poor and badly insulated. The emphasis must be on winter warmth and insulation and not just handouts from the Government, which is how old people see it. The Government have done some things; I recently saw Thora Hird, bless her, on television. I am a great supporter of TV adverts. Most people in this country, even the poorer pensioners, have television sets. The Thora Hird campaign is great and I hope that it is successful.
We must ensure that isolated people are aware of what is available and are getting the help that they need. GPs, social workers and health visitors are useful people but they often do not have enough time to address these problems. Post offices are often the centre of the universe for old people. Whether they live in a tiny village in London—we are always told that London is a collection of villages—or out in the country, the weekly trip to the post office to collect their pension is something that old people make the effort to do. They may have to send someone else, but that is their point of contact. More information should therefore be available in post offices.
I have another suggestion. One of the most useful people in London for the elderly is the milkman. He calls at every house and delivers all sorts of goodies. Why can he not also deliver some information to elderly and isolated people? When my elderly mother was alive and living just around the corner from me, the milkman would give me a regular update. If I had not seen her for a couple of days, he would tell me how she was getting on. The milkman knows whether elderly people take their milk in. He knows the level at which they are living and whether they can pay their bills. Let us have a campaign using such people.
We should always remember that elderly people—I include myself in that category—become increasingly hard of hearing and their eyesight fails. As one gets older one realises that the old senses are failing a bit. However much one tries to wear contact lenses and kid oneself that it is just like it used to be, it ain't. Things get more and more difficult to read and extra help is needed and that help must be sensitive. Nothing will answer the problem more than upgrading the basic amount of money that people receive. I should like the Minister to address that problem and to answer one question. I am a great believer in people receiving all benefits. I am in favour of winter fuel payments and free television licences for the over-75s. They do not discriminate between people and make them have to admit that they are poor and are therefore entitled to some help.
164WH
Surely the best way of dishing out a better standard of living for pensioners in poverty in London is to give them a rise in their basic pension and to leave their fuel payments and television licence payments intact. Those who are rich and can afford things—I place myself in that category, in a few years' time—will be taxed accordingly. Surely the simplest approach would be to introduce a blanket rise in benefits and to deduct tax. I should like the Minister to respond to that.
The Government seem to be planning to give everyone winter fuel payments, but we are told that only the poorest pensioners will receive extra help with their pensions. I do not understand why the system cannot be simplified. Winter is approaching, and we have already experienced the most fearful conditions for elderly people to cope with this autumn. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes extremely swift action.
10. 35 am
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I begin by wishing the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) a happy 60th birthday for when it arrives. It must be a defining moment when a letter falls through the letterbox stating how much the basic state pension is. I throw into the pot the thought that perhaps the hon. Lady did not elect to pay the full national insurance stamp but is probably on the married woman's earned income allowance. I am sufficiently young to have been able to make that choice, and I contributed for a full basic state pension. However, that raises an issue that all women pensioners will face as they approach their 60th birthday.
Dr. Tonge: I am glad that the hon. Lady emphasises that point. I should have said that I too made that decision, having other arrangements. However, people in that category do not realise during their working life what is happening to them. They are often poor or single parents or have small children to look after. They may not make a conscious decision but want to make a saving so that they have more money to spend each week, and are then even poorer when they become elderly.
Mrs. Lait: The hon. Lady is correct. Any Government will have to face that issue. I am sure that she, like me, already receives letters from people complaining that they did not know what they were doing or were not given the option. It is 20 years since people were given the option. Memories fade: who knows? However, I fear that, as a result, a category of ladies will not receive what they expect to receive. Many would have expected their husbands to live sufficiently long, but even as a result of better health provision they may not.
I am interested in the comments of, and especially the analysis and research cited by, the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and for Richmond Park. I find it slightly ironic that all three of us who have spoken so far represent outer-London seats. We would all agree that although pockets of deprivation exist in the boroughs that we represent, we represent areas that contain relatively wealthy pensioners. However, that does not preclude the problems of isolation that have been reinforced by some of the care in the community changes. As families fragment and people become older, care packages in the home do not make up for people

165WH
popping in. I have long been critical of the fact that the care package that provides the district nurse, meals on wheels and the home help does not compensate for normal human contact. I have long felt that a much more sophisticated way of helping elderly people who are isolated in their homes is necessary.
It is worth while paying tribute to the many voluntary organisations involved, which include not only Age Concern and Help the Aged, and I am sorry that hon. Members have not already done so. In practically every borough, significant groups help elderly people and provide the clubs and facilities that so many of them need. Such help goes well beyond the two big established lobbying charities, and those groups do a wonderful job helping the elderly. In fact, they act almost like the milkman because they know whether an elderly person is missing his or her visit to the hairdresser or chiropodist. Such charitable organisations provide basic services and provide them well but under
increasing pressure.
Under the Government, social services budgets have increasingly been cut. Only last night, the authorities in Bromley held, for the first time in many years, a special meeting to discuss bed blocking by elderly people. The problem is not the fault of elderly people, nor was it their fault throughout the summer. It is happening because social services departments do not have sufficient money to provide the correct help for people who leave hospital and whose health deteriorates at home.
I understand that, in the last year, 150,000 nursing home beds throughout the country have been taken out. That is mainly because the Department of Social Security and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have not increased the standard spending assessment effectively so that boroughs can properly fund the beds that are required to help elderly people, first, to recover and, secondly, to live out the remaining years of their life. It costs elderly people roughly a minimum of £500 a week to stay in a nursing home. As for the standard spending assessment and what social services departments are prepared to pay for nursing homes, we are lucky if that hits more than £300 a week. The huge deficit cannot always be taken up by people who require such care.
Health authorities and health trusts are no more flush than social services departments. Whatever the Government's claims about putting extra money into the health service, that money is not going into the intermediate care that is required. Ironically, I expect that over the winter, Bromley and other London boroughs will find that money will be poured into trying to get people out of hospitals to unblock the beds, and that those people will be placed in inappropriate care. The scandal will be dissipated because, instead of a large number of people blocking beds, one or two people will be inappropriately placed but one or two people do not make news headlines. Twenty to 30 people blocking beds, as occurred throughout the summer in Bromley and in most other health authority areas in London, create a scandal; one or two people who are inappropriately placed do not create the same scandal.
I am deeply cynical about what the Government will do over the winter to ensure that bed blocking is mitigated. We do not want beds to be blocked, but the
166WH
possible result of their action will be the wrong treatment of elderly people who should receive much better care. I lay the blame at the feet of the Government because they have not provided sufficient funds to social services so that they can meet the demands of elderly people as they reach the last years of their life.
Mr. Bayley: I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that the families of those who are discharged from hospital into long-stay care have the choice of where those people stay and that, if the social services are contributing to the care, they must agree that the accommodation is appropriate to the care needs of those people. Why is she creating the scare that people will be discharged to inappropriate places and why does she think that her party's policy would achieve more appropriate placements when it is not proposing to spend more money on the problem?
Mrs. Lait: There is a problem because so many beds have come out of the sector. As I said, 150,000 nursing home beds have come out this year alone because those homes cannot meet their costs. The banks are foreclosing. People are getting out of that industry. It is ironic that county councils have been forced to sell their homes because their beds did not meet the standards required by social services and the health authority for modern day, residential and nursing home care. That is another reason why beds have come out of the sector.
Mr. Bayley: Surely the hon. Lady is not suggesting that the regulatory regime should be lightened so that inappropriate beds that do not provide adequate care are retained?
Mrs. Lait: That is the furthest thing from my thought. I am suggesting that the Department of Health must look much more closely at the standard spending assessment and how much it is prepared to pay to social services departments for those beds. At present it offers money below the cost. Many people can afford to pay the difference, and do. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, it causes huge family problems because it requires the sale of the family home. There are other pressures, too.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to explain our policy on the compulsory annuity. It is an issue that comes right into his Department and it needs to be addressed. At present, many people in retirement have had to take out a compulsory annuity. That annuity, for reasons of which he is well aware, has dropped in value in recent years so that people are getting less per year. Indeed, people on long-standing annuities have seen their value eroded.
Our policy of ending that compulsory requirement for an annuity would, in effect, enable people to have two streams of income when they need any form of longterm care. They can either sell the house or the family can inherit what is in the pension fund. That reduces the antagonism between the generations. It allows people who want to retire to take out, ironically, an annuity or an insurance product to cover the costs of their care, thereby freeing up income to use within the family and avoiding any destabilisation.
The Government must address the issue of the compulsory annuity. I represent an outer-London constituency and, believe me, it is a live one among my

167WH
constituents. They feel that they are being done down by the achievements of low inflation, which we put in place and which has been continued by the Government—but then there is not worldwide pressure on inflation. Other factors are increasing longevity—as a result of improvements in health care over many years—and, ironically, the lack of provision of gilts. The Government could help themselves out of the hole that they are getting into by taking away the compulsory requirement for an annuity.
Having lectured everyone on the new Conservative party policy on annuities, I will return to the subject before I am brought to order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I have been listening to the hon. Lady with great fascination: she has not yet tempted me to intervene to say that she was out of order.
Mrs. Lait: I would hate ever to stray out of order when you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Interesting issues have been raised in the debate so far; I have tackled those of poverty and isolation. The points made about people having greater access to funding for warmer homes fall into the same category of criticism as those about the Government's funding of social services or local government. They have extended grants for insulation, but I am not aware of any publicity for that purpose; a few years ago, under the Conservative Government, there was a lot of publicity for the easy access to grants for heating schemes and much was done to insulate homes. Although a lot more money is going into the present schemes, I suspect that people have not heard about them, as there is little evidence of take-up by the public.
Mr. Burstow: The hon. Lady makes a fair point about the take-up of home insulation grants. In my constituency, publicity was given to one of the schemes at a seniors forum but, despite great interest in it, few took it up because the gateway to the scheme was through income support. If people were not already claiming income support, they were not entitled to the grant. That is yet another barrier, and a justified criticism of using income support as a mechanism for targeting extra help.
Mrs. Lait: I understand that problem. In previous years, the criterion was not income support but how cold someone's house was, which was a much more efficient and effective way to evaluate the need for insulation.
That brings me to the minimum income guarantee; I, too, have seen the advertisements featuring Thora Hird and have heard much criticism of them. Despite all the ads, and the letters that people have received, I have had to ask the people who attend my surgeries whether they are claiming minimum income guarantee, to which they reply, "What is that?" When I ask them whether they have had a letter about it, they reply, "I don't think so." Somehow or other, people who are entitled to minimum income guarantee slip through the net.
It would be most helpful if the Minister could tell us how many people have applied for the minimum income guarantee, especially in London, how many packs have
168WH
been sent out, and how many people are now receiving MIG who previously did not. Until we have those figures, we cannot evaluate its success. Despite the Government's much-vaunted emphasis on helping people through MIG, the amount spent on increases is about £290 million, compared with £1,440 million spent on free television licences and the winter heating allowance. That does not indicate that a large number of people are benefiting from MIG. In fact, most people, whatever their income, get the winter heating allowance, and most will, I hope, for their sakes, get their free television licence. That helps everyone; it helps my wealthy constituents, many of whom are paying 40 per cent. tax in retirement, and it gives some money to those people on the basic state pension with, perhaps, some council tax benefit and housing benefit. That is not the best way to help pensioners. It would be infinitely better to go down our route. Many pensioners have told us that they want their own money in their own hands to take their own decisions about how to spend it. It is ironic that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam adopts the Government line to attack us in terms of the increase, but he ignores the fact that people over 75 need more income and will have a greater increase in the basic state pension.
Mr. Burstow: Let me correct the hon. Lady's misrepresentation of the source of my figure of 42p. I relied on the House of Commons Library to analyse the proposals and I understand that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) also relied on the Library to prepare his proposals in the first instance. I went to the same source to check the figures. Will the hon. Lady also confirm that when her party's proposal is boiled down to the minimum, it amounts to only 17p extra for the over-80s?
Mrs. Lait: I am delighted that everyone uses the House of Commons Library. I do, too, and I assume that the Government compiled their figures from the same source. All power to the Library. Pensioners believe that it is patronising to be told what to spend their money on. They much prefer having their own money in their own pockets to spend however they want.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and asked questions to clarify what he said. He proposes a basic increase in the state pension to £90 and £135 for singles and couples respectively. It is to be paid for by a 10 per cent. increase in taxation on people earning over £100,000. I was not clear about what happens thereafter: is it linked to earnings or to the nebulous concept of the shopping basket? How will it be paid for? If I understand the hon. Gentleman's answer to the Minister's question correctly, the increased tax for higher earners will pay for the single basic hike only. Thereafter, one must assume that further pension increases will come from further rises in general taxation or from national insurance. Otherwise, there would be the one basic pension increase, which would continue to be linked to prices. Will the hon. Gentleman please clarify?
Mr. Burstow: It would require another full speech to do so, so I shall respond to one important point. It is incorrect to characterise the Liberal Democrat proposal

169WH
simply as prescribing a rise to £90 and £135 pensions. We propose an across-the-board increase in the basic state pension of £5 above inflation, plus an extra £5 at age 75 and an extra £10 at 80. Those figures do not equate to the hon. Lady's, which came from the Family Budget Unit's costings for a low but adequate standard of living.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am worried that the Minister is being left out of the debate. We appear to be conducting a debate on the relative merits of Conservative and Liberal Democrat party policy. I have allowed wide discretion on the subject of pensioner poverty in London, but the poor Minister will not want to be left out entirely.
Mrs. Lait: I have no intention of excluding the only non-London Member present today. [Interruption.] I am sorry—there are two non-London Members present. I am trying to help the Minister by clarifying Liberal Democrat policy because, as ever, it is about as clear as mud. I am pursuing the point on behalf of my constituents in Bromley, but it is not much clearer. I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction and clarification and am delighted to hear what he is suggesting. However, he did not say whether the proposal would be covered entirely by the increase in the taxation level for some higher-rate income tax payers and where the money for further increases would come from. I should be most interested to hear him deal with that.
Mr. Burstow: The yield from a 50p rate would provide sufficient funds to cover the £3.1 billion cost of the proposals that I enunciated. We propose to establish an independent body to assess and advise on the level of pension required in future. I recommend that it uses in its calculations the FBU's method of assessing pensioner incomes.
Mrs. Lait: I am pleased to have that answer, as it will enable us to work out by how much income tax must be increased to meet the Liberal Democrats' proposals. As soon as people realise the impact on income tax rates or VAT, they may reassess their attitude to those pensions proposals. We have achieved a great deal in this debate, because we are a little closer to understanding the Liberal Democrats' policy.
Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Lady deal with her own party's policy and explain why an extra 42p a week would help pensioners?
Mrs. Lait: I have explained our policy at least twice, as I am sure that Hansard will confirm. People want control over their own money; they do not like being patronised and told how they should spend it. Giving people control is one of our clear commitments, on top of any inflation-linked increase. Who knows what will happen next week when the Chancellor spreads largesse around the country? I can see that you are becoming restless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall return to the issue of pensioners in London. I shall not speak for much longer, because I am sure that all hon. Members want to hear the Minister justify what the Government are doing.
170WH
Poorer pensioners, whom the Chancellor has targeted for extra help, are not receiving that help, because the minimum income guarantee is not reaching the right people and the increases constitute one fifth of the money spent on the heating allowance. The Minister said in Hansard on 12 June that the amount so far is £2.2 billion, not the £6 billion claimed by the Chancellor. Pensioners are not doing well under this Government: relatively more of them are living in poverty. There are problems with bed blocking and isolation in the home. Social services or local government cannot help people to insulate their homes at the rate that many of us would like. There is, therefore, a strong case for the Government to deal with pensioner poverty in London.
11.4 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The unusual occurrence of the Chair defending the rights of Ministers in the Chamber is very pleasant, and I am most grateful for that welcome development. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for securing this important debate. Like the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), I extend my best wishes to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) for her birthday, which I hope that she celebrates well. I am sure she will be celebrating her birthday rather than an imminent retirement.
Every Member of Parliament of our generation owes a special debt of gratitude to today's pensioners—the war generation. The rights that we all enjoy in our democratic system and the right to stand in elections to this place, we owe to those who fought against tyranny and to protect democracy. In London, especially, we remember the war generation who went through the Blitz. After the second world war, those who are now pensioners created the welfare state and rebuilt our country. Many of them feel cheated by the Conservatives. Some did extremely well and retired on much higher incomes than pensioners had in the past, but the gap between better off and poorer pensioners widened remarkably during the 18 years of Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the widening gap between the better off pensioners and the poorest pensioners. That is something that the Government must address, and we are doing so with our policies.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam disowning at least part of what the Liberal Democrats said in their manifesto, which stated:
The basic state pension will remain indexed to prices.
The 75p uprating was an indexation of the basic state pension to prices. The Liberal Democrats now recognise that that policy was a mistake. The Labour party manifesto, by contrast, stated:
The basic state pension will be retained as a foundation of pension provision. It will be increased at least in line with prices.
We were committed not only to price indexation, but to doing better as the country's financial position allowed. That is why we introduced the winter fuel payments, which last year were £100 per household—almost £2 a week on top of the 75p—and other benefits, especially the minimum income guarantee. Tomorrow, 1 November, sees the introduction of free television licences for the over-75s.

171WH
I want to say a word or two about future generations of pensioners. The hon. Member for Richmond Park said that it was wrong that pensioners had to rely on the minimum income guarantee for a decent standard of living. In an ideal world, people would not have to apply, through a means test, for an uprating in their living standards. Therefore, we are reforming the pensions regime so that future generations of pensioners will have a second pension on top of their basic state pension, which will raise them to a level above the minimum income guarantee.
Now, however, we need to do something for today's pensioners, who did not have those opportunities under the Conservatives, and who retired on low pensions—perhaps below the basic state pension level, as in the example given by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. She said that she was fortunate enough to have been able to save in an occupational pension scheme; she made an informed decision that that was the best way for her to provide for her retirement. The hon. Lady also made the point that many people, especially women, were unable to make contributions to a second pension because they had household responsibilities. A caring Government who want to help the poorest pensioners—those who have been unable to make the national insurance contributions to guarantee themselves the basic state pension—have to introduce special measures precisely for that reason. That is what we have done through the minimum income guarantee. We seek to improve the situation for tomorrow's pensioners.
Mrs. Lait: I hope that the Minister will not leave the subject of the minimum income guarantee entirely, because I asked some specific questions about the effect of the campaign.
Mr. Bayley: I would not dream of saying so little about what is the foundation of the Government's response to pensioner poverty. I will come back to it, but first I want to say a little about the Government's plans to ensure that fewer pensioners in future generations rely on the minimum income guarantee.
We have said that the basic state pension will remain the foundation of our pensions policy. It will, but the state second pension builds on SERPS, the state earnings-related pensions scheme. As a result, 18 million people will have significantly better second pensions than they would have otherwise. The problem of SERPS is reflected in the name: it is earnings related. Those on the lowest earnings received the lowest pensions. The state second pension will double what is received by people on the lowest earnings. As a result of a state second pension, someone earning £120 a week will be £40 a week better off in retirement. People who in the past have not been able to earn second pension credits, such as carers or disabled people with broken work records, will be able to earn up to £50 a week more through the state second pension.
We are introducing stakeholder pensions that will provide a better rate of return for people on middle incomes about £10,000 to £20,000—as personal pensions were not attractive to them because of the administration charges.
Mr. Burstow: I have listened to the Minister's explanation of the Government's plans. With the
172WH
introduction of the state second pension on top of the basic state pension, will he confirm that many pensioners in the latter part of their retirement will still be led back into means-tested benefits, even once maturity has been reached and the full state second pension is paid out?
Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman must wait a little longer. Next week, the Government will publish the consultation paper on the pension credit. We want to reward pensioners who save, either in a bank or building society or in a pension scheme. That will reward those who have not so far benefited from the minimum income guarantee. Some people will have made their own provision through paying into an occupational pension scheme, a stakeholder pension or the state second pension, and will still receive benefit from the minimum income guarantee. That is because we will propose in the consultation paper to broaden its range, so that those who have been prudent and saved also receive further support.
Mrs. Lait: That comes to the crux of the interaction between the minimum income guarantee, the pensioners' credit whatever it is; we are glad to know that details of it will be published next week—and the desire to save for a stakeholder pension. Logical people will consider the minimum income guarantee and the potential pensioners' credit, if they are eligible for it, and not save for a stakeholder pension.
Mr. Bayley: The hon. Lady will see the answer that she wants when we publish our proposals. We have introduced the pension credit precisely to provide protection for the poorest pensioners, which a Labour Government are strongly committed to continuing to do, while ensuring that people have a strong incentive to save.
Our first priority when we came into office was to tackle the needs of the poorest pensioners; we did that by creating the minimum income guarantee. The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked me to respond to her proposal that the best way in which to tackle pensioner poverty was to increase the basic rate of the state pension. That policy ignores the startling increase in inequality between the better off and the poorest pensioners, which has taken place in the past 20 years. The Government must do more for poorer pensioners than for others to address that inequality. That is why we have introduced the minimum income guarantee.
Dr. Tonge: With respect, I do not understand one point. If one increases the basic income for pensioners, single parents or any other group, those who have or acquire another source of income will be taxed heavily at the upper end of the scale. The way to help the poorest is surely to improve the basic income, from whatever source, and then to recoup it on tax. Do Governments not do that because they do not like imposing taxes? Is that what you are telling us?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not telling hon. Members anything, although the Minister may be.
Mr. Bayley: By the end of this Parliament, the Government will be spending about £6.5 billion more on

173WH
pensions than was being spent when we came to power. If we were to spread that money equally across all pensioners through the basic state pension, it would provide nothing like the increase that we have been able to give the poorest pensioners. They would be much worse off under such a proposal. Unless there were an income tax rate of 100 per cent., which even the Liberal Democrats do not propose, the richest pensioners would get a much larger increase from the state than they would receive otherwise. If we want to do something about inequality, we must target; there is no alternative. If we do not target, we allow greater inequality.
The minimum income guarantee helps 1.6 million pensioners, of whom 200,000 live in London. The national proportion of pensioners receiving the minimum income guarantee is about 10 per cent., whereas in London it is 13 per cent. The take-up rate is higher, despite the fact that average pensioner incomes in London before housing costs are slightly higher than the national average. Therefore, take-up is an issue, but we have made greater progress in London than in other parts of the country.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park made an important point, to which the hon. Member for Beckenham also referred. Pensioner poverty is a real issue across the whole of London. Of course, it is a real issue in the inner cities but, if one looks behind the net curtains in Richmond or Beckenham or the suburbs, one also finds poverty. It may not be so concentrated in those places, but one still finds people in difficult circumstances who need help now—that help comes from the minimum income guarantee.
The Government have recently launched the biggest ever take-up campaign for any benefit. Pensioners can claim by phone on 0800 028 1111 to inquire whether they are entitled to the minimum income guarantee. Through calls to the helpline and the return of the tear-off slip on the letters that we have sent out, about 500,000 pensioners have made inquiries about the guarantee. I am afraid that I cannot do as the hon. Member for Beckenham requests and give a breakdown by region at this stage, but we shall give a full report at the end of the campaign. We are only part of the way through the campaign; not all the letters have been sent out.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam raised the important point about the worrying number of excess deaths of older people during the winter. I wish that he had acknowledged some of the things that the Government have done to address that situation; we have taken and plan to take further action. We have cut VAT on fuel and we introduced the winter fuel allowance at the rate of £20 per household, which was increased last year to £100 and is to be increased this year to £150. Also, we are about to publish our fuel poverty strategy.
Several hon. Members have made the point that we should not only provide cash to enable people to meet fuel bills but do more to insulate homes and make them more energy efficient so that the bills are not as high. The Government agree with that absolutely. About 800,000 homes will have benefited from the new home energy efficiency scheme by 2004, with help of up to £2,000 per household to put in better heating systems and
174WH
insulation. Sixty per cent. of those receiving help from the home energy efficiency scheme will be pensioners. Over seven years, the affordable warmth programme will make grants to 150,000 pensioners.
Dr. Tonge: Before the Minister goes on, will he explain who would receive those grants for insulation? Will it be only those on the minimum income guarantee?
Mr. Bayley: No, not only those on the minimum income guarantee will benefit. People can access the system through their local authorities.
Dr. Tonge: Is it means-tested?
Mr. Bayley: Yes, there is a means test on the scheme. I can drop the hon. Lady a note to give her further details.
I listened carefully to the Liberal Democrats' proposals to increase the basic state pension by £5 with an additional £5 for the over-75s and a further £10 for the over-80s. It is a generous scheme, which, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam acknowledged, would cost more than £3,000 million. The question that pensioners are entitled to ask, and which has not been answered today, is where that money will come from. The Liberal Democrats seem to suggest that they were mistaken in making a proposal in their manifesto before the last election that was similar to the Government's MIG proposal. By cancelling the whole of MIG—if that is the Liberal Democrats' proposal—they would only save about £2,000 million; they would still be about £1,000 million adrift. Raising the cost of pensions increases through raising the rate of income tax for people on higher earnings, as they propose, could cover the cost for year one but not in subsequent years. They would have to press ever higher rates of income tax to achieve what they intend. They owe it to pensioners and to the working population as a whole to explain where the money would come from.
Restoring the earnings link would cost the country an additional £20 billion by 2020, a 50 per cent. increase in today's pensions spending. Most important of all, that would not address the needs of those pensioners on low and modest incomes, who have saved through pensions schemes or have savings in the bank and who are precisely the people whose needs we shall address through the pension credit.
As we have already announced, from April next year. people with savings of up to £12,000 a year will be able to benefit from the minimum income guarantee. As a result, some 500,000 pensioners will gain by an average of £5 a week. However, we plan to go further still. We recognise that a system of capital rules for the MIG discourages saving, and we plan to abolish capital limits and to consider instead income from savings, because we believe that that would mean a fairer system.
Mr. Burstow: I am interested to hear that incomes will be considered. Will the Minister be considering tariff income, which assumes a 20 per cent. rate of return on people's savings? I should love to find the bank that pays that rate, as would many pensioners.
Mr. Bayley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, tariff income is not and was never intended to be a rate of

175WH
interest. However, his point highlights the problem of capital limits, which, unlike us, the Liberal Democrats have not said that they would consider abolishing. We believe that it would be fairer not to provide a disincentive to save, although obviously account must be taken of the interest that people receive on their savings. Pensioner credit will go further. It will reward saving on the part of those who have a modest occupational pension. In addition to the minimum income guarantee, for every pound saved, pensioners on the credit will receive additional help. The Government will publish their consultation document on the credit next week.
The changes and our proposals will be subject to consultation, and any legislative changes will have to be presented to the House. Changes therefore cannot be introduced before 2003. However, the needs of pensioners whose income is just above the minimum income guarantee level must be dealt with now, and the Chancellor will announce transitional measures in the pre-Budget report.
I believe that I have covered the issues raised by hon. Members. When we took office, the Government made it clear that our first priority was to do more to help the poorest pensioners, and we have done so, through the minimum income guarantee. At the time of the previous election, in cash terms the basic state pension was £62.45. The current minimum income guarantee level is £78.45 in cash terms, £16 a week more than when we came to power. The Chancellor has already made it clear that for a single pensioner, the MIG level next year will be £90—a dramatic increase in the standard of living for the poorest pensioners.
As a Government, we have taken measures to help all pensioners. All pensioners receive the winter fuel payment, not a week after the event, following seven days of below-freezing temperatures, but as of right, at the start of the winter. It was introduced at £20, was increased to £100 this year, and, as I said, will increase to £150. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam believes that more should be done for older pensioners. From tomorrow, we are introducing free television licences for the over-75s. That is a measure that we have introduced for older pensioners, targeting help for them through free television licences.
Through the proposal for pension credit, which will be open to consultation next week, we shall do more for those on modest incomes, who have not hitherto benefited from the minimum income guarantee. Our policies are radical, but they are workable and affordable and will ensure that pensioners in London and throughout the country are able to share in the nation's rising prosperity.

Morecambe-Lancaster Bypass
11.29 am
Miss Geraldine Smith: Once again, I welcome the opportunity to put the case for completion of the road link between the port of Heysham and the M6 motorway. On 11 February 1998, during my previous Adjournment debate on the matter, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who is in the Chamber today, told the House why it was essential that that link should be completed at the earliest possible moment.
It is not my intention to reiterate those arguments today, because the need for the road has been established; indeed, it has been incorporated into the strategic plan of the relevant local, county and regional organisations. As long ago as 1995, the panel that conducted the public examination of the Lancashire structural plan concluded that improved links between Morecambe and Heysham were needed and that another river crossing would help improve the movement of traffic in Lancaster. Since then, Lancaster city council, Lancashire county council, the North-West regional development agency, the North-West regional assembly, the local planning inspector, the Confederation of British Industry, the Morecambe and Lancaster chambers of commerce and the overwhelming majority of people who live in the area have recognised the need for the road. I invite the Minister to confirm that the Government, too, recognise that need.
My purpose today is not to give global reasons why a link road should be built, but to put on record the reasons why the bid for that major scheme, submitted by Lancashire county council as part of the Lancashire local transport plan for the years 2001-06, should be supported by the Government. The proposed Heysham-M6 link would be a 9.7 km, single-carriageway, all-purpose road. It would extend from stage 1 of the Lancaster-Morecambe bypass at White Lund, pass through open countryside to the west of Lancaster city centre and join the M6 at junction 33. It would allow traffic travelling between the M6 and the towns of Morecambe and Heysham to bypass Lancaster. It would provide access to new and existing areas of employment in Morecambe and Heysham and to the west of Lancaster and it would improve access to the major port of Heysham and the smaller port of Glasson dock.
Improved access would considerably enhance the prospect of attracting much-needed new business and employment into areas of high unemployment and social exclusion. Lancaster and the surrounding areas suffer a significantly higher rate of unemployment than the average for Lancashire—or for England. As a result, all the existing and proposed employment areas, except for the Bailrigg business park, would be in wards that qualified for European objective 2 status and regional selective assistance; the business park would qualify only for the latter. The Lancaster single regeneration budget also provides special funding for the inner wards of Lancaster—including, as an industrial area improvement scheme, the Lune industrial estate. It also identifies the Marsh estate and the adjoining private housing area as one of its main communities. It would be highly perverse of the Government to recognise that

177WH
the district urgently needed assistance to regenerate itself but fail to remove the biggest barrier to regeneration—the appalling road links.
The new road would be of particular importance to Heysham port, which is the only port on the north-west coast that is accessible at all states of the tide. There are four daily freight sailings to Belfast, three to Dublin, two to Warrenpoint, two to the Isle of Man and two passenger Seacat sailings to Belfast. It is also the main port that serves the Morecambe bay gas field. Between 1990 and 1998, foreign and domestic traffic increased from 1,485,000 tonnes to more than 3,585,000 tonnes. Ship arrivals have increased from 1,729 to 3,278 and container units have risen from 98,000 to 273,000. Such developments have resulted in a significant increase in heavy goods vehicles using the port, 85 per cent. of which arrive from or proceed to destinations south of Lancaster.
While there is no doubt that Heysham is the fastest growing port on the north-west coast of England, it faces severe competition from other ports such as Liverpool, Holyhead and Stranraer. There is growing evidence that Heysham's further development is being put at risk by its poor road access. Surely it would be a grave mistake to allow a flourishing enterprise to be strangled by its own success. The Government must ensure that that does not happen.
The proposed new road would provide much more than the economic benefits and regeneration opportunities to which I have referred. It would relieve the awful congestion on the approach roads and bridges into Lancaster and reduce dramatically the number of traffic movements within the city. It would bring environmental improvements to many thousands of people whose lives are currently blighted by traffic, noise and air pollution. It would also enable the full implementation of the Lancaster transport strategy, a package of measures aimed at promoting alternative modes of transport in and around Lancaster, and bring about a significant reduction in road accidents and injuries.
If opened in 2005, the Heysham-M6 link would carry 20,500 vehicles a day over the River Lune and more than 16,000 vehicles a day south of Ashton road. It would remove 10,600 vehicles per day from Skerton bridge, 9,700 vehicles per day from Greyhound bridge and 15,300 vehicles per day from Morecambe road. The real significance of the traffic reductions is probably best understood by considering them as a percentage of the existing traffic levels. For example, traffic on the A6 would be reduced by 56 per cent. at Galgate and 57 per cent. at Scotforth. Traffic would be reduced by 27 per cent. on the city centre northbound gyratory road and by 23 per cent. on the southbound road. The A683 Morecambe road would benefit from a 37 per cent. reduction in traffic. The traffic on the Skerton and Greyhound bridges would be reduced by 33 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively and the traffic on the A683 Caton road would be reduced by 25 per cent.
Such a considerable reduction in traffic levels would allow the further introduction of bus priority measures, such as bus lanes over the Lune bridges, thereby improving timetable reliability, which will significantly increase the attractiveness of bus travel as an alternative
178WH
to car use. It would also allow the extension of cycling facilities in the centre. Such reduction in traffic would provide a much-improved environment for pedestrians and lower levels of noise and pollution. More than 10,000 properties would be subject to lower noise levels and almost 6,000 would benefit from better air quality. It is estimated that in excess of 30 road accidents a year would be prevented as a result of building the link road.
The estimated cost of the road is £55.6 million, and its net present value is more than £104 million, with a benefits-cost ratio of 3.577. If provided, it would meet all its stated objectives, which are to improve communications between Morecambe and Heysham and the M6 motorway; to release land allocated for industrial regeneration and improve access to the port of Heysham; to relieve traffic congestion in and around Lancaster city centre; and to permit the continued development of alternative travel modes, particularly buses and cycles. All in all, it represents a much-needed, value-for-money solution to the traffic problems that have blighted the Lancaster district for many years.
I shall now refer to the report and recommendations of the inspector who chaired the public inquiry into the Lancaster local plan. Following the recommendation of the panel that conducted the public examination of the Lancashire structural plan—that a bypass to the west of Lancaster may not be the best solution and that a northern bypass should be considered—three routes were identified, one to the north and two to the west of Lancaster. After much argument and debate, both Lancashire county council and Lancaster city council chose the western route, initially as the preferred and subsequently as the sole option. An amendment was accordingly written into the local plan. That route was chosen because it was the only one fully to address the area's problems and to meet its needs. The decision was fully supported by myself as Member of Parliament for Morecambe and Lunesdale and by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre.
The local plan inspector produced a report in June this year that recommended that the pre-inquiry change to the local plan, which had confirmed the proposed route, should not be accepted and that the proposal to set aside the land to build the link road be deleted. The inspector had concluded that a northern bypass would provide similar benefits at a lower cost, and declared that the funding for the proposed scheme during the period of the Lancaster district plan—up to 2006—would not be forthcoming.
The inspector reached his conclusion on the basis of a comparison between the identified northern route and the proposed western bypass. At the time of the inquiry, both those roads were envisaged as illuminated dual carriageways and the estimated costs of building them were £65 million for the northern route and £90 million for the western route. Subsequently, however, significant modifications were made to the western scheme and the estimated cost was reduced by £34.4 million. That was achieved through lowering the road specification to a wide single carriageway and avoiding disturbance to a pipeline carrying ethylene gas.
Despite the reduced specification, the revised scheme retains virtually all the economic benefits and road congestion relief capabilities of the originally envisaged dual carriageway and it certainly outperforms the alternative northern route in virtually every aspect. It is

179WH
cheaper and more cost-effective; it provides greater relief from traffic congestion both on approach roads and within the city of Lancaster; and it does not have the adverse environmental impact of the northern route. The environmental factor weighed heavily against the northern route throughout the process.
The reduced specification has other positive benefits because it substantially reduces the impact of the road on wildlife in the Lune estuary and is less likely to induce additional car journeys through spare capacity. Accordingly, the county council and the city council determined not to accept the local plan inspector's recommendations.
The proposed scheme is the only major transport scheme included in the Lancashire county council local transport plan. It has the support of the North-West regional development agency, which believes that it will do much to resolve current problems of congestion, pollution and environmental damage, especially in the centre of Lancaster. It has been included in a draft regional planning guidance as a priority scheme to be completed by 2007. I believe that the foregoing demonstrates that an integrated approach has been adopted at all levels of local and regional government in producing the proposed scheme. Government approval and funding are required for it to become a reality. The Government are due to respond formally by the end of the year. I hope that what I have said today will help clear up any confusion at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about possible changes to the scheme resulting from the local plan inspector's report.
Can my hon. Friend point to any areas of Government concern about the scheme? In view of the importance of the link road to my constituents and to the Lancaster district overall, will he undertake to visit the area to discuss any concerns in an appropriate forum before the Government give their formal response to the scheme?
Mr. Hilton Dawson rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Gentleman rises in his place. If an hon. Member wishes to intervene in an Adjournment debate, it is traditional to get the permission of the initiator of the debate and the Minister, which the hon. Gentleman may have done, and to notify the Chair of his interest in speaking. Does he have the permission of his hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) and the Minister?
Mr. Dawson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have the permission of my hon. Friend, but I have not had an opportunity to speak to the Minister.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will use my discretion on this occasion and call the hon. Gentleman, not least because his constituency has been mentioned in the debate.
11.45 am
Mr. Dawson: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for any discourtesy. As you say, the proposal has profound implications for my constituency. Indeed, the majority of the road runs
180WH
through it. I should simply like to reiterate some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) made in her superb speech.
The provision of funding for the western bypass of Lancaster in December 2000 would be the single best thing that the Government could do for Lancaster, and this is a Government who have done a great deal for Lancaster in the past few years. The western bypass is a green measure. Not only would it significantly improve the Lancaster's environment, which suffers grievous traffic congestion and terrible levels of pollutants such as benzene and carbon monoxide, it would relieve rural roads. One of the 10 most heavily used rural roads in the country runs between Cockerham and the M6.
This measure would support the development and improvement of an integrated public transport system for Lancaster by removing congestion, removing the weight of motorised traffic from city centre roads, creating another bridge across the Lune and creating opportunities for the development of park and ride and the further development of bus transport and cycling opportunities on roads that would be freed from traffic. As my hon. Friend has ably demonstrated, it would be a tremendous boon to assisting the regeneration of rundown industrial areas that are currently landlocked and badly need this sort of investment and the access that this road would create.
11.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) on securing the debate and setting out so clearly, strongly and in such detail the interests of her constituents and the problems they face. I should also like to congratulate her on the energy, commitment and tenacity that she has shown in pursuing the matter. Indeed, this is the second debate that she has secured on this subject recently.
I am well aware of the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend and of those faced by Lancaster. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has shown similar commitment to the interests of his constituents and has spoken with typical brevity and force.
Unfortunately, traffic congestion has an adverse effect on many urban areas. I emphasise that I appreciate the need to improve access to the port of Heysham and Morecambe. That is important if the port and tourism in the area are to prosper. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said, single regeneration budget funding is assisting economic and social regeneration. The area qualifies for European objective 2 funding and assisted area status.
Before I deal with Lancaster and Morecambe, it might help if I describe the progress that we have made with our transport policy to deal with some of the concerns outlined by my hon. Friends. Since coming into government, we have made it clear that transport is one of our top priorities. Tackling congestion is a key element of our integrated transport policy. Good transport is essential to a better quality of life, a strong economy and a better environment. Improving public transport is also vital to reducing the social exclusion of

181WH
people without access to a car. Delivering better transport means tackling problems caused by decades of under-investment and a lack of strategic planning, which have left us with crumbling infrastructure, public transport in decline and increased dependence on the car.
We face major challenges. Economic growth continues to bring rising transport demand. In turn, that leads to congestion, especially on key road links between towns. Public transport in many areas is inadequate. A lack of choice in public transport sends people back to their cars, adding to congestion. Our ability to find a way out of all that is hampered by a lack of integrated strategic planning.
The 10-year plan, published in July, is our response. Our goal is to transform the nation's transport system in the next 10 years. The £180 billion programme of public and private spending is designed to tackle the legacy of under-investment and is based on the public and private sectors working together. Almost 75 per cent.—£132 billion—will come from the public purse. The increased spending starts right away. In the next three years, public spending on transport will rise from £5 billion per year to £9 billion per year. For local transport, the plan provides £50 billion in public spending and £9 billion in private investment, which totals £59 billion over 10 years. It identifies national priorities. It will be the job of key partners in the regions to interpret them according to the needs of their areas.
I have focused on transport issues, but they are part of a much wider picture. Regional transport strategies are part of the regional planning guidance, which considers all aspects of development. North-west regional planning guidance will face an examination in public next February. We are keen to see regions adopt an integrated approach, so that provision of transport infrastructure complements the economic, social and environmental priorities embedded in planning guidance.
Crucial to the delivery of many schemes are the first five-year local transport plans, which were submitted to my Department in July. We have made a lot of progress on assessing the plans, leading up to the announcement of funding decisions in December, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale anticipated. I am encouraged by the overall standard and commitment shown by all authorities in completing their plans.
We are committed to improvements in local transport. We have provided for £4.5 billion of investment in the next three years. Last year, £755 million was allocated to LTPs—up 21 per cent. on the previous year. That investment is set to rise to £1.3 billion next year and continue rising to £1.7 billion in 2003–04. Those are large sums, but we are ambitious. We have set demanding but achievable targets to ensure that we can measure improvements in our transport infrastructure and public transport services. For example, by 2010 we want to see congestion reduced below current levels on the inter-urban trunk road network and in large urban areas by promoting integrated transport solutions and investing in public transport and the road network. We also want a 50 per cent. increase in passenger rail use, with improving
182WH
punctuality and reliability, and bus use increased by 10 per cent., also with improving punctuality and reliability; the doubling of rapid transit use—light rail and trams; a one-third increase in the proportion of rural households within about 10 minutes' walk of an hourly bus service or better; and a tripling of the number of cycling trips. We shall monitor our progress in achieving those and other objectives. To provide independent scrutiny, we have asked the Commission for Integrated Transport to report regularly on progress with the plan. It is in everyone's interests that we should succeed. Better public transport and reduced congestion will deliver a better quality of life and contribute to economic prosperity by reducing time lost through congestion and delays.
I now move to the specific issues raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale and for Lancaster and Wyre. Although I have not yet had an opportunity to visit the area, my predecessor, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), did so when she officially opened the port of Heysham's £2 million linkspan, a road bridge that allows freight to load on and off the ferries. I understand that she saw some of the work already being done to tackle Lancaster's traffic problems, and she discussed with councillors their proposals for improving access to Morecambe and Heysham. Lancashire has also made a good start in tackling transport problems through the provisional local transport plan and the full local transport plan that was submitted to Ministers on 31 July.
The road that we are debating has some history. Following public examination of the Lancashire structure plan, the independent inspector's report recommended that the Lancaster western bypass should be deleted, as the traffic benefits were unlikely to outweigh the combined effects of the visual impact on the landscape and the potential harm to conservation interests on the Lune estuary site of special scientific interest. The structure plan includes the M6 link, but takes no view on which route should be chosen.
In 1998, Lancashire county council consulted the public on three different routes to complete the road link from the M6 to Heysham. I understand that the consultation showed considerable support for completing the link. The three routes considered were the so-called orange route, a northern bypass of Lancaster; the green route, a western bypass of Lancaster and Galgate; and the blue route, a shorter route to the west of Lancaster that involves the construction of new junctions on the M6 south of Lancaster. For various reasons, I understand that the blue route has been ruled out.
At the Lancaster local plan inquiry, the inspector was not prepared to make a reservation of the green route, mainly because its cost, and the problems that it raised, meant that it could not realistically be brought forward within the plan period. He would have made a reservation for the orange route—
Miss Geraldine Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hill: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must respond to the points raised and I have little time in which to do so.

183WH
The inspector would have made a reservation for the orange route, but the city council would not accept it. That council now proposes to make a reservation for the green route.
The M6-Heysham link scheme also features in the north-west regional planning guidance and regional transport strategy that was submitted to the Secretary of State in the summer. The opening of phase 1 of the Heysham to M6 link in July 1994 removed a significant volume of traffic from the built-up areas of Morecambe and Heysham, including a large number of heavy goods vehicles travelling between the port of Heysham and the M6; completing the link could further improve access and reduce congestion.
Proposals for the road have been submitted as part of Lancashire's local transport plan. It will be carefully considered against our five criteria—economy, safety, environment, accessibility and integration—and against the wider benefits that it might bring to the local transport plan as a whole. Any decision will form part of the local transport plan settlement to be announced in December. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale will understand that I cannot comment on the assessment process, on individual plans or on the merits of particular schemes within them at this stage.
Miss Smith: On the point about the planning inspector, does my hon. Friend agree that the circumstances have changed? We are now discussing a single carriageway road and the cost has been substantially reduced. That changes the comparison with the northern route.
Mr. Hill: I am aware that the cost of that scheme has been reduced from £95 million, if my memory serves me correctly, to about £55 million. Clearly, changes have been made. However, I should like to assure my hon. Friend that the issues she has raised will be examined closely and taken into account in consideration of the local transport plan.

Far East Prisoners of War
11.59 am
Mr. Martin Bell: It is good to see the Minister in his place. I understand that it has not been too easy to get here from Kirkcaldy in the last day or so.
Prisoners of war are an important issue. This is the third time this year that they have been the subject of an Adjournment debate. That reflects the nature of the issue and the wide support that there is and has been across the House for paying a gratuity to this small band of surviving British heroes, whose heroism and service have not been sufficiently recognised until now. We are not, sadly, talking about very many. We are talking about 7,500 men and perhaps 3,000 widows. Since the case came to Downing street for the Prime Minister's personal attention in a meeting with the Royal British Legion last April, some 250 more of them have died. There is a sense of urgency here, of time running out and, as the Prime Minister himself put it, there is a debt of honour to be paid. I trust that the Minister will reply in a positive vein.
I want to give thanks at this point to some remarkable people. One of them is Arthur Titherington, the chairman of the Japanese Labour Camps Survivors Association, who has single-handedly kept the flame alive on this issue. Another is his deputy chairman Mr. Sid Tavender. I am honoured to have been asked to be the president of that association. I am out of my company in such a band of heroes, but I had to accept. Thanks must also go to the Royal British Legion, which has led the campaign, and to many Members of Parliament, especially the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) who secured an Adjournment debate in June and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who leads the all-party group on the issue.
This is not a party political issue and it never has been. It is an issue of national honour and natural justice. The facts are fairly plain. Battalions were raised in 1941 at the worst time in the second world war. Many of them were formed into the Eighteenth East Anglian Division and they were preparing for service in Iraq. They were diverted to Singapore and they arrived there just in time for the surrender. They were in fact sacrificed. We sent the men, but we did not send the tanks or the artillery. We did not have the land defences and, most of all, we did not have the air cover that would have enabled them to fight.
Included in the 50,000 men who surrendered at Singapore are the Fourth and Fifth Battalions of my own regiment, the Suffolk Regiment, the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Battalions of the Royal Norfolk Regiment and the First and Second Battalions of the Cambridgeshire Regiment. It is something of an East Anglian role of honour. The young men from the farms, fields and factories of East Anglia were sacrificed. There is not a village that does not bear the scar in some way. Of course, that is extended across the country because others were attached to the battalions from many places. I receive letters every day from the few survivors and their widows asking what has happened and whether their service will be recognised. I trust that this time finally it will be.
Let us consider the costs and casualties. The rate of casualties was higher among those 50,000 service men than among British service men in any other theatre of

185WH
war from 1940 to 1945—much higher, for instance, than in the Normandy landings. I think that it was Laurens van der Post who said that those soldiers showed and needed more courage than any other British soldiers in the whole of the second world war. We do not learn much about our defeats. I served for two years in the Suffolk Regiment without ever being told what happened to those soldiers. For three and a half years they suffered in conditions that are unimaginable to us. It is astonishing that they endured at all.
A quarter of those 50,000 died. Some were executed on beaches. Some were executed in prison camps. Some were machine-gunned at sea when their ships went down. The majority died from starvation, neglect and disease. Those who came home in 1945 were broken in body and, in some sense, in mind. The old men who write to me—the youngest is 78—tell me how their prison camp experiences come back to them in nightmares. Many are unable to leave home. Many are widowers, and in their loneliness the experiences come flooding back. It is touching to read those letters—
Mr. Mark Oaten: The hon. Gentleman has referred to prisoners of war. Will he mention the civilian internees who were held and suffered a great deal of hardship, and urge the Government to look favourably on them when considering any compensation?
Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising a good point. I believe that the civilian internees were excluded from the Royal British Legion's campaign simply because it was necessary to get something quickly to some of the most deserving cases. However, many families, including young children, were held captive at the same time.
The mental scars are with those prisoners of war to this day. I received a letter from the chief psychiatrist of Combat Stress, a mental welfare society for ex-service men with which I am associated. He screened many of the prisoners years later, in the early 1980s, and wrote to me that what struck him most about them was their quiet dignity and their refusal to ask for anything for themselves. That was the kind of people that they were. They came home in 1945 and were told to get on with their lives; they got a medal. In 1952, they received a compensatory payment of £76 from sequestered Japanese assets, which was trivial, even by the monetary values of those times, and insulting.
We do not deal well with our retreats and defeats, but I believe that out of the debacle of Singapore one group of people—those soldiers—emerged with enormous credit. When they write to me, they do not ask for anything except clarification of what is happening in this year-long campaign that seems to be so close to success—but their wives and widows do ask for something. A couple of letters that I have received in the past two days strike me as extremely eloquent. One of them is from a Mrs. Aldridge of Atherstone. She writes:
These men really suffered cruelty beyond all recognition and are still suffering. Only those who were there and actually went through it and survived it really know the true facts. My husband was one of those unfortunate people and I know he's still re-living it. They really were slaves and I sincerely hope that you will please
186WH
continue to keep bringing this issue of compensation up as the P.O.Ws have had their hopes built up on several occasions but as yet nothing has happened and these men are getting fewer daily.
Mrs. Sowerby from Christchurch in Dorset writes:
My husband was in Changi prison camp for 3 1/2 years. It was cruel to learn what all these brave men had gone through. I keep asking myself why and what for. Our lives are coming to a close now. It would be lovely to get some compensation so we can just go out and treat ourselves not to keep watching our coppers.
I get letters like that every day and find them very moving. I hope that when the compensation is announced—and I trust that it will be, because the Prime Minister was positive in his hints on the subject last week—it will be ring-fenced so as not to affect entitlements in other areas and so that the Government do not take with one hand and give back with the other.
It can be argued that the Japanese Government should have provided the necessary restitution, and of course they should have done. There is an extraordinary contrast between the behaviour of the Japanese Government and people and that of the German Government and people. The Germans confronted the realities of their past, whereas the Japanese tended to draw a veil over it, partly because those war crimes were committed in the name of their emperor. I have received an eloquent, bitter and moving letter from Jack Caplan, who burned the Japanese flag when the emperor visited a few years ago. I do not think that it is for us to insist on reconciliation and that those prisoners should forgive and forget; they can never forget and whether they forgive is entirely up to them.
It would have been possible to reopen the discussions that led to the treaty of San Francisco in 1951; that could have been done in 1955, and the Japanese Government could have been required to pay restitution then. So as not to disturb our relations with the Japanese Government at the time, which was building an economy and a democracy, that was not done. Looking back, I think that that was probably a mistake but, as I said at the outset, the issue is not a party political one. However, it is possible for this Government, in the millennium year, to take a decision that would bring huge credit on themselves and for which they would be thanked by those old soldiers and their friends and relatives across the country—
Mr. David Winnick: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate. I certainly agree that the compensation should have been paid by the Japanese Government, and it is a discredit to the Japanese authorities that that has not been done. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if, as we fervently hope, compensation is paid by the British Government in the near future—as was suggested by the reply given to me by the Prime Minister last Wednesday—it would be appropriate for that to be done by Remembrance Sunday? Paying the money to that brave and dwindling number by Remembrance Sunday would be a good way of showing that when we remember all those who fought in the last war, we mean it. I hope that the Government will do that.
Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constant interventions in this matter; as I said, it is not a party matter. He is entirely right. We are approaching the season of remembrance and it is right that we

187WH
remember the living as well as the dead. I am hopeful that the decision will be taken and will be announced by the pre-Budget statement on 8 November; that date, before Remembrance Sunday, would seem an appropriate time for it.
I sometimes desert my parliamentary duties to speak to military audiences. I also speak to students—the kids—who are aware that the peace and freedom in which they live was earned by the sacrifices of another generation—that of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. They are receptive to that message. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to make clear our debt of honour and our determination to pay it. We should support the Government in the decision that we believe they are about to take.
I hope and trust that this is the last time that a debate of this kind will be necessary. I trust that the gratuity will be announced before remembrance Sunday, to ease the loneliness and difficulties of old age—all those men are in the evening of their lives—and show that their heroism is recognised. It is a matter of recognition. The sacrifice has never been recognised, and it is as if the nation has drawn a curtain over it or been gripped by a sense of collective amnesia. Now is the time to expect and hope that that debt of honour will be paid to a band of British heroes whom we all salute and to whom we owe so much.
12.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on securing this debate on what is clearly an important issue. All hon. Members have a considerable interest in the subject, and the debate is a demonstration of the hon. Gentleman's support and concern for those held as prisoners of war in the far east during the second world war.
The hon. Gentleman has pursued the cause in the House on several occasions, through debates and questions. Other hon. Members have similarly championed the cause of those ex-service men, on their individual account and on behalf of constituents, as have Members involved in all-party groups on this and related matters. I should also mention the efforts of the Royal British Legion, which has worked hard to support the claims of former prisoners of war in the far east.
I must apologise; this is the third time in the Session that we have debated the issue, but the Government have still not come to a decision for me to announce. There will therefore be a considerable element of déjà vu in what I have to say. Hon. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met senior representatives of the Royal British Legion earlier in the year to hear at first hand their views on the matter, which we undertook to consider carefully.
I should remind hon. Members that the issue of further compensation for those held as prisoners of war in the far east during the second world war involves several Departments. Those Departments have been considering the question of an ex gratia payment, which the hon. Member for Tatton, other hon. Members and the Royal British Legion are seeking.
I should recap on the facts, although we heard them in similar debates earlier in the year. The Japanese captured a little more than 50,000 British service men.
188WH
Most of them were taken prisoner in the initial phases of the second world war in the far east in late 1941 and early 1942, when Japan attacked and captured first Hong Kong, then Malaya and Singapore as well as the Dutch East Indies and Burma. Our fellow Commonwealth forces also suffered the loss of men taken prisoner. The Australians lost more than 18,000 in Malaya and Singapore, and the Canadians more than 1,600 in Hong Kong.
Under international conventions, the treatment of prisoners of war was governed at the time by the 1929 Geneva convention. Although Japan had signed the treaty, it had not ratified it. Japan stated that it would in general recognise the provisions of the convention, but we all know the regrettable historical fact that it did not. Those held as prisoners of war were detained in camps throughout the far east. Conditions and the level of supplies in the camps were at best harsh and poor, although the British Government made considerable efforts in conjunction with the protecting power and the Red Cross to provide relief supplies.
As a safeguard to the prisoners of war, the Japanese should have permitted inspection visits by the protecting power and the Red Cross, but they were refused in many areas. Even where visits were permitted, with considerable obstructions, little could be achieved. That measure produced improvements in the conditions and treatment of prisoners of war in Europe but achieved little for those held in the far east.
As we know, prisoners of war were obliged to work for their captors under the Geneva convention. Unfortunately for the prisoners of war in the far east, especially those involved in the construction of the Burma-Thailand railway, the work was improperly arduous. That, coupled with poor and unsuitable rations, the generally poor conditions, and the climate to which few of the men were accustomed, made them much more susceptible to disease. The indifference of the captors to the men's plight and the often brutal ill treatment combined to take their toll on the prisoners' health, so much so that 25 per cent. of them did not survive captivity. That figure must be compared with that from the German and Italian camps of 5 per cent., and the figure of 8 per cent. for those held as prisoners of war in the later Korean war.
Although the Government were unable to achieve any real improvement of conditions in camps in the far east during the war, steps were taken to demonstrate that the ill treatment of service men was unacceptable, by means of the war crimes trials at the end of the war. Through the Tokyo trials and others in Singapore and elsewhere, some of those held responsible for the ill treatment of our detained service men were brought to justice for their crimes.
It must also be remembered that, uniquely among British prisoners of war, those held in the far east received some compensation for their ill treatment as a result of the 1951 peace treaty with Japan. In addition, further funds, released by Japan to the Government under that treaty, were distributed to POWs and British civilian internees. We accept that many consider that the amount made available by those means, which is the equivalent of about £1,200 in today's money, was too small. None the less, some compensation was paid by the country that had inflicted that suffering on its prisoners. Furthermore, the payment established the

189WH
principle that the captor is responsible for the proper treatment of detainees-which, it must be remembered, was then the firmly stated primary goal of the representatives of former far eastern prisoners of war.
Hon. Members will recall that the possibility of reopening the peace treaty to seek higher compensation from Japan has been raised many times, but we have accepted legal advice that the treaty has closed the matter of gaining further compensation from Japan. We are aware of the argument advanced recently that the Government consciously let down far eastern prisoners of war in 1955 by not reopening the treaty and gaining more money for them. However, we have explained many times that contemporary records show that it is extremely difficult to ascertain what, if any, additional benefits this country would have been entitled to and what their worth would have been. In addition, there is no basis for reopening the treaty to gain further compensation, as Japan has signed no agreement subsequently conferring on the prisoners of war of other countries greater benefits than those already awarded under the treaty. Thus, we cannot accept the view that the actions of the then Government form the basis for taking action now.
Hon. Members will be aware that the current campaign, which is being co-ordinated by the Royal British Legion and is eloquently supported by many hon. Members, suggests that, as it is generally accepted that the avenue of further compensation is closed, further compensation should be paid not by Japan but by the Government with an ex gratia payment. It has been explained to the House on several occasions that that claim would require a major shift from the policy of successive Administrations.
Dr. Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend has already acknowledged that the compensation given to those men was woefully inadequate. I pass on a message from Major Philip Malens, the chairman of the Royal British Legion in Birmingham, who says that the matter is urgent because three of those men are dying every day.
Dr. Moonie: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution; that fact is recognised.
The hardships and needs of all those who become ill or disabled as a result of their military service, including any periods of captivity, are addressed primarily by the provision of war pensions by the Department of Social Security. From the presentations made by some hon. Members and from the case made by the Royal British Legion, it is clear that they believe that the payment of some £10,000 by the Canadian Government to their former far eastern prisoners of war or their surviving widows, and the similar award made this summer by the Isle of Man Tynwald to their very small number of former far eastern prisoners of war, is a vindication of the claim being made for British far eastern prisoners of war. However, we have said before that although we have noted those decisions, it is a matter for each of those Governments to decide. Different countries have different ways of responding to the needs of their populations—including those of ex-service men.
190WH
Although I believe that detailed objective decisions about the degree of suffering that occurred many years ago are impossible, I assure hon. Members that the case put forward in the support of the claim for an ex gratia payment has been subjected to the most careful and sympathetic consideration during the past few months. The hon. Member for Tatton will, of course, be aware of the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who I am pleased to see is present. The Prime Minister said that he had a great deal of sympathy for the campaign mounted by the Royal British Legion for additional compensation for prisoners of war held in the far east, but he asked for patience to be exercised for a little longer for the final decision to be announced.
Mr. Bell: I am aware that the Minister is coming to a conclusion, but will he give us notice of when we may receive an answer?
Dr. Moonie: The Prime Minister said that we would have to wait a little longer for the decision to be announced. Work is currently in hand that will lead to an announcement being made soon, especially given that a statement on the Government's intentions regarding spending is due in the next week and a half. I hope that hon. Members will accept that I cannot add to what the Prime Minister has said on the matter. They will have to wait a few more days for a conclusion to be reached.
Mr. Winnick: I appreciate that the Minister is giving what could be described as a holding answer in view of what the Prime Minister said last week in the Chamber. I plead with him—as I have done on previous occasions—that, if there is to be a settlement, as we all strongly and fervently hope, it will be made at least before Remembrance Sunday. That day is an important time in the history of our country, when we remember the dead and those who survived wars. I beg my hon. Friend to use whatever influence he has as a Minister to see to it that the payment is made, or at least announced, before 12 November.
Dr. Moonie: I am well aware of the symbolic significance of that date and, although I cannot give my hon. Friend a cast-iron guarantee today, I certainly expect some sign of the Government's thinking on the matter to be available before then.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I know that the Minister was unable to be present at Defence questions yesterday when I raised the possibility of compensation being means-related or in the form of an ex gratia payment. I referred also to payments being made to the widows of those who have died while awaiting compensation. Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the Prime Minister is taking such factors into account?
Dr. Moonie: Such factors are being taken into account. An ex gratia payment is made generally on a per capita basis. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, however, there are complications with rules regarding such capital, and we shall bear them carefully in mind when considering what action to take. I cannot say

191WH
anything more of any use on the subject. I am sure that hon. Members present will be waiting to see what happens in a few days' time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I hope that I may be excused for saying from the Chair how much I have been moved by much of what has been said in the debate, and by the fact that it has been said across all political parties. I congratulate the Minister on the sensitive way in which he has dealt with the matter.

John Redgrave
12.28 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased to introduce the debate, which relates primarily to my constituent, Detective Inspector John Redgrave, whose home was raided on 3 February 1997. He was suspended from office on the following day. He was acquitted at Bow Street magistrates court by a stipendiary magistrate on 17 May 1999. The case related to charges pertaining to perverting the course of justice and the Official Secrets Act 1989. I stress that such charges were dismissed by the stipendiary magistrate and that no other charges are outstanding against Mr. Redgrave.
However, the day after the acquittal the Complaints Investigation Bureau of Scotland Yard initiated an almost unprecedented procedure of making an application to the High Court for a voluntary bill of indictment, which, had it been successful, would have reversed the stipendiary magistrate's decision to throw out the charges. My constituent was not told of that application to the High Court. Notwithstanding that, the High Court judge rejected the CIB's application and reaffirmed the stipendiary's decision.
My constituent has given 30 of his 46 years to the Metropolitan police. He has received numerous commendations for his diligent policing. He was referred to as having given outstanding devotion to duty during the complex operation that netted Kenneth Noye, John Lloyd and other major gangsters from south-east London following the gold bullion investigation in the mid-1980s, and has received countless other commendations.
We now know, as it was disclosed to my constituent's lawyers on 17 June 1997, that the CIB was aware of a £50,000 contract taken out by criminals to kill or discredit my constituent soon after a successful operation against an ecstasy factory in north London. Notwithstanding the fact that this was known to the CIB, as far as we are aware there has been no police investigation into that contract and the motives involved. Such an investigation would probably throw some light on how my constituent has been framed.
Obviously my constituent would have been heading for further promotion, but on 3 February 1997 his world crashed. The CIB broke into his house in the most traumatic circumstances, causing maximum embarrassment to his children and family. He has not recovered. I hope that the Minister can disclose—if he cannot do so today, I shall table a written parliamentary question—the information that was served on the justice of the peace to justify the grant of the search warrant. As far as I am aware, there was none, bearing in mind that we now know that the substantive allegation made by a police informant had been withdrawn by that stage, although that was not disclosed to my constituent for some years.
I could produce much evidence of the tremendous trauma that my constituent has suffered. Last year, he told the Police Complaints Authority:
This had caused the complete destruction of every aspect of my personal and professional life, friends, financial security, family, marriage, career, reputation. The building blocks of life have all gone, with no hope of recovery. The safeguards built into the judicial process to protect all members of our society have been disregarded for reasons of self interest and political expediency.

193WH
In December last year my constituent was cleared, after more than six years of CIB investigation, yet he remains suspended and is still fighting to clear his name. I join him in doing so. I have referred to the depression that he endured. Also suspended was his subordinate Michael Charman, a detective constable. They have had to endure the suspension together. On 17 July 1998, to try to cheer up my constituent, who was suffering considerable psychiatric problems, Michael Charman and his girlfriend invited him to their house in Pitsea for dinner. We now know, because it has been documented, that their house had been bugged by the Complaints Investigation Bureau.
During the dinner, Charman's girlfriend explained the extraordinary circumstances in which she, a relatively lowly executive officer of the Crown Prosecution Service, had been handed a confidential package relating to an allegedly corrupt police officer who is relevant to my constituent's plight. The circumstances were extraordinary because she was required to attend a case conference that she would not usually have expected to attend, and because she was handed that extraordinary package, which we now know was electronically bugged, by Detective Chief Superintendent John Coles, a senior officer of the CIB.
During the dinner conversation it was mentioned that that day's news had referred to the cross-examination that had taken place during the Macpherson inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. Counsel for the Lawrences, Michael Mansfield, had cross-examined the controversial senior police officer, Ray Adams, about senior Metropolitan police officer relationships with the Norris family or clan.
My constituent resolved that he should consider revealing some of the information that he had to the Lawrence inquiry and Mike Mansfield. He suggested that an incestuous relationship existed between Metropolitan police officers and the wider Norris family and community, and referred to the supposed investigation in the early 1990s into the murder of a David Norris, who I understand was the cousin of the Clifford and David Norris who were the subject of Michael Mansfield's cross-examination. That David Norris was murdered in the early 1990s. He was a paid police informant.
The circumstances of that investigation were wholly unsatisfactory. The CIB demonstrably knew of my constituent's concern about the incestuous relationship, because of the bugging. It was also mentioned in subsequent correspondence and documents. Despite the fact that it was germane to the Lawrence inquiry and subsequent inquiries, the investigators and the Metropolitan police have never asked my constituent to amplify on his information.
The CIB is riddled with people who want to stop further light being shed on those relationships. However, I understand that journalists from The Guardian are on the brink of revealing more about them, and I look forward to that. I hope that, like me, my hon. Friend the Minister and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police will study what is written.
My purpose in securing this debate is to seek an end to the agony and unfairness of the inordinate suspension of my constituent. I asked my right hon. Friend the
194WH
Home Secretary about the cost to the public of suspensions of Metropolitan police officers, but he was unable to give the total sum. It is a side issue, but it is wholly unsatisfactory and must be addressed.
There has been widespread misfeasance at the highest level in the Metropolitan police. I again demand a full judicial inquiry into Operation Nightshade, with which my constituent was involved, and the consequent malevolence and corrupt practice of those who served and serve in the CIB against my constituent and other officers.
I want to halt Commander Hayman's dilatory and partial handling of my constituent's serious complaints of wrongdoing by John Coles and others in the CIB. I want responsibility for the investigation to be removed from the Police Complaints Authority. Commander Hayman should have investigated my constituent's complaints, but is now demonstrably disqualified from doing so. Incidentally, he invited me to have a security briefing, but I declined, because I thought that such an approach was wholly improper. I want someone else appointed who will conduct an investigation impartially and vigorously. It should be completed before any disciplinary hearing against my constituent takes place, although any such hearing would be a charade, because he has nothing to answer.
The inquiry that I seek would complement the KPMG study commissioned by the Home Secretary following recommendation 58 of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report, which states:
Investigation of police officers by their own or another Police service is widely regarded as unjust, and does not inspire public confidence.
I believe that the KPMG study should be undertaken at the same time as the public inquiry. The Government should then give their view about how to proceed on police corruption investigations.
The CIB has recently fallen foul of several High Court judges as a result of its techniques. Judge Harvey Crush of Maidstone Crown court gave a damning 42-page judgment on the botched Operation Nectarine by the CIB and Kent police. I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions is conducting an internal inquiry in light of that judgment. I hope that the Minister will say that the DPP's report will be published.
As I said, my constituent, Redgrave, was suspended on the basis of an allegation by a police informant that he had corruptly bunged my constituent stolen money from Operation Nightshade. My constituent was not advised that the allegation, made in June 1994, had been withdrawn. In fact, the informant withdrew it on 27 January 1997. On 11 February 1998, my constituent's lawyers wrote to the Police Complaints Authority. On 19 February, John Cartwright—the vice-chairman of the PCA—wrote back to the lawyers saying that he was not aware of the allegation's withdrawal. He is supposed to be overseeing my constituent's complaints. It was not until the committal hearings on 17 May 1999 that the withdrawal on 27 January 1997 became clear from the bundle of papers disclosed to the defence.
We now know that there are no grounds for the continued suspension of my constituent or for the bugging probe at Michael Charman's dinner. I believe that the warrants obtained for access during the raids were probably unlawful. Police procedures were

195WH
certainly not followed. I hope that the Minister will investigate further. Despite all that, Detective Chief Superintendent John Coles, unprofessionally and with maximum spite and deceit, continues to traduce my constituent by making baseless accusations that he shared a £50,000 bung with another officer. When will it stop?
There is a serious political dimension to Operation Nightshade—an anglo-American police sting across three continents, costing millions of pounds. It started in June 1993 and a central figure was a registered police informant to whom I have already referred. He was handled by Detective Constable Michael Charman and my constituent was the senior investigating officer.
Operation Nightshade incorporated three elements—a planned cocaine shipment from Venezuela to the UK; a money laundering scam; and, most importantly, an illegal arms deal using Sierra Leone as a trans-shipment point. The British side included Customs and Excise; the south-east regional crime squad; SO10, the undercover outfit in Scotland Yard; and SO13, the anti-terrorism branch. The British worked closely with the Houston branch of United States Customs, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Branch of the US Treasury Department. All were in the loop.
The informant had been approached in 1993 by a Texan-based gang with an offer to sell arms. The Americans were in the car business and boasted high political connections in Texas, where they lived in opulent homes. Roger Crooks was one of the group and it transpires from my questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he met Peter Penfold, our high commissioner in Sierra Leone in recent times. It was Crooks who supplied the helicopter in the Sandline affair and he also runs the Mama Yoko hotel, the headquarters of the United Nations in Freetown.
The informant was asked whether he could find a buyer for a large quantity of arms worth millions of dollars. The weapons on offer included M16 assault rifles, grenade and rocket launchers, plastic explosives, mines and ammunition. Redgrave was notified and obtained further authorisation from several senior Scotland Yard commanders and their US counterparts to mount a well planned sting operation. The informant then helped to introduce the Texans to a British undercover officer from SO10, posing as a buyer for Northern Ireland Protestant terrorists. The weapons were to be stolen in part from an army base in the United States and shipped to Britain via Sierra Leone. Officers were particularly interested in finding out how Barratt sniper rifles were getting into Northern Ireland—at the cost of many British soldiers' lives.
The sting operation was going well and undercover officers were gathering evidence against the American gang. After successfully bugging meetings in London and Houston, Redgrave's team and US customs were poised to make arrests. Then something strange happened during the arms negotiations, which ultimately scuppered the operation. The informant was charged with theft of £400,000, which had been deposited in his account by the Texan gang as part of the laundering scam.
To keep Operation Nightshade on track, a financial investigator was appointed by the Metropolitan police to examine the informant's business accounts.
196WH
Meanwhile my constituent redoubled his and his colleagues' efforts to complete the sting and make the arrest. By autumn 1994, the American gang had backed off. Operation Nightshade, which cost millions of pounds, faded with no arrests on either side of the Atlantic. I would really like to know exactly how much it cost.
The informant disappeared and the theft charges against him were mysteriously dropped. Three years later, in February 1997, as anti-corruption officers raided my constituent's home, it became clear that he and Charman had not escaped the shadow of Operation Nightshade. Subsequently, the CIB told Redgrave and Charman that the informant had been re-arrested for the alleged theft of money during Operation Nightshade. The anti-corruption squad also accused both detectives of turning a blind eye to the theft in return for £50,000. My constituents were not told that that allegation was subsequently withdrawn, which is disgraceful.
The CIB further claimed that in order to disguise the corrupt payment, Redgrave had duped his senior commanders and simply invented the arms deal. That is clearly untrue, as I have ascertained through parliamentary questions and other parliamentary activities. The protection or non-prosecution of people whom Redgrave and Charman tried to investigate through Operation Nightshade is important to understanding what happened to those two officers. That is especially the case when examining the targets connected with the plan to sell arms to two Met undercover officers posing as buyers for Northern Ireland terrorists. I greatly regret that the SO10 officers were not brought before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, but Members are well aware of our uphill struggle for transparency in that matter.
Confidential Met and United States police documents on the progress of their joint operation against the United States-based gang clearly showed that all the law enforcement officers involved believed that they were dealing with real gangsters offering an arms deal in return for millions of pounds.
In Redgrave's report to his superior on 26 May 1994, he said that the current position was that Crooks had placed an order for arms, faxed exportation documents and received the undercover officers' dummy end-user certificate. The report stated that the targets had also seen proof of purchase funds and Crooks had said on tape that the shipment was ready in a container for export within 30 days. Redgrave noted that the next stage would be to return to Houston to arrest the principals. In a memo from United States Customs dated 9 May 1994, special agent Leon Guinn said that the targets in Houston had repeatedly made incriminating statements over the arms deal in numerous telecommunications and in three meetings with undercover officers in London. Guinn continued:
Investigation by the SAC—
special customs
in Houston has determined that the targets have made specific inquiries with US arms dealers…further, the co-conspirators have been recorded alluding to the undercover officers that some of the material requested by them will be taken from US military installations.
Guinn ended by saying that the Government attorney handling the case had expressed

197WH
a desire to pursue prosecution of suspects
and believed conviction to be "very likely".
In another south-east regional crime squad police report, Crooks is described as
the head of the organisation, a high-profile fraudsman, diamond smuggler and arms dealer known to the American authorities and fully researched by the US Customs.
In a summary of meetings between one undercover officer and Crooks at the Britannia hotel in London on 20 December 1993, the undercover officer said:
Roger again said he had no problem in selling weapons to our organisation but he could only get it out of the United States to, say, Nigeria or Sierra Leone. However, he could put us in contact with the right people who would facilitate its onward shipment to the United Kingdom…Roger again said that we would not have a problem getting it from Sierra Leone as he had all the right contacts, in fact he even had a diplomatic passport for that country—
and indeed he has. There are sensitive diplomatic reasons why that aspect of Operation Nightshade has been fudged, which I may make available to the House on another occasion. Crooks and his outfit had high-level contacts in the United States and I believe that political leverage was used. The Operation Nightshade papers show that both the United States and British officers wanted to arrest Crooks and his gang by the middle of 1994 and that opportunity was botched. It is not clear whether MI5 was involved. It is of course unanswerable and unaccountable to Parliament.
Crooks later claimed that throughout the arms deal he was acting as an informant. Crooks appeared later in history at the heart of the United States navy's plan to rescue American and British citizens stranded in Sierra Leone, and he is still involved in the Mama Yoko hotel.
My constituent has been cleared of corruption, but he remains suspended. He believes that his plight is connected to the targeting of Roger Crooks and British policy, official and deniable, on Sierra Leone. He hoped that a judicial inquiry would uncover whether he and others were the victims of a plot by the intelligence services to undermine Operation Nightshade and to protect its targets.
I remind the House that I received some interesting answers from Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and from the Ministry of Defence. Despite extensive evidence of arms deals involving Crooks in Sierra Leone, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said:
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that no such details were revealed as a result of Operation Nightshade.—[Official Report, 16 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 268W.]
In other words, no details were revealed of arms deals via west Africa. However, in answer to another question, the Minister conceded that Crooks was interviewed by the anti-terrorist branch in London on 24 June 1993
about matters that involved the supply of firearms.—[Official Report, 3 April 2000; Vol. 347, c. 379W.]
Answers from the Foreign Office were equally revealing. I was told that Crooks had been known
to various members of the High Commission for some time.—[Official Report, 16 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 287W.]
198WH
He had provided assistance in the evacuation of the United States hotel in Freetown in May 1997. The Foreign Office also confirmed that Crooks had had contact with unnamed Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence personnel during the past few years—but not about arms or military matters. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office confirmed that Crooks was expelled from Sierra Leone; but he has now been reinstated. The website of the Sierra Leone news agency said that he had been expelled for trying to arrange the trafficking of arms between Northern Ireland and Sierra Leone. As we know, he also had discussions with Peter Penfold, our controversial high commissioner in Sierra Leone, who was aware of the Sandline plan to arm a counter-coup to restore Kabbah to power.
Only recently, the CIB wrote to inform Mr. Redgrave's lawyers that a disciplinary hearing had been set for February 2001, but that has been aborted following a complaint about a breach of procedure for setting the date. The CIB apologised and cancelled the hearing, and no further date has been set. Indeed, I believe that no hearing should be held. The disciplinary charges are a nonsense, and it is time for a line to be drawn. I believe that the police have a duty to pursue the investigation of my constituent's complaints independently, but that Mr. Hayman is disqualified from conducting it. In my view, he is partial. He refuses to take the counter-complaint seriously, and I remind the House that it includes a reference to the Lawrence inquiry and allegations of corruption about which my constituent has never been interviewed.
I remind the House of the recent employment tribunal ruling in the case of sacked Asian officer Gurpal Virdi. It is clear that that disciplinary hearing was a sham, a kangaroo court working to a predetermined conclusion. The Metropolitan police have agreed to refer that case to the Metropolitan Police Authority. Will they do the same for my constituent? Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise for having detained the House, but I think that you will realise that, prima facie, the case stinks.
12.51 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on securing this debate. I emphasise that it is entirely legitimate for my hon. Friend to raise the interests of his constituent but, for reasons that he will understand, I can say little that is specific to the John Redgrave case. However, I shall talk about the questions of discipline and corruption that arise in such cases, and about the role the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Metropolitan police. I shall not respond in detail, but I shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said.
At the start of an investigation into alleged corruption, Detective Inspector John Redgrave was suspended from duty on 6 February 1997 and Detective Constable Michael Charman was suspended from duty on 4 February 1997. They immediately reported sick. No criminal charges were brought. In 1998, a second investigation was mounted which led to arrests and charges. The case was dismissed in the magistrates court on the ground of insufficient evidence. However, both officers were then charged with a disciplinary offence under the 1985 police disciplinary regulations.

199WH
A police discipline board was to have considered those charges in February 2001, but, because counsel for Mr. Redgrave and Mr. Charman will not be available on that date, the hearing is likely to be put back until April next year. In the event that the charge is proved, the officers will have a right of appeal to the Commissioner and, subject to the Commissioner's decision, to the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, because the Home Secretary is the final appellate authority for disciplinary matters under the 1985 police discipline regulations, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on Mr. Redgrave's case today. I shall, of course, respond to further written parliamentary questions, to assist my hon. Friend in dealing with the matter.
I wish to make a preliminary point. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the immense time that it has taken to resolve this and other similar cases. Unfortunately, this is not the only case in which disciplinary matters have gone on for so long. Delays may happen at various stages of the process, sometimes for understandable reasons, which result in it taking a long time to resolve matters satisfactorily. That is why we wish to change the complaints system. A KPMG report and a Liberty report have been completed, and we are now consulting on a series of changes that we hope will make things more transparent and enable cases to be dealt with much more quickly. We are moving rapidly in that direction, and I hope that the House will be able to consider changes to the process when the consultation is complete.
It was for the same reason that we introduced new police discipline procedures, which came into effect on 1 April 1999 after having been in the process of revision for some years. Their main purpose was to establish formal procedures for dealing with unsatisfactory performance by police officers with the availability of a requirement to resign when an officer's efficiency cannot be brought up to standard.
The new discipline procedures have some new features. First, a fast-track procedure has been established to deal swiftly with officers against whom there is very strong evidence of serious misconduct of a criminal nature and against whom it is in the public interest to act swiftly in advance of criminal proceedings. There are full rights of appeal in that process. Secondly, disciplinary hearings are conducted by an assistant chief constable with two superintendents or, if the accused is a superintendent, two more assistant chief constables. Thirdly, the civil as opposed to the criminal standard of proof now applies.
Fourthly, greater powers now exist to hold a hearing in the absence of an accused officer. The hearing can now proceed in his or her absence. Fifthly, a two-stage appeal system has been established. A review by the chief constable is available to all officers, after which there is an appeal to a police appeals tribunal, set up by the relevant police authority, for those officers punished with dismissal, requirement to resign or reduction in rank. There is no involvement by the Home Secretary, who was the former appellate authority. I hope that the proposals concerning complaints that we are currently considering and the new police disciplinary procedures that I have described and which came into effect on 1 April 1999 will help to deal with processing problems. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome several of the changes that we have made.
200WH
In general, I should like to think that hard-core corruption is still relatively rare, but that must not make us complacent. By its nature, it is difficult to detect and evidence can be very hard to gather. We must do everything possible to guard against it in the first place. However, when it does occur, corruption creeps almost imperceptibly through an organisation. It can take many forms, which is why it is necessary to deal with it quickly and firmly and why the changes that my hon. Friend advocates in general are ones to which the Government are sympathetic.
The majority of police officers are honest, dedicated and hard working and they deserve public trust and respect for the difficult and dangerous tasks that are demanded of them. We have the job, however, of dealing with the small minority of officers whose behaviour taints the reputation of the police service as a whole. Some areas of policing are more prone to corruption than others. For example, vice, drugs, licensing and other matters where the police exercise regulatory powers associated with extraordinarily large sums of money and high levels of financial temptation are particular areas of concern. It remains fundamentally the case that all officers have a choice to decide how to conduct themselves in such circumstances, and I am pleased that the overall majority of officers faced with that choice behave in the best traditions of the force and the British justice system.
Two reports published in June 1999 by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and the Home Office were regarded as important contributions to the continuing debate on integrity and corruption. They have given us a better understanding of how to prevent and detect corruption. The Association of Chief Police Officers has been particularly active in that area. In 1998, it established a presidential task force to tackle corruption. It issued guidance covering policy for professional standards reporting, a corruption prevention strategy, a toolkit to assess the vulnerability of forces to corruption and guidance for investigations. That is being carried through extremely energetically.
We recognise and support the action in general taken by the Metropolitan police and, for the reasons that I have outlined, I believe that we can have confidence in the force. Like his predecessor, the Commissioner is determined to tackle corruption in the Metropolitan police. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, corruption in the Metropolitan police is dealt with by its Complaints Investigation Bureau, CIB3, whose role is to investigate allegations of serious corruption. It is now firmly established.
In December 1998, the then Commissioner launched the Metropolitan police's corruption and dishonesty prevention strategy with six strands: prevention and detection; inclusion; focus and accountability; supervision and leadership; security, screening and vetting; and corruption and dishonesty proofing. I welcome the Commissioner's commitment to rid the Metropolitan police of corruption. I fully support his efforts to prevent corruption, to seek it out and to eradicate it. I commit myself to considering carefully my hon. Friend's points and believe that the measures that we have already taken on discipline and those that we

201WH
shall take with regard to the complaints procedure will help to establish a process in which we can be truly confident.
Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to mislead the Chamber. I said that Mr. Hayman had invited me to a security briefing
202WH
but, I want to make it clear that it was the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police who invited me to a security briefing with Hayman. However, that was still wrong in my view.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter on a point of order.
It being One o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Racism
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many prosecutions there have been for incitement to racial hatred in each of the past three years; and what proportion of those prosecutions have led to convictions. [134530]

  The Solicitor-General
  In 1998 there was one prosecution for offences of incitement to racial hatred under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986—this resulted in a conviction. In 1999 there were five defendants charged—three of these were convicted. There are currently three existing prosecutions involving such offences.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  12000

  No consent applications

  12

  2

  5

  3

  Withdrawn

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Not granted

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Prosecuted

  10

  5

  5

  3

  Convicted

  9

  3

  3

  2—

  1To date

  2Results awaited

HEALTH

  Hospital Food
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the quality of food in general hospitals in England and Wales.[134747]

  Ms Stuart
  Research has shown, and patients have told me, that in some hospitals the quality of food is not up to the standard that patients expect. The NHS Plan sets out a programme of work to improve the standard of hospital food:A 24-hour National Health Service catering service with a new NHS Menu, designed by leading chefs. It will cover continental breakfast, cold drinks and snacks at mid-morning and in the afternoon, light lunchtime meals and an improved two-course evening dinner. This will be a minimum standard for all hospitals;
  A national franchise for NHS catering will be examined to ensure hospital food is provided by organisations with a national reputation for high quality and customer satisfaction;
  Half of all hospitals will have new "ward housekeepers" in place by 2004 to ensure that the quality, presentation and quantity of meals meet patient needs; that patients, particularly elderly people, are able to eat meals on offer; and that the service patients receive is genuinely available round the clock;
  Dieticians will advise and check on nutritional values in hospital food. Patients' views will be measured as part of the Performance Assessment Framework and there will be unannounced inspections of the quality of hospital food.
  336W
  Patient environment action teams, comprising NHS professionals and patient representatives, are now visiting all acute hospitals as part of my initiative to improve the environment for patients, this includes looking at food services and seeking views from patients.

  Work is progressing on all elements of this programme.

  Drug-related Illnesses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated annual cost is to the NHS of treating people with drug-related illnesses.[134746]

  Ms Stuart
  In 1999–2000, the drug misuse special allocation to health authorities for the treatment of drug misuse was £59 million. Local authorities received £3 million through the drug and alcohol special grant for the same purpose. However, through the drug action team templates, health and local authorities report actual expenditure in excess of these levels. In 1998–99, the template indicated that £150.7 million was spent on drugs misuse treatment, inclusive of the special allocation and grant.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he next plans to meet the Chairman and members of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to discuss their decision on not prescribing beta interferon; [1347511)

  (2) what was the cost basis on which NICE made its decision not to allow the prescribing of beta interferon; [134738]

  (3) if he will refer back to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence their decision on the non-prescribing of beta interferon. [134740]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has not yet published its final guidance on beta interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis and it would not be appropriate to pre-empt what the final guidance might say.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the savings in social security benefits and local authority care costs that would arise if beta interferon were prescribed to those patients who might benefit.[134739]

  Mr. Denham
  No. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is conducting a thorough appraisal on beta interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis and has not yet completed its work.

  Aricept
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that Aricept and related drugs may be prescribed for Alzheimer's disease. [135063]

  Mr. Denham
  We have asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to conduct an appraisal of Aricept and other related drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. We expect NICE to issue guidance in December 2000.

  correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 16 August on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Sturman. [135791]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: A letter was sent to the right hon. Member on 30 October.

  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 18 September regarding a constituent (reference POH(4)5608/55). [135456]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 27 October.

  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 29 August (reference POH(4)5608/52). [135458]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 30 October.

  Intermediate Care
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how his Department defines intermediate care. [135836]

  Mr. Hutton
  The term 'intermediate care' describes a range of multi disciplinary, multi agency services designed to promote independence and improve quality of care, particularly for older people. The aims of intermediate care are to:Prevent avoidable hospital admission
  Facilitate timely discharge from hospital, with an emphasis on active rehabilitation
  Minimise premature or avoidable dependence on long term institutional care.

  Intermediate care encompasses a wide range of service models and can be provided in a range of settings. These services can be provided in community-based settings or in the people's own homes, but may also be provided in step-down facilities within acute hospitals. The most intensive forms of rehabilitation should typically be provided in hospital.

  Infant Mortality Rates
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the infant mortality rates were in each of the last 10 years for(a) Taunton constituency and (b) Somerset health authority. [134314]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Jackie Ballard, dated 31 October 2000:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking for the infant mortality rates in each of the last 10 years for Taunton constituency and Somerset Health Authority. I am replying in his absence. (134314)
  338W
  The figures are shown in the attached table. The rates (particularly those for Taunton constituency, which are calculated from fewer than 20 deaths) may be unreliable due to the small number of events and should be treated cautiously. Any variation they show over time, or difference from national or health authority rates are likely to be due to change.

  Infant mortality numbers and rates for Somerset HA and Taunton

  parliamentary constituency, 1990–99

  REGYR1

  Number

  Rate2

  Somerset HA

  1990

  34

  6.1

  1991

  25

  4.4

  1992

  28

  5.0

  1993

  32

  5.8

  1994

  32

  5.9

  1995

  17

  3.2

  1996

  22

  4.2

  1997

  24

  4.5

  1998

  25

  4.7

  1999

  23

  4.6

  Taunton constituency

  1990

  4

  3.4

  1991

  7

  5.7

  1992

  5

  4.3

  1993

  5

  4.3

  1994

  6

  5.3

  1995

  3

  2.8

  1996

  3

  2.7

  1997

  1

  1.0

  1998

  3

  2.8

  1999

  7

  7.1

  1Registration year

  2Per 1,000 live births

CABINET OFFICE

  Knowledge Network
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the report of phase one of the Knowledge Network will be made publicly available. [136034]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Knowledge Network Phase 1 Report will be published on the Cabinet Office website. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Services Productivity
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what surveys have been undertaken by the Public Services Productivity Panel. [135461]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  To date, 13 reports have been published by the Public Services Productivity Panel. They are available on the Panel's website: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pspp/

  A brief description of the published reports follows:

  1. "Meeting the challenge: a joint report by the Public Services Productivity Panel"—brings together the main findings from the Productivity Panel's first 12 studies. High quality performance management is identified as an essential feature of any high-performing organisation. The report outlines a simple, integrated framework that managers can use to engineer a step-change in their organisation's productivity.

  339W

  2. "Variations in outpatient performance"—sets out a comprehensive strategy for improving waiting times for consultant appointments through a combination of improved management, long-term planning and new booking systems.

  3. "Customers in the driving seat?"—reviews the quality of customer services in three of the large transport agencies. It sets out a number of practical recommendations that would be of interest to all public sector organisations that want to improve their front-line services to customers.

  4. "Incentives for change"—examines performance incentives for the 150,000 front-line staff who work in the Benefits Agency, HM Customs and Excise, the Employment Service and the Inland Revenue. The report contains a wealth of comparative data on how performance is rewarded and incentivised across both the public and private sectors.

  5. "Targeting improved performance"—reviews the performance management systems of the Defence Logistics Organisation against a model developed by the Productivity Panel. This model has since been adopted by the Civil Service Management Board for use throughout the civil service.

  6. "Improving police performance"—identifies a new way to measure the efficiency of the police using information that is already collected by the police service. The report outlines a means by which police forces can better understand their relative strengths and weaknesses and thus fits within the framework of the Best Value initiative.

  7. "Refocusing performance management"—reports on work with staff in the Energy Group of the DTI to refresh its performance management system by demonstrating how a model developed by the Productivity Panel can be applied in a complex public sector organisation.

  8. "Sold on health"—sets out a new national framework for the management of the NHS estate that is designed to root out surplus estate, accelerate sales and cut red tape. The approach can generate additional finance and free up resources to increase the focus on patient care.

  9. "Working in partnership"—tackles the issue of achieving joined-up working at a local level, particularly through developing joint IT systems, by highlighting the key issues that organisations need to address as they plan across organisational boundaries. The report includes a simple self-assessment tool which other public services can apply.

  10. "Out in the open"—proposes improvements to the commissioning of services for older people. It demonstrates how efficiency gains can be achieved by developing care services that move away from reliance on expensive, and often inappropriate, residential and nursing care.

  11. "Putting your house in order"—looks at how to get best value for tenants from the £4 billion invested each year in improvements to social housing stock. It recommends engaging tenants in setting priorities, ensuring structural improvements are linked to social objectives and creating partnerships between tenants, landlords and contractors.

  12. "Maximising value for money"—examines the role of the Strategic Outline Case as an important element of planning for information systems and change management initiatives that involve a large number of stakeholders, are novel, risky and complex, or where the objectives and scope may be ill-defined.

  13. "Effective reporting in education"—looks at how performance reporting arrangements in schools and further education colleges could be further developed to support the Government's radical agenda for raising standards in education and training. It recommends focusing performance reporting on key targets, reporting on planned improvement in those key areas, and identifying patterns of good practice.

DEFENCE

  HMS Olna and HMS Olwen
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the length of time will be between the withdrawal from service with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary of HMS Olna and HMS Olwen, and their replacement by two new vessels. [134931]

  Dr. Moonie
  The planned length of time between the withdrawal from Royal Fleet Auxiliary service of RFA Olna, on 3 November 2000, and the In-Service date of her replacement of RFA Wave Ruler, in September 2002, will be 23 months. The planned length of time between the withdrawal of RFA Olwen on 19 September 2000 and the In-Service date of her replacement RFA Wave Knight in February 2002, will be 18 months.

  Argentina
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on military relations with Argentina. [134959]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom has a successful defence relationship with Argentina. We conduct annual defence contact talks, at which we agree an extensive defence contacts programme. This year's programme consists of over 50 items, including places on each other's training courses; ship and aircraft visits; exchanges of defence personnel and several visits by senior military officers. I visited Buenos Aires in March this year, and the Argentine Defence Minister, Sir Ricardo Lopez-Murphy, visited the UK as a guest of the British Government in July.

  Russia
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what areas there is co-operation between the military forces of the United Kingdom and Russia. [134963]

  Mr. Hoon
  We look forward to engaging Russia in a meaningful defence relationship. We made good progress towards that objective in 1997 and 1998. But since 1999, the only significant activity that has continued unabated is a programme to re-train Russian servicemen who are about to retire.

  Earlier this year, the Russians indicated that they are willing to re-commence a bilateral defence relationship with us. I welcome this and we have taken steps to re-establish the relationship. This must, clearly, be part and parcel of the UK's overall relationship with Russia and must therefore take account of the situation in Chechnya. This is why our approach is one of critical engagement.

  On the operational front, Russian forces continue to work effectively with KFOR troops in Kosovo. Bilateral co-operation is resuming in a number of areas. The Naval co-operation programme includes personnel exchanges, ship visits, exercises at sea and the exchange of doctrine and operating practices. Resumption of the programme was supported during the Naval Staff talks held in June and

  341W
  efforts to re-establish links are progressing, albeit slowly. Nevertheless, HMS Sheffield visited St. Petersburg in July and HMS Newcastle and HMS Cornwall visited Vladivostok in August.

  We have also contributed a total of 11 officers from across the Services to attend three-month long United Nations Military Observer courses run by the Russians at the Vystrel Training Academy outside Moscow. Exchange visits between 20 Squadron RAF and the Russian 174 Fighter Regiment in Monchegorsk continue the ongoing affiliation between these two units. Elsewhere, there is Russian participation at various military seminars and courses in the United Kingdom organised as part of the Outreach programme.

  Royal Navy Submarines
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the disposal of Royal Navy submarines not powered by nuclear reactors. [134928]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend Lord Robertson, the then Secretary of State for Defence, gave on 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 57W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) and to the answer I gave on 23 October 2000, Official Report, column 30W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). Canada has acquired the four ex-Royal Navy Upholder class submarines, which are powered by diesel-electric engines. The acquisition takes the form of an eight-year lease with an option of outright purchase.

  The first of the submarines was handed over to Canada on 6 October 2000 and the three remaining submarines will follow over the next 18 months.

  There are no other Royal Navy submarine exports.

  Recruitment Policy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how recruitment policy for the armed forces will be affected by the incorporation into UK law of the European Convention on Human Rights. [135159]

  Mr. Spellar
  The incorporation into UK law of the European Convention on Human Rights on 2 October 2000 will not affect recruitment policy into the armed forces.

  War Graves
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the war graves located within the Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency. [135059]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission who have responsibility for the maintenance in perpetuity of war graves from the two World Wars. However, I will arrange for the Commission to be informed of this request and ask that they respond with the necessary information direct, and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposals by the War Graves Commission to cut overseas allowances. [135047]
  342W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is an autonomous body subject to Royal Charter and as such has responsibility for formulating its own pay and allowance system, which includes a package of allowances to help cover the additional costs (for UK-recruited staff) of living abroad.

  The changes are not the result of any reduction in funding by the UK Government; the Ministry of Defence will continue to contribute to the Commission in proportion to its number of war graves and there are no plans to reduce the current contribution of £23 million. The Government will ensure, in conjunction with the Commission, that the highest standards in tending war graves will be maintained and that our war dead will continue to be afforded the utmost respect.

  The Commission has announced that they have decided to hold an independent review of the allowances. There will be full consultation with the staff and their representatives. Any changes will be delayed until the review has been completed. Baroness Dean of Thorton-le-Fylde has agreed to conduct the review; it would be inappropriate to comment further until the review has concluded.

  Ionospheric Research
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the environmental effects of ionospheric research; and if he will make a statement. [134230]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: My Department has undertaken no such assessment. However, we are not aware of any evidence that would point to significant environmental damage as a result of ionospheric research projects undertaken for the Department.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Panel's investigation into the local, global and public health risks of ionospheric research. [134235]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: My Department has not contributed to any investigation by the Scientific and Technological Options Assessments Panel of the European Parliament into the local, global and public health risks of ionospheric research.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the ionospheric research projects in which his Department is involved, stating in each case(a) the number of personnel involved, (b) the duration of the project and (c) the yearly and total project cost to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [134229]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The table provides the information requested in respect of two ionospheric research projects. I am withholding information on other ionospheric research projects undertaken for the Department under Exemption 1 (Defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Access to Government Information.
  343W

  Ionospheric research projects funded by MOD

  Title

  Number of staff

  Duration

  Year

  Cost £000

  Development of Non-linear Solar Geophysical Prediction Techniques and an online demonstrator system

  2.0

  April 1998–March 2001

  1998–99

  120

  1999–2000

  120

  12000–01

  120

  Total

  360

  Specification of Atmospheric and Ionospheric Refractivity using the COSMIC satellite constellation

  1.25

  October 1999–September 2002

  1998–99

  80

  1999–2000

  160

  2000–01

  150

  2001–02

  70

  Total

  460

  1Estimate

  Research Programmes
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to(a) the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme and (b) the European Incoherent Scatter Radar Project, stating in each case the (i) nature, (ii) duration and (iii) purpose of the contribution, including how many staff were attached to the projects and what financial support was given. [134231]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: My Department has not contributed to these projects.

  Military Remains
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the recent contacts he has had with representatives of the Survivors Association for HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales. [135140]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: My Department has received a substantial amount of correspondence from the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse Survivors Association.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish his conclusion on the report into whether the sites of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse should be designated under the provisions of the protection of the Military Remains Act 1986. [135074]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his actions to protect HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales as war graves. [135139]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: A review of policy on wrecked military vessels is being undertaken at present. I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House when the review is complete.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total value of the contracts awarded is for the design of the future generation of aircraft carriers. [133600]
  344W
  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 269W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg).

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the changes will be made to the armed forces pension scheme to introduce pensions for life for armed forces attributable widows. [135938]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am very pleased to announce that the amendments to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme have now been approved with an effective date of 31 October 2000. This means that those in receipt of an attributable armed forces widow(er)'s pension will keep their pension should they remarry or begin to cohabit on or after this date.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former employees of his Department and the armed forces have a position on the board of directors at British Aerospace. [135480]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: There are no former employees of the Ministry of Defence currently on the Board of BAE Systems. However, two individuals who have previously worked in the Ministry of Defence on secondment from BAE, one during the 1980s and the other in the 1990s, are now members of the BAE Systems Board.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the costs have been to date of the UK training teams deployed in Sierra Leone under Operation Basilica. [135922]

  Mr. Hoon
  There have been three Short Term Training Teams deployed in Sierra Leone working with the Sierra Leone Army. The cost so far has been some £1.9 million. In addition equipment has been provided to the SLA worth a further £1.6 million.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops have been deployed under the UN from each country in Sierra Leone; what the timetable plan has
  345W
  been for their deployment in each case; and what the numbers and timetable are for future deployment for each country's troops. [135923]

  Mr. Hoon
  The latest figures we have for the number of troops deployed in support of UNAMSIL are as follows:

  Country

  Number

  Nigeria

  3,201

  Kenya

  878

  Ghana

  774

  India

  3,059

  Guinea

  777

  Jordan

  1,825

  Zambia

  777

  Bangladesh

  780

  Russia

  112

  The numbers fluctuate on a daily basis as individuals in each contingent move in and out of the country. In addition, there are 260 UN Military Observers deployed in support of UNAMSIL from a variety of countries including the UK.

  The deployment timetable for these troops, and any future troops, is an issue for the United Nations.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit (Wirral)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were on Incapacity Benefit in Wirral Metropolitan Authority for each of the past three years. [134737]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Social Security is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Alexis Cleveland. She will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Frank Field, dated 30 October 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people were on Incapacity Benefit in Wirral Metropolitan Authority for each of the past three years.
  Information is recorded on the total number of constituents claiming Incapacity Benefit at Birkenhead Office, which covers the Wirral Metropolitan Authority. The number of customers receiving Incapacity Benefit, including Credits only cases, from Birkenhead Office is 21,000 at 31 May 1998, 20,700 at 31 May 1999 and 19,600 at 31 May 2000.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefits (ACT)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what advice he has received from his Department's auditors on the risk of duplicated payment by automated credit transfer re-occurring; [134759]
  346W
  (2) what changes his Department (a) has made and (b) is planning to make, to the use of automated credit transfer, following the duplication of payments to claimants of Income Support; [134757]

  (3) what measures he is taking to ensure that staff comply fully with procedures for paying benefit by automated credit transfer. [134758]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of benefit payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Frank Field, dated 30 October 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what advice was received from Departmental Auditors on risk of duplicated payment by Automated Credit Transfer (ACT) re-occurring; what changes the Department (a) has made and (b) is planning to make, to the use of ACT, following the duplication of payments to claimants of Income Support (IS); and what measures have been taken to ensure that staff comply fully with procedures for paying benefit by ACT.
  In March, Benefits Agency Internal Audit issued their report on the IS Duplicate Payment Incident. The report contained thirteen recommendations and the assessment of the potential for a re-occurrence of the incidence was included in the Management Summary, which stated:
  "The implementation of the recommendations contained within the report will help strengthen controls and reduce the risk of such a problem occurring again. Action is already in hand on many of these. It is recognised, however, that compliance with laid down procedures within the payment production process is also essential in the prevention of future incidents. Where there is non-compliance…the risk of errors increases dramatically".
  A programme of activity to implement the recommendations has been undertaken. To date, we have introduced a number of system controls that, if a similar incident occurred, would halt further processing, thus preventing duplicate payments.
  A system change has been implemented within the 'Common Payments Package', which now prevents the creation of a partial file. The IS incident involved the creation of a partial file.
  Electronic Data Systems (EDS) provide the delivery of our IT services, their Code Products team, have implemented improved controls during the 'Autobacs' procedure. 'Autobacs' is a piece of EDS software that formats the ACT files prior to the handover to Bankers Automated Clearing Service (BACS), the ACT clearing service.
  The DSS Accounts Payable Central Control Unit has been established. The unit carries out daily monitoring to assure the integrity of benefit payment and accounting data. Following each IS ACT overnight batch process, this team would immediately identify any payments which could not be properly accounted for.
  In addition, the following improvements are planned:
  A generic requirement has been issued to EDS that DSS benefit system controllers receive positive assurance that ACT payment data, supplied by each separate benefit system has been successfully received before payment processing commences.
  The Bank Liaison Sections, who provide the administrative support throughout the calculation and production of ACT payments, are currently based in several regions of the country, working to a specific benefit. The intention is to centralise these sections into one area by March 2001; this will facilitate the identification of best practices resulting in more accurate application of checking procedures.

  347W
  Alongside of all this activity, a review of all processes and procedures associated with Bank Liaison work has been undertaken. Guidance is being amended to provide a uniform standard for all staff to follow. Mandatory security and accuracy checks have been incorporated to assess performance.
  As you will be aware the government intends to move all customers to payment by ACT starting in 2003, this programme requires an extensive review of all ACT procedures, which is currently underway. The lessons learnt from the IS incident will be incorporated into any plans to support the move to ACT.
  These actions represent a substantial tightening of procedures to ensure that the original incident could not be repeated.
  I am sorry that this is a somewhat technical reply but I hope it is helpful.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps are being taken to recover the outstanding sums resulting from the duplicate payments of Income Support by automated credit transfer; [134755]

  (2) how much money overpaid by means of duplicate payment of Income Support by automated credit transfer has been written off. [134756]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Frank Field, dated 30 October 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what steps are being taken to recover the outstanding sums resulting from the duplicate payments of Income Support by automated credit transfer, and how much money overpaid by means of duplicate payment of Income Support by automated credit transfer has been written off.
  I believe your question refers to the overpayments which took place on the 17th and 18th January this year which resulted in 112,000 customers being overpaid a total of £10.5 million.
  Overpayments of this type are classed as overprovisions of benefit and are recoverable under common law and the Secretary of State has a duty to seek recovery of such overpayments where cost effective to do so.
  Recovery procedures follow guidance as provided in Government Accounting.
  To date, none of the overpayments have been written-off. However, repayment was not requested where the amount paid was less than £5, or from the estates of those who had died before the request could be issued.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the causes of the failure of batch runs of payments of income support by automated credit transfer on 12 January 2000; [134760]

  (2) how many duplicate payments of income support were made using automated credit transfer; and between which dates they occurred; [134754]

  (3) how much money was recently overpaid by duplicate automated credit transfer payments of income support. [134753]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of benefit payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my right hon. Friend.
  348W
  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Frank Field, dated 30 October 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking if he will list the causes of the failure of batch runs of payments of Income Support by automated credit transfer on 12 January 2000, how many duplicate payments of Income Support were made using automated credit transfer, between which dates they occurred, and how much money was overpaid by the duplicate automated credit transfer payments of Income Support.
  I refer you to the Written Answer given to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). Official Report volume 343, columns 471 to 472, in relation to the question of the causes for the duplicate batch payments of Income Support using Automated Credit Transfer.
  Immediately after the incident steps were taken to enhance the Income Support Computer System to ensure that similar processing problems did not recur. A full review of the situation has been carried out, and confirms that these enhancements have successfully negated further problems.
  The Secretary of State has a duty to seek recovery under common law where an overpayment has arisen outside the provisions of Sections 71 and 74 of the Administration Act 1992. Recovery under common law has been a feature of the social security system since its inception.
  Benefits Accounting (BAB) estimate that over 80% of the 10.5 million should be recovered.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average processing time is for attendance allowance for(a) first-time claims and (b) appeals for claims to be reconsidered. [134551]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Attendance Allowance is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, who will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. David Willets, dated 30 October 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what the average processing time is for Attendance Allowance (AA) for (a) first time claims and (b) appeals for claims to be reconsidered.
  For the period April to September 2000 the actual average clearance time for new and repeat claims was 34 days. The clearance time for reconsiderations was 54 days.
  New procedures for assessing claims for Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance were introduced last year to improve the accuracy of decisions on entitlement. Customers can now receive clearer explanations of decisions on their benefit entitlement. Initially these changes led to significant increases in the time it took to process each case which, together with a growing caseload, created a temporary backlog of work. This has been tackled as a priority and, as decision-makers have become accustomed to the new procedures, the backlog has now been cleared.
  I hope this information is helpful

  Pensioners (Benefit Overpayments)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he has issued to the Benefits

  349W
  Agency about its approach to cases in which pensioners on benefits, unbeknown to them and to the Agency, have been over-paid for 12 months or more. [134380]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. John Bercow, dated 30 October 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your Parliamentary Question asking what guidance he has issued to the Benefits Agency about its approach to cases in which pensioners on benefits unbeknown to them and to the Agency have been over-paid for 12 months or more.
  The Overpayments Recovery Guide is an internally produced manual available to staff dealing with overpayments of benefit. It provides general advice to staff on how to proceed once an overpayment has been identified, dealing with issues such as the classification of the overpayment, for example, mistake by the customer, official error, and special age and welfare considerations.
  It has always been our policy to recover overpayments as quickly and as effectively as possible, without causing undue financial hardship to our customers.
  The decision whether an overpayment is recoverable is normally made by a decision-maker. In cases where an overpayment is caused by misrepresentation or failure to disclose a material fact Section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 allows the recovery of that overpayment. Recovery is sought whenever it is appropriate to do so. The decision automatically provides a right of appeal on the grounds of whether there has been misrepresentation or failure to disclose and the amount determined. This legislation covers the vast majority of the overpayments we try to recover.
  However, in some cases we may seek to recover overpayments that fall outside the scope of Section 71. Typically, repayment may be requested where a person has been paid over and above the amount authorised; for example, where someone has been paid twice for the same period.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Income Support
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have been awarded Income Support since 1 May; how many pensioners were awarded Income Support in the same period in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [135667]

  Mr. Bayley
  Between May and September over 137,800 successful claims to the Minimum Income Guarantee have been received. Over 101,900 successful claims were received for the equivalent period in 1999.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have applied(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully for the Minimum Income Guarantee since the start of the take-up campaign (i) in total and (ii) in each Benefit Agency area. [135653]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table. The table excludes those cases which are currently being processed.

  Number of successful and unsuccessful Minimum Income

  Guarantee (MIG) claims received in each Benefits Agency (BA)

  area

  Area

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Total

  East London and Anglia

  2,086

  1,937

  4,023

  Chilterns

  1,741

  1,558

  3,299

  London South

  2,915

  2,820

  5,735

  350W

  Number of successful and unsuccessful Minimum Income

  Guarantee (MIG) claims received in each Benefits Agency (BA)

  area

  Area

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Total

  West Country

  2,400

  2,261

  4,661

  Mercia

  2,216

  1,988

  4,204

  West Midlands

  1,904

  1,565

  3,469

  Wales

  1,538

  1,761

  3,299

  North West Coast

  1,740

  1,637

  3,377

  Greater Manchester

  1,684

  1,468

  3,152

  Yorkshire

  2,174

  2,039

  4,213

  Tyne Tees

  1,435

  1,374

  2,809

  West of Scotland

  1,485

  1,349

  2,834

  East of Scotland

  1,428

  1,231

  2,659

  Total

  24,746

  22,988

  47,734

  Note:

  Figures exclude Northern Ireland

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners, in each region, are entitled to extra financial assistance through the minimum income guarantee, but are not receiving it; and if he will make a statement. [135749]

  Mr. Bayley
  We estimate that about 500,000 pensioners are missing out on their entitlement within Great Britain. This information is not available on a regional basis.

  Free Television Licence Scheme
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the funding of the over 75s' free television licence scheme. [136146]

  Mr. Rooker
  In his pre-budget statement on 9 November 1999, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that, from autumn 2000, every pensioner aged 75 or over will receive their television licence free of charge. The over 75s' free television licence scheme will be introduced from 1 November 2000 and the cost of this concession will be met from public funds, via payments by the Department of Social Security to the BBC.

  The Amendment (Cm 4797), dated 3 July 2000, to the Agreement (Cm 3152), dated 25 January 1996, between the predecessor of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation was laid before Parliament and approved by way of an affirmative resolution on 6 July. Under the Amendment the Secretary of State for Social Security undertakes to pay the Corporation (out of moneys provided by Parliament) a sum or sums equivalent to the moneys foregone by the Corporation in issuing free television licences together with an additional sum or sums in respect of the administrative costs arising from the issue of such licences.

  Parliamentary approval of this expenditure will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for the Housing benefit subsidies, council tax benefit subsidies and administration, payments into the National Insurance Fund and Social Fund and other grants vote (Class XII, Vote 2). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £348 million will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.
  351W
  The advance will be repaid from Class XII, Vote 2 when Parliament has approved the Supplementary Estimate.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the proposed advertising campaign on stakeholder pensions will begin; how much he estimates it will cost; and how long it is planned to last. [134531]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department is not planning a specific campaign on Stakeholder Pensions. The Department will continue its pensions education marketing activity from January 2001. The campaign aims to communicate basic impartial information about pensions, and to explain the new wider range of pensions options available, so that people can make informed decisions about their pensions arrangements. The first wave of advertising is planned to run from January to March of next year. It will cost in the region of £4.8 million.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the local authorities which he deems to have administered housing benefit incorrectly. [134512]

  Angela Eagle
  The standard of performance in local authorities which have been inspected by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) has been found to be variable. As at 31 October 2000 the BFI has completed 74 inspections of local authorities and the published reports are available in the Library.

  Vaccine Damage
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to raise the level of payments under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979; and if he will make a statement. [135447]

  Mr. Bayley
  On 27 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that he intended to increase the Vaccine Damage Payment to £100,000. Regulations were laid shortly after and the new rate is now effective for new claims made on or after 22 July this year. We have no plans to raise the level of payment further.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the annual cost would be of extending Winter Fuel Payments to those under the age of 60 now in receipt of the middle or higher rate of Disability Living Allowance care component or higher rate of mobility component. [135839]

  Angela Eagle
  It is estimated that the extension of Winter Fuel Payments to recipients of Disability Living Allowance higher or middle rate care component or higher rate mobility component would cost around £150 million in the winter of 2000–01.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Portcullis House
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make filing cabinets available to hon. Members accommodated in Portcullis House. [134325]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 238W.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make a statement on recent media reports concerning Portcullis House. [135913]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  I am pleased to have this opportunity to correct some of the misleading, or inaccurate, comments and articles made by the media about Portcullis House. During the summer, my Committee was encouraged to see in the technical press and elsewhere the positive response to the building from construction professionals and commentators. This was to be expected given the fine quality of the design and the technical achievements in the construction of the building. However, as I have said, a number of unfounded or inaccurate claims have been made or repeated from earlier reports. Hon. Members may find the following facts helpful to know.

  The building has been constructed on time and within budget. The construction period agreed by the House of Commons Commission in 1993 was 30 months. Construction started on 5 January 1998 and the certificate of practical completion issued on 18 August 2000, including the additions to the brief. The budget approved by the Commission in 1993 was £165 million plus building cost inflation between then and the start of construction works and £9 million for the delay caused by the late handover of the site from London Underground. Against this total of £237 million the forecast outturn cost is £231 million.

  The oft-quoted cost of "£1 million per hon. Member" is simplistic. It totally ignores the fact that at least an equal number of staff will be employed in hon. Members' offices and that two of the floors (one third of the building) provide Select Committee, conference and other communal facilities for the benefit of all 659 hon. Members, particularly those 450 now with offices north of Bridge Street.

  There are no plans to spend £0.5 million on buffing up the roof and fenestration. Nor is £200,000 being spent on further planting.

  The reception desk in the main entrance did not cost £75,000, nor the preposterous £300,000 as reported more recently. The figure of £75,000 is the cost of a "package", which includes the main reception desk, the security desk at the subway entrance and the security enclosure at the main entrance area.

  Hiring trees such as those in the courtyard is a normal commercial arrangement. The cost includes their care and maintenance and requires the nurseryman to replace at no additional cost any that do not thrive. The trees are not purely decorative. The shading will reduce the amount of

  353W
  cooling needed in the summer, contributing to the energy efficiency of the building. Despite reports to the contrary, the trees are not dying. The trees were distressed having been uprooted and a significant leaf fall was expected, particularly during the first few weeks. There will always be some loss of leaf, but we are advised they will fully recover.

  The closure of the building after the basement flooded was a short-lived and precautionary measure lasting some four hours only. Torrential rain on 15 September coincided with a high tide. As a result, storm water backed up flooding a lightwell in an adjacent building, which overflowed through a ventilation duct into the basement, entering an electrical substation. Only four hon. Members had by then moved into the building, none of whom was inconvenienced, and the programme of moves continued on schedule without interruption.

  At least three timekeeping devices have been provided in hon. Members' and their staffs rooms—on the annunciators, the telephones and personal computers.

  Hon. Members require both storage and work surfaces. The most effective way to meet both requirements is to provide storage under the work surfaces using two or three-drawer pedestals. Filing and storage space is provided also in the joinery walls.

  It is not the practice to comment on the implications of any alleged security lapses; suffice it to say that the reported four-inch gap near the main entrance door is due to a capping piece being awaited and, contrary to irresponsible reports, the appropriate authorities did not raise any matters of concern.

  Neither feng-shui nor space utilisation experts have been used on the project.

  Marble has not been used in the building. The wall and ceilings of the offices are plain concrete.

  The easy chairs provided in some hon. Members' offices do not have a "snooze control" facility.

  Over 150 hon. Members and their staff have now moved into the building. The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. It is inevitable, however, that in a project of this size there will be some teething troubles. To date these have been minor and will be dealt with under the Parliamentary Works Directorate's normal defects and maintenance programme.

  Westminster Hall
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the hon. and right hon. Members who have initiated debates in Westminster Hall since its inception, stating the number of debates initiated by each Member. [132841]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [pursuant to her reply, 27 July 2000, c. 811W–13W]: I regret that the information provided was incorrect. Revised figures from the beginning of the Session to 26 July are as follows. It does not include Government adjournment debates or debates on Select Committee reports.

  Ms Diane Abbott—1

  Mr. Richard Allan—1

  Mr. David Amess—5

  Mr. Peter Atkinson—1

  354W

  Mr. Norman Baker—1

  Ms Jackie Ballard—2

  Miss Anne Begg—1

  Mr. Martin Bell—1

  Mr. A. J. Beith—3

  Mr. Tony Benn—1

  Mr. Bob Blizzard—2

  Mr. Crispin Blunt—1

  Sir Richard Body—1

  Mr. Peter Bottomley—1

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley—1

  Mr. Peter Bradley—1

  Mr. Graham Brady—2

  Mr. Tom Brake—7

  Dr. Peter Brand—2

  Mr. Colin Breed—2

  Ms Helen Brinton—1

  Mr. Desmond Browne—1

  Mrs. Angela Browning—1

  Ms Karen Buck—1

  Mr. Paul Burstow—1

  Dr. Vincent Cable—4

  Mr. Alan Campbell—1

  Mrs. Anne Campbell—1

  Mr. William Cash—1

  Mr. David Chaytor—4

  Mr. Christopher Chope—1

  Mr. Michael Clapham—1

  Mr. Tom Clarke—2

  Ms Ann Clwyd—1

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown—3

  Mr. Vernon Coaker—1

  Mr. Harry Cohen—2

  Mr. Iain Coleman—1

  Mr. Tony Colma—2

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn—3

  Mr. Jim Cousins—1

  Mr. Tom Cox—3

  Mr. Tam Dalyell—3

  Mr. Edward Davey—1

  Mrs. Valerie Davey—1

  Mr. David Davis—2

  Mr. Hilton Dawson—2

  Mr. Andrew Dismore—1

  Mr. Frank Dobson—1

  Mr. David Drew—5

  Ms Julia Drown—2

  Mr. Alan Duncan—1

  Mr. Clive Efford—1

  Sir Peter Emery—1

  Mr. Jeff Enniss—1

  Mr. Nigel Evans—1

  Mr. Michael Fabricant—2

  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick—1

  Mr. Howard Flight—1

  Mr. Paul Flynn—2

  Mrs. Maria Fyfe—1

  Mr. Barry Gardiner—2

  Mr. Andrew George—2

  355W

  Mr. Neil Gerrard—1

  Dr. Ian Gibson—3

  Mr. Christopher Gill—3

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan—1

  Mrs. Teresa Gorman—1

  Mr. Win Griffiths—1

  Mr. Patrick Hall—1

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton—1

  Mr. Phil Hammond—2

  Dr. Evan Harris—2

  Mr. David Heath—2

  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins—2

  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle—2

  Mr. Simon Hughes—2

  Mr. Andrew Hunter—02

  Dr. Brian Iddon—2

  Mr. Eric Illsley—3

  Ms. Helen Jackson—1

  Ms. Jenny Jones—1

  Ms. Helen Jones—1

  Dr. Lynne Jones—1

  Ms. Sally Keeble—1

  Miss. Julie Kirkbride—2

  Dr. Ashok Kumar—2

  Dr. Stephen Ladyman—1

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait—1

  Mr. Edward Leigh—2

  Dr. Julian Lewis—2

  Mr. Peter Lilley—1

  Mr. Richard Livsey—1

  Mr. Tony Lloyd—1

  Mr. Tim Loughton—1

  Mr. Andrew Love—1

  Sir. Nicholas Lyell—1

  Mr. Peter Luff—1

  Mr. Calum Macdonald—1

  Mr. Robert Maclennan—1

  Mr. Denis MacShane—1

  Ms. Judy Mallaber—1

  Mr. Michael Mates—1

  Mr. John McDonnell—1

  Miss. Anne McIntosh—1

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin—1

  Mr. Kevin McNamara—1

  Mr. Ken Maginnis—

  Ms. Gillian Merron—2

  Mrs. Ray Michie—1

  Mr. Austin Mitchell—1

  Ms. Laura Moffatt—1

  Ms. Margaret Moran—1

  Ms. Julie Morgan—1

  Mr. George Mudie—1

  Mr. Jim Murphy—1

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls—3

  Mr. Mark Oaten—3

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien—1

  Mr. Richard Page—1

  Mr. David Prior—3

  Mr. Bill Rammell—2

  Mr. John Randall—1

  356W

  Mr. David Rendel—2

  Ms. Joan Ruddock—1

  Ms. Joan Ryan—1

  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn—1

  Mr. Martin Salter—2

  Mr. Mohammed Sarwar—2

  Mr. Malcolm Savidge—1

  Mr. Jonathan Shaw—2

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard—2

  Mr. Marsha Singh—1

  Mr. Llew Smith—1

  Rev. Martin Smyth—2

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman—1

  Mr. Richard Spring—1

  Dr. Phyllis Starkey—1

  Mr. Anthony Steen—1

  Mr. George Stevenson—1

  Mr. David Stewart—1

  Mr. Ian Stewart—1

  Dr. Howard Stoate—1

  Mr. Andrew Stunell—1

  Mr. Desmond Swayne—1

  Mr. David Taylor—1

  Mr. Matthew Taylor—1

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas—1

  Mr. William Thompson—2

  Dr. Jenny Tonge—2

  Mr. Michael Trend—1

  Dr. George Turner—1

  Mr. Stephen Twigg—1

  Mr. Derek Twigg—1

  Mr. Bill Tynan—1

  Mr. Peter Viggers—1

  Ms. Joan Walley—1

  Ms. Claire Ward—1

  Mr. Charles Wardle—1

  Mr. Steve Webb—5

  Mr. Bowen Wells—2

  Dr. Alan Whitbread—1

  Mr. John Wilkinson—1

  Mr. David Wilshire—1

  Mr. David Winnick—1

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton—1

  Mr. Phil Woolas—1

  Mr. Tony Worthington—2

  Mr. Derek Wyatt—2

PRIME MINISTER

  Downing Street Website
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the impartiality requirements which apply to the 10 Downing Street website in arranging ministerial discussions about politically controversial subjects with children at school. [135002]
  357W
  The Prime Minister
  The team of civil servants in my office who support and operate the Downing street website work in full accordance with the rules on impartiality as set out in the civil service code.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes he has made over the past year to the frequency of his broadcasts on the Downing street website. [135004]

  The Prime Minister
  I continue to put out statements on the No. 10 website when there is a particular issue that needs to be addressed. There have been 16 broadcasts since February this year.

  Environmental Reporting
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he has held with the business community in respect of the merits of environmental reporting. [135444]

  The Prime Minister
  Officials and Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Department of Trade and Industry regularly meet companies to discuss a range of environmental issues, including environmental reporting. The Government have also undertaken several initiatives in consultation with business to help companies improve their environmental performance and reporting.

  In particular the DETR has consulted the top 350 UK businesses and others on detailed guidelines on how to measure and report on greenhouse gas emissions and waste. Similar guidance on water use will follow in December 2000.

  To help a wider group of businesses to make a start on reporting, the DETR relaunched the "Making a Corporate Commitment" (MACC 2) campaign in June this year, after consultation with a range of businesses.

  The Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment—which reports to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—is currently looking at how to encourage businesses to make sustainability a key part of their decision making. ACBE has consulted with business and plans to publish advice to company board members on this issue. Reporting and communication with stakeholders will be included in this advice as part of the wider sustainability agenda.

  Carbon Trust
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out each of the planned sources of funding for the new Carbon Trust. [135442]

  The Prime Minister
  The funding allocations for the Carbon Trust are still being finalised. However, initially it will receive, on an annual basis, £27 million for England from the Energy Efficiency Fund recycled from the climate change levy, up to £6 million for the Devolved Administrations from the same source and at least £17 million from the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme.

  Kyoto Mechanisms Office
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department will be responsible for the Kyoto Mechanisms Office. [135443]
  358W
  The prime Minister
  The UK Kyoto Mechanisms Office Will be an interdepartmental unit under the joint responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Green Technologies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to encourage the development of green technologies as part of Government regeneration strategy. [135441]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's strategy for tackling social exclusion and improving the environment in deprived areas is being delivered through a range of programmes that encourage and support sustainable regeneration.

  Regional Development Agencies have a statutory duty to promote sustainable development. As well as promoting the development of green technologies generally, they are able to support specific projects through their administration of the Single Regeneration Budget. These may include:

  combined heat and power schemes;

  community based waste minimisation projects;

  energy efficiency measures; and

  innovative solutions and remediation techniques for dealing with contaminated land.

  In addition, the criteria used to select projects for support from European Regional Development Funds specifically encourage positive action on environmental sustainability, including clean technology projects.

WALES

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of graduates were claiming unemployment benefit a year after completing their university courses in each of the past five years in Wales. [134907]

  Mr. Hanson
  Information is not available in the form requested. The latest available figures on unemployment rates of newly qualified graduates are given. These show the position six months after graduation from higher education institutions in Wales.

  First degree full time graduates from higher education institutions

  in Wales who were assumed to be unemployed six months after

  graduation1

  Year of graduation

  Percentage

  1994–952

  9.1

  1995–96

  7.6

  1996–97

  7.1

  1997–98

  5.6

  1998–99

  5.1

  1Data do not indicate whether graduates were claiming unemployment benefit or not.

  21994–95 data were collected only for students obtaining qualifications in a 10 month period (1 October 1994 to 31 July 1995) whereafter from 1995–96 onwards, data relate to students qualifying in a 12 month period (1 August to 31 July).

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency

  University Research
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much funding each university in Wales has received towards research in each of the past five years. [134905]

  £000

  Institution

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  University of Glamorgan

  2,508

  2,969

  3,003

  2,301

  1,910

  University of Wales, Aberystwyth

  12,689

  11,618

  12,598

  11,230

  12,922

  University College Wales, Bangor

  12,092

  12,765

  13,790

  13,100

  15,067

  Cardiff University

  28,916

  30,441

  32,089

  37,865

  38,903

  University of Wales, Lampeter

  1,492

  1,042

  1,213

  1,268

  1,097

  University of Wales, Swansea

  17,371

  17,284

  16,646

  16,303

  17,339

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  14,900

  14,898

  15,305

  15,933

  17,536

  University of Wales Institute, Cardiff

  151

  318

  343

  1,022

  987

  University of Wales College, Newport

  233

  246

  255

  278

  501

  North East Wales Institute

  1,533

  1,536

  1,204

  878

  844

  Swansea Institute of Higher Education

  64

  2

  1

  231

  170

  Trinity College Carmarthen

  35

  74

  130

  171

  63

  Welsh College of Music and Drama

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Secondary Legislation
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what discussions his Department has had with officials from the National Assembly for Wales on the development of common practice across Government when framing legislation which accords secondary legislation powers to the National Assembly for Wales; [134365]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with officials from the National Assembly for Wales on the development of common practice across Government when framing legislation which accords secondary legislative powers to the National Assembly for Wales. [134366]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I recognise the importance of developing common practices in framing the Assembly's secondary legislative powers. Devolution Guidance Note (DGN) 9 on Post Devolution Primary Legislation Affecting Wales is currently being prepared and I expect it to be published by Cabinet Office shortly. Both my officials and those of the National Assembly for Wales have been involved in the discussions on its contents.

  The framing of the Assembly's powers in current Bills will continue to be discussed thoroughly on a case-by-case basis by officials, including Assembly officials.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average waiting time between application and completion of work involving mandatory home improvement grants for(a) Wales and (b) each council in Wales in each of the last two years. [135239]

  Mr. Hanson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Historic Building Grants
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many historic building grants were awarded in the last five years in Wales; and what was the average cost of these grants.[135206]
  360W
  Mr. Hanson
  The figures set out include research income from all sources including Research Councils, charities, industry, commerce, Government and public bodies. Since 1 July 1999 this has been the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Hanson
  Between 1 April 1995 and 30 June 1999 Cadw offered grants in respect of 486 properties in Wales. The average offer per property was £22,902.

  Since 1 July 1999, this has been a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Rip-off Britain Campaign
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the motor industry since the start of his Rip-off Britain Campaign. [134978]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received a number of representations from the motor industry.

  Company Insolvencies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many company insolvencies there were in the last 10 years. [135229]

  Dr. Howells
  The total number of company insolvencies in England and Wales for the years 1990 to 1999 was 166,829. The number in each year is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number

  1990

  15,051

  1991

  21,827

  1992

  24,425

  1993

  20,708

  1994

  16,728

  1995

  14,536

  1996

  13,461

  1997

  12,610

  1998

  13,203

  1999

  14,280

  Licence Fees
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list licence fee increases for the top 50 licence payments payable to Ofgem. [135058]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Licence fees paid by individual licensees are commercially confidential.

  Military Equipment Exports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 1999 prices, what was the value of military equipment licensed for export to China in each year between 1985 and 1999. [134435]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, in response to a recommendation made by the Quadripartite Committee, the 1999 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls sets out the total value in respect of which a Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) was issued for the export of military equipment and other goods subject to strategic export controls. However, this total is likely to be greater than the value of exports that are actually made under the SIELs concerned because some of these will not be used to make all of the exports authorised and others will not be used at all. In addition, some goods are exported only temporarily and later returned to the UK.

  It should also be noted that this figure does not cover all types of licence. Open licences allow the exporters concerned to make multiple shipments of the specified goods to the specified destinations in accordance with the licence conditions. While such licences do not normally impose any limit on the volume of exports that may be made under the licence, exporters are required as a condition of the licence to maintain records of all controlled exports for a minimum of three or four years depending on the goods. While these records may be examined by compliance offices in the course of routine compliance visits, the Export Control Organisation does not compile any central record.

  For the years prior to 1999, applicants for Standard Individual Export Licences were required to record on the application form the value of the goods for which a licence was sought; this information was then recorded on ECO's computer databases. However, where a licence was issued, the value of the goods covered by that licence may have been less than the value of the goods covered by the original application. Exporters sometimes mistakenly apply for a licence to export goods for which no licence is required. In addition, goods are sometimes withdrawn from the coverage of an application during the licensing process, for example at the exporter's request, or the value may change during the time taken to process the application because of changes in exchange rates. Moreover, the value of the goods licensed for export by each individual licence was not recorded on ECO's computer database until 1 January 1999, although it was shown on the licence itself.

  Finally, HM Customs and Excise collect and record information on imports to and exports from the UK for trade statistics purposes. This information is set out in Part III of the Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls.

  "Voices"
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department spent on advertising in the recent Government publication, "Voices". [135586]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 October 20001: The DTI spent £4,388 (excluding VAT) on advertising in the recent Government publication "Voices".

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department since 1999 in reducing sickness absence; what targets he has agreed with the Cabinet Office; and if he will make a statement. [135493]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The Cabinet Office prepares each year an annual report of sickness absence in the Civil Service, which includes information for each department. The report for 1999 is currently being finalised and will be published soon.

  Details of the department's targets for reduced sickness absence for the years 2001 and 2003 against a baseline year of 1998 will be included in its Service Delivery Agreement. This is also to be published shortly.

  The department has a programme of action to encourage management best practice in maximising attendance.

  Petrol Prices
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received on the increased cost of petrol to businesses, rural dwellers and farmers; and if he will make a statement. [135796]

  Mr. Byers
  I have received a number of such representations and understand concerns about the continued rise in petrol prices. Most of this is caused by the current unsustainably high level of oil prices. Together with other oil consuming countries, the Government are calling for action from OPEC and other oil producers which would contribute to a reduction in oil prices and greater stability in oil markets.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 6 July 2000,Official Report, columns 252–53W, concerning the percentage of the price of petrol which is accounted for by taxation in each EU country, if he will update those figures.[135774]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The latest available information for premium unleaded petrol prices and taxes is for July 2000 and is shown in table.

  European unleaded petrol prices1

  Pence per litre2

  Prices as at mid July 2000

  Pump price

  Amount of tax

  Tax component Percentage

  Austria

  61.48

  36.27

  59.00

  Belgium

  66.21

  43.34

  65.46

  Denmark

  71.01

  46.77

  65.85

  Finland

  73.31

  48.37

  65.98

  France

  71.61

  48.74

  68.07

  363W

  European unleaded petrol prices1

  Pence per litre2

  Prices as at mid July 2000

  Pump price

  Amount of tax

  Tax component percentage

  Germany

  65.47

  44.33

  67.70

  Greece

  51.49

  26.41

  51.29

  Ireland

  58.29

  33.90

  58.16

  Italy

  70.32

  44.40

  63.14

  Luxembourg

  54.18

  29.17

  53.85

  Netherlands

  74.38

  48.56

  65.29

  Portugal

  55.76

  26.27

  47.11

  Spain

  52.81

  30.63

  58.00

  Sweden

  71.90

  47.62

  66.23

  UK

  84.65

  61.43

  72.57

  1Premium unleaded 95RON

  2Prices converted to pounds sterling using mid July exchange rates

  Source

  European Commission Oil Bulletin

  Fuel Delivery Operators
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent service personnel are being trained to operate fuel delivery lorries in the event of disruption to supply. [135654]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published on 29 September a Memorandum of Understanding signed by all members of the Fuel Supply Task Force aimed at putting in place robust systems to avoid disruption of fuel supplies.

  Military personnel played a contingency role during the disruption in September and they will be in a position to do so again if needed to ensure the distribution of fuel.

  Mergers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what constraints exist, where a breach of merger undertakings is identified, on the ability of the competition authorities to require an immediate rectification of such a breach; and if he will make a statement. [135665]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: Where the parties to a merger are found to be in breach of statutory undertakings and the Director General of Fair Trading advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the circumstances of the breach are such that the relevant provisions should be enforced, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may make an order under sections 73 or 75k of the Fair Trading Act 1973 exercising the powers referred to therein, where he considers this will remedy the adverse effects of the merger. An application to the court may also be considered under section 93A of the Act.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action can be taken by the competition authorities for which he is responsible where a company is found to be in breach of undertakings given to obtain approval of a merger under the Fair Trading Act 1973; and if he will make a statement. [135668]
  364W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: If the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) considers that a breach of undertakings has occurred, he will consider whether to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to release the parties from the undertakings, or to vary or replace them (for example, because a change in market conditions has made it difficult or unreasonable for the parties to continue to seek to comply with the undertakings). The DGFT will also consider whether the circumstances of the breach are such that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should be advised to make an order under section 73 or 75k of the Fair Trading Act 1973 exercising the powers referred to therein, where he considers this is required to remedy the adverse effects of the merger. Consideration may also be given to civil proceedings in an appropriate case.

  Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims for compensation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have been(a) received and (b) settled in each of the last five years. [134437]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department has received a total of 122,952 claims for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, of which 5,161 have been settled in full and final settlement. In total the Department has made payments totalling £78 million, including 22,292 interim settlement payments.

  These are broken down as follows:

  Received

  Settled full and final

  Interim

  Pre 1996

  870

  —

  1

  1996

  5,548

  —

  4

  1997

  3,259

  —

  —

  1998

  54,145

  7

  10,519

  1999

  29,424

  799

  5,485

  2000

  29,706

  2,509

  6,283

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when the claim of William Farrington (deceased) for compensation for respiratory disease will be dealt with by IRISC Claims Management; [134442]

  (2) what action he has taken to deal with the claim of Mr. William Farrington (deceased) for compensation for respiratory disease [134443]

  Mrs. Liddell
  On 24 February 2000, in line with the prioritisation procedure agreed with the solicitors representing the claimants, IRISC (the Department's claims handling agents) sent Maddocks Clarke, Mrs. Farrington's solicitor, the necessary Claims Questionnaire, Financial/Other Losses Questionnaire and Mandates which authorise access to the late Mr. Farrington's medical records.

  Maddocks Clarke returned the completed forms to IRISC on 22 May. Unfortunately there was conflicting information entered on the Claims Questionnaire and the Financial/Other Losses Questionnaire and IRISC contacted Maddocks Clarke to clarify this. Clarification was received on 23 June and the forms were forwarded to Healthcall, provider of the medical assessments.
  365W
  Healthcall had anticipated that they would complete the scanning of all the required medical records by the middle of September. However, due to staff sickness and the unavailability of Health Authority staff this was delayed and the remaining records will now be scanned on 21 November.

  All the documentation will then be passed to a respiratory consultant who will assess the disability for which the Department is liable. IRISC will write to Mrs. Farrington's solicitor with an offer of compensation within two weeks of receiving the correctly completed medical report form.

  Prior to his death Mr. Farrington received an interim payment of £2,000, and subsequently Mrs. Farrington has received her bereavement award.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the average time take by IRISC Claims Management to deal with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease claims in the last 12 months. [134438]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The processing of COPD claims requires the involvement of many bodies—the Department, its contractors, the Compensation Recovery Unit of the Department of Social Security and the claimants' solicitors. Where IRISC, the Department's claims handling agents, are involved there are time scales at various stages of the process, set out in the Handling Agreement signed by the Department and the solicitors representing the claimants.

  Some of the main deadlines include agreeing or contending an Employment History within 56 days of receipt of a completed Claims Questionnaire and making an offer on general damages within 28 days of receipt of a medical assessment process—MAP—report. It should be noted that there are not formal time scales for other parties, including solicitors.

  For those claimants who have received a full and final settlement since 1 November 1999 IRISC advise that the targets set out in the Handling Agreement have been met in all cases.

  Oil Tankers
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what power the Government have to seize oil tankers owned by(a) private contractors and (b) oil Companies [135944]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Energy Act 1976 contains powers which would enable Government to direct both private contractors and oil companies to act in specified ways. The Act contains no specific powers to requisition vehicles.

  It would be possible, however, to take powers to requisition vehicles in emergency regulations made under section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act 1920.

  Director General of Telecommunications
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the appointment of the Director General of Telecommunications. [136103]
  366W
  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has today re-appointed David Edmonds as Director General of Telecommunications for a further three years from 1 April 2001. Since his appointment on 1 April 1998, Mr. Edmonds has been successful in stimulating a more competitive, forward looking telecoms regulatory regime.

  The Government are committed to creating the most dynamic and competitive communications market possible, giving consumers more choice, lowering prices and encouraging greater innovation. Mr. Edmonds is the right person to make and carry through the tough decisions necessary to achieve that goal.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Council
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future structure and strategy of the British Council. [135592]

  Mr. Hain
  The British Council has reviewed its operations over the next five years, to ensure that it continues to make maximum impact in a world of rapid change and to exploit new opportunities to reach wider, younger target audiences.

  As a result, and with the encouragement of the FCO, the Council will increase its work in countries in transition to full democracy. It will open up in Armenia, and increase resources for Central and Eastern Europe.

  In recognition of the important work the Council does overseas, under this year's Spending Review of 2001–02 to 2003–04 the Council will receive an increase in its grant in aid of £24.8 million. In addition to helping to fund the proposed expansion in the Council's overseas network, particularly in Russia and China, it will assist in the development of new knowledge and learning centres, for the benefit mainly of developing countries.

  In Western Europe, where infrastructure costs are particularly high, and new forms of Information Technology widely used, the Council will make a significant shift in resources from fixed costs to activities. It will focus its physical presence in capital cities and use some of the savings to fund investment in new, IT-based programmes and services, exploiting the enormous potential of the new media. This will allow the Council to reach wider audiences, particularly young professional people, while maintaining core programmes.

  To reflect changed priorities the Council will close country directorates in Belarus, Ecuador, Lesotho and Swaziland (citizens of some of these countries may still be able to participate in British Council programmes in their region). The Council will also close a small number of offices outside capital cities. Where appropriate, it plans to modify library and information services to match changing patterns of local demand.

  The reduction in physical presence will allow overall program expenditure to increase. Arts, science, English language teaching and education training will remain core activities. The Council will expand work on governance and human rights; it will aim work in science, the

  367W
  environment, health and technology at wider, younger audiences. Generally, it will move to larger cross-sectoral activities that will attract wider audiences and have greater media impact.

  In summary, the Council's new strategy is designed to ensure that it remains in tune with the evolving needs of target audiences as we move into a new century.

  Conflict Diamonds
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact on dealing in illegal diamonds by the RUF in Sierra Leone of his initiatives on conflict diamonds. [135918]

  Mr. Hain
  As part of HMG's initiative to tackle the problem of conflict diamonds, the UK played the lead role in promoting UN Security Council resolution 1306(2000) which was adopted on 5 July 2000 and imposed a ban on the direct or indirect import of all rough diamonds from Sierra Leone to the territory of UN member states. The resolution provided for an exemption from the ban for diamonds controlled by the Government of Sierra Leone through a Certificate of Origin regime. This exemption came into effect on 6 October when the UN Sanctions Committee Chairman reported to the President of the Security Council that an effective regime was fully in operation.

  We anticipate that the new regime will enhance the capacity of the Government and people of Sierra Leone to benefit from their country's diamond wealth, while limiting the rebels' income from the illicit diamond trade.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Nigeria concerning allegations about senior Nigerians in the UN force dealing in illegal diamonds. [135920]

  Mr. Hain
  UN Security Council resolution 1306, adopted on 5 July 2000, prohibits the direct or indirect import of all rough diamonds from Sierra Leone to the territory of UN member states, unless accompanied by a Certificate of Origin issued by the Government of Sierra Leone.

  It is for the UN Sanctions Committee to investigate any allegations that this prohibition may have been violated.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to President Mugabe of Zimbabwe over(a) the revocation of the national reconciliation policy and (b) threats to arrest Ian Smith and other former Rhodesian Government members. [135838]

  Mr. Hain
  Although President Mugabe has announced to supporters that he intends to revoke the National Reconciliation Policy and arrest members of the former Rhodesian Government, he has taken no steps to do so. We are concerned by any action or statement which might threaten stability and political reconciliation in Zimbabwe, and will follow developments closely.

  Jordan
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with King Abdullah of Jordan. [135837]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met King Abdullah of Jordan in Amman on 12 October and in London on 25 October. The main topic of discussion at each meeting was the continuing crisis in the Middle East and the Peace Process. The Foreign Secretary praised King Abdullah for his constructive efforts to bring peace to the region and reaffirmed Britain's strong commitment to close co-operation and friendship with Jordan.

  Departmental Employees
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what capacity Peter Penfold is employed by his Department. [135919]

  Mr. Hain
  Mr. Peter Penfold is a member of the FCO's Senior Management Structure. He has now returned to the UK after completing his posting in Sierra Leone, and in accordance with normal procedure is being considered for further appointments.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the UN about the new commander of the UN peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone. [135917]

  Mr. Hain
  The withdrawal of the Indian contingent in UNAMSIL will leave the Force Commander post open. We have encouraged the UN Secretary-General to consider carefully all suitable candidates for this key position.

  Savings Tax
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals by the European Commission relating to tax rates on savings. [135380]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  At the Feira European Council in June, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor persuaded the EU to accept exchange of information rather than a withholding tax on cross-border savings income as the way forward. This illustrated the success of the Government's policy of constructive engagement on EU issues.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Fourth Annual report and Accounts for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will be published. [136033]

  Dr. Reid
  The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has published its fourth Annual Report and Accounts today. The report contains details of the
  369W
  progress made by SEPA during the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000, the Agency's fourth year of operation. A copy of the Annual Report and Accounts has been placed in the Library.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress made in the current review of the most effective way to measure(a) employment and (b) unemployment statistics. [135445]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 31 October 2000:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the progress made in the current review of the most effective way to measure employment and unemployment statistics. I am replying in the his absence. (135445)
  There is no general review of employment or unemployment statistics taking place currently. However, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) is involved with a project, including public consultation, for the Labour Market Theme Working Group. This includes a question on the public's requirements with regard to sub-national unemployment rates. In addition, ONS is currently reviewing the unemployment rate measures.
  The review began in 1999 and the public consultation stage is currently underway. This was launched in September via an article published in Labour Market Trends. The article was also posted on the National Statistics website and sent out to members of the Central and Local Government Information Partnership sub-group. Users are invited to comment on its proposals. The closing date for contributions to this consultation process is 31 October 2000.
  A report is planned early in 2001 summarising the responses received and outlining the next steps. Details of the implementation timetable for the various work programmes will also be included.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 12 April on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Eddy. [127374]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 June 2000]: I replied to the letter from the right hon. Member on 19 July 2000.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, dated 6 June and 17 May, regarding Mr. Ian Cannon and Armillatox. [132444]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: My noble Friend the Baroness Hayman replied to the letters from the hon. Member on 23 June 2000, but due to a regrettable failure in recent months by the external courier firm contracted by MAFF to deliver certain mail to Parliament, the replies were not delivered when originally
  370W
  despatched. The Department's contract with the courier firm has been terminated, and a full investigation of the incident is now under way, including a review of our mail tracking system to ensure that this cannot occur again. The replies were re-sent on 29 September. I apologise for the inconvenience caused.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the letter of 10 May from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton requesting a meeting on behalf of Mrs. A. Barnes. [131751]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]: I replied to the hon. Member on 26 July.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will receive a reply to his letter of 14 April on behalf of his constituent Mr. H. E. Biggs. [131755]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]: My noble Friend the Baroness Hayman replied to the letter from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford on 31 May 2000, but due to a regrettable failure in recent months by the external courier firm contracted by MAFF to deliver certain mail to Parliament, the replies were not delivered when originally despatched. The Department's contract with the courier firm has been terminated, and a full investigation of the incident is now under way, including a review of our mail tracking system to ensure that this cannot occur again. The reply was re-sent on 19 October. I apologise for the inconvenience caused.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk of 31 August. [134293]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: I replied to the right hon. Member on 27 October 2000.

  Crop Contamination
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he was informed first of the import of GM-contaminated oil and rape seeds into the United Kingdom. [128497]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I was sent advice on the position on 19 April.

  Abattoirs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received on(a) the future of small abattoirs and (b) the level of meat hygiene charges. [132891]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have received a large number of representations on this subject. They will be taken
  371W
  into account before decisions are reached on the recommendations of the Meat Inspections Charges Task Force.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the future of small abattoirs; and if he will make a statement. [132889]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am well aware of concerns about the future position of small and medium enterprises. That is why the Agriculture Strategy launched in March set up a Task Force to review the issue of meat inspection charges as they bear on this sector. My colleagues and I are now considering the Task Force recommendations.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 22 June 2000,Official Report, column 295W, how much of the expenditure of each of the non-departmental public bodies listed in his answer came from his departmental budget in (a) each of the last three years and (b) the current financial year; and how much is planned in each of the next three years. [131353]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: The information which the hon. Member requested regarding my Department's non-departmental public bodies is as follows:
  Allocations for 2001–02 to 2003–04 have not yet been agreed by the Management Board resulting in the requested information for future years not yet being available.

  Executive non-departmental public bodies

  Agriculture Wages Board and Agriculture Wages Committees

  (a) All

  (b) All

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  (a) None

  (b) None

  British Potato Council

  (a) 1997–98: £95,000

  1998–99: £95,000

  1999–2000: £95,000

  (b) 2000–01: £95,000

  Food from Britain

  (a) 1997–98: £4,918,000

  1998–99: £5,282,000

  1999–2000: £4,986,000

  (b) 2000–01: £5,392,000

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  (a) 1997–98: £142,070

  1998–99: £142,070

  1999–2000: £147,070

  (b) 2000–01: £137,070

  Horticultural Development Council

  (a) None

  (b) None

  372W
  Horticulture Research International

  (a) 1997–98: £12,302,000

  1998–99: £12,348,000

  1999–2000: £11,407,000

  (b) 2000–01: £10,000,0001

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  (a) 1997–98: £289,000

  1998–99: £278,000

  1999–2000: £291,000

  (b) 2000–01: £283,000

  Milk Development Council

  (a) None

  (b) None

  Regional Flood Defence Committees

  The fees and expenses of the Regional Flood Defence Committees' Chairmen and Members are budgeted for, and paid by, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  (a) 1997–98: £20,951,000

  1998–99: £17,551,000

  1999–2000: £17,219,000

  (b) 2000–01: £15,735,000

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  (a) 1997–98: £296,000

  1998–99: £271,000

  1999–2000: £225,000

  (b) 2000–01: £250,000

  United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS)

  (a) All

  (b) All

  Wine Standards Board of the Vintners' Company

  (a) 1997–98: £371,115

  1998–99: £371,191

  1999–2000: £375,408

  (b) 2000–01: £379,000

  Public Corporations

  Covent Garden Market Authority

  (a) None

  (b) None

  Advisory non-departmental public bodies

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee

  Consumers' Committee for Great Britain (expenditure in 1997–98 only)

  Farm Animal Welfare Council

  Hill Farming Advisory Committee

  (a) All

  (b) All

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee

  (a) 1997–98: £56,000

  1998–99: £71,000

  1999–2000: £71,000

  (b) 2000–01: £71,000

  373W
  Veterinary Products Committee

  (a) 1997–98: Nil

  1998–99: £20,000

  1999–2000: £84,000

  (b) 2000–01: £56,000

  Tribunals

  Agricultural Land Tribunals

  (a) All

  (b) All

  1Provisional.

  Ministerial Duty Roster
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the daily ministerial duty roster for his Department during the Summer Adjournment. [133279]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 28 July 2000]: It is not normal Government practice to publish the daily ministerial duty roster. However, with the exception of

  Application

  Purpose

  Intended Recipients1

  Financial value £000

  Outcome

  Round 2

  National Flood and Coastal Defence database

  To provide electronic database to store, manipulate and present information on flood and castal defence risks, assets and associated habitats, supported by and available to all operating authorities in England and Wales

  Environment Agency

  4,000

  Unsuccessful

  European Centre for Organic Top Fruit and Nursery Stock

  To create a centre of excellence to develop a deeper scientific basis for organics and to disseminate it effectively across organic sector from growers to consumers

  Horticulture Research International, East Malling, Kent

  2,261

  Successful

  TSE Research Surveillance project

  Capital money for new facilities to enable SEAC Sub-group recommendations on sheep to be met

  MAFF

  13,900

  Successful

  1Reflects initial allocation of funding

  Departmental Farms
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the farms that form his Estate of Farms, indicating for each(a) the projects undertaken, (b) the operator of the farm, (c) the acreage, (d) the grade of the land, (e) the number of his Department's employees employed on the farm, (f) how long it has been in his Department's ownership and (g) the dates on which (i) he and (ii) other Ministers from his Department have visited the farms. [132441]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 25 July 2000: The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Quangos
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the annual budget of each quango currently sponsored by his Department in each of the last three years, broken down by source of funding.[130806]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: The information requested regarding my Department's non-departmental public bodies is being placed in the Library of the House.
  374W
  two days, I was on duty throughout the summer, dealing with classical swine fever and later, the Government response to the Phillips inquiry and other departmental business. The other Ministers in the Department each took a full share of the summer duty roster.

  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reconcile his answers of 18 May 2000, Official Report, columns 269–72W, concerning his Department's applications to the Capital Modernisation Fund, and 5 May 2000, Official Report, column 246W, concerning the funding of the European Centre for Organic Fruit and Nursery Stock. [130809]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: Unfortunately, due to an administrative error, information about the Department's applications under round 2 of the Capital Modernisation Fund (including the European Centre for Organic Top Fruit and Nursery Stock) was omitted from my reply of 18 May.

  The missing information is as follows:

  Expenditure
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a breakdown of the annually managed expenditure line in the 2000 Spending Review, listing the items of expenditure previously included in the departmental expenditure limits of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Intervention Board and the Forestry Commission or otherwise managed by his Department. [134012]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: The annually managed expenditure provisions agreed in the 2000 Spending Review for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Forestry Commission and the Intervention Board are as follows. Only the Intervention Board has reclassified as annually managed expenditure some items previously included in its departmental expenditure limit. The items are analysed below the main table.

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Main Departmental Programmes

  CAP/Agri-environment schemes

  1,520.6

  1,452.6

  1,451.6

  Resource accounting items

  61.3

  76.3

  83.8

  375W

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Forestry Commission

  Main Departmental Programmes

  EU RDR-financed woodland grant payments

  3.5

  5.5

  5.5

  Resource accounting items

  49.9

  51.9

  54.5

  Intervention Board

  Main Departmental Programmes CAP schemes

  709.2

  694.1

  705.0

  Resource accounting items

  4.4

  3.3

  3.6

  Intervention Board: Items transferred from departmental

  expenditure limits into annually managed expenditure

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  OTMS-Compensation

  285.7

  268.5

  261.5

  Beef Intervention

  11.0

  7.4

  7.5

  Beef Export Refunds

  2.0

  2.1

  2.1

  Total

  298.7

  278.0

  271.1

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which items of the Intervention Board departmental expenditure limit and annually managed expenditure on the Common Agricultural Policy are determined by the(a) European Union and (b) Government. [134014]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: The Intervention Board's Departmental Expenditure Limit consists of administration expenditure and BSE related programme expenditure. The latter includes compensation under the Over Thirty Months Scheme and all associated incidental/disposal costs. The Intervention Board's Annually Managed Expenditure is non-BSE related programme expenditure. This includes intervention buying, other internal market measures and EU refunds on export trade with non-member countries. All programme-related expenditure derives directly from EU legislation and is largely EU funded. The administration expenditure is Exchequer funded and in large measure is demand-led according to the levels of CAP market support activity.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Intervention Board and Forestry Commission departmental expenditure limits given for the years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 in the 2000 MAFF Department report have been re-allocated to other years as a result of the shift to resource budgeting. [134015]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: The departmental expenditure limits (DEL) quoted in the 2000 Department Report for the years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 are all in cash terms. There has been no re-allocation of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Intervention Board DEL as a result of the shift to resource budgeting. As a result of accruals timing adjustments over the three years the Forestry Commission DEL is less than the respective cash provisions shown in the Departmental Report by 0.6 per cent., 2.2 per cent. and 1.7 per cent.
  376W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which expenditure items previously included in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Intervention Board and the Forestry Commission departmental expenditure limits are accounted for as annually managed expenditure. [134011]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: Only the Intervention Board has reclassified as annually man aged expenditure certain items previously included in its departmental expenditure limit. These are beef intervention, beef export refunds and remnant payments on schemes that have ended, such as the Calf Processing Aid Scheme, Beef Stocks Transfer Scheme and Aid to the Rendering Industry. As part of the 2000 Spending Review settlement the compensation payments on the Over Thirty Months Scheme will transfer into annually managed expenditure with effect from 1 April 2001.

  Intervention Board: Items transferred from departmental

  expenditure limits into annually managed expenditure

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  OTMS—Compensation

  285.7

  268.5

  261.5

  Beef Intervention

  11.0

  7.4

  7.5

  Beef Export Refunds

  2.0

  2.1

  2.1

  Total

  298.7

  278.0

  271.1

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a detailed reconciliation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Intervention Board and Forestry Commission departmental expenditure limits set out in the 2000 Budget, the 2000 MAFF Departmental report, the 2000 Spending Review and the 1998 Spending Review. [134008]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: The relevant total MAFF, Intervention Board (IB) and Forestry Commission (FC) departmental expenditure limits are as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  1. 1998 Spending Review

  1,344

  1,265

  1,303

  2. Budget 2000

  1,415

  1,215

  1,186

  3. 2000 Departmental Report

  1,417

  1,215

  1,186

  4. 2000 Spending Review

  —

  —

  1,258

  Changes in the 1999–2000 figures between positions 1 and 2 reflect the Supplementary Estimates and the transfer of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) from MAFF to the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Changes in the 1999–2000 figures between positions 1 and 3 reflect the Supplementary Estimates but not the transfer of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) to the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

  Changes in the 2000–01 figures between positions 1 and 2 reflect the transfer of the MHS and the Joint Food Standards and Safety Group from MAFF to the FSA; take-up of funding for the support package which I announced on 20 September 1999; the transfer of receipts from the sale of Covent Garden Market into 2001–02;

  377W
  the take-up of funding for a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) surveillance programme; and a redefinition of the BSE envelope.

  Changes in the 2001–02 figures between positions 1 and 2 reflect the same changes as for the 2000–01 figures. Changes between positions 3 and 4 reflect Cash to Resource adjustments for Capital Charges; Non-Departmental Public Body/Public Corporation adjustments; a further redefinition of the BSE envelope; the transfer of OTMS funding from DEL to AME; and additional funding secured under the 2000 Spending Reviews.

  National Changeover Plan
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings he has held with farmers' representatives to involve them in the National Changeover Plan. [134021]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: The Government are working in partnership with business, the wider public sector and the voluntary sector to continue the planning necessary to give the UK a • genuine option to take a decision early in the next Parliament to join a successful single currency.

  My officials have consulted farmers' representatives about the option of receiving CAP payments in euro. In early August I announced the introduction of an arrangement making available payments in euro to traders for certain types of CAP market support measure.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department has spent on the National Changeover Plan to date broken down into the main items of expenditure. [134022]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: Information on investments in changeover planning by the public sector was set out in the Second Outline National Changeover Plan, published on 9 March 2000.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conditions the European Commission has imposed on his proposed Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme; and what plans he has made for the allocated funding if the conditions are not met. [134024]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: The Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme was developed in close consultation with the National Pig Association and the Meat and Livestock Commission. In order to ensure that the scheme kept within state aid rules, we also kept in close contact with the European Commission. There is no reason to believe that the Commission will impose any conditions over and above what is laid down in its guidelines for state aids of this type. As the industry has been fully involved with the scheme's development and is as flexible as state aid rules and financial propriety will allow, I expect British pig producers to make full use of the funding available.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the total cost to date incurred by pig farmers in complying with BSE regulations in force in the United Kingdom. [134016]
  378W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: No such assessment has been made; however, I acknowledge that the pig industry, like other livestock and related industries, has faced increased costs as a result of measures to eliminate BSE from the British cattle herd.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what costs his Department will be seeking from the British Pig Industry Support Group following its court case against the Government. [134017]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: The Government are seeking to cover their legal costs in this case. The amount claimed does not include the considerable time that officials in policy divisions spent on drawing up witness statements and compiling relevant documentation.

  Ragwort
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many notices under section 1 of the Weeds Act 1959 have been served during each of the past three years; and on how many occasions he has exercised default powers under section 3 of the Weeds Act 1959 in respect of common ragwort. [133956]

  Mr. Morley
  During 1998, staff at MAFF Regional Service Centres, acting on the Minister's behalf, served one notice under section 1 of the Weeds Act 1959; one notice was served in 1999 and one has been served so far this year; default powers were exercised last year in respect of the 1998 notice.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many complaints about common ragwort his Department has received in each of the past three years; and how many landowners have been approached or written to by his Department's officials following such complaints in each of the past three years. [133984]

  Mr. Morley
  During 1998, MAFF Regional Service Centres received 290 complaints from occupiers of farmed land about injurious weeds; 242 complaints were received in 1999; 249 have been received so far this year. Most of these complaints related to common ragwort.

  Figures for the number of occupiers of infested land who were approached or written to following complaints are not held centrally. However, Regional Service Centre staff endeavour to contact all such occupiers, providing their whereabouts are known.

  Milk (Schools)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he has made for continuing the present level of take-up of milk in schools from January 2001. [134399]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are currently considering whether to top up the EU subsidy for school milk, which is being reduced from 1 January 2001 and we hope to make an announcement soon. In addition we are co-operating actively in the Commission's review of administration arrangements to see whether this can be made simpler for schools which wish to take part.

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about Government policy on coastal erosion. [133339]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government remain committed to the aim of reducing risks to people and the developed and natural environment from coastal erosion by encouraging the provision of sustainable defence measures. I announced in July a further increase of £30 million in the plans for Ministry funding of capital flood defence and coast protection works, bringing the total for the next three years to £267 million.

  Bees
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available a grant of £600 per annum to enable beekeepers to take basic beekeeping exams. [134640]

  Ms Quin
  The Ministry funds a range of measures costing around £1.3 million annually to assist the beekeeping sector to deal with bee health issues. The emphasis is on providing cost-free regional and national training in good husbandry and disease recognition and control for all beekeepers. In each of the last two years, the National Bee Unit has organised over 700 such events working closely with beekeeping associations. We consider this to be the best use of available resources.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many outbreaks of foul brood and European foul brood have been identified in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [134639]

  Ms Quin
  American and European foul brood are notifiable diseases under the Bee Disease Control Order 1982. All new suspected cases have to be reported, and in England and Wales investigations are carried out by the National Bee Unit. The number of colonies confirmed infected with either of these diseases since 1997 is as follows:

  1998

  1999

  20001

  American foul brood

  229

  148

  103

  European foul brood

  879

  865

  1,039

  Total

  1,108

  1,013

  1,142

  1Figures for 2000 are provisional

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set up a field trial to eliminate bee colonies with European foul brood; and what steps he is taking to ensure colonies with European foul brood are destroyed. [134636]

  Ms Quin
  The Ministry is already undertaking a range of measures to combat this notifiable disease. All colonies too heavily infected with European foul brood to respond to treatment are destroyed. Lightly infected colonies are treated with antibiotic by field inspectors employed by the National Bee Unit, part of the Central Science Laboratory. The Unit is conducting well publicised trials for the 380W
  long-term control of the disease without the need for destruction of the bees in these valuable colonies. Preliminary results are promising.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time bee inspectors are employed by his Department. [134637]

  Ms Quin
  This year, the National Bee Unit employed(a) eight full-time Regional Bee Inspectors and (b) 37 Seasonal Bee Inspectors to provide statutory inspection and advisory services for beekeepers in England and Wales.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reintroduce(a) a regular checking of beehives in order to discover and eliminate disease; and for what reasons such checking has been discontinued. [134638]

  Ms Quin
  Inspection and treatment of bees for the notifiable diseases American foul brood, European foul brood and varroa are mandatory under the provisions of the Bees Act 1980 and the Bee Disease Control Order 1982. The National Bee Unit organises regular annual checks of bee colonies throughout England and Wales for these diseases, particularly in high risk areas. Approximately 26,000–27,000 colonies in 4,500 apiaries are inspected each year. In addition to this service, the National Bee Unit provides training and education to help beekeepers become more self-reliant in the identification of bee diseases through improved bee husbandry.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on which items of expenditure managed by his Department savings are made when the value of the pound increases in relation to the euro; and what level of savings have been generated in this way since the introduction of the euro. [134025]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: Where the value of the pound increases in relation to the euro, this decreases support to farmers under the CAP, but it is impossible to isolate savings that may have been generated solely by currency fluctuations. Many other influences affect expenditure on agriculture, including world prices and climate.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sought his Department's advice on the optimum exchange rate for Britain's membership of the single currency. [134023]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: The rate at which sterling would enter the single currency would need to be consistent with economic fundamentals in the UK and compatible with sustainable convergence between the UK and the euro economies. This was the basis for the decision on the conversion rates of currencies which joined in the first wave.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which items of expenditure managed by his Department are directly dependent on the exchange rate between the pound and the euro. [134026]
  381W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  All CAP payments may be affected by currency fluctuations.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assumptions the Government have made on the pound-euro exchange rate in setting budgets for expenditure managed by his Department. [134027]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: Assumptions underpinning Government decisions about expenditure were set out in the Spending Review 2000.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment his Department has made of the impact of joining the single currency on British agriculture; [134019]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the net advantages and disadvantages to British farmers of joining the single currency at the present time; [134018]

  (3) what priority the Government places on the needs of agriculture in deciding whether and when to join the single currency. [134020]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is whether the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous on the basis of the Government's five economic tests. The Government have said that they will produce another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the five beneficiaries who have received the largest sums in lottery grants. [134480]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: According to the National Lottery Awards Database the five National Lottery projects which have been awarded the largest sums in Lottery grants are:

  the New Millennium Experience Company;

  the English National Stadium, Wembley;

  the Eastlands Sport City (incorporating the Commonwealth Games Stadium and the United Kingdom Sports Institute North West Network Centre);

  the Royal Opera House. Covent Garden; and

  the Lowry Centre.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the original deadline was for a decision on the preferred bidder to operate the new National Lottery licence; and when he expects a final decision to be made; [134606]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure impartiality in the award of the new licence to operate the National Lottery; [134601]
  382W
  (3) if he will make a statement on the award of the new licence to operate the National Lottery. [134599]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: I appointed Lord Burns to the National Lottery Commission on 12 October 2000 and I gave him a clear remit, with the other Commissioners, to conduct the selection process for the next National Lottery licence with absolute fairness and impartiality between the applicants.

  The Commission announced on 25 October 2000 that it is about to begin evaluating both revised bids. It expects to say by mid-November whether the bids meet the statutory criteria of ensuring the Lottery is operated with all due propriety and protecting the interests of players. If the Commission concludes that only one bid meets these criteria, the announcement of the preferred bidder could be made around mid-November.

  If the Commission concludes that both bids meet these criteria, then it will consider which bid would secure the greatest returns to good causes. It will do this without preconceptions and without regard to the conclusions it reached on this matter prior to its announcement on 23 August 2000. It would hope to make an announcement of the outcome by mid-December.

  The Commission had originally hoped to announce its preferred bidder by the end of June, but subsequently asked the applicants for more information and postponed its announcement until August. On 23 August 2000, the Commission announced that neither of the two bidders met the statutory criteria for the award of the licence.

  Free TV Licences
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he has taken to inform people aged 75 years or over of their eligibility for a free television licence; and if he will make a statement on the handling of queries. [136028]

  Janet Anderson
  TV Licensing, on behalf of the BBC, has undertaken a number of activities to inform people aged 75 or over of their eligibility for a free television licence and what they needed to do to apply. Publicity has also been aimed at people who have already applied for their free licence, but who needed some reminders and reassurances about when their licence is due to arrive. The activities include:Specific direct mailings to all households and changes to existing stationery to include application forms for a short term licence or Over 75 television licence.
  Two BBC television trails targeted specifically at people aged 75 or over have been running on BBC One and BBC Two since May and will continue to run until mid-November.
  BBC Local Radio trails targeted specifically at people aged 75 or over. These trails ran between June and July and from September to the end of October.
  Press advertisements in both national and targeted press in September and October with further press advertisements planned for targeted press during November.
  Information leaflets and signs have been provided to all Post Offices.

  383W
  Information has been provided on a dedicated Ceefax page which will continue to run until mid-November.
  Liaison with key caring agencies and provision of leaflets highlighting concession details.

  In addition, the BBC has prepared material for responses to media inquiries around 1 November, answering likely questions, and the media will be fully briefed around that date.

  On the handling of inquiries, the BBC has anticipated that applicants are likely to contact TV Licensing with queries about the licences they have been sent, such as the method of calculating the refund, or the validity of the licence for other members of their household. The BBC has tried, as far as possible, to answer these questions in the letter accompanying the licence, but experience shows that many people will still contact TV Licensing with queries. In addition, the BBC says it will be hard to predict the volume of calls from people whose circumstances or their address have changed, and the new applications which might be prompted by the issue of the licence. The BBC, therefore, has in place:
  Automated messages on the helplines to answer the most common queries, and to reassure people still waiting for their licence
  Call centre capacity to a maximum of 260 operators answering queries
  The ability to take people's telephone numbers and call them back outside peak call times.

  The BBC believes this capacity provides TV Licensing with the ability to answer up to 500,000 inquiries through the next six weeks.

  Responses to the licence mailing are, however, hard to predict, and publicity or press activity could cause peaks of telephone calls that exceed the capacity of the call centres at any given time. The cost of this extra capacity would be £250,000 a week. The BBC has chosen to balance cost versus demand and believes it has set it at a sensible level. The BBC will, however, be reviewing this daily and will reconsider its funding on a day-to-day basis.

  Millennium Dome
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting was advised by the New Millennium Experience Company that the information given in her written answer of 4 July 2000,Official Report, column 149W, on the proportion of sponsorship payment due to the New Millennium Experience Company in respect of the Millennium Dome, was factually correct. [136147]

  Janet Anderson
  Yes. However, I have now been advised by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) that the information that they gave me was not correct. The answer should have been:All sponsor contracts are individually tailored for each sponsorship, including phasing of sponsorship payments. As at 1 March, under the terms of their sponsorship agreement, Tesco were due to pay £1.75 million plus VAT. Of that, £1 million (plus VAT) had been received on 12 May 2000, leaving a balance of £750,000. The contract with Boots was nearing finalisation and the company had paid amounts in advance of signature. The Boots contract has now been signed and all due payments have been made.
  384W
  I apologise to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) for the unfortunate but unintentional error. I understand that David James, Executive Chairman of NMEC, is initiating a full investigation as to how this error occurred.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Building
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met the Royal Automobile Club to discuss road building. [133313]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Ministers regularly meet the RAC Foundation both bilaterally and in the context of the Motorists' Forum. At those meetings various issues are discussed including road building.

  Open Spaces
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the protection of open spaces in towns and cities. [133314]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our planning policies for sport, recreation and open spaces are currently being revised and will provide a strategic framework for assessing the open space needs of local communities and how best to protect them.

  Success of our urban regeneration policy is dependent on creating a high quality environment and the maintenance of good open spaces is essential to this.

  South Coast Corridor Study
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's south coast corridor multi-modal study. [133315]

  Mr. Hill
  Today I have announced the Steering Group membership and Terms of Reference for this important study, which will investigate congestion, safety and environmental problems on the south coast between Southampton and Thanet, and propose measures aimed at improving access to and between the regeneration areas and other areas of economic activity along the south coast. The study is expected to be completed in the spring of 2002.

  Regional Development
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he next intends to visit the north-west of England to discuss regional development policy initiatives. [133316]
  385W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have no plans to visit the north-west of England to discuss regional development policy issues in the near future.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the recent breakdowns of the air traffic control system. [133317]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government greatly regret the inconvenience and costs caused to passengers and airlines by the recent failures of the Flight Data Processing System at West Drayton, most notably on 17 June. NATS has taken measures to enhance the robustness of this system which has proved extremely reliable over the years.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which discussions have taken place since 1 August on the future of air traffic control between his Department and(a) IPMS and (b) BALPA. [133491]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have had a series of discussions at both Ministerial and official level with the Institute of Professional and Managerial Staffs and the Public and Commercial Services Union. Most recently, officials from my Department have held discussions with representatives of both those unions on 4 October 2000 about the proposed public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services.

  We have received no recent representations from the British Association of Airline Pilots.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the possible contribution of tree plantations in upland areas in tackling global warming. [133318]

  Mr. Meacher
  UK woodlands remove about 2.8 million tonnes of carbon annually from the atmosphere—about 1.7 per cent. of UK and 0.04 per cent. of global CO2 emissions. They will continue to contribute in future, by providing renewable energy and construction materials as well as simple removal. Over half our woodlands are in upland areas.

  Neighbourhood Wardens
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the neighbourhood warden initiative. [133319]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government announced the first round of 50 successful bids for the neighbourhood wardens grant on 18 September. A decision on a further 42 schemes has been deferred to allow further 386W
  development. The successful schemes are of a good regional spread, tackling issues on improving the environment, quality of life and community safety.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the timetable for the introduction of regional Government. [133320]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  No timetable has yet been drawn up for moving to directly-elected regional government. We remain committed to do so, where there is support demonstrated in referendums. In the meantime, regionalism is evolving through the work of the regional chambers, regional development agencies, Government offices and others.

  Single Rail Franchise (Wales)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has undertaken with the relevant secretaries of the National Assembly regarding the establishment of a single rail franchise for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [133321]

  Mr. Hill
  The Instructions and Guidance given to the Franchising Director by the Deputy Prime Minister in September 1999 asked him to consider the size, duration, and make-up of franchises in seeking best value for money. The Franchising Director announced a dedicated rail network for Wales and the border counties of England on 8 August. The scope of this network has now been defined following discussion, which started in March, with the National Assembly for Wales and other key stakeholders.

  Tigers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals Her Majesty's Government are supporting to save the tiger from extinction. [133322]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK strongly supports the recommendations on tigers agreed at the Conference of CITES Parties last April. We have contributed over £150,000 to a number of tiger initiatives over the last three years, including most recently £40,000 to help CITES establish a Tiger Enforcement Task Force to combat illicit trade in tigers worldwide.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received from organisations concerning mobile phone masts. [133323]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from(a) local authorities and (b) others on mobile phone masts. [133326]
  387W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As at 30 October, we had received 191 responses to the consultation document on planning for mobile phone masts and other telecommunications development, issued on 31 July. 111 were from local authorities and 80 from others. The consultation period ends today.

  Transport Infrastructure
  Mr.Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on updating the transport infrastructure. [133325]

  Mr. Hill
  Last July we published The 10-year plan for transport. This is a £180 billion investment plan to transform our transport system over the next 10 years, remedying decades of under-investment and stop-start funding. The plan will deliver a modern, integrated transport system fit for the 21st Century.

  Road Improvements (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to improve the A417/A419 at Nettleton Bottom in Gloucestershire. [133327]

  Mr. Hill
  The Highways Agency is currently carrying out a safety improvement scheme at Nettleton Bottom on the A417 trunk road. Work started in September and is due to be completed by early November. The scheme aims to reduce accidents due to vehicles turning right into the Golden Heart public house. A permanent 40 mph speed limit will also be introduced through the village.

  Light Rail
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what role he envisages for light rail in integrated public transport. [133328]

  Mr. Hill
  Light rail and similar rapid transit systems can play a significant part in improving the attractiveness and quality of public transport in major conurbations. Our ten-year plan provides a substantial increase in funding for light rail, to back schemes that offer good value for money as part of integrated transport strategies.

  Local Authority Houses
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authority houses there were(a) immediately prior to the coming into force of the right to buy legislation in 1981, (b) on 1 April 1987, (c) on 1 April 1992, (d) on 1 April 1997 and (e) on 1 April 2000. [133329]

  Mr. Mullin
  The right to buy came into effect on 3 October 1980. The number of properties reported by local authorities as in their ownership and available for rent on the dates specified is as follows.

  Number of properties

  1 April 1980

  4,763,500

  1 April 1987

  4,412,600

  388W

  Number of properties

  1 April 1992

  3,844,400

  1 April 1997

  3,400,600

  1 April 2000

  3,012,000

  The change between 1 April 1980 and 1 April 2000 is not accounted for solely by the right to buy, but also by other changes such as voluntary sales and transfers to other social landlords.

  Local Deprivation Index
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to improve the accuracy of the local deprivation index.[1333301]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The new Indices of Deprivation 2000 were published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in August. The indices, based on 33 ward level indicators of deprivation, were developed after careful research, data testing and extensive consultation with users. They provide local authorities and others with information on deprivation within their area as well as providing national Government and regional bodies with a picture of deprivation across the whole of England. I am confident that they represent the best that is possible at the current time. The indices will be kept under review and will be revised when significantly better information on deprivation for small areas becomes available.

  VAT Harmonisation
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with the Treasury about the revenue implications of harmonising VAT on repairs, restoration, conservation and new-build at between 5 and 8 per cent. [133331]

  Mr. Mullin
  Lord Rogers' Urban Taskforce recommended that we should harmonise VAT on new-build and repair and maintenance. The forthcoming Urban White Paper will outline the Government's response to Lord Rogers' recommendations, but final decisions on taxation will be for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

  London Underground
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met representatives of London Underground Ltd. to discuss transport investment in London. [133332]

  Mr. Hill
  I meet regularly with London Underground's senior management.

  Areas of Deprivation
  Liz Blackman
  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 tackling areas of deprivation.[133333]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to tackling deprivation through the Spending Review
  389W
  2000's specific targets. The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit will drive forward cross-departmentally the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal Action Plan due in the autumn. The new Neighbourhood Renewal Fund's £800 million will provide extra resources for the 88 most deprived authorities and Local Strategic Partnerships will ensure local people play a part.

  Safer Communities
  33. Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund providing new housing for vulnerable people. [133334]

  Mr. Mullin
  This fund of £137 million will finance an expansion of housing and support for young people at risk, people fleeing domestic violence, people with a history of substance misuse and ex-offenders. It is part of the Government's wider action to tackle social exclusion and build safer communities.

  Affordable Housing (South Essex)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what support and assistance he plans to give to key workers seeking affordable accommodation in south Essex. [133335]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In April this year, in our Housing Green Paper, we sought comments on our proposals for a starter home initiative, which will help key workers in high price, high demand areas to buy their own homes, while helping their employers address their recruitment needs. We announced in July that £250 million would be available over the next three years to fund this initiative and we will be announcing further details about it later this year. In the meantime, the increased investment through local authorities and the Housing Corporation, together with our planning policies for housing, will also help to increase the supply of affordable housing where it is most needed.

  Climate Change Report
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's 22nd report, Energy—The Changing Climate. [133336]

  Mr. Meacher
  We welcome the Royal Commission's contribution to the discussion on climate change. Together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe and other colleagues, I will be giving careful consideration to the recommendations contained in the report. We aim to respond to the report within a year of its publication.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made in improving the rights of the occupants of mobile homes. [133337]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have consulted on, and are considering, the recommendations of the Park Homes working party. We have already published good practice 390W
  guidance for local authorities on dealing with harassment and site licensing, and we intend to commission research into the economics of the park homes industry.

  Road Safety
  37. Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received regarding spending on safety improvements on A roads. [133338]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department receives representations from time to time, including those from the hon. Member in respect of the A14.

  The Secretary of State is the highway authority for the trunk road network and will be spending £47 million a year on safety schemes. These will include schemes on both motorways and all-purpose A roads.

  The Highways Agency safety strategy, published in March 2000, is to target expenditure to give best value for money with a maximum reduction in accidents, having due regard for our customers. To achieve this objective, the Agency have identified target user groups and is working with other Government Departments, the police, local highway authorities and others with regard to their concerns in helping to inform the programme.

  The prioritisation of expenditure is ultimately for local authorities to decide in light of priorities within their local transport plan. The recent Spending Review 2000 provided £4.5 billion over the next three years for local transport capital expenditure—a 90 per cent. increase on the previous CSR period.

  South Central (Refranchising Process)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the south central refranchising process will be completed. [133340]

  Mr. Hill
  The Franchising Director announced on 24 October that the shadow Strategic Rail Authority had signed heads of terms with GoVia as the preferred counterparty for the new replacement South Central franchise. GoVia are expected to run the business for 20 years and over that period they are expected to implement an investment programme valued at up to £1.5 billion.

  North West Development Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 27 July 2000,Official Report, columns 757–67W, when the valuation of North West Development Agency freehold and leasehold assets was last undertaken. [133966]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The valuation of North West Development Agency freehold and leasehold assets was last undertaken on 31 March 2000.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
  391W
  if he will place in the Library the register of interests as it applies to each development agency in the United Kingdom. [133961]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The English Regional Development Agencies' (RDAs) registers of members interests are the responsibility of the RDAs themselves and are available to the public on request. As such, the Secretary of State is not in a position to place them in the Library of the House.

  The Devolved Administrations are responsible for development agencies outside England (e.g. Scottish Enterprise, Welsh Development Agency).

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the names of the(a) ad hoc and (b) permanent subcommittees and subgroups of the North West Development Agency which deal with regional issues; and what is the remit of each such committee. [133964]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Board of the North West Development Agency (NWDA) has established a number of sub committees and sub groups as follows:

  Audit Committee

  An Audit Committee is the only formal committee of the Board and was officially established in February 2000. The Audit Committee is authorised by the Board to investigate any activity within its duties and may obtain outside legal or other independent professional advice. Its remit is as follows:
  Discuss with the auditor the nature and scope of each forthcoming audit to ensure that the auditor has the fullest co-operation of staff.
  Review the annual statement before submission to the Board.
  Discuss problems and reservations arising from the audit and any matters that the auditor may wish to discuss.
  Review the NWDA's statement of internal control systems prior to endorsement to the Board.
  Make recommendations to the Board of the NWDA.

  The Health Partnership

  The Health Partnership, which is a sub group to the Board of the North West Development Agency was formed in July 1999. Its main purpose is to assist the North West Development Agency in carrying out its role in contributing to health objectives through its work on economic and social regeneration. The Health Partnership provides a forum in which key organisations can contribute to the pool of knowledge on health related issues so that health is fully integrated into the policies of the Agency and regarded as a cross-cutting issue in all policy and programme development.

  The Rural Sub Group

  The Rural Sub Group to the Board of the North West Development Agency was established in November 1999 and has the following purposes:
  To provide advice and information to the Board on rural issues and to take full account of the rural dimension within the North West Development Agency's policies, strategies, action plans and programmes.
  392W
  To ensure as far as possible that the needs of the rural population of the North West are part of the social inclusion agenda.
  To ensure as far as possible that the rural economy is integrated into the mainstream provision of business support services and that the contribution it makes to the regional economy is fully recognised.
  To ensure that rural communities receive a fair share of resources both from the North West Development Agency and from other regional funds.
  To monitor and evaluate the North West Development Agency's rural policies, action plans and programmes.
  To encourage partnerships to address rural issues and the problems of rural areas.

  The Social and Economic Inclusion Sub Group

  The Social and Economic Inclusion Sub Group was established in August 1999 and has the following purposes:
  To provide advice and information to the Board of the North West Development Agency on Social Inclusion.
  To strengthen the capacity of the North West Development Agency and its partners across the region to deliver social inclusion and economic development and to increase access and influence by those groups hitherto excluded from decision making.
  To monitor and evaluate the Agency's performance on social and economic inclusion and where appropriate offer advice on strategy and delivery.

  The Urban Sub Group

  The Urban Sub Group was established in March 2000 and provides advice and information to the Board on urban issues and, in particular, to advise the Board on:
  Matters arising from the publication of the forthcoming Urban White Paper.
  Matters arising from the publication of the forthcoming Housing Green Paper.

  The Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) Sub Group

  The SRB Sub Group is a permanent advisory group to the Board which meets only at the beginning of the SRB bidding round to agree the criteria for bids and then at the submission stage to consider the bids and make recommendations on those bids to the Board of the North West Development Agency. The need for the sub group is reviewed annually.

  North West Innovation and Technology Advisory Board (NWITAB)

  NWITAB is a formal advisory board which was commissioned by the North West Development Agency to:
  Provide strategic advice and guidance to the NWDA Board on Innovation and Technology issues
  Develop and implement the North West Innovation Strategy. (NWIS)

  The role of the Board is as follows:
  To advise the NWDA Board, via the NWITAB Chair, on all matters relating to the development and implementation of the NWIS.
  To develop and maintain a regional consensus view on the NWIS and its implementation.

  393W
  To endorse NWIS business plans, monitor progress and guide the NWIS Executive accordingly.
  To explore the longer term changes in the Region, nationally and globally, and advise on opportunities, threats and appropriate changes to NWIS and the implementation plan (NW Foresight Group).
  To co-ordinate all innovation and technology activities in the North West region.

  The Board consists of a wide range of representatives from the Private Sector, and representatives from the Universities Association and Government Office for the North West.

  The North West Innovation Strategy was launched on 8 September 2000.

  Minutes from each sub committee and sub group meeting are submitted to the NWDA Board regularly for their approval and, when appropriate, for items of ratification. The NWDA Board regularly review the appropriateness of each of the Sub Groups as well as the administrative arrangements.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 27 July 2000,Official Report, columns 757–67W, what is the name of the tenant at Lakeland Business Park, Cockermouth, whose letting commenced on 20 March. [133971]

  Board member

  Number of occasions

  Interest

  Maggie Chadwick

  2

  Skills Development Fund

  May 1999

  SRB local bids

  June 1999

  John Dunning

  2

  Skills Development Fund

  May 1999

  SRB Round six bids

  July 2000

  Felicity Goodey

  1

  SRB local bids

  June 1999

  Clive Jeanes

  2

  Skills Development Fund

  May 1999

  SRB Round six bids

  July 2000

  Richard Leese

  2

  SRB local bids

  June 1999

  SRB Round Five—Commonwealth Games bid

  November 1999

  Alan Manning

  1

  Skills Development Fund

  May 1999

  Dennis Mendoros

  2

  Skills Development Fund

  May 1999

  SRB Round six bids

  July 2000

  Judy Robinson

  1

  SRB Round six bids

  July 2000

  Clive Jeanes also left the meeting for part of an item on the Small Business Service which was discussed at the Board meeting of the North West Development Agency in March 2000.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the scale and nature of the financial and other support provided by the North West Development Agency in the case of(a) Workington Town Centre, (b) Maryport Endowment, (c) Dovenby Hall, (d) Hills of the North, (e) Westlake Science Park, (f) Kingmoor Park, Carlisle,(g) Lillyhall Partnership, (h) Alston Foundry, (i) Cumbria Credits, (j) Guided Steps to Lifetime Learning, (k) Regeneration of Maryport Averdale, (l) Building Bridges, (m) Cleator Regeneration, (n) Cumbria Rural Regeneration and (o) Heart of Barrow. [133959]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The North West Development Agency funded the acquisition of the St. John's Precinct and Arcade at Workington Town Centre at a cost of £4.2 million. Funding support in respect of the Maryport
  394W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The name of the tenant at Lakeland Business Park, Cockermouth whose letting commenced on 20 March is North Cumbria Health Authority.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 27 July 2000,Official Report, columns 757–67W, to whom the North West Development Agency is accountable on the provision of information on decisions, and estimates of efficiency gains and financial benefits that arose out of moving the location of its offices. [133962]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The North West Development Agency is accountable to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and must provide such information as the Secretary of State may require.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 27 July 2000,Official Report, columns 757–67W, if he will list those interests in relation to which members of the board of the North West Development Agency stood aside from consideration of agency business in the 12 month period used in answer. [133960]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Board Members of the North West Development Agency declared an interest and stood aside (left the Board room) from consideration of North West Development Agency Board business on 13 occasions, for the following reasons:

  Endowment, Dovenby Hall, Hills of the North, Westlakes Science Park, Kingmoor Park, Carlisle, Lillyhall Partnership and Alston Foundry was provided by English Partnerships prior to the establishment of the North West Development Agency. Financial assistance towards Cumbria Credits, Guided Steps to Lifetime Learning, Regeneration of Maryport Averdale, Building Bridges, Cleator Regeneration, Cumbria Rural Regeneration and Heart of Barrow was provided by Government Office for the North West under the Single Regeneration Budget programme prior to the establishment of the North West Development Agency. The North West Development Agency has now been given responsibility for the continuing management of English Partnerships and Single Regeneration Budget schemes in Cumbria.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many square feet are available under the terms of the lease being negotiated by North West Development Agency for occupation at Penrith. [133969]
  395W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The net lettable area being negotiated by the North West Development Agency for occupation at Penrith is 4,950 sq ft.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what purposes the Chief Executive of the North West Development Agency visited Copeland and Allendale in the last 12 months. [133968]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The purpose of the visit made by the Chief Executive of the NWDA to the Copeland and Allerdale areas in the last 12 months was to attend a meeting in Cockermouth with the Chief Executives of Allerdale borough council and Groundwork to discuss a feasibility study for the reclamation/redevelopment of Broughton Moor.

  The Chief Executive of the NWDA also visited:
  The Cumberland Pencil Factory in Keswick to discuss potential support to help keep the company in the town;
  A site in Backbarrow, where the Agency was offering support to a potential inward investor through the Partnership Investment Programme; and
  The Chief Executive of Cumbria Tourist Board to discuss various aspects of Tourism in Cumbria.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what office accommodation is available to the North West Development Agency and at what cost at Lillyhall, Workington. [133967]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The North West Development Agency is committed to building a managed workspace scheme at Lillyhall in 2001 as its contribution to the Lillyhall Partnership. Approximately 1,000 sq ft of the accommodation will be occupied by its Estate Management Staff. Design work has only just commenced but the cost of the building is projected to be in the region of £55 per sq ft gross (£35 per sq ft net of ERDF recovery).

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what indication he has received of the cost per square foot of office space being negotiated by North West Development Agency for occupation at Penrith. [133970]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The indicated office rent at Penrith is £12/sq ft.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations were made by the North West Development Agency to the DTI on the reductions in percentage levels of regional assistance payable in West Cumbria. [133965]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The North West Development Agency made strong representations on the case for West Cumbria, drawing on the Regional Strategy for the North West. The representations were considered by the DTI in developing a case to put to the EU Commission.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the names of the consultancies employed by the North West Development Agency over the last 12 months. [133963]
  396W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Over the last 12 months the North West Development Agency used the following consultancy services:

  Eversheds

  KPMG Management Consulting

  Segal Quince Wickstead Ltd.

  DTZ Pieda Consulting

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  Addleshaw Booth & Co.

  Asian Pacific Research Ltd.

  T. Gill Consultancy

  John Glester Consultancy Services

  GVA Grimley

  Cogent Strategies International Ltd.

  Platt & Fishwick

  Jill Berry

  University of Salford

  Dibb Lupton Alsop

  Amitek UK Ltd.

  Hay Management Consultants

  HFT Gough & Co.

  A. Scott

  J. P. Clarke

  MSL Search and Selection

  Strategem Ltd.

  Gary Gould

  King Sturge & Co.

  Angle Technology Ltd.

  Turner & Townsend

  John Jones

  George Bowness

  The North West Business Leadership

  Sustainability North West

  Dunlop Heywood & Co. Ltd.

  Carigiet Cowen

  John Diggle

  Wigan MBC

  Cumbria Tourist Board

  Roger Tym & Partners

  Manchester Innovation Ltd.

  Business and Market Research

  Colin McGrath

  STMP Marketing Solutions Ltd.

  Lambert Smith Hampton

  Armstrong Watson & Co.

  Povall Flood & Wilson

  Gibson Thorpe Associates

  Todd & Ledson

  Business Interiors Group

  Plunkett Foundation

  Hammond Suddards

  The Change People

  Baker Associates

  Enterprise 2000 Solutions plc

  TSK Workplace Ltd.

  Harry Wilson

  Craig Associates

  Onesource Information Services

  Moody & Stanley

  Grantley Lowe Associates

  397W

  Jim Sherlock

  P. S. Hill & Co.

  Nimtech Malaysia

  Intuition Training & Consultancy Ltd.

  Pauline Soulsby

  Stainforth Public Relations

  B&I Artingstoll

  Ashley Helme Associates Ltd.

  Status (GB) Ltd.

  W. M. Law & Son

  Hayward Associates

  Environmental Advice Centre Ltd.

  Ann Fairclough Association

  The Duckworth Group.

  Planning
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on policies relating to contacts between planning offices and applicants. [135388]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning functions must be seen to be carried out with transparency and openness in order to retain public confidence in the decision making process. Planning officers must abide by the local code of conduct prepared by their local authority. The Government endorse the Local Government Association's "Probity in Planning" which recommends the practices and procedures which codes of conduct should cover, including guidance on discussions between planning officials and applicants.

  Water Supply
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cases of leakage in the water supply system there were, how much water was lost, and how much was spent to rectify these problems, in each of the last five years. [135231]

  Mr. Meacher
  There has been almost a 30 per cent. reduction in water leakage since the Water Summit in May 1997. The total volume of potable water lost through leakage is published annually by the Director General of Water Services in his report on leakage and the efficient use of water. For each of the last five years in England and Wales, the total leakage rates were as follows:

  Organisation

  Location

  London Borough of Lewisham

  Honor Oak

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  Hayes/West Drayton

  Southern Homes

  Hackney

  London Borough of Merton

  Lavender/PhBrdg/Poll Hill

  Southwark Council

  Bermondsey

  London Borough of Barnet

  Graeme Park

  London Borough of Hounslow

  Cranford/Brentford/Hounslow

  Liverpool Housing Trust

  Dymchurch Estate, Liverpool

  West Lancashire District Council

  Skelmersdale, Liverpool

  Eldonian Group Ltd.

  Everton and Breckfield

  Manchester Methodist Housing Association

  Longsight and Levenshulme, Manchester

  Irwell Valley Housing Association

  Sale West

  Derwent and Solway Housing Association

  Moorclose and Westfield, Workington

  Riverside Cheshire Housing Association

  Wimslow

  398W

  Water lost (megalitres/day)

  1995–96

  4,980

  1996–97

  4,528

  1997–98

  3,989

  1998–99

  3,551

  1999–2000

  3,306

  Information on the number of cases of leakage and on the amount of money spent tackling leakage is not held centrally. Details of water companies' overall capital expenditure were last published by the Director General of Water Services in the "Report on the financial performance and expenditure of the water companies in England and Wales 1999–00". In the next five years water companies will invest £15.6 billion in the water industry.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what percentage carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced since 1997. [135208]

  Mr. Meacher
  UK carbon dioxide emissions are provisionally estimated to have been about the same in 1999 as in 1997, and around 7.5 per cent. lower than in 1990. This follows a strong downward trend between 1990 and 1997. The levelling of emissions between 1997 and 1999 reflects a modest growth in overall energy demand, slightly lower output from nuclear power stations and lower imports of electricity from France, balanced by continued fuel switching towards gas.

  The draft UK climate change programme, published in March, sets out a package of policies and measures to continue reducing carbon dioxide emissions over the next decade. It estimated that quantified policies and measures could reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 17.5 per cent. below 1990 levels in 2010 and that other elements of the programme would reduce emissions further and could achieve the Government's 20 per cent. goal

  Neighbourhood Warden Scheme
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the bids and (b) the successful projects under the Neighbourhood Warden scheme, stating the local authority in each case. [135803]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Question(a)All bids:
  399W

  Organisation

  Location

  Knowsley Borough Council

  Stockbridge Village, Knowsley

  Oldham MBC

  Derker and Stoneleigh

  Bolton MBC

  Great Lever, Hutton Lane, Deane

  Manchester and Cheshire North British Housing

  Gorton North, South and West, Manchester

  Portsmouth City Council

  Paulsgrove and Wymering

  Gosport Borough Council

  Town Ward

  Milton Keynes Council

  Fullers Slade

  Adur District Council

  Shoreham, Southwick and Fishergate

  Slough Borough Council

  Britwell, Haymill and Lishmore Park Estate

  Pavillion Housing Association

  North Town and Aldershot

  Leeds City Council

  Middleton Estate, Wythers Estate, Miles Hill Estate, Beckhill Estate, Potternewton Estate, Scott Hall Estate, South Seacroft, John O'Gaunts, Cottingley, Upper Beeston

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  Almondbury, Batley Town Centre, Holme Park, Bishop Court, Berry Brow, Botham Hall, Sycamore, Deighton and Bracken Hall, Moorside, Dewsbury Moor, Highfields and Gledholt, Howden Clough, London Park

  Manor and Castle Development Trust, Sheffield

  Fairleigh, Prince of Wales Road, Manor Park

  Barnsley Community Safety Partnership

  Sheffield Road/Doncaster Road, Kendray, Worsborough Dale and Bridge

  Goodwin Resource Centre Association

  Thornton, Hull

  North West Leicestershire District Council

  Greenhill Estate, Coalville

  Nottingham City Council, Clfton and Wiford Area Committee

  Clifton

  Wansbeck

  Northumberland

  South Tyneside MBC

  South Tyneside

  Gateshead MBC

  Gateshead

  William Sutton Trust

  Linthorpe Estate, Middlesbrough

  Sedgefield District Council

  Newton Aycliffe

  Home Housing Association

  Plains Farm, Sunderland

  North Tyneside Council

  North Tyneside

  Plymouth City Council

  Drake and Sutton Wards

  Kerrier District Council/police

  Mullion, Kerrier District

  Huntingdonshire Housing Partnership

  Oxmoor Estate, Huntingdon

  Stevenage Borough Council

  Bedwell, Shephall and Monkswood

  Optima Community Association

  Attwood Green, Birminghan

  Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Parkfields, Whitmore Reans, Pendeford

  Walsall Housing Regeneration Agency

  Brownhills, Caldmore, Palfrey, Darleston, Willenhall

  Merthyr Tydfil County Borough

  Merthyr Dowlais Ward

  Cardiff Community Housing Association

  Adamsdown Lane Estate, Cardiff

  Gwynedd Council

  Maes Barcer Estate Caernarfon

  Caerphilly County Borough

  Gilfach and Graig y Rhacca

  City and Council of Swansea Council

  Hafod Area, Swansea

  London Borough of Sutton

  WrytheGrn/WandleValley

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  Bethnal Green/Victoria Park

  London Borough of Hackney

  Frampton Park/Morningside

  Network Housing Association

  Neasden, Brent

  London Borough of Havering

  Harold Hill and South Havering

  Hyde Northside

  Rosetower

  Willow Park Housing Trust

  Benchill

  Trafford MBC

  Partington and Carrington

  Wirral Borough Council

  Connaught Estate

  Burnley Borough Council

  Barclay, Coal Clough and Burnley Wood

  Tameside MBC

  Ashton

  Wyre Borough Council

  Wyre

  Manchester Methodist Housing Association

  Longridge and Shaw Heath Estate

  William Sutton Trust

  Breightmet and Bolton

  Bury MBC

  East Ward, Bury

  Trafford MBC

  Old Trafford

  Wigan MBC

  Worsley Mesnes North

  Manchester Housing

  North Manchester

  Salford City Council

  The Valley Estate

  Vale of White Horse District Council

  South Abingdon Estate

  Aylesbury Vale District Council

  Meadowcroft/Quarrendon

  Horsham District Council

  Ashington Parish

  Canterbury City Council

  Northgate, Hersden and Harbour Ward

  Guildford Borough Council

  Ash and Stoke

  Hastings Borough Council

  Hollington

  Sheffield City Council

  Lowedges, Jordanthorpe, Batemoor, Darnall/Stainforth Road,

  Doncaster Borough Council

  Mexborough

  Wakefield District Community Safety Partnership

  Chequerfield Estate, Pontefract

  Rotherham Community Safety Partnership

  Rawmarsh East

  FCH Housing and Care

  Crewton Gardens Estate

  Greater Humberstone Management Group and Leicester City Council

  Greater Humberstone

  400W 401W

  Organisation

  Location

  Boston Community Safety Partnership

  Boston

  Stockton on Tees B.C.

  North Hornaby/Hardwick

  Darlington B.C.

  Darlington

  Exeter City Council

  St. Davids, St. James, Newton and Polshoe Wards

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  Parishes within the four Districts

  Dacorum Borough Council

  Bennetts End and Corner Hill

  Norwich City Council

  South East Norwich

  Balsall Heath Forum

  Balsall Heath, Birmingham

  Stoke on Trent City Council

  Bentilee and Berryhill

  Wyre Forest Community Safety Partnership

  Broadwaters, Kidderminster

  Focus Housing Group

  Hillfields, Coventry

  Newport County Borough Council

  Broadmead and Moorland Park ( Lliswerry Ward)

  Richmond Borough Council

  Council Housing stock

  Ealing FHA Ltd.

  North Acton and Isleworth

  Newham Borough Council

  Council housing stock

  Notting Hill Housing Trust

  Dalgarno, Kensington

  Lancaster West EMB

  Ladbroke Grove

  London Borough of Lambeth

  3 areas

  London Borough of Harrow

  Wealdstone

  London Borough of Camden

  Gospel Oak

  Hackney Est Man. and Dev.

  Stamford Hill

  Hackney Est Man. and Dev.

  Kingsland

  Poplar HARCA

  Poplar 4 areas

  Pimlico Village Housing Co-op

  Lillington/Longmore Gardens, Westminster

  Congleton

  Borough

  Carlisle City Council

  Raffles, Botcherby and Harraby

  Home Housing Association

  Flimby

  Safer Merseyside

  Merseyside

  Liverpool City Council

  Dovecot, Smithdown, Kensington and Anfield

  Pendle Borough Council

  Bradley and Vivary Bridge

  Cheshire County Council

  Cheshire

  Sefton MBC

  South Sefton

  St. Helens MBC

  St. Helens

  Chester District Housing Trust

  Kingsway, Chester

  Halton Borough Council

  Hough Green

  Wealden District Council

  Town Farm Estate, Hailsham

  Chiltern District Council

  Chesham

  Parchment Housing Group

  Stakes Ward

  Medway Council

  Central Gillingham, Central Chatham, Frindsbury

  Thanet District Council

  Northdown Park Area and Newington Ward

  Shepway District Council

  Folkestone

  Tandridge District Council

  Bletchingley

  Sovereign Housing Association

  Hunters Hill/Omers Rise Area. Burghfield Common

  Shaftesbury Housing Association

  Cannock Lawn

  Ealing Family Housing Association Ltd.

  Amersham Road Estate. Reading

  Southwight Housing Association

  Isle of Wight

  Elmbridge Housing Trust

  North Walton Area

  Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

  Watersedge and Longmead Estates

  Isle of Wight Association Ltd.

  Chale Green Estate

  Southampton City Council

  Northam Estate, Nicholstown/Newtown/Radcliffe Road

  Brighton and Hove Council

  East Brighton

  Burley and Hyde Park Community Safety Project

  Burley and Hyde Park

  Bradford Metropolitan District Council

  Bierley, Holmewood, Wyke, Delph Hill, Buttershaw, Parkside, Allerton, Scholemoor, Canterbury, Howarth Road. Westroyd, Bradford Moor, Fagley, Thorpe Edge, Woodhouse

  Preston Road Partnership

  Preston Road

  PROBE Ltd.

  Marfleet

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  Grimsby (Nunsthorpe, Bradley Park, Grange, Yarborough)

  Leeds Federated Housing Association

  Beeston Hill

  Boston Mayflower Ltd.. Boston Borough Council, Boston Community Safety Partnership

  Boston

  Ashfield Partnership Against Crime

  Welbeck Estate, Coxmoor Estate, Leamington Estate

  Broxtowe Borough Council Community Safety Partnership

  Broxtowe

  Derby City Crime and Disorder Partnership

  Rosehill and Pear Tree

  Ollerton and Boughton Town Council

  Boughton

  South Derbyshire Crime and Disorder Partnership

  South Derbyshire

  South Kesteven District Council

  New Beacon Community Info. Centre

  Walbrook Housing Association

  Hartington Street

  Walbrook Housing Association

  Poets Corner

  Bolsover District Council

  Bolsover

  District of Easington

  Peterlee/Seaham

  Newcastle City Council

  Byker/Heaton

  Middlesbrough Council

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough Council

  Pallister Park/Berwick Hills

  402W 403W

  Organisation

  Location

  Home Housing Association

  Arthurs Hill, Newcastle

  Grangetown Residents Association

  Grangetown

  Derwentside District Council

  Derwentside

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Brotton/Eston/Whale Hill

  S. Somerset District Council

  C. Yeovil and Chard

  Caradon District Council

  Saltash (part)

  Sovereign Housing Association

  Totnes (part)

  North Somerset District Council

  Two police beats in Weston-Super-Mare

  Devon and Cornwall Housing Association

  Barne Barton Estate, Plymouth

  Rochford District Council

  St Andrews and Roche

  Suffolk Heritage Housing Association

  Lowestoft

  Waveney District Council

  Lowestoft

  Bedford Borough Council

  Balliol Estate (Kempston), Shortstown, London Rd (Bedford), Carron Rd (Brickhill)

  Luton Borough Council

  Hightown and South, Bramingham, Sundon Park and Leagrave

  Cambridge City Council

  Cambridge City Centre

  Flagship Housing Group

  Thetford and Brandon

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  Peterborough

  Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk—Housing Services Department

  West Norfolk

  South Beds District Council

  Bedfordshire

  Focus Housing Group

  Bordesley Green

  Trident Housing Association

  Five Ways

  Crime Concern

  Greets Green

  Spa Housing Association

  Westlands Estate, Droitwich Spa

  Warwick District Community Safety Forum

  Leamington Old Town

  Newcastle under Lyme Housing

  Residential area of the town ward of Newcastle

  Rugby Borough Council

  Long Lawford

  East Staffordshire Borough Council

  Eton, Uxbridge, Waterside, Winshill, Uttoxeter Town

  Telford and Wrekin Council

  Woodside, Donnington Wood, Brookside, Dawley, Hadley, College/Arleston

  Accord Housing Association

  Eastgate Street

  Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

  Leek. Biddulph

  Birmingham City Council

  Kings Norton

  Cardiff Community Safety Partnership

  Ely and Caerau

  Torfaen County Council

  Cwmbran

  Isle of Anglesey County Council

  Llangefni

  Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough

  Cynon Valley

  Gwalia Homes Housing Association Ltd.

  Clase

  Neath Port Talbot County Council

  Sandsfields and Upper Apan Valley

  Flintshire County Council

  Buckley Deeside Flint Holywell and Mold

  Glamorgan and Gwent HA

  St. Mellons, East Cardiff

  Conwy County Borough Council

  Towyn, Llandudno, Kinmel Bay, Colwyn Bay

  Carmarthenshire

  Glanymor. Tyisha, Llwynhendy

  Question (b)All successful bids and their organizers:

  Organisation

  Location

  London Borough of Lewisham

  Honor Oak

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  Hayes/West Drayton

  Southern Homes

  Hackney

  London Borough of Merton

  Lavender/PhBrdg/Poll Hill

  Southwark Council

  Bermondsey

  London Borough of Barnet

  Graeme Park

  London Borough of Hounslow

  Cranford/Brentford/Hounslow

  Liverpool Housing Trust

  Dymchurch Estate, Liverpool

  West Lancashire District Council

  Skelmersdale, Liverpool

  Eldonian Group Ltd.

  Everton and Breckfield

  Manchester Methodist Housing Association

  Longsight and Levenshulme, Manchester

  Irwell Valley Housing Association

  Sale West

  Derwent and Solway Housing Association

  Moorclose and Westfield, Workington

  Riverside Cheshire Housing Association

  Wimslow

  Knowsley Borough Council

  Stockbridge Village, Knowsley

  Oldham MBC

  Derker and Stoneleigh

  Bolton MBC

  Great Lever, Hutton Lane. Deane

  Manchester and Cheshire North British Housing

  Gorton North, South and West, Manchester

  Portsmouth City Council

  Paulsgrove and Wymering

  Gosport Borough Council

  Town Ward

  Milton Keynes Council

  Fullers Slade

  Adur District Council

  Shoreham, Southwick and Fishergate

  Slough Borough Council

  Britwell. Haymill and Lishmore Park Estate

  Pavillion Housing Association

  North Town and Aldershot

  404W 405W

  Organisation

  Location

  Leeds City Council

  Middleton Estate, Wythers Estate. Miles Hill Estate, Beckhill Estate, Potternewton Estate, Scott Hall Estate, South Seacroft, John O'Gaunts, Cottingley, Upper Beeston

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  Almondbury, Batley Town Centre, Holme Park, Bishop Court, Berry Brow, Botham Hall, Sycamore, Deighton and Bracken Hall, Moorside, Dewsbury Moor, Highfields and Gledholt, Howden Clough, London Park.

  Manor and Castle Development Trust, Sheffield

  Fairleigh, Prince of Wales Road, Manor Park

  Barnsley Community Safety Partnership

  Sheffield Road/Doncaster Road, Kendray, Worshorough Dale and Bridge

  Goodwin Resource Centre Association

  Thornton, Hull

  North West Leicestershire District Council

  Greenhill Estate. Coalville

  Nottingham City Council, Clfton and Wiford Area Committee

  Clifton

  Wansbeck

  Northumberland

  South Tyneside MBC

  South Tyneside

  Gateshead MBC

  Gateshead

  William Sutton Trust

  Linthorpe Estate, Middlesbrough

  Sedgefield District Council

  Newton Aycliffe

  Home Housing Association

  Plains Farm, Sunderland

  North Tyneside Council

  North Tyneside

  Plymouth City Council

  Drake and Sutton Wards

  Kerrier District Council/police

  Mullion, Kerrier District

  Huntingdonshire Housing Partnership

  Oxmoor Estate, Huntingdon

  Stevenage Borough Council

  Bedwell, Shephall and Monkswood

  Optima Community Association

  Attwood Green. Birminghan

  Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Parkfields, Whitmore Beans. Pendeford

  Walsall Housing Regeneration Agency

  Brownhills, Caldmore, Palfrey, Darleston, Willenhall

  Merthyr Tydfil County Borough

  Merthyr Dowlais Ward

  Cardiff Community Housing Association

  Adamsdown Lane Estate, Cardiff

  Gwynedd Council

  Maes Barcer Estate Caernarfon

  Caerphilly County Borough

  Gilfach and Graig y Rhacca

  City and Council of Swansea

  Hafod Area, Swansea

  China
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which human rights issues he raised with the Chinese Government during his recent visit to China. [135512]

  Mr. Prescott
  I raised with Vice Premier Wu Bangguo the concerns which exist in the United Kingdom over human rights, but welcomed the dialogue that exists between our two countries on the issue, and the fact that it was being discussed by our officials on that very day in London.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the New Earnings Survey data on which his proposed adjustment to the Area Cost Adjustment is based; and if he will provide data for earnings in the South Gloucestershire Unitary Authority area on the same basis and over the same period. [135128]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The data used to calculate the proposed update to the Area Cost Adjustment (ACA) indicator is taken from the April 1999 New Earnings Survey (NES). We are unable to release the disaggregated data for individual authorities, as this would breach the confidentiality agreement under which the data is collected as it could reveal the identity of an individual firm or person.

  Under the ACA methodology, the data for South Gloucestershire Unitary Authority contributes to the population-weighted average hourly wage calculation for
  406W
  the 'Rest of England'. The table sets out the average hourly wages for the five ACA areas using the April 1999 NES data.

  ACA area

  1999 NES £ per hour

  City of London

  15.55

  Inner London

  12.83

  Outer London

  11.40

  South East Region

  10.89

  Rest of England

  9.91

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will be consulting local authorities on his proposals for the Housing Revenue Account and HRA Subsidy for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [135940]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are issuing details of our proposals for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and HRA Subsidy for 2001–02 to all local housing authorities in England today. We are asking for comments by 30 November. Copies of the consultation documents are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Next year will see the introduction of resource accounting within the HRA, including the new Major Repairs Allowance (MRA). Resource accounting is part of the new, more businesslike approach to local authority housing and the delivery of better quality services. The MRA will provide resources through the HRA subsidy system, of some £1.6 billion next year, to enable all authorities to maintain the condition of their housing stock

  407W
  over the longer term. The resources are being drawn from the significantly increased provision for capital expenditure by local authorities announced as part of the Government's spending plans for 2001–02 to 2003–04 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18 July.

  Our proposals for 2001–02 also include an additional £67 million to spend on day-to-day housing maintenance; the third year in which we have proposed increases. In addition, there will be further resources next year of £15 million to help authorities introduce resource accounting, with another £6 million to help tenants get involved in managing their homes through tenant participation compacts.

  We are combating years of under-investment in the fabric of our council stock. We are determined to improve the quality of council housing and the services to tenants.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to phase out refrigerants with a high global warming potential. [135775]

  Mr. Meacher
  A new EC Regulation (2037/2000) on the control of ozone depleting substances came into force on 1 October. Ozone depleting substances such as CFCs and HCFCs, most commonly used in refrigeration systems, also have a high global warming potential (GWP)—CFC 12 and HCFC 22 have GWPs of 8100 and 1500 respectively; for comparison the GWP of carbon dioxide is defined as 1. From 1 January 2001 there will be a ban on the use of CFCs to maintain existing refrigeration equipment. Also, the use of HCFCs as refrigerants will be banned in most new equipment from 1 January 2001.

  Industry has replaced CFCs and HCFCs with a variety of alternative refrigerants—many with a low GWP. However, in some applications there are no suitable alternatives currently available other than HFC 134a, which has a high GWP (1300), but does not deplete the ozone layer. We announced in the draft Climate Change Programme how we intend to deal with the growth in use of HFCs. The policy gives industry and users a clear signal to look closely at all the alternatives and to use HFCs only where other safe, technically feasible, cost-effective and more environmentally acceptable alternatives do not exist. The final Programme is to be published shortly.

  Population Estimates
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates of the population in 2016 in each English region and London have been used in devising the projected level of household formations proposed for the current round of draft regional planning guidance. [135738]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Draft reviews of regional planning guidance (RPG) submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State since July 1999 have taken account of the Office for National Statistics 1996-based sub-national population projections. The projected 408W
  population for each English region and London in 2016 are as shown. They have informed the Department's 1996-based household projections. However, household projections are only one of the factors to be taken into account in preparing the housing strategy in RPG (see Chapter 5 of PPG11 published on 17 October 2000).

  Projected population of England in 2016, by Government Office

  Region

  Thousand

  Population

  North East

  2,521.4

  North West and Merseyside

  6,812.6

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  5,164.7

  East Midlands

  4,455.4

  West Midlands

  5,391.4

  East of England

  5,823.2

  London

  7,608.5

  South East

  8,721.9

  South West

  5,332.8

  England

  51,831.9

  Source:

  ONS 1996-based Sub-national population projections

  Railway Station Refurbishment
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with Railtrack plc regarding railway station refurbishment in West Sussex. [133243]

  Mr. Hill
  None.

  Wembley Task Force
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions since April 2000 the Wembley Task Force has met; and if he will list those present at each meeting. [134835]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [pursuant to her reply, 30 October 2000, c.298-99W]: The list shows the people who attended the meeting on 25 October 2000.

  Chairman Sir Nigel Mobbs

  Deputy Chairman Councillor Paul Daisley (LBB)

  Acting Chief Executive—Tony Winterbottom (LDA)

  Mike Appleton (EP)

  John Duffy (GLA)

  Mariana Spater (WPP)

  Observers

  Niall Mackenzie (DCMS)

  Ian O'Neill (DCMS)

  Geoff Raw (LBB)

  Guy Thornett (LDA)

  Kieran McStravick (LDA).

  Those who did not attend the meeting:

  Derek Casey (Sport England)

  Ian Fytche (Sport England)

  Jonathan Branson (Sport England)

  Ralph Ward (LDA)

TREASURY

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total administrative cost to date of the Pensions Mis-selling Review. [134265]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The estimates of administrative costs, first provided by the FSA to the Treasury Select Committee in early 1998, are £500 million for phase 1 of the review and £520 to £750 million for phase 2.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the sources were of the funds used by the largest six companies who mis-sold personal pensions to reinstate their pensions; and if he will make a statement. [135659]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's policy follows that outlined in the reply by the then Economic Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) on 24 July 1998,Official Report, columns 750–51W.

  The Government view is that, in principle, the costs of compensating victims of pensions mis-selling should be shared and borne in the same proportion as profits arising from mis-selling would have been.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the progress which has been made in resolving the problems arising from the implementation of the NIRS2 computer system. [134511]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if full functionality of the NIRS2 computer system has been achieved. [134646]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following the well documented problems experienced with NIRS2 when it was first introduced, considerable progress has since been made and the Inland Revenue now regards the system as stable. Since April 1999, when the Inland Revenue took responsibility for the system, it has worked with the suppliers to ensure that full functionality is in place.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the administration and compliance costs of inheritance tax. [134648]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Costs of administration were £30.1 million for the year 1999–2000, or 1.5 pence per pound collected. I have no current estimate of the compliance costs of inheritance tax; they were estimated for 1986–87 at about 4 pence per pound collected. (Sandford et al, "Administrative and Compliance Costs of Taxation", Fiscal Publications, 1989).

  Tobacco
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the percentage of tax taken on each pound of rolled tobacco for each of the past 10 years for which figures are available. [134407]
  410W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The information on hand rolling tobacco can be found in the HM Customs and Excise "Tobacco Factsheet", page 4, 'Prices and Taxation Analysis', a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Taxation Statistics
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the change in the overall level of taxation has been over(a) the past year and (b) the past six months. [134970]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Updated estimates and forecasts will be published in the pre-Budget Report.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of paying a specific benefit through the pay packets on(a) claimants' behaviour and (b) the labour market. [134518]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit, as a tax credit rather than a welfare benefit, is paid through the wage packet. This reduces the stigma attached to receiving in work support and clearly demonstrates the reward of work compared to welfare.

  The Government continue to monitor the effects of the Working Families Tax Credit.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the basis was of the forecast contained in the Treasury press release of 7 September 1999 that 1.5 million people would receive the Working Families Tax Credit. [134607]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: The forecast contained in the Treasury press release of 7 September 1999 was based on the best information available at that time. It used survey data from both the Family Resources Survey and the Family Expenditure Survey up to 1997–98 and built on DSS experience of operating Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of the level of fraud in the Working Families Tax Credit. [134591]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: There is no statistically valid data currently available from which a meaningful estimate of the level of fraud in tax credits can be made.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the labour market effect of the Working Families Tax Credit; and what assessment he has made of the report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies on the labour market impact of the Working Families Tax Credit. [134630]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: The Working Families Tax Credit is one of a number of reforms to make work pay for those on the lowest incomes in work. Treasury estimates of the possible impact on labour supply of the complete package of reforms—including changes to employee National Insurance and income tax rates—were published in "Tackling Poverty and Making Work Pay—Tax Credits for the 21st Century" (The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System,

  411W
  Number 6, March 2000, paragraph 2.13). These estimates took into account recent research and were based on methodology used by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in 1999 study: "Entering Work and the British Tax and Benefit System".

  Tax Harmonisation
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on tax harmonisation within the European Union. [134972]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's approach to EU tax issues is based on fair tax competition, not tax harmonisation. At the recent Feira European Council in June, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor persuaded the EU to accept exchange of information rather than a withholding tax on cross-border savings income as the way forward. This illustrated the success of the Government's policy of constructive engagement on EU issues.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the coal used by steam locomotives on heritage and voluntary railways will be subject to the climate change levy. [134509]

  Mr. Timms
  Coal used to propel trains will be exempt from climate change levy provided they are not being used for the transportation of passengers to from or within:

  a) a place of entertainment, recreation or amusement or

  b) a place of cultural, scientific, historical or similar interest.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the income from VAT on petrol and diesel sales in the United Kingdom, assuming present pump prices continue unchanged until the end of the financial year. [135086]

  Mr. Timms
  Forecasts of total VAT receipts are published at the time of the Budget and the pre-Budget Report.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress in the review of the value of fiscal marks as a deterrent to tobacco forestalling and to aid anti-smuggling efforts; and when the review will be completed. [135879]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The review of the value of fiscal marks as a deterrent to tobacco forestalling and to aid anti-smuggling was completed and the results published in the Regulatory Impact Assessment laid in the Library of the House of Commons in April 2000. Fiscal marks to counter smuggling will be introduced with effect from 1 April 2001. Restrictions on clearances of tobacco from duty-suspended storage to counter forestalling will be in place for Budget 2001.

  Bank Closures
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what notification is required to(a) his Department and (b) the public authorities prior to the closure of high street bank branches; and if he will make a statement. [135532]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None.

  Euro
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent studies his Department has undertaken on the impact of the euro on the UK economy. [135469]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have set out five economic tests which define whether an economic case can be made for membership of EMU. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said we will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  Registration
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made since 9 March 1999 on the review by Her Majesty's Customs of the impact of registration on growing businesses. [135873]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since the publication of the results of the consultation exercise on 9 March 1999, Customs have consulted widely with small business representatives and academics. The outcome of these consultations will inform future Budget decisions.

  Tax Returns (Internet)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the live pilot of electronic VAT returns. [135876]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise have been developing a system to allow businesses to send their VAT returns securely over the internet. Following introduction of enabling legislation in the Finance Act 1999, and secondary legislation in February 2000, a limited live pilot of internet VAT returns started on 1 March 2000.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1034W, on tax returns and the internet, if he will publish the data for each month since 1 January 1997 on how many self-assessment tax returns were (a) issued, (b) received, (c) waiting to be processed and (d) processed; and if he will make a statement. [134238]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The Inland Revenue's self-assessment internet service is the first in a series of electronic services which will be delivered in line with the Government policy that all transactions with Government should be capable of being done electronically by 2005.

  The architecture of the internet service has not only been designed to cope with the increase in take-up of the self-assessment internet service, but will serve

  413W
  enhancements to that service and future services, such as that for companies, which will be delivered over the next three years.

  Tax Year/Date

  SA returns issued

  SA returns received

  SA returns processed

  SA returns waiting to be processed

  1997–98

  3 May 1998

  8,547,334

  259,674

  81,451

  178,223

  31 May 1998

  8,633,913

  702,870

  319,585

  383,285

  28 June 1998

  8,711,634

  1,298,673

  781,249

  517,424

  2 August 1998

  8,788,923

  2,083,105

  1,446,595

  636,510

  30 August 1998

  8,845,663

  2,787,577

  2,021,854

  765,723

  27 September 1998

  8,897,137

  3,895,601

  2,711,470

  1,184,131

  1 November 1998

  8,954,973

  4,944,042

  3,912,100

  1,031,942

  29 November 1998

  9,000,034

  5,342,335

  4,677,158

  665,177

  3 January 1999

  9,024,722

  5,816,006

  5,165,156

  650,850

  31 January 1999

  9,030,450

  7,913,563

  6,005,521

  1,908,042

  28 February 1999

  9,086,725

  8,254,640

  7,252,124

  1,002,516

  28 March 1999

  9,116,935

  8,374,888

  7,973,651

  401,237

  1998–99

  2 May 1999

  8,734,295

  306,529

  109,778

  196,751

  30 May 1999

  8,826,638

  805,864

  432,451

  373,413

  27 June 1999

  8,891,744

  1,370,936

  879,982

  490,954

  1 August 1999

  8,967,094

  2,167,722

  1,559,826

  607,896

  29 August 1999

  9,015,798

  2,900,715

  2,111,840

  788,875

  30 September 1999

  9,057,063

  4,472,780

  2,938,795

  1,533,985

  31 October 1999

  9,109,718

  5,006,960

  3,931,560

  1,075,400

  28 November 1999

  9,137,453

  5,397,759

  4,658,370

  739,389

  2 January 2000

  9,150,632

  5,873,843

  5,148,274

  725,569

  31 January 1999

  9,125,743

  7,872,689

  5,867,559

  2,005,130

  27 February 2000

  9,178,845

  8,343,965

  7,041,913

  1,302,052

  2 April 2000

  9,214,442

  8,506,751

  8,043,818

  462,933

  1999–2000

  30 April 2000

  8,763,125

  202,063

  0

  202,063

  28 May 2000

  8,874,848

  652,810

  33

  652,777

  2 July 2000

  8,955,640

  1,321,170

  536,960

  784,210

  30 July 2000

  9,004,347

  2,010,712

  1,112,762

  897,950

  3 September 2000

  9,054,837

  2,885,753

  1,851,942

  1,033,811

  1 October 2000

  9,095,909

  4,200,312

  2,592,546

  1,607,766

  Fuel Tax (Farmers)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the increased revenue to the Exchequer if diesel fuel supplied to farmers were taxed at the rate of other diesel fuel. [135277]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: It is not possible to estimate accurately the revenue impact of increasing the rate of duty applied to diesel fuel used by farmers because there are no estimates of the amount of fuel used in vehicles covered by paragraphs 2 to 5 of Schedule 1 to Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Act 1979.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of fuel taxed at a lower rate for farmers which was sold in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [135278]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: There are no estimates of the amount of fuel used in vehicles covered by paragraphs 2 to 5 of Schedule 1 to Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Act 1979.

  Clearances of gas oil amounted to 6.964 million litres in 1999–2000 and raised duty of £211.2 million. However, sectors other than farming are entitled to use gas oil, for example construction and mining.
  414W
  The statistical data requested are available only on a monthly basis from May 1998 for the Tax Years 1997–98 et seq. and are as detailed.

  Annuities
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the review on annuities is expected to report. [135733]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Various proposals have been put forward as alternatives to the annuity purchase requirement for pension schemes. An announcement will be made in due course if it is decided that any changes are required.

  Beekeepers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduc0e a tax rebate for beekeepers. [134641]

  Dawn Primarolo
  While the Government keep all taxes under review, there are no plans at present to introduce a tax rebate for beekeepers. Any changes would be considered as part of the Budget process.

  Community Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce tax exemptions for community amateur sports clubs. [135732]
  415W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Many community amateur sports clubs are already exempt from corporation tax on the income they earn from their members, and the subscriptions of their playing members are exempt from VAT. On 29 September DETR published a Green Paper, "Modernising Local Government Finance", which included, at Annex E, a section inviting views on rate relief for non-profit-making sports clubs.

  Domestic Heating Fuel
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much(a) the pre-tax cost of a litre of domestic heating fuel, (b) the fuel duty on a litre and (c) the VAT on a litre has increased by (i) percentage and (ii) actual terms since January 1999; and how much additional revenue the Treasury has received as a result. [135124]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the prices of different fuel products is available in "Energy Trends", published monthly by the DTI. There is no excise duty on standard grade heating oil. The rate of VAT applying to domestic heating oil has remained at 5 per cent. since it was reduced to that level from 8 per cent. in September 1997.

  Estimating the additional revenues accrued by the Government as a result of the rise in the price of heating oil is difficult because we need to make assumptions about the way in which consumers fund the rise in the price of fuel. If expenditure is diverted predominantly from standard-rated goods towards expenditure on heating oil, VAT receipts may actually fall.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals against closure of magistrates courts there were in 1990; and if he will make a statement. [135204]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information required to answer the question of how many appeals against the closure of magistrates courts there were in 1990 is not readily accessible. I will in due course, write to the hon. Member to provide the information he requests. The Lord Chancellor's Department assumed responsibility for policy for magistrates courts from the Home Office in April 1992.

  The Government's policy is that magistrates courts are best managed locally by magistrates courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future of magistrates courts are for local magistrates courts committees to determine.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates courts there were in England and Wales in(a) 1990 and (b) 1999. [135205]

  Jane Kennedy
  My Department does not hold records for 1990. Prior to 1992 magistrates courts were the responsibility of the Home Office. I will in due course write to the hon. Member to provide an estimate of the number of courts in 1990.
  416W
  Definitive information about courthouse numbers was not held centrally until 1995, when there were 516 magistrates courts in England and Wales. In 1999 there were 436.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) appeals and (b) successful appeals against closure of magistrates courts there were in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [135203]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Appeals

  Successful appeals

  1997

  17

  2

  1998

  26

  1

  1999

  9

  1

  Civil Courts (IT)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on progress in installing new IT equipment and systems in the civil courts. [135125]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Court Service has a rolling programme of improving existing IT systems in the County Courts, together with a long-term business and IT strategy programme.

  The most recent significant IT change in the civil courts was the implementation of the Civil Justice Reforms. In order to implement this change effectively within the required timescales without excessive risk, the Court Service (in partnership with its IT supplier) made wide ranging changes to pre-existing systems. Core IT and business changes were implemented to the defined timetable—subsequent refinements have been introduced to improve operational effectiveness.

  However, it is recognised that there remains significant scope to exploit further the potential of modern technologies (as was highlighted by the civil.justice.2000 report). This theme is at the centre of the Modernising the Civil Courts (MCC) programme which we are developing. We plan to issue a consultation paper on MCC later this year. That paper will highlight a wide range of business areas where the application of a diverse set of technologies could significantly enhance the administration of civil justice. In order to ensure that change to IT systems is delivered in the most effective way, a department-wide Information and Communications Technology strategy has been developed—this will ensure that the IT deployed is fully in line with the principle of the Modernising Government initiatives.

  MCC will involve a long-term programme of change. Thus, in parallel with it, the Court Service has begun to, and will continue to, improve current IT facilities. For example:
  A series of upgrades to CaseMan (the main county court IT system) have been implemented to deliver operational changes. These have incorporated a range of changes proposed by end users. There are standing processes to continue with future releases (taking on board end user input);
  A major upgrade of CaseMan has been contracted for with our IT provider and will eliminate old stand-alone systems next year;

  417W
  Earlier this year a facility was introduced that allows major issuers to issue claims by submitting data electronically through telephone lines. Previously the submission of this data had been restricted to tape and disk;
  In the near future, the Court Service plans to pilot new electronic arrangements for handling certain applications to the county courts;
  The Court Service will also shortly be piloting kiosk based access to its electronic services in conjunction with the University of Wolverhampton, the CAB and Telford local authority;
  The Court Service is piloting a video conferencing network linking Cardiff, Manchester, Leeds and the Royal Courts of Justice;
  The Court Service rolled out laptops to the majority of the Judiciary. The services provided include access to the internet in general along with specific access to online legal sources related to the Human Rights Act;
  The Court Service relaunched its website that provides online access to a wide range of civil court forms and guidance along with general information as to the operation of the courts. This site is one of the most accessed websites provided by UK central Government.

  Judicial Appointments Annual Report
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish the second Judicial Appointments Annual Report; and what information it will contain. [136148]

  Mr. Lock
  The Judicial Appointments Annual Report, covering the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000, is published today. The report includes comprehensive narrative descriptions and detailed statistics on appointments to the judiciary, Queen's Counsel, Lay Magistrates and General Commissioners of Income Tax. It also includes information on the Lord Chancellor's appointments policies and procedures and recent developments such as the implementation of Sir Leonard Peach's recommendations. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The report is also available on the internet.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorism Act 2000
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to bring the Terrorism Act 2000 into force. [136029]

  Mr. Straw
  We are currently working towards an implementation date for the Terrorism Act 2000 of 19 February 2001. Certain powers required in advance of the Terrorism Act taking effect have already been brought into force by Commencement Orders under section 128 of the Act. On 12 October 2000, provisions relating to United Kingdom-wide and Northern Ireland specific codes of practice were brought into force, paving the way for consultation on those codes. Today further provisions, such as those setting out the procedure for the making of secondary legislation, including the orders to bring the codes of practice into force, have been commenced. The provisions brought into force today also include provision for rules of court dealing with certain procedures under the Act and for the establishment of the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission.

  Immigration Services Commissioner
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress the Immigration Services Commissioner has made in establishing the scheme of regulation for immigration advisers and service providers. [136030]

  Mrs. Roche
  Copies of the Immigration Services Commissioner's Rules, Code of Standards and Complaints Scheme have now been published on the internet at http:www.oisc.org.uk. A copy of these documents will be placed in the Library.

  The Commissioner has also published guidance to advisers on competencies in relation to the provision of immigration advice or immigration services. The Commissioner will be making an announcement in the near future as to the process for making a case for exemption or an application for registration.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 28 September; and if he will make a statement. [136031]

  Mr. Straw
  Nigel Sheinwald, the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to the European Union, represented the United Kingdom at the 28 September Council. The main matters dealt with at the meeting were as follows:The list of A points was adopted in full, except items on the Schengen Information System, Sirene, on which one member state maintained a Parliamentary Scrutiny Reserve, and on minimum standards for the security of passports.

  Common Visa List:
  The Council agreed to a mechanism for deferring the entry into force of a visa exemption for certain third countries.
  Further discussion would take place in Committee of Permanent Representives (COREPER) and the European Parliament would be reconsulted. This is a measure in respect of which the United Kingdom has not sought to opt in.
  420W
  Europol: money laundering:
  Political agreement was reached on extending the Europol Convention to cover all money laundering and the accompanying Council declaration on predicate offences, subject to consideration of the European Parliament's Opinion. This would formally be adopted at the Council's meeting on 30 November.

  Commission Proposal for a draft Council Directive on minimum standards on asylum procedures:
  The Commission presented this proposal as its first response to the call by the Tampere European Council in October 1999 to create a common European asylum system. The proposal set out minimum procedural guarantees to ensure that member states could process cases quickly and fairly at a national level and that secondary movements of asylum seekers were avoided. Common standards and time limits would assist in dismissing inadmissible and unfounded cases. Member states gave a general welcome to the proposal, which was remitted to the Asylum Working Group for further consideration.

  Reception conditions for asylum seekers:
  This was an orientation debate on key points in the Presidency's discussion document. No conclusions were drawn but the Presidency stressed that this was a key priority and it would be seeking to agree conclusions at the Justice Home Affairs (JHA) Council in November in order to provide a background to an anticipated legislative proposal from the Commission.

  Council Decision to create a provisional Eurojust Unit:
  Political orientation was reached on key elements of the text, subject to consideration of the European Parliament's opinion, which had not yet been received. The text was remitted to COREPER for resolution of some technical issues and the language regime, at the request of one member state. A new Article was agreed which would allow the Commission to be associated fully with the general work of the unit, particularly in relation to the development of the permanent Eurojust, and which would also enable the Commission to lend its expertise to cases considered by the unit where these fell within Commission competence. The United Kingdom maintained its Parliamentary scrutiny reservation.

  Framework Decision relating to the status of victims in criminal proceedings:
  This text was remitted to COREPER to resolve the outstanding issue on compensation. One member state lifted its scrutiny reserve provided that a recital was included to the effect that the Decision did not imply an obligation to treat victims as parties to criminal proceedings. The UK maintained its Parliamentary scrutiny reservation.

  Commission proposal to create a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters:
  The Commission presented this draft Council Decision which was aimed at improving and developing existing judicial co-operation arrangements and providing the public with practical information about access to justice in cross-border litigation. The Civil Law Committee would discuss this further.

  Protection of the environment through the criminal law: orientation debate
  There was general support for the introduction of measures to combat environmental crime, in order to establish an European Union acquis in this area. The Presidency would produce an initiative for a new instrument incorporating the aspects of the 1998 Council of Europe Convention on Environmental Crime which were acceptable to all member states.

  Preparation for the joint JHA/European Council of Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) Council:
  Over lunch, the Council prepared the joint ECOFIN/JHA Council meeting of 17 October on financial crime. The Presidency explained that this would feature a debate on a common and coherent European Union strategy towards more effective co-operation in the financial sector, law enforcement and judicial co-operation.
  421W
  Brussels Regulation:
  The Presidency urged Ministers to pursue this dossier in their capitals as it was a key element of the mutual recognition programme on civil law. The Commission advised that it would be issuing modified proposals during the next week on the e-commerce aspects of mutual recognition in light of the European Parliament's Opinion.

  Other items:
  The Council noted a communication from Germany on the need for Community-level action on fighting dogs, calling for a Commission initiative on this matter. The Commission doubted whether there was a legal basis for Community action but undertook to examine this in greater detail.

  Mixed Committee with Iceland and Norway:
  The Committee heard progress reports on the draft Common Visa List, which Iceland and Norway would apply, and on the application of the Schengen arrangements to the Nordic countries.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Luxembourg on 17 October; and if he will make a statement. [136032]

  Mr. Straw
  I attended this Council meeting. The main matters dealt with at the meeting were as follows:

  The list of A points was agreed in full, including the three items outstanding from the Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA) held on 28 September.

  Draft framework decision on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime:
  There was a broad political orientation, subject to certain parliamentary reserves and the European Parliament opinion to a common minimum maximum penalty of four years and that all member states should be obliged to lift reserves in respect of tax offences to the 1990 Council of Europe money laundering Convention's provisions on confiscation of assets. The Council also agreed a declaration to the effect that minimum maximum penalties would be considered on a case by case basis for future instruments.

  Draft Convention on improving mutual assistance in criminal matters, with particular reference to the fight against organised crime, the laundering of the proceeds of crime and financial crime:
  There was broad agreement, on the basis of a Presidency discussion document, to the principle that legal assistance should not be refused solely on the grounds that an investigation concerned a tax offence or involved the lifting of bank secrecy. A number of member states considered that such measures should be subject to judicial control; others also raised the practical difficulties involved in supplying lists of bank accounts in the absence of a central register. The Commission acknowledged that member states would have flexibility in how they chose to abolish grounds of refusal founded in bank secrecy or tax matters; they should none the less aim to establish efficient systems for providing assistance in such matters. Work on the Convention would continue at expert level on the basis of the discussion document.

  Presentation of the conclusions of the seminar from 13–15 September on the laundering of the proceeds of organised crime in Europe:
  The Presidency presented the conclusions. There was no discussion.

  Proposal for a council decision establishing a community mechanism for the co-ordination of civil protection in the event of emergencies—presentation by the Commission:
  The Presidency and the Commission presented their respective proposals. Two member states welcomed the call for an assessment of respective national capabilities with a view to greater co-ordination between existing national structures. Others argued for a European Civil Protection Agency and a third for more European Union-financed training.
  422W
  Other items:
  I proposed a greater operational role for the Chief Police Officer's Task Force and proposed using a Council Decision to place this work on a more formal footing. The Presidency concluded that the Council should return to this as necessary.
  One member state registered the need for Justice Ministers to have greater involvement in discussions concerning Organization de Lutte anti-Fraud.
  Finally, the Council adopted conclusions regarding the ETA murder the previous night in Spain.

  On the afternoon of 17 October, the Justice and Home Affairs Council met jointly with the ECOFIN Council. I represented the United Kingdom.

  Following a debate on strategy towards more effective co-operation in the financial sector, law enforcement and judicial co-operation, the Council adopted conclusions, a copy of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he intends to make to the UK anti-money laundering agencies in response to the conclusions reached at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 17 October. [134812]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  At the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on the morning of 17 October formal agreement was given to the draft Framework Decision covering the exchange of information between the Financial Intelligence Units of member states. It is unlikely that compliance with this instrument will require any change in the organisation of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which performs this function in the United Kingdom.

  In the afternoon of 17 October Justice and Interior Ministers came together with their Finance Minister colleagues to discuss the fight against financial crime. This joint Council invited the member states to have in place special multi-disciplinary units to fight money laundering. However such units could either be new or, where necessary, build upon existing arrangements. In the United Kingdom we are satisfied that the present anti-money-laundering role discharged by the National Criminal Intelligence Service fully meets the objectives identified by the joint Council.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he has made to provide asylum seekers with(a) legal representation, (b) housing, (c) health services, (d) welfare advice and (e) language provision. [133824]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office makes grants under section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971 to organisations responsible for providing free legal representation in connection with appeals to those subject to immigration control. For this financial year 2000–01 £56,000 has been paid to the Northern Ireland Law Centre. As with previous years grants will also be awarded to the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre. The amounts to be paid to each organisation have yet to be
  423W
  finalised. In addition the Legal Services Commission awards funding under contract to franchised solicitors to provide free representation and advice

  An asylum seeker can, as part of an application for support to the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), apply for accommodation. Where accommodation is provided this will normally be in one of the dispersal areas. No asylum seekers will be given accommodation unless he or she has specifically requested it.

  All asylum seekers and their dependants are entitled to receive medical treatment under the NHS.

  For this financial year 2000–01 the Home Office has provided funding of almost £5.5 million to the voluntary sector to provide for the establishment and maintenance of one-stop services. This service provides support to asylum seekers through a comprehensive reception service including assisting asylum seekers who need to access statutory services and the services which providers, under contract to NASS, are required to provide.

  School age children of asylum seekers are entitled to attend school.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been dispersed in each month of this year from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to other locations in the United Kingdom by his Department. [134565]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not available. Statistics are not currently available on the location of asylum seekers before they applied for support from the National Asylum Support Service.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers living in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham are in receipt of vouchers from his Department. [134564]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information is not available in the form requested. As at the end of September 3,3001 asylum seekers, including dependants, had been allocated vouchers only by the National Asylum Support Service and were living in the London region. Currently information on asylum seekers who have been allocated vouchers only from the National Asylum Support Service is available only by region and not London Borough.
  1Figures rounded to the nearest 100

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers and dependants are currently receiving support from the National Asylum Support Service. [134517]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not currently available.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers in London are currently receiving support from the National Asylum Support Service; and of those how many are receiving support in the form of vouchers only. [134516]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at the end of September 2000, 3,5001 asylum seekers, including dependants, had been allocated support by the National Asylum Support Service and were
  424W
  living in the London region. Of these, 3,300 were allocated vouchers only and 2001 were allocated accommodation and voucher support due to special or exceptional circumstances which meant they had to stay in London.
  1Figures rounded to the nearest 100.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently receiving support from the National Asylum Support Service; and of those how many are receiving support in the form of vouchers only. [134515]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at the end of September, 14,2001 asylum seekers, including dependants, had been allocated support by the National Asylum Support Service. Of these, 4,7001 had been allocated voucher support only.
  1Figures rounded to the nearest 100.

  Immigration
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have(a) applied for and (b) been granted leave to remain on the basis that they have AIDS or are HIV positive in each of the last five years. [134468]

  Mrs. Roche
  I regret that this information could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is therefore available only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Pensions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to reform police pensions. [134524]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 213W.

  Extradition
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress made towards common EU standards on extradition, in the context of Tampere Conclusion Number 35. [134680]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to Council Document number 9737/3/00, A Programme of Measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters, which was deposited in the Library on 16 October 2000.

  The Programme of Measures contains proposals for instruments to simplify extradition procedures between member states of the European Union. The first proposal is automatic recognition of the arrest warrant issued by the requesting judicial authority. There are also instruments to apply the principles that (a) member states will either extradite a person who is subject to a final sentence or enforce their sentence and (b) that member states will transfer a convicted person or enforce their sentence, particularly in the case of convicted persons who have escaped.
  425W
  As with all proposals in the Programme of Measures, the Government will seek to ensure that the instruments are consistent with the relevant provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights.

  The review of extradition which the Home Secretary announced on 2 March 2000, Official Report, column 574, is considering how to simplify and streamline extradition from the United Kingdom generally, and within the European Union in particular. A consultation paper will be available in the new year.

  Homosexual and Lesbian Relationships
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to facilitate the civil registration of homosexual and lesbian relationships; and if he will make a statement. [134767]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have made no plans to do so at the present time.

  Arrests (Football Grounds)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made at football grounds in each of the last three years. [134780]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  3,307 people were arrested at Premier and Nationwide league grounds during the 1997–98 season, 3,341 during the 1998–99 season, and 3,137 during the 1999–2000 season.

  Sentencing Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his review of sentencing policy will consider disparities in sentencing for similar offences in different parts of the country. [134781]

  Mr. Boateng
  The terms of reference of the Review of the Sentencing Framework were specifically set within the context of the Government's objectives of protecting the public by reducing crime and re-offending, and dispensing justice fairly and consistently, and the issue of consistency is one which the review team will have in mind in making their recommendations.

  Measures are already in place to try to improve consistency in sentencing. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a statutory duty on the Court of Appeal to have regard to the need to promote consistency in sentencing when framing or revising sentencing guidelines.

  In addition, the Magistrates Association has issued revised sentencing guidelines earlier this year. It has also asked benches in England and Wales to consider, in light of sentencing data for 1998, whether sentencing practices should be reviewed and ultimately adjusted within their areas.

  Members of the European Parliament (By-elections)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to provide for by-elections when UK seats in the European Parliament fall vacant. [134661]
  426W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The European Parliamentary Election Regulations 1999 set out the arrangements for filling vacancies in the European Parliament. Any vacancy must be filled by the next available candidate on the list of the registered party to whom the vacancy has fallen, thus preserving the proportional nature of the representation for that region. Only if that list is exhausted can a by-election take place. We have no plans at this time to alter these arrangements.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions about tenants who daub graffiti or commit other acts of vandalism on their estates.[134548]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There have been no discussions on this specific issue. However, my Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are working closely to take forward the Policy Action Team's report on Anti-Social Behaviour (PAT 8), in particular the provision of comprehensive good practice guidance for Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and Anti-Social Behaviour on the three key issues of prevention, enforcement and resettlement.

  The PAT 8 report on Anti-Social Behaviour was published in March and builds on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to take forward action to combat anti-social behaviour, including problems such as graffiti, vandalism, nuisance neighbours, and other problems on housing estates.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to(a) the police and (b) the Crown Prosecution Service on the apprehension and prosecution of graffiti vandals. [135011]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service is not a matter for the Home Office. I have not identified any need for guidance to the police on this subject but I do attach great importance to the protection of communities from defacement of property and other forms of disorder. The Government's consultation paper "Reducing Public Disorder: the Role of Fixed Penalty Notices" canvassed views on proposals to use fixed penalties for a range of offences. Views were specifically sought on what offences, including criminal damage, might be suitably dealt with in this way.

  Police (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have taken early retirement in each of the past three years. [134549]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is no provision within the police pension scheme for officers to retire early with an actuarially reduced pension. Maximum pension benefits are payable on completion of 30 years' service and most officers retire having completed at least 30 years' service. Some retire with shorter service on reaching compulsory retirement age. There is provision within the scheme for
  427W
  officers to retire on completion of 25 years' service, with a pension payable from age 50. Officers may also retire with an immediate pension before completion of 30 years or reaching compulsory retirement age, on the grounds of ill-health. Figures for ill-health retirements are as follows:

  Police officers medically retiring in England and Wales

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  1,810

  1998–99

  1,642

  1999–2000

  1,232

  Schengen Information System
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Schengen Information System inquiries have been made by the UK to date; and what estimate he has made of the number in total for the first year of the UK membership. [134804]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The United Kingdom does not yet put data on the Schengen Information System or have access to the Schengen Information System data. No inquiries of the System have therefore been made. The United Kingdom will not make any inquiries of the System during its first year of membership.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his assessment of the level of security of Schengen Information System(a) data and (b) premises.[134794]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Schengen Implementation Convention provides for comprehensive controls over national sections of the Schengen Information System (N.SIS), the central service computer facility in Strasbourg (C.SIS) and the data on the Schengen Information System itself. I have no reason to doubt that the security arrangements in place are in accordance with these provisions and I have no plans to seek to have them modified.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which national authority will supervise the UK element of the Schengen Information System under Article 114 of the Convention. [134792]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The United Kingdom's application of 20 May 1999 to participate in certain provisions of the Schengen Implementing Convention stated that the United Kingdom Data Protection Commissioner will be the supervisory authority responsible for the activities described in Article 114.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many United Kingdom nationals have requested that a check be made on the Schengen Information System data pertaining to them and on the use made thereof; what procedure is involved; and if he will make a statement. [134791]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As the United Kingdom does not put data on the Schengen Information System or have access to the data, there are at present no arrangements in the United Kingdom enabling individuals to make checks.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many UK subjects have been included in the Schengen Information System. [134683]
  428W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The United Kingdom does not put data on the Schengen Information System (SIS) or have access to SIS data.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on his policy towards recognising documents issued by the Schengen Joint Supervisory Authority indicating that a passport holder is the subject of criminal imposture, as indicated in the JSA opinion of March 2000; [134817]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy towards providing information to the Schengen Information System on people of usurped identity, where that individual has been the subject of imposture by a criminal. [134803]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Replacement travel documents issued by United Kingdom authorities for those that have been stolen or misappropriated are easily distinguishable from the stolen documents. Accordingly, the United Kingdom does not intend adopting the procedure followed by other Schengen states which involves the recording of fingerprints and photographs of persons whose identity has been usurped.

  The Joint Supervisory Authority does not issue documents indicating usurped identity.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those categories of suspects from the UK that are placed on the Schengen Information System; and if he will list those categories of information which may be stored. [134790]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Articles 95, 98 and 99 of the Schengen Implementing Convention lists those categories of wanted persons and suspects whose details may be placed on the Schengen Information System. Article 94 of the Schengen Convention sets out those items of information which may be stored in relation to any person whose details are entered on the Schengen Information System. The United Kingdom is not yet participating in the System and has, therefore, made no entries in relation to any suspect from the United Kingdom. A copy of the Schengen Implementing Convention may be found in the Library.

  Schengen States (Illegal Immigration)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made to the Schengen Secretariat with regard to combating illegal immigration to the UK from Schengen states; and if he will make a statement. [134809]

  Mrs. Roche
  No representations have been made to the Schengen Secretariat (as part of the incorporation of Schengen into the European Union, the Schengen Secretariat has been subsumed into the Council Secretariat).

  However, the United Kingdom is fully engaged in discussions at European Union level about combating illegal immigration, both from within and from outside the European Union. The United Kingdom is co-operating fully within Europol, where combating illegal immigration and trafficking receive top priority. We have extensive

  429W
  operational contacts with our European Union colleagues. We also hold regular bilateral discussions with policy officials of other member states.

  The United Kingdom is currently involved in negotiations on a number of measures at European Union level, aimed at combating illegal immigration, clandestine entry and facilitation. These include: a draft Directive defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, movement and residence; a draft Council Framework Decision on strengthening the penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence; and a draft Council Directive about harmonisation of financial penalties imposed on carriers transporting into the territory of member states third-country nationals not having the documents necessary for admission.

  Police Fatalities and Injuries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been(a) killed and (b) permanently incapacitated in the course of their duties in each of the past three years. [134540]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The most recently available details for officers killed in the course of their duties are as follows. The figures include officers killed in vehicle accidents, attacks by assailants, and in pursuing a suspect.

  Police officers killed in England and Wales

  Number

  1997

  4

  1998

  6

  1999

  8

  The numbers of officers permanently incapacitated in the course of their duties is not collected centrally.

  Women Police Officers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of police officers in each force area are women. [134389]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On 31 March 2000 the percentage of women officers in each force in England and Wales was as follows:

  Police force

  Percentage of officers who are female

  Avon and Somerset

  14

  Bedfordshire

  18

  Cambridgeshire

  15

  Cheshire

  16

  City of London

  13

  Cleveland

  16

  Cumbria

  16

  Derbyshire

  14

  Devon and Cornwall

  16

  Dorset

  16

  Durham

  18

  Dyfed Powys

  14

  Essex

  17

  Gloucestershire

  18

  Greater Manchester

  18

  Gwent

  16

  Hampshire

  17

  Hertfordshire

  19

  430W

  Police force

  Percentage of officers who are female

  Humberside

  15

  Kent

  18

  Lancashire

  17

  Leicestershire

  16

  Lincolnshire

  13

  Merseyside

  16

  Metropolitan Police

  16

  Norfolk

  15

  Northamptonshire

  15

  Northumbria

  16

  North Wales

  16

  North Yorkshire

  14

  Nottinghamshire

  14

  South Wales

  14

  South Yorkshire

  17

  Staffordshire

  20

  Suffolk

  16

  Surrey

  17

  Sussex

  16

  Thames Valley

  17

  Warwickshire

  15

  West Mercia

  16

  West Midlands

  22

  West Yorkshire

  16

  Wiltshire

  17

  Total England and Wales

  17

  Drugs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what study he has made of a possible link between consumption of soft drugs and subsequent addiction to hard drugs. [134533]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is undoubtedly the case that most users of Class A drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, started off by using so called soft drugs, normally cannabis. But establishing a causal link is extremely difficult because of a range of compounding factors such as socio-economic background; family functioning; adolescent risk taking behaviour and delinquency; and peer affiliations. But even allowing for these factors there is increasing evidence of a causal link. For example, research from New Zealand published last year concluded that, even allowing for a wide range of compounding factors, regular cannabis users (50 times a year) had a 59.2 times higher risk of using other illicit drugs than non cannabis users.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted of cannabis possession in each of the last three years. [134538]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Available information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table.

  Number of offenders convicted1 at all courts in England and

  Wales for possession of cannabis, 1997–992

  Convictions

  1997

  17,275

  1998

  22,643

  19992

  22,623

  1Where principal offence only

  2Provisional

  431W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the European Union about their approach to soft drugs; [134534]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the approach of the Dutch Government to soft drugs. [134535]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have regular discussions with counterparts in the European Union covering a wide range of issues relating to comparative drug policies and practices. One of the outcomes is the European Union Drug Strategy for 2000–04.

  Where Dutch policy is markedly different is in relation to their attempts to separate the markets for so called soft drugs, and drugs such as heroin and cocaine. The most obvious example of this is the Dutch policy towards the sale and possession of cannabis for personal use through the system of "coffee shops". Such a policy, whereby use of cannabis remains illegal but the laws are not enforced, cannot be a model for the United Kingdom; nor have I seen any evidence that it would be desirable to follow this example.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the proportion of violent crime which is(a) drug-related and (b) alcohol-related. [134997]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Statistical data are not collected on offences which may have been committed while an offender is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, both the British Crime Survey and the NEW-ADAM programme of interviewing and drug testing arrestees shed some light on the links between drugs, alcohol and crime.

  The 2000 British Crime Survey reported that 40 per cent. of victims of violent crime believed their attacker was under the influence of alcohol, while 18 per cent. believed that the perpetrator was under the influence of drugs.

  The Home Office has commissioned research by the University of Cambridge to continue the NEW-ADAM programme of interviewing and drug testing arrestees. The second report on this research was published in August 2000 (Home Office Research Study 205, Drugs and Crime: The results of the second developmental stage of the NEW-ADAM programme).

  The research, which was undertaken at four sites (in London, Liverpool, Nottingham and Sunderland), found that over two thirds of arrestees (69 per cent.) tested positively for at least one drug (excluding alcohol) and 20 per cent. tested positive for alcohol. In terms of specific violent offences, of the 41 individuals arrested for assault 61 per cent. tested positive for a drug and 32 per cent. for alcohol; of the 18 individuals arrested for breach of the peace 33 per cent. tested positive for a drug and 61 per cent. for alcohol.

  It should be remembered that because an arrestee tested positive for alcohol or drugs or a victim believed that a perpetrator was under the influence of drugs or alcohol it does not necessarily mean that the consumption of alcohol or drugs caused the crime to be committed. As a result, while the NEW-ADAM study and the British Crime Survey advance our knowledge of the links between
  432W
  drugs, alcohol and crime, it will always be difficult to calculate a single percentage figure calculating precisely what proportion of crime is alcohol or drug-related.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the extent of the sale and use of illegal drugs in Worcestershire. [134510]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is the responsibility of local Drug Action Teams to assess the extent of drug misuse in their area and to plan and implement action to tackle the problem. I understand that the Worcestershire Drug Action Team commissioned a survey which reported on young people's perceptions of drug use in 1997–98. 73 per cent. of those sampled were between 14 and 16 years old. 53 per cent. of the sample said they had been offered drugs. 31 per cent. were offered drugs by a friend. 39 per cent. of those who were offered drugs accepted the offer.

  Nationally, the extent of drug misuse among the population aged 16 to 59 is measured through the British Crime Survey (BCS), which includes a self-report element on drug misuse. The findings focus particularly on those aged 16 to 29.The BCS includes a regional, but not county-level, breakdown of statistics. In the 1998 survey—the latest available—21 per cent. of respondents aged 16 to 29 in the Midlands region had used any drug in the last year.

  Drug misuse among young teenagers is measured by a schools survey among secondary school children aged 11 to 15. Interim findings from the 1999 schools survey were published in May 2000. Nationally, 12 per cent. of pupils aged 11 to 15 had used any drug in the last year. The interim findings do not include a regional breakdown.

  The Government will publish, early in 2001, the results of a Key Informant Survey which will contribute to baseline estimates for the availability of drugs as perceived by practitioners in Drug Action Teams and police forces.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the proportion of violent assaults on the person that are(a) alcohol-related and (b) drug-related. [134539]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Statistical data are not collected on offences which may have been committed while an offender is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, both the British Crime Survey (BCS) and the NEW-ADAM programme of interviewing and drug testing arrestees shed some light on the links between drugs, alcohol and crime.

  The 2000 British Crime Survey reported that 40 per cent. of victims of violent crime believed their attacker was under the influence of alcohol while 18 per cent. believed that the perpetrator was under the influence of drugs.

  The Home Office has commissioned research by the University of Cambridge to continue the NEW-ADAM programme of interviewing and drug testing arrestees. The second report on this research was published in August 2000 (HORS 205, Drugs and Crime: The results of the second developmental stage of the NEW-ADAM programme).
  433W
  The research, which was undertaken at four sites (in London, Liverpool, Nottingham and Sunderland), found over two thirds of arrestees (69 per cent.) tested positively for at least one drug (excluding alcohol) and 22 per cent. tested positive for alcohol. In terms of specific violent offences, of the 41 individuals arrested for assault, 61 per cent. tested positive for a drug and 32 per cent. for alcohol; of the 18 individuals arrested for breach of the peace, 33 per cent. tested positive for a drug and 61 per cent. for alcohol.

  It is important to note that the BCS data rely on the victim's perception of whether or not alcohol or drugs were present at the time of the incident. The NEW-ADAM research is currently based on a small example which is geographically confined. It should also be noted that 29 per cent. of the available NEW-ADAM sample were not interviewed because they were thought to be intoxicated with alcohol. The BCS and NEW-ADAM survey advance our knowledge of the links between drugs, alcohol and crime. However, they do not provide a definite answer as to whether or not the presence of alcohol or drugs have caused a particular crime.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the profits made by drug-dealers trading in(a) soft and (b) hard drugs. [135016]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Within the major research programme that underpins our 10-year national Drugs Strategy, there are two current research projects that will give us a better understanding of the economics of drug dealing. One project is attempting to size the United Kingdom drug market and estimate total expenditure, based on a consumption analysis. Another is looking at the middle levels of the United Kingdom drug market (i.e. between importer and street dealer level), to improve our understanding of secondary drug distribution in the United Kingdom. The results of both pieces of research will be published next year.

  Schengen Liaison Officers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Schengen liaison officers are stationed in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [134806]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None. Consideration will be given to the exchange of Schengen liaison officers when the United Kingdom is fully participating in the police and judicial provisions aspects of the Schengen Implementation Convention.

  Police Officers (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of police officers in England and Wales are(a) black, (b) Asian and (c) Jewish; [134526]

  (2) what proportion of police officers in each force area are members of an ethnic minority. [134390]
  434W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available details on the proportion of officers in the police service in England and Wales in 1999–2000 belonging to particular ethnic groups are as follows:

  Black—0.8 per cent.

  Asian—0.7 per cent.

  Other ethnic groups—0.7 per cent.

  The overall proportion of police officers belonging to an ethnic minority in each of the 43 police forces in England and Wales on 31 March 2000 is given in the table.

  Police force area

  Percentage ethnic minority officers on 31 March 2000

  Avon and Somerset

  1.1

  Bedfordshire

  3.6

  Cambridgeshire

  2.6

  Cheshire

  0.4

  City of London

  2.3

  Cleveland

  1.2

  Cumbria

  0.3

  Derbyshire

  2.3

  Devon and Cornwall

  0.3

  Dorset

  0.5

  Durham

  0.8

  Dyfed Powys

  0.4

  Essex

  1.2

  Gloucestershire

  1.3

  Greater Manchester

  2.5

  Gwent

  1.3

  Hampshire

  0.8

  Hertfordshire

  1.4

  Humberside

  0.7

  Kent

  1.2

  Lancashire

  1.3

  Leicestershire

  4.4

  Lincolnshire

  1.1

  Merseyside

  1.8

  Metropolitan Police

  4.0

  Norfolk

  0.9

  Northamptonshire

  3.0

  Northumbria

  0.8

  North Wales

  0.4

  North Yorkshire

  0.4

  Nottinghamshire

  2.9

  South Wales

  1.2

  South Yorkshire

  2.3

  Staffordshire

  1.5

  Suffolk

  1.3

  Surrey

  1.4

  Sussex

  0.9

  Thames Valley

  2.2

  Warwickshire

  2.2

  West Mercia

  1.3

  West Midlands

  4.6

  West Yorkshire

  2.6

  Wiltshire

  0.9

  England and Wales

  2.2

  Asset Freezing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress made at EU level on mutual recognition of decisions on freezing of assets. [134681]

  Mrs. Roche
  In my reply to the hon. Gentleman of 28 June 2000,Official Report, column 585W, I stated that discussions were taking place between member states of

  435W
  the European Union with regard to the application of the principle of mutual recognition applied to restraint of assets.

  Since this reply there have been no further substantive discussions on this issue. However, I understand that the Presidency intend to table a draft legal instrument on the subject shortly.

  Anti-Jewish Posters
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations have been initiated into the circulation of posters in North London urging the murder of Jewish people. [134527]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I understand that the Metropolitan police service has received a number of allegations regarding the dissemination of anti-Semitic material in North London. Arrests have been made. Papers have been submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision on the correct course of action to pursue in relation to the arrested people.

  Inquiries are being vigorously progressed to determine the source of the material.

  Public Demonstrations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of the policing of public demonstrations in London in each of the past three years. [134391]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am advised by the Metropolitan police that there are around 4,000 "public order" events in London each year which require special policing arrangements. Financial information is not separately maintained on these events and the information requested is not therefore available.

  Sexual Offences Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review of sexual offences and to bring forward recommendations. [134545]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The consultation paper "Setting the Boundaries: reforming the law on sex offences", which was published in July 2000, made comprehensive recommendations to the Government for a reform of the law on sexual offences. The recommendations are at present out for consultation.

  The closing date for comments is March 2001. The Government will consider the proposals in the light of the comments received with a view to legislation in due course.

  Police Overtime
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost to public funds of police overtime payments in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [134450]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information available is set out in the table.
  436W

  Police overtime

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  Police officer

  2—

  208,740

  249,720

  Support staff

  2—

  38,511

  32,364

  Total

  2—

  247,251

  282,084

  1Provisional

  2Not available

  Source:

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police statistics

  UK Overseas Offenders
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to seek enforcement of sentences of UK subjects abroad where better social reintegration of the offender will result; which countries his Department assesses as permitting better social reintegration; and if he will make a statement. [134682]

  Mrs. Roche
  The enforcement of custodial sentences in the interests of social rehabilitation imposed in another European Union country is already possible under the Council of Europe Convention on transfer of sentenced persons.

  The Prison Service considers requests from both United Kingdom and foreign nationals who wish to be repatriated abroad.

  Underlying consideration of requests is the principle that prisoners' chances of successfully reintegrating into society are substantially improved if prisoners are allowed to serve their sentence in their own country, where they will benefit from access to their own cultural traditions, language, and be able to strengthen links with the community into which they will eventually be released. As a consequence of this policy, there is no list of countries that permit better social reintegration.

  Police Complaints Procedure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reform of the procedure for considering complaints against the police. [134452]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are committed to finding ways of increasing public confidence in the investigation of complaints against police misconduct through wider accessibility, more openness and a greater degree of independence. We are currently considering these issues following a consultation exercise based on reports of studies by Liberty and KPMG. A second round of consultation to a limited field and covering specific issues will take place during November.

  The Government have undertaken to announce their views by the end of the year.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fixed penalty fines have been issued for cycling on the footway since they were introduced. [134522]
  437W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There were 665 substantive fixed penalties notices known to have been issued in the period 1 August to 31 December 1999 for the office of cycling on the footway (pavement).

  Two police force areas were unable to provide this information and a further three were able to provide data for only the later months of the year.

  Similar information for 2000 should be available in the spring of 2001.

  Reprimands and Final Warnings
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what period applies for the purpose of rehabilitation in respect of(a) reprimands and (b) final warnings. [134343]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not currently contain any reference to reprimands and final warnings. The Government consulted last year on a proposal to bring reprimands and final warnings within the provisions of the Act with an immediate rehabilitation. We intend to make this change whenever an appropriate legislative opportunity arises.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) reprimands and (b) final warnings have been administered since the provisions of sections 65 and 66 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 were bought into force; and how many cautions were administered in the corresponding preceding period. [134342]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest information, taken from the Home Office Cautions Databases, is given in the table.

  Number of offenders aged 10–17 cautioned, given reprimands or

  final warnings for all offences, England and Wales, October

  1997—December 1998 and January 1999—March 20001

  Number of offenders given a

  October 1997 to December 1998

  January 1999 to March 20001

  Caution

  2135,164

  117,186

  Reprimand

  2—

  7,098

  Final Warning

  2—

  2,919

  Total

  2135,164

  127,203

  1Provisional

  2While piloting of reprimands and final warnings began on 30 September 1998, the Home Office Cautions Database does not separately identify these new warnings from formal cautions until 1 January 1999.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current regime for controlling the use of animals in tests in preventing genetic modification of animals. [134458]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The production of genetically modified animals, as well as their use in experiments or other scientific procedures, is controlled under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Government are satisfied that the 1986 Act adequately caters for transgenic animals used in scientific procedures, and that there is no need for separate controls.
  438W
  Since the genetic modification of animals was first achieved, the number of genetically modified animals produced and used under the terms of the Act has increased considerably, and is likely to continue to increase. The production and use of such animals allows new areas of medical and other scientific research to be explored; provides the potential for investigating a wide variety of conditions including cancer, cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis; and allows the quality of the science in many areas of research and testing to be improved.

  The vast majority (over 95 per cent.) of GM animals produced and used are mice. Other genetically modified animals produced and used under the 1986 Act are: rats; rabbits; pigs (for xenotransplantation research); sheep (modified, for example, to produce human proteins in their milk which can be extracted and used to treat human medical conditions); domestic fowl and fish.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to offer the(a) police, (b) prison and (c) fire services a stakeholder pension. [134374]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All police officers have access to the police pension scheme. Consideration is being given to whether police service stakeholder pension arrangements should be made available to police officers who earn less than £30,000 a year, and who wish to top up their benefits.

  All prison officers have access to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). Civil Service stakeholder pension arrangements will be made available to prison officers and other civil servants covered by the PCSPS who earn less than £30,000 a year and who wish to top-up their PCSPS benefits. The Cabinet Office is making the necessary provision on behalf of all civil service employers.

  The provision of stakeholder pensions is currently under consideration for the fire service.

  Policing (Rural Areas)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his policy on policing in rural areas. [134995]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Our policy is to ensure that all areas of the country, urban and rural, benefit from a modern, effective and responsive police service and we are increasing funding for rural forces to take account of the additional costs associated with policing rural areas. The police funding formula includes a sparsity element which directly benefits rural forces and an extra £15 million from the Police Modernisation Fund has been allocated this year to 31 forces covering rural areas. This rises to £30 million from 2001–02. The forces concerned will be required to demonstrate real improvements in the policing of rural areas in return for the extra money.

  Illegal Weapon Imports
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to prevent weapons legally bought on the continent from being brought into this country where they are illegal. [135010]
  439W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The manufacture, sale and importation of 14 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives, the sale of which was already banned under the Restrictions of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. The law prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket-knife with a blade not exceeding three inches. Strict controls apply to the possession and importation of firearms.

  The enforcement of controls on the importation of weapons is a matter for HM Customs and Excise, who deploy their resources in accordance with their assessment of risk.

  Terrorism Advocates
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is towards the activities in the United Kingdom of individuals advocating terrorism abroad. [135015]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are determined to ensure that the United Kingdom is not used as a base for the planning and preparation of terrorism here or abroad. The Terrorism Act 2000, which is due to come into force early next year, further strengthens our response to international terrorism by the inclusion of powers to proscribe organisations concerned in international terrorism; to counter the financing in this country of terrorism anywhere overseas, and includes a new offence of incitement here to commit an act of terrorism, wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, where that act, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute one of a number of specified offences, in particular murder.

  It is a high priority for the police and the Security Service to counter the activities of those who may be seeking to support terrorism outside the United Kingdom. Where there is any evidence of terrorist activity, action is taken either under the criminal law, supported as necessary by the current counter-terrorist legislation, or under immigration legislation.

  Racially Motivated Crimes
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportions of victims of racially-motivated crimes in each of the past three years have been(a) black, (b) Asian and (c) white. [135001]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available.

  Information on racist incidents is collected annually from all police force areas by HMIC. However, the ethnicity of the victim is not collected.

  The British Crime Survey collects information about racially motivated crimes and the ethnicity of victims. The last available figures are for the year 1995. The survey estimates that there were in total about 382,000 racially motivated crimes in 1995. 238,000 of these incidents were against white people (62 per cent. of the total); 42,000 against black people (11 per cent); 41,000 against Indians (11 per cent) and 60,000 against Pakistanis or Bangladeshis (16 per cent).

  Voting Systems
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the desirability of adopting(a) proportional representation or (b) an alternative vote system for Westminster parliamentary elections; [135031]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of introducing an alternative vote system in UK parliamentary elections on the degree of proportionality between votes cast and hon. Members returned. [135026]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have not made such an assessment of the alternative vote (AV) system. The Independent Commission on the Voting System proposed that its recommended system, AV plus, be put before the electorate in a referendum as an alternative to first-past-the-post. While no change will be made to the voting system without an endorsement by the general public in a referendum, a decision has yet to be made as to its timing and the question to be asked.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of alternative voting arrangements at the May 2000 local elections under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [134872]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: My Department has received reports from all the local authorities which ran pilot schemes under the terms of the Representation of the People Act 2000.

  Copies have been placed in the Library and are accessible on the Home Office website. We are considering their conclusions, in consultation with electoral administration and local authority associations.

  Applications to run pilot schemes in May 2001 have been invited.

  Metropolitan Police
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change there has been in the level of ethnic minority recruitment to the Metropolitan Police since the publication of the Macpherson report. [135000]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The figures show the number and percentage of minority ethnic recruits for the three years 1997–98, 1998–99 and the first six months of 2000–01.

  Year

  Number of minority ethnic officers recruited

  Minority ethnic recruits as a percentage of all recruits

  1997–98

  62

  5.2

  1998–99

  92

  5.6

  1999–2000

  71

  7.1

  20001

  27

  5.2

  1March to September

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in Essex(a) have sought application forms to join the Metropolitan police force in the past six months and (b) subsequently made a formal application; and how many Metropolitan
  441W
  police officers have (i) sought application forms to join the Essex police force and (ii) subsequently made a formal application, in the same period. 1135093]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is not collected centrally in the form requested.

  I am advised by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) that, between 1 April 2000 and 17 October 2000, it received 98 inquiries from officers of Essex police. The MPS does not have a central record of the number of formal applications by officers of Essex police. Since 1 July, three officers from Essex police have joined the MPS.

  I am advised by Essex police that 21 officers from the MPS have applied to join the force since 1 January 2000. Three of those officers have subsequently withdrawn their applications. No information is currently available centrally about the outcome of the other applications.

  Young Offender Units
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning the number of youth offender units in North Yorkshire. [134381]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have received no recent representations about establishments for young offenders or other youth justice arrangements in North Yorkshire.

  Secure establishments for juveniles are provided by the Prison Service, local authorities and the private sector under contract to the Youth Justice Board. North Yorkshire juvenile remandees and offenders normally go to Wetherby Young Offender Institution which has 360 places, Hassockfield secure training centre in County Durham which has 40 places, and local authority secure units in East Yorkshire, Leeds and Sheffield which have 43 places.

  Representation of the People Regulations 1986
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to collect figures on the number of prosecutions which take place each year under paragraph 29 of the Representation of the People Regulations 1986. [134408]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Paragraph 29 of the Representation of the People Regulations 1986 makes it an offence to withhold the information which an electoral registration officer (ERO) needs to compile the electoral register. The ERO can report to the Crown Prosecution Service for possible prosecution any cases of refusal to provide the information, or of giving false information. Figures for prosecutions are not separately collected, but indications from EROs are that they are relatively rare. We see no necessity to monitor such cases specially and have no plans to do so.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the deliberations of the Animal Procedures Committee on applications for licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 442W
  1986 which are referred to them include consideration of the scientific value and validity of the procedures involved; [134357]

  (2) if he will impose a duty on the Animal Procedures Committee to consider the interests of patients and patient groups; [134356]

  (3) how many members of the Animal Procedures Committee (a) have had and (b) hold full registration as a medical practitioner. [134355]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  When considering any application for a project licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 the Secretary of State is required to weigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit likely to accrue as a result of the programme to be specified in the licence. Any application referred to the Animal Procedures Committee for its consideration will contain such an assessment.

  One of the 20 members of the Animal Procedures Committee is medically qualified, and is in current practice.

  The Act requires the Animal Procedures Committee to have regard both to the protection of animals against avoidable suffering and unnecessary use in scientific procedures and to the legitimate requirements of science and industry. The latter requirement would include a consideration of the interests of patients and patient groups. The Committee's deliberations may also encompass the scientific merit and scientific validity of the proposals, as well as the welfare costs to the animals used.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what organisation is responsible for advising him on the legitimate concerns of patients and patient groups with regard to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [134354]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires that any application to use protected animals in research must be subjected to a detailed cost/benefit assessment by Home Office inspectors. The likely adverse effects on the animals concerned must be weighed against the benefits likely to accrue as a result of the proposed programme of work. Clinical benefit, including more cost-effective health care, are factors which may be taken into account in this assessment. A number of sources of advice are available to me on the benefits of research. These include the Animal Procedures Committee and the relevant professional bodies. I also receive representations on issues relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures from a wide range of interest groups, including medical charities.

  Police Officers (Hand Guns)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of hand guns by police officers in England and Wales. [134714]
  443W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The use of firearms by police officers is governed by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which requires that the use of force in the prevention of crime or apprehension of offenders must be reasonable in all the circumstances, and by operational guidance provided by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  The deployment of armed officers in accordance with the relevant legislation and guidance is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police.

  Entertainments Licences
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to review the guidance given to local authorities on the procedures for consulting local residents on applications for entertainments licences; [134700]

  (2) what guidance his Department provides to local authorities on the procedures for consulting local residents on applications for entertainments licences; [134701]

  (3) what guidance his Department provides to local authorities on the consideration of objections to applications for entertainments licences. [134699]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply as I have responsibility for public entertainment licensing.

  The Home Office has not issued guidance to local authorities on these issues. We have, however, included in our White Paper "Time for Reform" (Cm 4696), which was published on 10 April, proposals for reform of public entertainment licensing, with new requirements for local resident consultation.

  Community Rehabilitation Centres
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the community rehabilitation centres operating in England and Wales indicating(a) the proximity of each to prisons, (b) the nature of their environs, (c) the number of places available at each centre and (d) the number of staff employed at each centre. [135405]

  Mr. Boateng
  The term community rehabilitation centre is not one which is in common use. However, there are currently 100 approved probation and bail hostels in England and Wales. The table shows the name of each approved hostel, the probation area it is in and the number of bedspaces it currently provides. Approved hostels provide an enhanced level of supervision in the community, as well as a supportive and structured environment, within which residents can be supervised effectively for as short a period as is necessary. They are intended as a base from which residents take full advantage of community facilities for work, education, training, treatment and recreation. They would therefore normally be based near to such facilities. Some approved hostels are near to prison establishments, but we do not have this information centrally. The number of staff employed in each approved hostel varies according to the number of bedspaces provided, but on average it would be between 18 and 24. Again, more detailed information is not centrally available.
  444W

  Probation area

  Hostel

  Beds

  Avon

  1Ashley House

  22

  Avon

  Bridge House

  18

  Avon

  Brigstock Road

  28

  Bedfordshire

  Bedford

  25

  Bedfordshire

  Napier Road

  20

  Berkshire

  1Elizabeth Fry

  21

  Berkshire

  Manor Lodge

  22

  Berkshire

  St. Leonards

  22

  Cambridgeshire

  Peterborough

  26

  Cheshire

  Bunbury House

  22

  Cheshire

  Linden Bank

  22

  Cornwall

  Meneghy House

  18

  Cumbria

  Bowling Green

  24

  Derbyshire

  Burdett Lodge

  32

  Devon

  Lawson House

  19

  Dorset

  The Pines

  18

  Dorset

  Weston

  25

  East Sussex

  Brighton

  16

  Essex

  Basildon

  26

  Gloucestershire

  Ryecroft

  16

  Greater Manchester

  Ascot House

  22

  Greater Manchester

  Bradshaw House

  26

  Greater Manchester

  Chorlton

  27

  Greater Manchester

  Hopwood House

  18

  Greater Manchester

  St. Josephs

  29

  Greater Manchester

  Wilton Place

  27

  Greater Manchester

  Withington Road

  32

  Hampshire

  Dickson House

  18

  Hampshire

  Southampton

  22

  Hampshire

  The Grange

  22

  Hereford and Worcester

  Braley House

  21

  Humberside

  Queens Road

  19

  Humberside

  Scunthorpe

  19

  Inner London

  1Katherine Price Hughes

  19

  Inner London

  1Kelley House

  21

  Inner London

  1Hestia Streatham

  28

  Inner London

  1Hestia Battersea

  25

  Inner London

  Camden House

  26

  Inner London

  Canadian Avenue

  24

  Inner London

  Ellison House

  25

  Inner London

  Tulse Hill

  26

  Kent

  Fleming House

  25

  Lancashire

  Haworth House

  26

  Lancashire

  Highfield House

  22

  Leicestershire

  Howard House

  18

  Leicestershire

  Kirk Lodge

  32

  Lincolnshire

  Wordsworth House

  18

  Merseyside

  1Adelaide House

  20

  Merseyside

  Canning House

  18

  Merseyside

  Merseybank

  25

  Merseyside

  Southwood

  29

  Middlesex

  Ealing

  19

  Middlesex

  Seafield Lodge

  22

  Norfolk

  John Boag House

  25

  North East London

  Westbourne House

  40

  North Wales

  Plas-y-Wern

  18

  North Wales

  Ty Newydd

  23

  North Yorkshire

  South View

  20

  Northamptonshire

  Bridgewood

  23

  Northumbria

  1Ozanam House

  25

  Northumbria

  1St. Christophers

  18

  Northumbria

  Cuthbert House

  25

  Northumbria

  Pennywell

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  Astral Grove

  14

  Nottinghamshire

  Southwell House

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  Trent House

  19

  Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  Abingdon Road

  18

  Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  Clarks House

  18

  Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  Milton Keynes

  16

  Somerset

  Glogan House

  18

  South East London

  Beckenham Road

  20

  South Glamorgan

  Mandeville House

  26

  South West London

  Kew

  18

  South Yorkshire

  Norfolk Park

  39

  South Yorkshire

  Rookwood

  39

  445W

  Probation area

  Hostel

  Beds

  South Yorkshire

  Town Moor

  39

  Staffordshire

  Staitheford House

  20

  Staffordshire

  Wenger House

  26

  Staffordshire

  Wharflane House

  22

  Suffolk

  Lightfoot House

  22

  Suffolk

  The Cottage

  18

  Surrey

  St. Catherines Priory

  18

  Teesside

  Nelson House

  22

  Teesside

  The Crescent

  20

  Warwickshire

  McIntyre House

  18

  Warwickshire

  Kenilworth Road

  19

  West Glamorgan

  Emroch House

  18

  West Midlands

  Bilston

  15

  West Midlands

  Carpenter House

  22

  West Midlands

  Crowley House

  18

  West Midlands

  Elliott House

  20

  West Midlands

  Stonnall Road

  12

  West Midlands

  Sycamore Lodge

  32

  West Midlands

  Welford House

  19

  West Yorkshire

  1Cardigan House

  25

  West Yorkshire

  1Ripon House

  24

  West Yorkshire

  1St. Johns

  28

  West Yorkshire

  Albion Street

  24

  West Yorkshire

  Elm Bank

  22

  West Yorkshire

  Holbeck

  24

  Total

  2,257

  1Voluntary managed approved hostels

  There are currently no hostels in the following probation service areas:

  Durham

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Hertfordshire

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  Shropshire

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire.

  Crimestoppers Trust
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a grant to the Crimestoppers Trust; and if he will make a statement. [135098]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  For 2000–01 the Home Office made a grant of £90,000 to Crimestoppers for their administration costs. I have also agreed to fund an evaluation of the effectiveness of Crimestoppers' work in London.

  Police Officers (Medical Retirement)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers subject to disciplinary proceedings have retired on medical grounds in each of the last three years. [134541]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Education Funding
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on proposed changes to the funding of prison education; if it is his policy to devolve funding to the Department of Education and Employment; if it is his policy to ring-fence prison education funding(a) overall and (b) in each individual prison budget; and what the proposed time-scale is for the changes. [134676]

  Mr. Boateng
  A joint Prison Service and Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) partnership will be established to build on the policy framework for prison education. The plan is for funding for prison education to be transferred to DfEE from April 2001. It will be ring-fenced but detailed arrangements have yet to be finalised.

  Accountability for management control and responsibility for delivery will remain with the Director General of the Prison Service. It is envisaged that close working between the Prison Service and DfEE will be beneficial for prisoners.

  There will be a joint Ministerial announcement early in 2001 which will set out the details of the partnership and funding arrangements.

  Practising Freemasons
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce restrictions upon practising freemasons in(a) the police, (b) the judiciary and (c) his Department. [135916]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government have introduced voluntary registration of freemasonry membership in the judiciary and magistracy, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police service, and the prison and probation services. As the response rate to the voluntary registration scheme in the police service was too low to meet the Government's aim of having reasonable public transparency in this area, I am consulting the police service about how a more acceptable response rate can be achieved.

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

Parental Support: Tax and Benefit Policies
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce tax and benefit policies which will support parents who make a long term commitment to work together in partnership to care for and support their children.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting all children through tax and benefit policies. Households with children will be on average £850 a year better off because of measures introduced in this Parliament.
Our ambition is to halve child poverty by the end of the decade on the way to abolishing it within 20 years. As a result of this Government's policies, a single earner family with two children, earning £12,500, will be £2,600 a year better off.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he agree that there are in this country today 1.7 million lone parent families headed by mothers and 200,000 lone parent families headed by fathers? Does he further agree that last year the Exchequer spent £9.9 billion to support lone parent families? Has not the time come for the Exchequer 10 spend rather more money on encouraging young men to take seriously their responsibilities towards their children and their children's mothers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure whether that is a question about taxation policy or about moral exhortation. As a point of fact on taxation policy, because of individual taxation a single-earner couple pays more than a two-earner couple. Therefore, there is some incentive for couples to have two earners. I do not think that our taxation policy can be said to be driving anyone into single parenthood. Surely the opposite is the case.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a crèche is not the answer for all children, particularly when they have to be taken to and from school? Is it not time that he put to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the suggestion that we have been pushing for many years of a tax allowance for parents who have to employ someone for child help and care?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by that question. Under the working families tax credit—now claimed by more than 1 million families—100,000 families are claiming childcare benefit. That is more than double the number of those who were claiming the family credit disregard in the past. Taking the matter as a wider issue than the crèches to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, refers, I should have thought that the Government are doing a good deal.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree with my right honourable friend Charles Kennedy that family life and the way we raise our children are private matters? Does he also agree that while it is the proper object of government policy to help parents do what they choose, whether it is as full-time carers or at work, it is not a proper object of government policy to announce—as the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did on Radio Scotland yesterday—that the Government intend as art act of policy to change the proportion of those choices? That is beyond the Government's competence and, in the literal sense of the word, ultra vires. If he does not agree with my right honourable friend, perhaps he will say why he does not.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will have noted my reluctance to follow the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, into the sphere of moral exhortation. I agree that it is for people to decide how they live their lives. On the other hand, it is a proper object of government policy to see that children are taken out of poverty. The actions which I have described, the taxation policies, the encouragement of parents of children to work and benefit substantially from that, are proper objects of government policy.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the Answer which he gave to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred only to supporting children and not to parents who make a long-term commitment? Does he not also agree that this is not a question of moral exhortation when in the Government's White Paper on the family the point was made that families with both a mother and a father bringing up children provide the best circumstances for children to grow up in?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that possibly both the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I are guilty of over-simplifying the matter. When I talk about supporting children, she talks about supporting parents. Clearly, if we support families with children, we are supporting both the families and the children.
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords—
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think the feeling of the House is that we should hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Strange.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should first declare an interest. My husband and I have been happily married for a considerable number of years. We have brought up six children. Four of those children are already married and have children of their own. They are dedicating their lives to bringing up those children. I was talking to a lady on the bus this morning about children and education. She said, "If you do not have love in your heart, then you cannot achieve anything".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this gives me the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, on her happy family life and on her choice of the people she talks to on buses!
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the declaration of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been incorporated into our law, is the right and proper instrument within which taxation or other policies should be framed? Does he also agree that, when the European Charter of Fundamental Human Rights starts to impact on British legislation, the convention should take priority?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not the position of Her Majesty's Government that the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights will impact on British legislation.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Minister said a few moments ago that the Government believe in supporting children with their tax and benefits policies. But is the noble Lord aware that in the case of a single mother the present tangled web of tapers and disregards in the tax and benefits system means that her earnings will actually fall if she works for 27 hours a week as opposed to 26 hours a week? Do the Government think that that is supporting children through their tax policies?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are still anomalies in our taxation policies as regards children. We acknowledge that, which is why we have undertaken a fundamental review with results that will not become fully implemented until 2003. Nevertheless, in the shorter term the children's tax credit, which is to be introduced in April 2001, will be much better targeted than the old married couple's allowance. It will go only to families with children as it will be tapered away from higher rate taxpayers, which I assume is what the noble Lord is referring to, and therefore will be targeted more closely at people on low and middle incomes, and it will be substantially more
784
generous than the married couple's allowance, with up to £442 compared with £197 for the married couple's allowance.

Euro Intervention
2.44 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to participate in further operations in support of the euro.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, in view of the market sensitivity of this issue, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that uninformative reply. Does he agree that the most recent intervention in favour of the euro in September was not an unqualified success as the euro now stands somewhat below the rate at which it stood before the intervention? Does he further agree that the problems of the euro have to do with the fundamental difficulties of a euro-zone economy, as people do not want to invest in the euro? Does he accept that intervening is about as much good as giving a patient an aspirin when what he needs is a heart transplant?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord should be so surprised at my first Answer. He did not seriously think that I would announce from this Dispatch Box that at some time in the near future we would embark on a support intervention for the euro or indeed for any other currency. I have made it clear from the very beginning that intervention is applicable only in very rare circumstances. As to whether the intervention in September was a success, I think it is difficult to say. There was a stabilisation of the euro for some time after the intervention took place. I do not think that anyone could make a judgment as to whether the subsequent decline in the value of the euro was greater or less as a result of the intervention.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the feeling seems to be that we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Shore.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the wisdom and common sense of his reply. Will he please communicate to the Governor of the European Central Bank similar advice to that

785
which he has given in responding to that question today? If he did, would there not be just a chance that the euro might begin to stabilise?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that unusual compliment from my noble friend Lord Shore. I am not sure quite what advice he is asking that I should give to the Governor of the European Central Bank, particularly as we are not among his subjects, so to speak. My noble friend will know, as the House will know, that the intervention which took place in September was not the initiative of the European Central Bank but of G7, including the Bank of Japan and the Federal Reserve Bank.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real lesson of the intervention is that the UK is now a bit player in world monetary affairs, that the decisions on intervention in support of the euro were in essence taken by the US, the Japanese and the EU, and that the Bank of England tagged along meekly behind, after the real discussions had taken place and the real decisions had been taken? Is that not the real lesson of being outside the euro-zone?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is clearly more privy to the internal discussions within G7 than I am. It is a matter of fact that our participation in the intervention in September was relatively small in comparison with that of other countries, but I cannot accept any of the noble Lord's further speculation.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how we on these Benches would have been most fearful for the continuation of his genial, authoritative and reassuring presence on the Front Bench if he had uncharacteristically confounded the House by seeking to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on the substance of his Question?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, expected an answer to his Question in the terms in which it was couched. We all recognise that euro-sceptics around the House seek a variety of opportunities to discuss their antagonism or support for the euro. The House is none the poorer for that.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, if the Minister does not want to deal directly with my noble friend's Question, perhaps I may ask him to cast back his mind to 9th October, which was the day that he performed his extraordinary volte-face on the subject of intervention in the foreign exchange markets to support the euro. I remind him of what he said. He justified the 180 degree U-turn in the Government's position by saying:
"Circumstances change and we change with them; if we did not we would be very foolish".—[Official Report, 9/10/00; col. 4.]
786
Does the Minister agree that that kind of unreliability and change of mind is what in the end causes the public to lose faith in politicians of all kinds?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I recall precisely what I said on 9th October. The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, asked me whether I still agreed with what I had said in March. I do not usually refer to what I have said in the past, but I shall repeat my words; namely, that,
"attempts to intervene are unlikely to have the desired effect in most cases".—[Official Report, 28/3/00; col. 729.]
That was true in March, it was true on 9th October and it remains true today, 31st October.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the comment made during evidence recently given to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee by Eddie George, the Governor of the Bank of England? He stated that:
"The integration of European capital markets would be an unqualified benefit".
Does the Minister also agree that long-term interest rates in Europe and in the United States are now virtually the same?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not familiar with the comment made by Sir Eddie George to the House of Lords Select Committee. It sounds sensible, but I should need to read it in context to know whether it could possibly be supported as government policy.

The North East: Economic Prospects
2.51 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further steps they are taking to improve the economy of the north-east of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, it is important that the North East, along with other regions, should benefit from economic growth and prosperity. This Government have and will continue to provide new opportunities for a regionally focused approach to tackling these problems. In July, the Chancellor announced an additional £500 million for regional development agencies by 2003–04. One NorthEast will receive its full share of this extra money. That is good news for the region.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. I acknowledge that the Government are doing a great deal for the North East, but it is a fact that unemployment in the region remains the highest of any region in the United Kingdom—worse now than in Northern Ireland. My noble friend referred to RDA budgets. Can he say,

787
first, how the budget for One NorthEast compares with the budgets for other regional development agencies? Secondly, are levels of unemployment considered to be among the most important criteria when budgets and grants are determined?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the share of the total RDA budget depends to some extent on inherited programmes. Decisions as regards the allocation of the additional moneys to which I referred have yet to be made in final detail. However, I can assure my noble friend that One NorthEast will receive an allocation that is appropriate to meet local economic problems, including the locally higher rate of unemployment.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that last week's successful win of an MoD contract by the famous yard, Swan Hunter, has given an enormous boost to the morale of the people of the North East. Some 2,000 new jobs are to be created for a minimum of five years. However, is the noble Lord aware of the strategy put forward by One NorthEast to secure a European grant of £130 million to aid small and medium-sized businesses? Is he further aware that Commissioner Monti has held up this grant on a legal point for some 18 months? Does the noble Lord agree that, if this long delay could be brought to an end, the grant would be a further great aid to the region?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the European grant, discussions on the delivery of those moneys have been held between One NorthEast, officials from the relevant government departments in the North East and representatives of the Commission. I believe that any difficulties will shortly be resolved and that the grant will be rightly allocated to the North East. I join the noble Lord in underlining the importance of the award by the Ministry of Defence of the two ALSL contracts to the Swan Hunter shipyard. Those contracts will certainly provide substantial additional employment opportunities in the region. Furthermore, the US company Atmel has recently decided to take over the former Siemens plant on Tyneside, and a further 1,000 jobs are being created at Orange on North Tyneside. Substantial movements have been made by employers, who recognise the attractiveness of the workforce in Tyneside. Although rates of unemployment are still relatively high, employment figures are improving and unemployment is starting to fall.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lord, does the Minister agree that the University of Teesside is a very successful institution?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. I am not entirely sure what lies behind the intervention of the noble Baroness, but I am happy to confirm that not only is the University of Teesside extremely successful. It has also greatly improved its facilities in recent years.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, along with the high rates of unemployment
788
prevalent in the North East, it is also true to say that the economy of the region is extremely fragile? One reason is that many of the new jobs being created are technically quite vulnerable to change. I am thinking in particular of the new call centres. Can my noble friend confirm that sufficient resources will be made available to the North East to enable people to be retrained in work for the changes which will undoubtedly occur in jobs over the next five to 10 years?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend raises a number of complex issues. It is certainly the Government's intention, as it will be for the regional development agency, One NorthEast, and other agencies, to ensure that adequate training is provided. Such training and retraining will be provided both for those in work and those out of work in recognition of the fact that training is an extremely important element of the skills of the local workforce. The North East has seen a substantial shift of employment opportunities into the service sector, including new jobs in call centres. Although such developments may be regarded as fragile, they nevertheless form an important part of the service economy. Indeed, the North East has been particularly successful in maintaining its share of such work. As technology and communications develop, no doubt skills will need to be built on and further developed. However, I underline a point that I made earlier; namely, that substantial investment is being made in manufacturing industry. The North East continues to be a major manufacturing region.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, despite the good news on employment prospects given by the noble Lord, is it not a fact that when the Government took office in 1997 unemployment in the North East was 2.6 per cent higher than the national average? Today it is 3.9 per cent higher. What will the Government do about that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out that the gap between the level of unemployment in the North East and that in the rest of the United Kingdom has worsened over the past few years, although I believe that the latest figures will show that the gap has now shrunk a little. I have outlined the efforts being made by the local RDA and the Government to reverse that trend. The Government regard it as a priority to try to close the gap so that relative prosperity in the North East may be assured.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a helpful measure which could be taken by the Government as regards the North East would be to progressively implement their decision to introduce consolidated regional budgets covering all the relevant departments, and to do that with great speed and

789
vigour? The North East needs all the help it can get. Such help would best be given through local decision taking.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is important that moneys allocated for development in the North East should be consolidated and flexible as regards local decision taking. As to the local RDA budget, it is intended that a single budget will be drawn up to cover the RDA's entire current spending programmes. Work is under way to complete the work so that the new budgets will be in place by April 2002. The coming financial year will be regarded as a transitional year. After that, the RDA will have moved on to a single budget which will offer the kind of flexibility being sought by the noble Lord.

Deafblind People: Service Provision
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any proposals to deal with the identification, assessment and provision of one-to-one services for deafblind people as outlined in the Deafblind Persons Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, following the Department of Health's deafblindness consultation, we intend to issue guidance under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, saying that authorities should identify the deafblind people in their areas and should ensure that assessment (to include consideration of one-to-one support) and service provision are appropriate to people with dual sensory impairment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the guidance to be issued under Section 7 will be legally binding on local authorities? If it is, can he further confirm that it will meet all the requirements provided for in my Deafblind Persons Bill? If those conditions are met, I shall immediately withdraw my Bill.
While I thank my noble friend very warmly, is he aware that I am echoing the views of 23,000 deafblind people living in Britain, most of whom have been neglected and isolated for many years? In fact, almost half of them have received no support at all. Happily, however, this new government policy will put an end to that scandalous state of affairs. Will the Government monitor progress to ensure that local authorities no longer evade their responsibilities to deafblind people?
Lord Hunt off Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may first pay tribute to my noble friend for his determination in this important area, and to other noble Lords who took part in the debate on his Bill.
I can confirm that, although local authorities are not under an obligation to follow Section 7 guidance to the letter, they are required to follow the path charted by
790
the Secretary of State; they are not free to deviate from the guidance unless there is good reason to do so. In any case, they are not free to follow a substantially different course. I can assure my noble friend that we shall monitor the implementation of the guidance.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if local authorities decide that they have not got the money, is this deemed "good reason", to use the Minister's words?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the provision of adequate and appropriate services to deafblind people should be seen as a core part of a local authority's responsibilities. We expect local authorities to ensure that they discharge those responsibilities.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Minister's announcement. Will he consider ring-fencing the money which is essential for the provision of these services?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. I do not consider that ring-fencing is appropriate. As I have already suggested, this is a core responsibility of local authorities. Often deafblind people are already in receipt of services, but sometimes those are inadequate. It may be a case of local authorities using their resources more efficiently rather than of needing extra resources. In any event, this should be seen in the context of the real growth in resources that the Government are giving to local authorities for expenditure on social service provision.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the limiting factors in the provision of services is that there are few appropriate training courses for people who want to work with deafblind people? Do I understand from his previous answers that he believes local authorities should make room for the funding of such courses from their core budgets?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl is right to draw attention to issues in relation to training for deafblind services. My understanding is that training is available and is currently provided by a number of organisations, including the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People, Sense and Deafblind UK among others. But it is not mandatory and it is not a part of the standard social work training. As a result of the process of implementing the Section 7 guidance, I believe that local authorities will be in a better position to assess the needs of deafblind people in their areas. They will then be able to make a judgment as to whether they have the staff with the right training and qualifications to enable them to provide such services. Clearly, part of that will rest on a local authority's own expenditure decisions. But there may also be instances where, at a national level, we would need to consider whether any particular changes should be made in relation to the curricula of social work training to take account of specific deafblind needs.
Lord Addington: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that when the new guidance is brought into

791
play it will take into account that there has been a considerable history of misdiagnosis in this area? For instance, people have been termed "learning disabled" when they have suffered from a dual sensory impairment. Will this be kept in mind and worked into the structure? If a person was to be diagnosed as having an intellectual impairment when, in reality, he was suffering from a sensory impairment, the amount of psychological damage to that person could be catastrophic.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. Certainly the Government's intention is that every effort will be made to ensure that diagnoses are made correctly. I am not sure whether this comes under the compass of the Section 7 guidance because that is aimed specifically at the duties of local authorities in providing services and support to deafblind people. But it is a substantive point which the National Health Service should take particularly into account.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but is my noble friend aware that, because there are only 23,000 deafblind people in Britain, paying for these services is peanuts in terms of local authority expenditure? It would be a shabby, shoddy excuse for local authorities to dodge their responsibilities on the grounds of cost.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have made it clear that we expect local authorities to implement with enthusiasm the guidance we will be issuing and to ensure that deafblind people receive a high quality of service and support. I do not believe that the resources question should be allowed to get in the way of local authorities providing what deafblind people have every right to expect.

Freedom of Information Bill
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 4 to 17,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 18 to 54,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 55 to 60,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 61 to 66,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 67 to 72,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 73 to 75,

Schedule 7,

792

Clauses 76 to 85,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 86 and 87.—(Lord Carter.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Aims of the Service]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) ensuring offenders' awareness of the effects of crime on the victims of crime and the public").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. In Committee, the Minister said:
"It is no longer right to view the Probation Service as a social work organisation, as it has partly been seen in the past".— [Official Report, 2/10/00; col. 1142.].
I agree with that comment. That is one of the reasons why, when I was in office as Minister with responsibility for the Probation Service, I brought to an end the social worker training qualification for probation officers and set in motion more appropriate training for the Probation Service.
To make explicit that those in the Probation Service should ensure an offender's awareness of the effects of crime on the victims of crime and on the public, neither narrows the work of the service—as was claimed in another place and repeated by the Minister—nor does it turn probation officers into social workers. How can it possibly turn them into social workers when one of their functions is to rehabilitate offenders and to reduce crime? Very often when offenders are brought face to face with the victims of their crimes, it has a powerful impact on many and has the effect of turning their faces away from crime.
In Clause 2(2) the aims of the service are described as,

"(a) the protection of the public,

(b) the reduction of re-offending".

I would add to that "the rehabilitation of offenders".
"Proper punishment" is set out as an aim in Clause 2. We and the Liberal Democrats agree that proper punishment is a function of the courts. Overseeing, supervising and managing the programmes meted out by the courts is the function of the Probation Service. I hope that the Minister will accept that making offenders aware of the impact of their behaviour on others is an essential part of rehabilitation and should be included on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of my noble friend. Those of your Lordships who, in one way or another, have had experience of dealing with criminals, must be aware that, when going to a crime, the criminal is thinking only of himself and his own interests. Criminals never seem to have the imagination, the upbringing or the

793
ethical sense of wondering what effect their crimes will have upon other people. Now that we are progressing, I hope, in the rehabilitation of offenders and enlarging the responsibilities of the national probation service, I suggest, as did my noble friend Lady Blatch, that it is very important that we make criminals aware of the effect of their crimes upon their victims.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on this amendment. The matter was debated at some length in Committee. We are dealing with the aims of the service. One developing aspect of the criminal justice system is the extent to which we deal with restorative justice. The Home Office is interested in the subject and I have attended a number of its conferences organised by the Minister himself.
Restorative justice effectively means ensuring an offender's awareness of the effect of the crime on the victims and on the public. I believe that it is a rightful aim to include in this clause. Crime will not be reduced unless there is a clear strategy for dealing with those who offend. It is therefore right to include the rehabilitation of offenders as an aim of the Probation Service.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I support those who have spoken to the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, sentencing and punishment will not achieve their aim unless they are directed at rehabilitating the offender so that he is less likely to re-offend. I realise that the words "the reduction of re-offending" are on the face of the Bill, but I cannot see the argument against including as one of the aims of the service the rehabilitation of offenders.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support both these amendments. The amendment before the House would improve the climate for restorative justice generally. The Government are well aware that that can take place on a semi-informal, community basis, which would be much more rapid in its effect than the normal procedure of going through the courts.
As regards Amendment No. 2, it must stand out a mile that offending will not be reduced unless offenders have been rehabilitated. They need a place to live and a job of work to do: they need to relate to other people, particularly to their families.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I, too, support the amendments. Prisons have become places of containment. They are rather like conveyor belts: prisoners go in and come out all the time. It is important that rehabilitation is emphasised, especially in regard to young offenders; otherwise it could be forgotten.
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, this has been a useful opening debate. I have listened to
794
opinions from all sides of the House, and we had a similar debate in Committee. There is not much between any of us as regards what we expect of the Probation Service. It is more a matter of how that expectation is constructed and where it is placed in terms of the legislation and regulations.
The aims of the service have been carefully devised to inform everything that the service does. We want to position the national probation service within the criminal justice system as a law enforcement agency—as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said—not as a social work organisation. We are entirely at one on that.
We also want the new service to concentrate on those activities that reduce crime. It must have the purpose of crime reduction at its heart and its core. In many cases the way in which you reduce the likelihood of an offender re-offending is by assisting his rehabilitation. Again, we are at one. That is why rehabilitation is specified in Clause 1(1)(b) as an overarching purpose of the service. It is stated right at the beginning of the legislation; it is at the core of our argument. We do not believe that it needs to be re-stated as an aim of the service. To that extent, we are at one.
Part of the rehabilitation process is designed to ensure that the offender is aware of the effects of the crime on victims and on the public. For that reason, the Government have begun to ensure that the interests of victims are placed at the centre of our concerns in tackling and undermining the impact of crime. That is why we have consulted widely this year—and our approach has received wide support—on the development of, for example, victim personal statements, so that the views of the victim can be taken into consideration when courts deliberate over matters relating to those who are found guilty of offences.
But rehabilitation can go much wider than that, to include all kinds of social needs with which other agencies are better placed to deal. Adding specific aims such as these to the current list of aims—which has been devised to cover in broad terms everything that the service does—would deflect the focus of the service away from its primary role as a law enforcer.
During the passage of the Bill we have spent a great deal of time debating the aims of the new Probation Service. I still believe that in the amendment the noble Baroness is confusing purposes with aims. Rehabilitation is already a purpose of the service, as I have pointed out. It would be a nonsense for the same thing to be both a purpose—having accepted the fact that it is a purpose—and an aim, given that the purposes are required to be pursued with regard to the aims.
I have more sympathy with the noble Baroness's point about victims. Work in respect of victims is an important part of the criminal justice system and of the work of the Probation Service. We are already placing various requirements on the service in respect of this through Clause 66. We also propose to make regulations under Clause 1(3) to ensure that appropriate work not covered by Clause 66 is made a

795
purpose. We shall consider whether we can also use these regulations to cover the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the impact of crime on victims. Our intention would be to include that in the regulations, where we believe it would be more appropriately located. Again, we should not confuse purposes with aims.
I trust that having heard what I have said in regard to the many valuable points made in this short debate, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. For clarity, I repeat: I do not think that we should confuse aims and purposes. We have examined the position carefully with regard to victims. While we do not believe that this provision should be stated as an aim, because we believe that it is more a purpose, it is our intention to consider whether it can be included in regulations as set out under Clause 1(3) which contains the reference,
"Regulations may extend the purposes".
That is the area where we consider that we might regulate. Perhaps I may also remind the House that, under Clause 66, we are placing various requirements on the service with regard to the provisions of that clause, which most noble Lords will accept as being extremely important in the context of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I shall need to read it carefully. I think I am grateful for what he said about the use of secondary legislation—although I would argue strongly that rehabilitation is a fundamental activity for the Probation Service and it is still my view that it should be on the face of the Bill.
In replying, the noble Lord did not once use the word "functions". We were not talking about "aims". Clause 2 sets out the functions of the service and it is to those that I refer, not its overall aims and objectives.
There is a further point that was not addressed by the noble Lord. Is he defending the idea that the main aim of the Probation Service is,
"the proper punishment of offenders"?
It is the courts that punish; the Probation Service oversees, manages and supervises the programmes that are set out in court. It seems to me wrong to set down the proper punishment of offenders as the service's main aim, although it is included in the clause that sets out its functions. Before I decide what to do about the amendment, perhaps the noble Lord would like to address that point.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have set out very clear and simple aims in Clause 2. Indeed, it talks about the "aims" of the service, which are then outlined; for example,
"the protection of the public, the reduction of re-offending, [and] the proper punishment of offenders".
Yes, the service does have a relationship with the proper punishment of offenders. It is all about administering that punishment in the community and, as people are released from custody, working closely with, and ensuring the proper punishment of,
796
offenders. I take the various orders that are made as a form of punishment conducted in the community to be part of the punishment process. Yes, they are about rehabilitation and about the protection of the public. That is exactly where we are trying to go in reshaping and refocusing the Probation Service and making it more purposeful.
I was under the impression that the noble Baroness shared that objective. Indeed, she should. I have heard her previously make the point that when she was a Minister she wanted to see the Probation Service much more like we wish to see it now that we are in government.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is nothing on the face of the Bill which says that offenders should be aware of the impact of their offences and their activities on victims. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
3.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elton, L.

Addington, L.

Ezra, L.

Alderdice, L.

Ferrers, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Flather. B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Glentoran, L.

Attlee, E.

Greaves, L.

Avebury, L.

Hanham, B.

Barker, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Richmond. B.

Blaker, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Blatch, B.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Higgins, L.

Bridges, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Buscombe, B.

Howe, E.

Butterworth, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Byford, B.

Hylton, L.

Caithness, E.

Jacobs, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Jopling, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kimball, L.

Chadlington, L.

Kirkham, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Cockfield, L.

Liverpool, E.

Coe, L.

Ludford, B.

Colwyn, L.

Luke, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cranborne, V.

Maddock, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Denham, L.

McNally, L.

Dholakia, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Methuen, L.

Elles, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

797

Montrose, D.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Selsdon, L.

Newby, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Sharples, B.

Noakes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Norfolk, D.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Northbrook, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Northesk, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Northover, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strange, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Trumpington, B.

Rawlings, B.

Vivian, L.

Redesdale, L.

Waddington, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Warnock, B.

Rennard, L.

Weatherill, L.

Renton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Roper, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Windlesham, L.

Russell, E

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ahmed, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Alli, L.

Harrison, L.

Amos, B.

Haskel, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hayman, B.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bach, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Barnett, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Berkeley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Blackstone, B.

Islwyn, L.

Blease, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Bledisloe, V.

Bragg, L.

Judd, L.

Brennan, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Levy, L.

Brookman, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Carter, L. [Teller]

Marsh, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Parekh, L.

Donoughue, L.

Patel, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elder, L

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rea, L.

Gale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Richard, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goudie, B.

Sawyer, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Grenfell, L.

Shepherd, L.

798

Shore of Stepney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Simon, V.

Varley, L.

Stallard, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Strabolgi, L.

Whitaker, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Whitty, L

Tenby, V.

Wilkins, B.

Thornton, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Turnberg, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.31 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) the rehabilitation of offenders").
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 4 [Local boards]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert ("probation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not think that the Government can continue to argue that the boards should not be dignified with a proper name. The most appropriate name familiar to most people is "local probation boards", as suggested in my amendment. In Committee the Minister said that each board would have the word "probation" in its title. Therefore my amendment should be acceptable. The word "local" is included in the Bill. If the word "probation" is also to be included in the title of each board, why not take the logical step of putting on the face of the Bill the phrase,
"For each area there shall be a board (referred to in this Act as a local probation board)"?
That would be entirely consistent with the declaration made by the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to identify ourselves entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just said. Names are important. These boards will have few enough powers and dignity; they are entitled to have a name that means something.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we do not disagree with the name "local probation boards". However, we disagree that that needs to be on the face of the Bill. I think that, in practice, they are likely to be called local probation boards. However, we do not see the need to use the word "probation" in the formal legal text. For that reason I argue that the amendment is otiose and unnecessary. I invite the House to reject it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if my amendment is unnecessary, why state that they shall be known as local boards? That seems absurd. They are to be called something in law; that is, local boards. The noble Lord says that, in practice, they are likely to be called local probation boards and does not suggest that it is wrong to call them that. I beg to move.
3.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 147; Not-Contents, 114.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hooper, B.

Ackner, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Addington, L.

Howe, E.

Alderdice, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hylton, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Jacobs, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Attlee, E.

Jopling, L.

Avebury, L.

Kimball, L.

Barker, B.

Kirkham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Blaker, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Ludford, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Luke, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lyell, L.

Bridges, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Maddock, B.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Marlesford, L.

Buscombe, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Byford, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Caithness, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McNally, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Methuen, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnarvon, E.

Montrose, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chadlington, L.

Newby, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B

Clement-Jones, L.

Noakes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Courtown, E.

Northesk, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Northover, B.

Cranborne, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dholakia, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Eames, L.

Redesdale, L.

Elles, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rennard, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Ezra, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Feldman, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Ferrers, E.

Roper, L.

Flather, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Russell, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Seccombe, B.

Glentoran, L.

Selsdon, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Greaves, L.

Sharples, B.

Hanham, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Higgins, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Taverne, L.

Hogg, B.

Tenby, V.

800

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Walpole, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wamock, B.

Tordoff, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Weatherill, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wilcox, B.

Vivian, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Waddington, L.

Williamson of Horton, L

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Windlesham, L.

Walmsley, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Ahmed, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Alli, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Amos, B,

Ampthill, L.

Jeger, B.

Andrews, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bach, L.

Levy, L.

Barnett, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Berkeley, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Marsh, L.

Billingham, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Bragg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brennan, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brookman, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Burlison, L.

Morgan, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Nicol, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Parekh, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Peston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Puttnam, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Crawley, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Rea, L.

Desai, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Richard, L.

Donoughue, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Dubs, L.

Sawyer, L.

Elder, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Serota, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Shepherd, L.

Fitt, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Slim, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L

Goldsmith, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Goudie, B.

Strange, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thornton, B.

Grenfell, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Turnberg, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harrison, L.

Varley, L.

Warner, L.

Haskel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hayman, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitty, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Wilkins, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.44 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Local Boards]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 52, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) The chief officer is to be appointed by the Board with the approval of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again I emphasise the importance of these amendments. The Minister appeared to misunderstand the arguments put to him in Committee. It is essential to have clear and effective line management. Responsibility, ownership and accountability at the point of operation in the service is fundamental.
The relationship of the chief officer to other staff and to the board is also critical. For the employer of the chief officer to be the Secretary of State and the employers of all other staff to be the boards will create difficulties and possibly at times divided loyalties. For example, where does responsibility or, even worse, culpability, lie should something go wrong especially if the root cause of the problem is conflicting messages from the Secretary of State and the local board?
It is clear that the Secretary of State is concerned about control. However, the Secretary of State will have the power to approve the appointment of the chief officer to each area. The Secretary of State can appoint and, if necessary in extremis, remove the board. The Secretary of State has control over 100 per cent of the funding. The Secretary of State sets overall aims and objectives for the service. The Secretary of State sets national standards and performance targets. The Secretary of State will receive advice and reports from the inspectorate. Therefore, the Secretary of State will lose nothing by allowing the board to appoint the chief officer. These arguments were well argued in Committee. Nothing that has been said by the Minister then, in letters—we are deeply appreciative of all letters sent by the Minister—or in debate has satisfied our concerns.
I ask the Minister to agree to the amendments. They are essential for the proper delivery of the service. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, we on these Benches concur strongly with what the noble Baroness said. The powers and responsibilities of what we can now call local probation boards under the Bill are extremely ill categorised. One is used to talking of power without responsibility. As the Bill is drafted, the boards will have responsibility and no power—an even worse state of affairs. At Second Reading, I called them "eunuch boards". I think that that is not an unfair or inaccurate way of describing the conjugation of powers and responsibilities provided for in the Bill.
I hope not to detain the House for too long, but draw attention to Clause 5 in which the functions of the local board are set out. They are, first,
"to make arrangements for ensuring that sufficient provision is made for the purposes mentioned in section 1".
802
Clause 1(1) states that,

"(a) courts … be given assistance in determining the appropriate sentences to pass … and

(b) the supervision and rehabilitation of such persons".

Those are two enormous and crucially important aspects of government and state policy. Those boards will have to ensure that sufficient provision is made for their role in giving effect to community orders, supervising persons released from prison on licence, and providing accommodation in approved premises. These are major matters of state criminal policy.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, enumerated, the powers by which the boards are supposed to undertake these heavy responsibilities are almost non-existent. At every turn the Secretary of State has retained the whip hand: over finance, policy, procedures, appointments where he has a monopoly, property and contracts. What is left for those boards to undertake of their own volition and power? Precious little.
It may be asked: why bother about the appointment of the chief probation officer? We believe that this is a sine qua non for any cohesion, clarity or loyalty. One does not have to go to business school to know that a house divided against itself will not stand. One does not have to go to management consultants to know that a man cannot have two masters; and the chief probation officer certainly will. Will he look to the Home Secretary or to his or her board?
The answer is obscure, except that we know that in the ultimate the appointment is made by the Secretary of State. I can see two common situations which will plague not only the board and the chair of the board but in particular the poor chief probation officer. One example is when the CPO is out of sympathy with the line agreed by the board on any matter relating to those duties. Perhaps he or she should then run off to the Home Secretary and say, "Mr Home Secretary, they are requiring me to do this. I do not think it is right. Will you please override them?" That will always be a temptation, but I suspect that it would simply sow doubt, confusion and unhappiness where there should be unity and effectiveness.
Another example is when the board adopts a different line from Home Office policy on the delivery of its mighty duties. What is the CPO to do then? They know what their employment master plans or wants, but they also know what their local board is planning and what local circumstances may require.
One does not have to go far back in history to know that some Home Secretaries have taken a very strong line that has not found sympathy with the existing committees. I suspect that many on the Government Benches were extremely happy that the previous Home Secretary could not order a chief probation officer to take certain actions in defiance of the wishes of the local board. For those and many other reasons, we strongly favour the amendment.
Finally, there is no precedent. The relationship of chief constables with their committees is not as set down here. The committee appoints the chief constable. The same is true of health trusts or

803
magistrates' courts committees. Not even the most draconian holding company would require the chief executive and director of one of its subsidiary operating boards to be appointed by head office rather than by the board. Of course, head office will have a say, but the appointment will be made by the board. To do otherwise is to diminish the standing of the board.
I understand that the Government want a national service, but the amendment is not inconsistent with a national service. In fact, it makes the prospect of an effective national service more likely. Able people will not sit on the boards if they are stripped of all meaning. The amendment would restore a little power, authority and dignity to them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have had a long association with the probation service. As my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said in his powerful speech, we shall vote for the amendment. The provisions in the Bill are another move towards the centralisation of power that is one of the least attractive qualities of some members of the present Administration. Of course there has been devolution to Scotland and Wales, which we supported, but in England some Ministers—not all of them—seem determined to increase their power and that of their department at the expense of adequate representation of the interests of local communities.
The process is described as "modernisation"—a word that has literally no meaning but is used with monotonous regularity to justify propositions such as the one we are discussing. The Government propose in Schedule 1 that the chief probation officer should be appointed by the Home Secretary. The amendment proposes a sensible formula under which the local probation board, all of whose members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State in any event, should choose the chief probation officer, subject only to the consent of the Home Secretary. What is wrong with that?
At first glance it may appear to some that the differences between us on the issue are pretty narrow, but they are not; they are of substance. We have the gravest objections to a local probation board having a chief officer imposed on it by a government department. As my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said, the CPO's principal loyalty would then have to be to the government department. If he wanted to move on to be a chief officer in another part of the country, he could apply only to the Home Secretary. There would be no question of local representatives asking him whether he was a fit and proper person to hold that office in their community.
If the current provisions remain, they will create suspicion and hostility, which the amendment would avoid. The amendment would neatly create a system analogous to the appointment of chief officers of police, who are appointed not by Ministers, but by independent, locally based police authorities, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State.
804
The formula has worked well for the police, so why should it not be replicated for local probation boards? I fear that there may be a clear answer. I understand from people outside the Home Office with knowledge and experience of the police service that the department is now examining a centralising formula to change that system as well. That would undermine the position of local police authorities on the appointment of chief officers of police.
Where will the process of transferring power from local communities to Whitehall end? As I reminded the House some months ago, my old friend, the late Douglas Jay, caused a considerable uproar when, as a junior Minister in the post-war Labour Government, he said that in his opinion the gentleman in Whitehall really did know best. That approach lies at the heart of the argument. I do not believe that it is right. It may be suggested that the Government's approach would improve the efficiency of the service, but I doubt that it would. I have great respect for many Home Office officials with whom I have had the pleasure of working over the years. Many of them are men and women of considerable quality with an admirable dedication to the principles of public service. However, even some of them might recoil at the suggestion that these changes would automatically raise the quality of the Probation Service. Of course, mistakes can be made at local level and sometimes they are serious, but the Home Office can hardly suggest that its record is blameless. We all remember the disaster of the immigration and nationality department computer and the similar problems that beset the Passport Agency, resulting in long queues in Petty France for passports. The idea that central government knows best in all cases is an illusion.
So much for the suggestion that national control of the service can be equated with greater efficiency. It is simply not true. We have an opportunity tonight to strike a blow against the policy of creeping centralisation of power to Whitehall. Let us take it.
4 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I have been a Home Office Minister. I cannot understand why the Home Secretary is so keen to have the power to appoint and impose chief probation officers.
In Committee the Minister said, and repeated regularly, that the whole purpose of the Bill is to have a national probation service locally delivered, presumably by means of the local, now to be called, probation boards. The Home Secretary already has the power to appoint the members and chairmen of those boards. Why cannot he accept that the people whom he appoints will be able to choose the right person as their chief probation officer? I cannot understand why he wishes to appoint that person himself rather than leave the board to appoint him, perhaps with the approval of the Secretary of State. As has been said, that is what happens in the police force. In many ways, one might consider that the position of a chief constable is far more sensitive than that of a

805
chief probation officer. Yet, I believe that I am right in saying that the appointment of a chief constable is made by the police authority with the approval of the Secretary of State.
In Committee my noble friend Lady Blatch asked what would happen if a conflict were to arise. I read the Minister's speech and I do not believe that he answered that question. It seems to me that potentially the proposal is a recipe for chaos. Presumably, in the end the chief probation officer's loyalty and duty will be to the person who appoints him rather than to a committee of which he is a member and on whose behalf he is intended to provide the local service.
As has been said, at present there is an overweening desire in the Home Office to centralise power, and that is not helpful to the Probation Service. It would be far better for the local board to have the power to appoint its own probation officers. Then we really would have a nalional service locally provided.
Lord Warner: My Lords, perhaps I may gently put forward an alternative point of view in relation to some of these issues and suggest that an excessive level of paranoia may exist with regard to some of the Home Office's approaches. Perhaps I may remind the House, first, that although chief constables are appointed at a local level, they are also appointed from a list approved by the Home Secretary. That long-standing practice has been in operation for many years on a bipartisan/tripartisan basis.
Secondly, I remind the House that the Benches opposite removed regional health authorities and appointed civil servants as regional general managers as part of the NHS Executive. That practice has been in place for a considerable number of years. It was implemented to ensure more effective delivery of improved management throughout the NHS.
Thirdly, perhaps I may remind the House of the report published in the past week or so by the Chief Inspector of the Probation Service about the fiasco over CRAMS, the Probation Service computer system. It is hardly a glittering testimony to local implementation of a much needed computer system.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is levelling an accusation at a service at local level. However, with considerable feeling I must tell him that the fault in relation to CRAMS is at national level and not at the service level.
Lord Warner: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to complete what I was about to say. I was going on to say that the fault lay at both levels. Problems exist in relation to the national implementation of computer systems both at national level within government service and at local level. The idea that all those faults rest in Whitehall, both under the noble Baroness's own government and under this Government, is frankly mistaken.
806
I believe that as a result of the proposed change there will be greater integration across the criminal justice agencies, which is much needed at the local level. There will also be much greater consistency in the application and implementation of nationally agreed schemes.
I also draw the House's attention to the fact that the Prison Service is a national service. At the heart of some of the changes lies the desire to ensure a closer working relationship between the Probation Service and the Prison Service. Correctly, the Prison Service is answerable through the Home Secretary to Parliament because deprivation of liberty is involved. However, perhaps I may suggest that a degree of deprivation of liberty is also involved in the Probation Service's work. That service enforces court orders which restrict the manoeuvrability and movement of people. One could argue that it is absolutely right that the Home Secretary, answerable through Parliament for the activities of a national service, should have a greater say over the appointment of chief officers at local level. I leave those points with noble Lords. I believe that there is another side to the story.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I had no intention of taking up the time of the House until I heard the noble Lord's opening remarks. I believe that he deserves considerable congratulations, not on his courage but on his audacity.
I believed that we had listened to four or five moderate, statesmanlike, sensible speeches, with which I suspect that everyone on this side of the House will agree openly and publicly. I am sure that many on the government side will be of a similar view. However, when the noble Lord used the word "paranoia' about those speeches, I considered that he was over-stepping the mark by a very long way. I am sure that he has done a great deal to convince people such as myself that he is totally wrong and that those who have spoken so far on this side of your Lordships' House are entirely right.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I shall be brief. Perhaps I may ask the Minister one or two questions. I am reliably informed that at present at least 20 chief probation officers are not seeking employment in the new centralised service. That number could be as high as 24. When one considers that out of 52 probation areas in the country 24 chief probation officers are not seeking employment, that must indicate that something is fundamentally wrong with the principle that we are trying to establish.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he undertook an exercise of holding exit interviews of the people who are working in the field to discover their opinion of the centralised service. If he had done so, he would have found that they are absolutely clear in their view that, if someone is employed centrally and working to a local hoard, there will be no accountability. More importantly, centralisation would take away the local initiative through which they have contributed so greatly to the probation work in their area.

807
I believe that, in two or three years' time, management consultants will be appointed at the Home Office to find out how such a mistake occurred. Is it not time that we viewed local initiatives as being far more important than we do currently and that chief probation officers are seen as servants of the local boards?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have listened intently to the debate. I realise that the issue is important and that it goes to the heart of what the Government are trying to achieve. The noble Baroness suggested that I did not understand what she said in Committee. That is not at all the case. I understand perfectly the view of the noble Baroness and of Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches. There is a fundamental disagreement between us. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, spelt it out plainly. A fundamental disagreement exists in what we see as being the future of the national probation service.
I want to go through the amendments briefly because they go further than has been suggested in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
Amendment No. 4 provides for the appointment of chief officers to be made by local boards with the approval of the Secretary of State rather than by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 5 is a corollary of that, and takes away the Secretary of State's power to appoint chief officers. Amendment No. 33 would have the effect of providing for chief officers to be treated as any other employee of a probation board in respect of transfers to the new boards. Amendment No. 7 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations delegating certain functions of the local board to the chief officer, so it is more than just a question of the appointment, locally or nationally, of the chief officer of the local probation service.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, quoted part of the deliberations at Committee stage. I made the point then that this was to be a national service delivered locally. That is exactly what the Government intend. We believe that it is right to establish a national probation service for England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, seemed to conjure up some sinister implication from the fact that we had made a fundamental policy decision to establish a national rather than a local service and saw this as creeping centralisation.
I have been in politics a long time and I take this very simple view. There are many services—perhaps the majority—that should be administered and delivered locally, and democratically decided upon locally. But there are some services that the Government believe—and no doubt Members opposite during their time in government believed—should be better run from the centre, for very good organisational and operational reasons and for reasons of policy consistency. We disagree about this particular service, and that is what this debate is about.
One of the key advantages of a national service would be the ability to appoint chief officers centrally. Chief officers, in our view, are the key to successful
808
service provision. Good management is about ensuring that we have a good quality service, whether it is administered nationally or locally. Good management is the key. We believe in creating a cadre of experienced, nationally appointed officers who understand—from the perspective of the centre, yes—exactly what it is we intend to achieve with a national service. We believe it is essential to be able to ensure that the appropriate people are appointed in the appropriate places.
The Government also believe that it is important to make best use of the precious resource of the chief officer. We believe that there are various functions of boards that are best performed by chief officers without the need for reference to the board. We also consider it desirable for certain functions to be performed in a similar, consistent manner, throughout the national probation service for England and Wales. We do not want the chief officer in one area being able to do something but perhaps his or her counterpart needing to refer to the board in another area. The power to regulate on this matter, which will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, is a means of achieving that objective.
One area in which we intend to regulate to provide for the delegation of functions from boards to chief officers is the recruitment of staff below assistant chief officer level, where it is right that the chief officer should have full powers without reference to the board.
As I explained to the noble Baroness in Committee, these amendments, if carried, would put a large hole in the concept of a national probation service. They do drive a coach and horses through our policy objective. Any national organisation worth its salt should have the ability to appoint its senior executives centrally.
The Government are satisfied that it is right for chief probation officers to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Our intention is to involve local board chairs in the chief officer appointments (where there is to be a change of chief officer) in order to ensure that there is some local say in the selection. But it is a matter of balance. The Government make no apology for believing that the central dimension should not be subjugated to the local. Quite frankly, the current system whereby chief officers are appointed locally has not delivered as efficient and effective a probation service as perhaps it should have done. There are many excellent chief probation officers and some excellent local services, but there are also some of lower quality. We believe that the appointment of chief officers will help to raise the standard and achieve greater consistency. It is for those reasons that we argue very strongly in favour of our case.
The Government also believe that chief officers should be appointed by local boards to serve as statutory office holders rather than being employed by boards. This is essential in order to ensure a clear line management relationship between the Secretary of State and chief officials. Treating existing chief officers as any other employee of the probation committees or boards in respect of staff transfers to boards would defeat the objective.

809
Clearly, we accept that there is disagreement between us on the way in which we intend to proceed. There is a philosophical divide, but it is one for which we make no apology. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, who said that this was a recipe for chaos. What happens when one has central/local conflicts? At the moment there is, from time to time, a chaotic state of affairs that arises because of the relationship being the other way around. The Government's view is that these things are capable of resolution. We have to establish some partnerships to achieve that objective. At the end of the day the Government believe that in creating a national service we are much better off having a system of national appointments that will provide for consistency of service, of objective and of service delivery.
For those very important and powerful reasons, we urge your Lordships' House to reject these amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, one thing that the noble Lord has said is absolutely right; namely, that there is a fundamental difference between us. I should like to think that it was a philosophical difference, but I do not believe it is. I think it is a practical one. We have an over-ambitious Secretary of State who is more interested in control at his own level than in the proper delivery of the service.
The Minister's response, and the response at the previous stage, did not reflect an understanding of the arguments pressed, nor did the noble Lord address some of the key points raised in the debate. The noble Lord has said that one of the differences between us is that we do not actually agree with the principle of a national service. I have said more than once that I do not disagree with it. The noble lord, Lord Phillips, said he did not disagree with the idea of having a national service. We all agree that that service should be effectively delivered at a local level. We all know that between boards and sometimes even within boards the profile of an area is very different and will call for different responses from different chief officers who understand their own area. There is no divide on the principle of having a national service. There is a serious divide between us as to how it should be delivered at a local level.
I repeat that the Secretary of State is not short of powers to deliver a consistent national service. He has powers to approve the appointment of the chief officer, but the appointment is made by the local boards. He has powers to appoint all the board members and, in extremis, to dismiss them. He has full control of 100 per cent of the funding of the service. He has the power to set the standards and the targets for the service. He can establish consistent performance. The noble Lord has said that it would be impossible to have consistency of performance. It is perhaps different from having a service that responds materially to the needs of the area. Consistency of performance can be secured through the inspectorate.
810
Many mechanisms are available to the Secretary of State to do something about it if the service is not delivered.
My noble friend Lord Carlisle asked about central/local conflict but the Minister did not answer. He simply referred to the point having been raised but he gave no true answer to that question. It is more than giving the local boards a say in the appointment of a chief officer.
The noble Lord has misunderstood the debate. It is not about having a local say. It is a constitutional argument about ownership and responsibility going together at the operational level of the service in the local area. I wish to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
4.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 185: Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ackner. L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Addington, L.

Deedes, L.

Alderdice, L.

Denham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dholakia, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Astor, V.

Elles, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Attlee, E.

Elton, L.

Avebury, L.

Ezra, L.

Barker, B.

Feldman, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Biffen, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Blaker, L.

Freeman, L.

Blatch, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Geddes, L.

Boardman, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Glentoran, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brightman, L.

Goschen, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Burnham, L.

Greaves, L.

Buscombe, B.

Greenway, L.

Byford, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Caithness, E.

Hamwee, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hanham, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Carnarvon, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Carrington, L.

Higgins, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Chadlington, L.

Hogg, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Holderness, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hooper, B.

Coe, L.

Howe, E.

Colwyn, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Courtown, E.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Cranborne, V.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Hylton, L.

Cuckney, L.

Jacobs, L.

811

Jellicoe, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Jopling, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Kimball, L.

Roper, L.

Kirkham, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Russell, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Saatchi, L.

Liverpool, E.

Sandberg, L.

Ludford, B.

Sandwich, E.

Luke, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Maddock, B.

Selsdon, L.

Mancroft, L.

Sharman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Sharples, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McNally, L.

Slim, V.

Methuen, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Miller of Chilthome Domer, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Swinfen, L.

Montrose, D.

Taverne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Tebbit, L.

Newby, L.

Tenby, V.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Thomas of Gwydir. L.

Noakes, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Norfolk, D.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Northbrook, L.

Tope, L.

Northesk. E.

Tordoff, L.

Northover, B.

Trumpington, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Vinson, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Vivian, L.

Palmer. L.

Waddington, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Walmsley, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Warnock, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L. [Teller]

Watson of Richmond, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Weatherill, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Wigoder, L.

Prior, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Razzall, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Windlesham, L.

Rennard, L.

Young. B.

Renton, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ahmed, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Alli, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Amos, B.

Crawley, B.

Andrews, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Desai, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dixon, L.

Bach, L.

Donoughue, L.

Barnett, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dubs, L.

Berkeley, L.

Elder, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Billingham, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blease, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bragg, L.

Filkin, L.

Brennan, L.

Fitt, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Brookman, L.

Gale, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Burlison, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Goldsmith, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Goudie, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

812

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Molloy, L.

Grenfell, L.

Morgan, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Nicol, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Parekh, L.

Harrison, L.

Patel, L.

Haskel, L.

Paul, L.

Hayman, B.

Peston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Puttnam, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hoyle, L.

Rea, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Richard, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. {Lord Chancellor)

Sawyer, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Islwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

Shore of Stepney, L.

Simon, V.

Jeger, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Judd, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Lipsey, L.

Turnberg, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Varley.L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Warner, L.

Marsh, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Whi taker, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Whitty.L.

Wilkins, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 52, line 11, leave out (", the chief officer").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 53, line 16, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I can be very brief on this amendment which provides that in every area there shall be a secretary and a treasurer. The Minister appeared to hint that some areas may be too small to have a secretary and a treasurer. I suggest that no area will be so small that it could survive without a treasurer and a secretary. That is why I have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the Government really should accept this amendment. The idea that regulations may or may not provide that each local board should appoint a secretary and a treasurer seems to me absurd. Each one will need a secretary and a treasurer and the regulations should insist upon that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness says, this amendment would place an

813
absolute requirement on the Government to make regulations so as, in turn, to require local boards to appoint a secretary or a treasurer.
In most cases, local boards will want to appoint a secretary and a treasurer and the Government intend to lay regulations to deal with various conditions as to their appointment so as, for example, to ensure that treasurers belong to one of the recognised accountancy institutes.
However, there may be cases where it is not appropriate for a local board to appoint its own secretary or treasurer. Boards covering only a small area, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, may, for example, feel that they do not need their own secretary or treasurer and that it would be better to buy in such services, either from another board or from elsewhere, such as a firm of chartered accountants. In that case, the board may well not want to appoint a particular individual to the position of secretary or treasurer but may prefer to contract with an outside firm for the purpose of securing such services.
I understand the point raised by the noble Baroness. It may be that for nearly all services a secretary or a treasurer will need to be appointed. So if she withdraws her amendment, I certainly undertake to reflect more on the matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving an undertaking to reflect on this issue. However, given that the number of areas is to be reduced from 50 or so to 42, can he give the House one example of an area that would be too small to appoint a secretary or a treasurer?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has referred to the heart of the matter. These posts are important so I would like to reflect on the matter. I have been reminded that the smallest area would be Gwent. I believe that the noble Baroness makes an important point, so I invite her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with that generous offer I shall withdraw the amendment. However, if Gwent is an example of a small authority, the noble Lord does not have a leg to stand on in relation to this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 53, line 37, leave out paragraph 10.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 53, line 40, leave out from ("State") to the end of line 41 and insert ("shall pay to every local board such amounts as may be necessary for it to discharge properly its duties").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, more assurances are needed from the noble Lord that amounts paid to the service will not be as the Secretary of State wishes or considers necessary but reflect a real correlation with the remit given to the service by the
814
Secretary of State—in other words, the job to be done—and that the resources will be consistent with the particular remit of the service. What the Minister has said so far is not sufficient to satisfy me on this point. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I have put my name to this important amendment. Under Clause 5 of the Bill, and in particular subsection (8), the Secretary of State can, at any time,
"determine whether or not any provision made by a local board … is sufficient".
I believe that the House should permit this amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too feel strongly about this amendment. The Secretary of State should not simply assert his subjective opinion. There should be an objective test, as proposed in the amendment. If the Secretary of State fails in his duty, the matter can be taken before the courts and put right. In these circumstances it is not enough to leave the matter to the opinion of the Secretary of State.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 would replace the provision for the Secretary of State to make to local boards such payments as he considers appropriate with one requiring him to pay such amounts as,
"may be necessary for it to discharge properly its duties".
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that the subjective view of the Secretary of State should be replaced with an objective test. I want to believe that that would be possible with this wording, but I do not see that the amendment is any more objective than the current wording. In any event, Clause 3(1) already provides for a degree of objectivity in measuring exactly how resources are to be considered and made available to the local service.
Another problem with the amendment is that it would place the Government in the position where their discretion to decide upon the appropriate amounts of expenditure would be reduced. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, may want to reflect on the point that this could open up the possibility of a legal challenge to probation budgets and whether that would be a healthy development.
The Government's position is simple. We believe strongly in the work that the Probation Service undertakes with offenders, as we always have. That is why we argued against the cuts inflicted upon the service when we were in opposition and that is why in government we reversed those cuts imposed by the government of the noble Baroness. They cut training and finance and we reversed that situation. This Government did exactly that. We provided an extra £127 million over the three years covered by the current Comprehensive Spending Review, so we have lived up to our promises on this issue and we shall invest in the order of a further £400 million through the SR2000 process.

815
We oppose this amendment. We believe that it should be for the government of the day to bring forward expenditure estimates to Parliament for discussion and approval. This amendment would tie the hands of the Government and would require them to provide such sums as may be "necessary", but who would define what is "necessary"? How objective a test would it be?
In those circumstances, it would be open to local boards or individuals who felt that the Probation Service had been provided with insufficient funds to challenge the Government's spending commitment in the courts. Is that a course upon which noble Lords opposite, particularly those as experienced in court matters as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, wish us to embark? That cannot be satisfactory.
In our view, the amendment risks undermining the authority of Parliament and is therefore misconceived. For those reasons I ask Members of your Lordships' House, particularly those on the Benches opposite, to think carefully before pressing this amendment, and in any event I ask the House to reject it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can I ask how this amendment flies in the face of Parliament—I cannot recall his phrase exactly—when all it seeks to do is ensure that the duties placed on local probation boards by this Bill can be discharged by their having the necessary wherewithal? How can that in any way conflict with normal parliamentary convention?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would undermine the authority of Parliament—as expressed in the operation of the service being through the Secretary of State, that being the line of accountability—to make a judgment as to what is or is not right in terms of adequately providing for the service. In doing that, it undermines the way the service operates nationally; and I cannot see, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, attempted to argue, that there can be some sort of objective test.
The priorities for spending must be taken as a whole. That is what the spending review 2000 process went through, and the one before that. It measured the demands of each service and tried to apportion funds in accordance with a system of prioritisation. The amendment would undermine that system because it says, "You must deliver X amount to the service over a given period of time", before a judgment can be made as to where the service sits in relation to all other services.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is much more experienced than I am at arguing around the meaning of words in court scenarios. But how would he define "necessary" in a legal context? How would the noble Lord make that word stand up in terms of the argument about resources? How would he measure
816
what is or is not necessary to make a service live up to the fine aspirations which most of us agree should exist for the service?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, as the Minister invited me to respond, I shall. The courts frequently have to interpret language of this nature. I seem to recollect that the word "necessary" is a term found in the regulation of investigatory powers legislation—a government measure. The court will look at it in relation to the duty imposed by Parliament and come to an objective view on whether or not, in this instance, the wherewithal for the necessary implementation of the duties has been provided by government. It is as simple or as complicated as that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am baffled. I cannot understand how this amendment would undermine the power of Parliament, the influence of Parliament or how we carry out our work. My noble friend Lord Renton, who made a very wise intervention, was arguing for objectivity rather than subjectivity. Paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 1 to the Bill as drafted states:
"The Secretary of State may pay to a local board any amount he considers appropriate".
How much easier it would be if the actual link with funding was expressed as,
"shall pay to every local board such amounts as may be necessary for it to discharge properly its duties".
The duties are well set out. The targets that have to be met are set out. The aims and objectives of the service are set out by the Secretary of State and there is an inspector to ensure that the work is carried out. That inspector can comment on whether or not the resources are in fact adequate and can advise the Secretary of State what the resources should be. So I find the Minister's response extraordinary.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in responding to a previous amendment, said that he would like to reflect on the matter. This has been a short but important debate. Is the noble Lord prepared to reflect also on this matter and find a better form of words than,
"any amount he considers appropriate",
without any objective link to the level of service to be delivered at a local level?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am always happy to reflect on matters, as the noble Baroness will appreciate and understand. I am happy to take away this wording and see whether it can be improved, or whether we can improve on the wording in the Bill as drafted. I cannot make a commitment to come back with anything. However, I shall reflect on the debate and on the form of words offered in the amendment and compare them again with the words in the Bill before us.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister is in a generous frame of mind. I shall accept his response and hope that something can be agreed between now and

817
the next stage of the Bill. If not, we shall certainly return to this matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 54, line 12, after ("holding") insert ("or managing land and other").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there is concern over the arrangements for holding and managing land and/or property; there is also concern about what the Home Office has in mind when taking control of property. Am I being too cynical in my thinking if I suggest that there may be cost-cutting in the guise of rationalisation of land and buildings? One only has to read what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, wrote in letters both to the service and to those of us involved in the debate to understand why our suspicions are aroused in this way.
Local employers need to be allowed to manage at local level. That involves, for all the services, reading the property needs of the area consistent with providing an effective service. Paragraph 28 of one of the helpful letters we received from the Minister, which I understand was copied to all Members involved in the debate, states:
"We [the Government] are convinced, however, that there are sound reasons for concentrating ownership and overall management of the Probation estate in the national directorate. We believe these to be:
accounting responsibility will be placed squarely on the Government;
there will be a better opportunity to control investment, procurement and development so as to make the best use of all the assets of the National Probation Service".
There is an issue in that statement in that the people who know best their property needs at local level will be the local service. It will be helpful to know from the Minister, first, how that will happen in practice; and, secondly, how the bureaucracy for doing that will be minimised. Every pound spent on unnecessary bureaucracy is a pound that does not go to the service itself.
The letter goes on to state:
"probation property will become part of the wider civil estate, with the benefits which accrue from that, including cost savings as a result of economies of scale and rationalisation".
I am not so sure, looking around the Probation Service, that it has a great deal of surplus property. But let us give the Government the benefit of the doubt. They go on in the letter to state:
"new boards and service managers will be able to concentrate on delivery of their core functions and not be distracted by issues involving real estate".
Again, procuring, making bids for and asking for property development locally often involves a lot of time. So just because property management is being run nationally does not mean that somehow that time will he dissipated and can be used in the service itself. Therefore, it will be useful again to have chapter and verse from the Minister in relation to the specific arrangements.
However, I find paragraph 29 almost offensive. It states:
"It is also clear that the existing arrangements have worked far from well. For example, a detailed survey by Donaldsons, a firm of chartered surveyors, which took place in 1999 concluded that there was inadequate management of the estate despite excessive staffing"—
I repeat, "excessive staffing"—
"and that a fair proportion of it was unsuitable for purpose and in poor repair".
May I suggest that, if it is "unsuitable for purpose" and it is "in poor repair", that reflects more on the department than it does on the service at local level? The department, as I understand the way in which the service works at the moment, actually approves capital spending for any changes and any refurbishments at local level. The Government go on to state:
"We believe that a more rational national approach will help to remedy these deficiencies and benefit the service as a whole".
The service would surely say "hurrah" to that if the service going national meant that all its property needs would be met in a more effective way than at the moment; but I feel the slight cast on the service in that paragraph is regrettable. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, we on these Benches support this group of amendments. We believe that some of the Government's justification for the proposals in the Bill, and in Schedule I in particular, is spurious and will not be realised in practice. Far from relieving local probation hoards of concern and worry, the proposals are likely to add to them. Nothing can be more frustrating than having relatively modest property matters dealt with via Whitehall, with the distancing and bureaucracy that that can and often does mean. I know from experience on quangos that it is a great boon to be able to handle one's own property matters. It invariably leads to quicker, more effective, more efficient and, in the end, cheaper property arrangements.
As the boards will have the important task of keeping an eye on their own expenditures, it is important that they should be able to strike local bargains. A centralised property service may be unable to do that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in reflecting on what has been said in this short debate, I see that the argument is part and parcel of our earlier arguments about central versus local. It ought not to be. We are proposing a national service, creating a more rational, better and efficient use of the resources available to each board. I shall deal first with the amendments and then the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 and 34 to 36 change the wording of various provisions in the Bill relating to the powers of local boards in respect of land and other property. Amendment No. 9 would give the local boards a specific power to hold and manage land as well as other property, subject to directions given by the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would remove the Bill's current prohibition on boards

819
holding land and instead make both holding and managing land permissible, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. That is a reflection of the language of earlier amendments.
Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 would enable the Secretary of State to transfer land from probation committees to local boards. I understand, therefore, that that is an enabling provision.
I believe that there has been a great deal of confusion about the question of holding and managing land and other property. Perhaps I may remind the House that we spent a great deal of time debating the issue in Committee. As the noble Baroness fairly said, I have written to her and circulated the correspondence widely in order to try to clarify the position.
However, perhaps I may try again to make the Government's position clear. We believe that it would be wrong for the local boards to hold land. In a national organisation, which the national probation service for England and Wales will be, it is appropriate and sensible for the ownership of all land to be held at the centre. We will therefore be clear about who holds the land and why they hold it.
On the other hand, in balancing that, we have every intention that local boards should have full day-to-day control over the properties they occupy and that they should have such control as is currently provided in the Bill. Within that framework, we believe that it would be absurd for local management to have to refer to headquarters its need to call in plumbers, electricians or local service providers. That would be ridiculous. That must be understood but it was the proposition served up to your Lordships in Committee.
If understanding has moved on from there, I am pleased. I hope that my correspondence addressed those issues. However, it must be the case that within a regime of best value, where we are seeking to optimise the greatest benefit from the national holding of an estate and to procure more major services, the national holding of such assets makes a great deal of sense.
The noble Baroness had a suspicion that the proposal was somehow linked to cost cutting. I find that a strange suspicion for her to hold because, as I made plain in earlier debates, we are investing substantial additional sums. We have, effectively, reversed cuts which were imposed on the service in the mid-1990s. In proposing the arrangement for holding property and land we are seeking simply to make better use of it.
The structure of the national probation service will mean that we reduce the number of board areas from 50 to 43 so that they are coterminous with the police authority areas. It seems to me sensible that in that process we should seek to manage our land, buildings and so forth nationally. The rationalisation can then be conducted sensibly. No doubt from that it will be seen that the arrangements we are seeking to put in place are for the long-term benefit and improvement of the service.
820
I happen to believe—the Government, too, happen to believe—that local probation boards should concentrate on the job in hand; that is, administering and delivering local probation services. That is exactly what they should be about. They should not be involved in the day-to-day management of property, a function which I believe can properly be left to the headquarters—the major agency—of the national probation service.
That is what we are trying to achieve through the legislation. There is no sinister or other agenda. The proposals are not about cost cutting but about ensuring that good, beneficial, best-value principles are in place so that we can conduct the management of the estate in a more effective and efficient direction. I would have hoped that the noble Baroness would see the sense of that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he not concede that he is throwing away one of the advantages of the structure he has put into the Bill? Is it not self-apparent that as regards local property matters a local board, with a chief probation officer and staff, will be much nearer mother earth than can conceivably be the case through a centralised service?
The Minister neatly divided operational and property matters, but in the real world nothing is more frustrating and obstructive to getting things moving than having a property issue decided from afar. In many cases, it can be dealt with quickly, cheaply and efficiently on one's own doorstep. The argument is therefore not one of principle but of practicality.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a useful contribution. However, I believe that from time to time the local board, with its chairman or chief officer, will need to make a business case to the centre for perhaps a change in the way in which the totality of the probation estate, administered by a local area board, is run and organised. It should make that business case on an understanding that ultimately it will need to be guided and advised within a national framework.
Through such a process, we gain the benefit of local knowledge and advice and of having a national schema which enables the efficiencies of a larger body of procurement to take place and roll through. Those are good procurement efficiency objectives, as I would have thought the noble Lord would understand.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, again, I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. Can he explain what is the "national schema" as regards property matters? What possible national issue could bear on the decision of a local probation board as to whether to have a hostel in Smith Street or in Acacia Avenue?
5 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, clearly the "national schema" is the scheme for the national probation service which we seek to set up through the

821
delivery of this legislation. If there is a national organisation of substance, although perhaps not the largest in the world, efficiencies can be achieved by having someone with responsibility for the running and good management of the estate which is held nationally. But it is important that local efficiencies are brought to the attention of the national organisation. Therefore, the relationship between local and national level is important.
From time to time, undoubtedly there will be a need to develop a business case for the rationalisation, development, rebuilding and recasting of how the service operates through its local estate. That is a carefully negotiated relationship. We want the best of local advice and the handling of procurement on a nation-wide basis. We believe that we can achieve that objective much more effectively by holding the estate nationally in this way.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the response is bewildering. The Government now appear to be much more concerned about national control. What matters at the end of the day is the most efficient and effective delivery of the service to the people on the ground in local areas. There is a constant concern—almost fetish—about the national position. We do not disagree with the Minister that there should be consistency of service and performance across the country with the setting of national standards, and that the Secretary of State should have the funding rather than that it be split as between local and national level. However, the service must be delivered locally; for example, the manning of interview rooms which are confidential to the client groups. Therefore, property management is a real local issue.
Lord Balsam of Brighton: My Lords, sometimes I believe that the noble Baroness does not understand that crime is a national and international phenomenon. The Probation Service is an important part of the machinery of enforcement, and I believe that it is sensible to talk about the creation of a national service. I agree that probation officers should understand the importance of creating and delivering the service at local interview rooms. Those kinds of issues can be resolved when a property is managed locally. I do not believe that the noble Baroness sees the bigger picture. That is the important point on which I ask the noble Baroness to reflect.
I have always had a good deal of respect for Conservative politicians who argue for the creation and design of effective and efficient services because there is common ground between us. What we seek here is to create efficiencies in the system. I believe that the argument of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is against those principles, particularly with regard to national procurement.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand all too well that crime is a national issue with which the Government should concern themselves. I have no argument with that. If one looks at the example of the local management of schools, which was initiated by
822
us and is supported by the Government and the Liberal Democrats, the whole point of it is that every pound spent at local level achieves very much better value for money than local government or central government can possibly achieve. Why is that? Local people have a vested interest in freeing up every possible pound that can be used in operating the service, whether it be a school, a hospital or the Probation Service. That is the point which the Minister misses the whole time.
The noble Lord referred to the Probation Service and police authorities being coterminous. I do not believe that nationally the Government own all the police property and land. Therefore, in that case there is a distinction between national and local ownership. The local service will jealously guard the value for money factor. Local people have a real vested interest because they benefit from good value-for-money decisions. I do not understand the Government's case, and the Government have not understood my points and those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 178; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Courtown, E.

Addington, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Alderdice, L.

Craigavon, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cranborne, V.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Cuckney, L.

Astor, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Attlee, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Avebury, L.

Deedes, L.

Barker, B.

Denham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dholakia, L.

Bell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Biffen, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Blaker, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blatch, B.

Elton, L.

Boardman, L.

Ezra, L.

Bowness, L.

Falkland, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Feldman, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Freeman, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Buscombe, B.

Geddes, L.

Byford, B.

Glentoran, L.

Caithness, E.

Goodhart, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Goschen, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Greaves, L.

Carrington, L.

Greenway, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L

Chadlington, L.

Hamwee, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hanham, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Colwyn, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

823

Henley, L.[Teller]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Higgins, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hogg, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Holderness, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hooper, B.

Prior, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Razzall, L.

Howe, E.

Redesdale, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Rennard, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Renton, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hylton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jacobs, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Russell, E.

Kimball, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Kingsland, L.

Saatchi, L.

Kirkham, L.

Sandberg, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Selsdon, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Sharman, L.

Liverpool, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Ludford, B.

Sharples, B.

Luke, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Maddock, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Taverne, L.

Marlesford, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tebbit, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

McNally, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Methuen, L.

Tope, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Tordoff, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trumpington, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Vinson, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Waddington, L.

Newby, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Noakes, B.

Walmsley, B.

Norfolk, D.

Warnock, B.

Northbrook, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Northesk, E.

Wigoder, L.

Northover, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Onslow, E.

Windlesham, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Young, B.

Palmer, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brookman, L.

Ahmed, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Alli, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Amos, B.

Burlison, L.

Andrews, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bach, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Barnett, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Berkeley, L.

Crawley, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Billingham, B.

Dixon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Donoughue, L.

Blease, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Dubs, L.

Borrie, L.

Eatwell, L.

Bragg, L.

Elder, L.

Brennan, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

824

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Filkin, L.

Fitt, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Gale, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Molloy, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Morgan, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Nicol, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Parekh, L.

Goudie, B.

Patel, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Paul, L.

Gregson, L.

Peston, L.

Grenfell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Puttnam, L.

Harrison, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Haskel, L.

Rea, L.

Hayman, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sawyer, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hoyle, L.

Serota, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Smith of Leigh, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Islwyn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Tenby, V.

Jeger, B.

Thornton, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Judd, L.

Turnberg, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Varley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Warner, L.

Lipsey, L.

Weatherill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Whitaker, B.

Longford, E.

Whitty, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Wilkins, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Marsh, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
Page 54, line 18, after ("hold") insert ("or manage").
Page 54, line 18, at end insert ("without the approval of the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Functions of local boards]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, leave out line 5 and insert ("in respect of its area for the purposes mentioned in section 1 and for ensuring the performance of any other functions conferred by virtue of this Act or any other enactment on the board,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 12 and 102 are designed to ensure that the new statutory responsibilities placed on the Probation

825
Service by Clause 66 in connection with the victims of certain offences are fully integrated at the heart of probation work and systems.
Subsection (8) of Clause 66 was designed to ensure that the local boards could use people other than their own staff to perform their functions in respect of victims. This arrangement would be helpful, for example, when an offender lived in a different area. The responsible local board would be able to arrange for the local board in the area where the victim lived to undertake liaison work on its behalf. But there is nothing in Clause 66 to ensure that other general provisions in respect of probation services actively apply to this important work with victims.
The amendments, which delete the specific provision from Clause 66 and create a general provision in Clause 5, will ensure that this work with victims is subject to inspection and can be complained about by using the complaints procedure, as well as ensuring that local boards can use people other than their own staff to perform their functions in respect of victims. Moreover, these general provisions will, if the amendments are accepted, apply to any further functions conferred upon local boards under Clause 5(5).
Amendment No. 13 is a drafting amendment which ensures that local boards will be able to make arrangements for any of their work to be undertaken on their behalf by another organisation where it is deemed appropriate. As currently drafted, using the word "functions", Clause 5(2)(a) could be taken as referring only to functions defined in Clause 5. The amendment extends the subsection to anything done by a local board for the purposes as defined in Clause 1.
I recognise that noble Lords opposite are on a bit of a roll today, but I am rather hoping that these amendments will be seen as helpful, uncontroversial and an improvement to the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord intends to be helpful. I hope he will be more helpful and explain to me where he wants to end up if the amendments are accepted. I half expected the noble Lord, in moving the amendment, to say that the amendments in the group were all drafting ones and should therefore be waved through with a green flag. He nobly resisted that temptation. But he now has to tell noble Lords why the Government were not satisfied. That is not clear to me from his brief speech. I have two questions. First, why were the Government not satisfied with things as they were? Secondly, what precisely do the three amendments together do which was riot done in the earlier version? As a result, is the noble Lord left in a state of blissful content with the new version? I should like to be assured on those points.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, we are trying to improve the way in which the legislation works so that it is more flexible, enabling the service to work with other areas in a more effective and efficient manner. For instance, where the
826
offender lives in a different area, the responsible local board will be able to make arrangements for the local board in the area where the victim lives to undertake liaison work on his behalf. We are seeking to create and engender more efficiency and greater flexibility across the service. As the noble Lord said, I could have stated that these are technical and drafting amendments. But what we are trying to do is make the legislation workable and remove inflexibilities within it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, in general I speak in support of the proposals. However, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. It concerns a point which I and other noble Lords might have been expected to pick up earlier. Subsection (5) of Clause 5 states:
"Regulations may confer further functions on local boards".
Amendment No. 12 brings that into the main provision of Clause 5(1)(a). As the clause is drafted, would it not be possible for wide, extra duties to be incorporated into the Bill without the use of the affirmative procedure in either House?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not believe that that would be the effect of the amendment. I certainly hope that that would not be the case. We need to be clear about what we can and cannot do. It is exactly for that reason that the amendments have been introduced. However, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. He is a consummate reader of the detail. I would not like there to be any suspicion in his mind so I shall take further advice on the point that he has raised.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 13, leave out from ("for") to ("behalf") iii line 14 and insert ("provision to be made on the board's").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 24, leave out ("accommodation") and insert ("supervision").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I feel very strongly about this amendment. I received a letter from the noble Lord giving the Government's defence of the words in the Bill. The Bill refers to a board,
"providing accommodation in approved premises for persons who have at any time been charged with or convicted of an offence".
As we know, the crude statistics in this country show that a third of all males under the age of 30 have committed an offence other than a driving offence. When one takes that across the whole of the population, one is talking about a potentially massive client group.
In his letter the noble Lord admitted that in Committee he had not explained very well the Government's proposals. He said:
"I am not sure that I explained the Government's intentions as to hostels very clearly in the debate at Committee stage"

827
That is true, because I certainly did not understand some of the arguments that were made. The noble Lord also said in his letter that when the Bill was originally drafted the intention was to have three kinds of bail hostels; bail hostels, community rehabilitation hostels, and so-called "other premises". That has been overtaken by some changes. The amended version of Clause 9 simply provides for the Secretary of State to approve premises which could accommodate either those granted bail or those who are being supervised or rehabilitated, having been convicted of an offence.
I am comparing what was said in the noble Lord's letter with what is stated in the Bill. I keep on going back to the Bill, which refers to,
"accommodation in approved premises for persons who have at any time been charged with or convicted of an offence".
The noble Lord rightly said that that includes offenders on community sentences, not necessarily those on community rehabilitation orders, and those on licence. In paragraph 36 of his letter the noble Lord said that,
"hostels would only accommodate those who needed to be there because of their bail conditions or because of the need for … a supervised environment in terms of protecting the public and helping to prevent their reoffending".
When the noble Lord addressed these issues in Committee he used the word "supervise" throughout his response. I want the word "supervision" on the face of the Bill. That is what the noble Lord was saying and that is what the noble Lord continued to emphasise that he meant and the Government meant. If that is the case, it is right that it should appear on the face of the Bill. But the Bill does not say what the noble Lord said in his letter, that,
"hostels would only accommodate those who needed to be there because of their hail conditions or because of the need for … a supervised environment in terms of protecting the public and helping to prevent their reoffending".
The noble Lord went on to say:
"In the overwhelming majority of cases, residents would, as now, be those currently on bail, currently serving a community sentence or currently on licence".
That is not true, either. The Bill refers to persons who at any time have had a conviction. They could be people in their 50s or 60s who had a conviction many years ago. That is what the Bill actually states. For example, it could be used as a means of providing temporary homes for the homeless—for a homeless person who has had a conviction. That is not what hostels are about.
In paragraph 37 the noble Lord said:
"Clause 9, as amended, does not restrict the power to accommodate offenders to those currently serving a sentence".
That is the point I have just made. It continues:
"This is in order to provide the opportunity where, and only where, it is necessary to accommodate dangerous offenders released from prison without licence and those on licence who are not strictly 'serving a sentence'. There will only be a handful of such cases, but in these circumstances it is quite possible that accommodation for a period in a hostel will be a most effective way to protect the public".
828
I agree with that, but it is not in the Bill. The Bill does not say that. It is what the noble Lord is saying he thinks the Bill means, but it is not in the Bill. What would help would be for the noble Lord to accept my amendment so that the accommodation was supervised accommodation.
The noble Lord referred to someone being on bail who would not necessarily be on a supervision order. That is also true. But the reason that person is put in a hostel is so that he can be supervised. In the eyes of the court there is a fear that he might run away or default on his appearance in court. So there is a degree of supervision even with people who are on remand, waiting for their cases to come to court but are on bail and have been referred to a hostel; otherwise, why not send them to their homes or to bed-and-breakfast or some other accommodation?
Bail hostels are to be used because, for whatever reason, the people there are to be supervised. It is important that the word appears on the face of the Bill. If the noble Lord is intent on repeating what he said on the previous occasion—that he is in fact talking about supervision—the logical next step would be to accept the word "supervision" on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, let us try to understand the amendments and see whether there is so much between us. By changing the word "accommodation" to "supervision", Amendment No. 14 would have the effect of preventing local boards from providing hostels. I do not think that that is what the noble Baroness wants to do.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is not so.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is the effect of the change in the wording. Amendment No. 15 would arguably restrict the role of local boards to those currently on bail or serving a sentence. Perhaps it is not the intention of the noble Baroness to achieve either of those two objectives.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me who would be referred to a hostel for whom there would be no degree of supervision?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall pause to think about that. If the noble Baroness will bear with me, we are trying to resolve practical matters in a practical way. That should be done in a fair-handed way.
There is perhaps a misunderstanding in the noble Baroness's approach. The noble Baroness said that in Committee I had used the word "supervision" throughout my commentary in responding to her points. That is perfectly true. But our argument in part is that one does not need to have all of these words in the Bill for the issue of supervision to be very much at the heart of the way in which the service is delivered locally. That is an important point.

829
Perhaps I may return to the thread of my argument. Were we to accept Amendment No. 15, it would remove the ability to work with the small number of dangerous offenders who are no longer under sentence but where it is in the interests of protecting the public for them to be supervised on a voluntary basis by the Probation Service. I realise that the noble Baroness is troubled by the provision, but I am referring to a group in respect of which we feel that it is most important for such supervision to be put in place—because of the voluntary basis on which such people would be placed in a hostel.
Hostels form an important part of the armoury available to the Probation Service for helping to reduce reoffending and to protect the public. All residents in hostels will be subject to the hostel regime, which will include strict curfew conditions and a prohibition on alcohol. Those are important restrictions. Hostels do not concern only accommodation, but the inclusion of the word "accommodation" is necessary.
The noble Baroness appears to want to strike the word "accommodation" from the Bill. If we remove it, hostels would take on a very different meaning. Surely the noble Baroness understands that that would be the case. It is necessary to include the word to enable the Probation Service to provide hostels and to carry out this valuable work. However, the use of the word would not mean that such hostels could be used for anyone who is homeless. Hostels are used for a particular purpose. For that reason, we oppose Amendment No. 14.
If the noble Baroness is confused—I am sure that sometimes it can happen—about the purpose of hostels, perhaps she would reflect on that point.
As I said earlier, we oppose Amendment No. 15, which would remove the ability to use hostel accommodation for a small number of dangerous offenders no longer on licence. In general, hostels accommodate three types of person: those remanded while still on bail; those serving community sentences; and those released from prison on licence. However, as I have said, they will also be used for a small number of dangerous offenders who have been released from prison, having reached the end of their sentence, but who still present a danger to the public.
The Government believe that it is right to protect the public by accommodating such offenders on a voluntary basis for a period in approved hostels. Hostel regimes, with their curfews and their structured regimes, offer a better opportunity to reduce the risk of reoffending and public harm than if those offenders were simply to be left to their own devices in the community.
Were noble Lords to accept Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, they would undermine what we are trying to achieve here. A situation would be created that would be far worse than that which is currently in place. Furthermore, it would undermine our objectives in terms of law enforcement and reducing the risk of reoffending. I cannot believe that the noble Baroness
830
seeks that as an objective. It would appear to run counter to her entire approach, but then I am often amazed by the words of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the noble Lord please tell me—in words that I and my colleagues in the House will understand—what, in a legal sense, it is about my amendment that would prevent the supervision of the most dangerous criminals just referred to by the noble Lord?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am becoming a little puzzled at the approach being adopted by the noble Baroness. Earlier she suggested that I had referred to "supervision" throughout my arguments put forward in Committee. Her argument appeared to pursue the notion that, by reason of those references, we should now put that word into the Bill. However, "supervision" goes to the core of what the Probation Service should provide when sentences are served in the community. My argument here is that the word "accommodation" needs to be in place because, clearly, one purpose behind the running of hostels is that such accommodation will be supervised. There is therefore no need to specify it in the legislation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise only to conclude my remarks on this amendment because I know that the noble Lord is becoming anxious. What in my amendment would legally preclude the most dangerous people from being supervised in the accommodation? The noble Lord has riot answered the question. I am pressing this point because the noble Lord's response has been based on that premise; namely, that my amendment would be dangerous because it would preclude that.
I am not satisfied with the response that I have received from the noble Lord.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if it would be of help, I shall respond once again to the noble Baroness. She may well then take a different view.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 180; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Barker, B.

Alderdice, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Bell, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Biffen, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Blaker, L.

Astor, V.

Blatch, B.

Attlee, E.

Boardman, L.

Avebury, L.

Bowness, L.

831

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bradshaw, L.

Ludford, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Luke, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Lyell, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Byford, B.

Maddock, B.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Carrington, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chadlington, L.

McNally, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Methuen, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Coe, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Colwyn, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Montrose, D.

Courtown, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cranborne, V.

Newby, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B

Cuckney, L.

Noakes, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Norfolk, D.

Dahrendorf, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Deedes, L.

Northover, B.

Denham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dholakia, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elton, L.

Palmer, L.

Erroll, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ezra, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Feldman, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Razzall, L.

Freeman, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Geddes, L.

Rennard, L.

Glentoran, L.

Renton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Greaves, L.

Russell, E.

Greenway, L.

Saatchi, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hanham, B.

Seccombe, B.

Hanson, L.

Selsdon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sharman, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Sharples, B.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Higgins, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hogg, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Holderness, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Howe, E.

Taverne, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kelvedon, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kimball, L.

Tope, L.

Kingsland, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kirkham, L.

Trumpington, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Vinson, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Vivian, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Waddington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

832

Walmsley, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Walpole, L.

Williamson of Horton, L

Warnock, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Windlesham, L.

Wigoder, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ahmed, L.

Alli, L.

Islwyn, L.

Amos, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Andrews, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jeger, B.

Bach, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Barnett, L.

Judd, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Berkeley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Billingham, B.

Lipsey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Borrie, L.

Longford, E.

Bragg, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brennan, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brookman, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Carter, L.[Teller]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morgan, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Parekh, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dixon, L.

Patel, L.

Donoughue, L.

Paul, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Eatwell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elder, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Goudie, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Greengross, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gregson, L.

Thornton, B.

Grenfell, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hardy of Wath, 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.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Whitty, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.46 p.m.
Baroness match Baroness match moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("at any time").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Functions of inspectorate]:
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 30, at end insert (", provided that no such direction shall merge the functions of the Chief Inspector with those of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the first day in Committee, a similar amendment aimed at preventing any merger of the functions of the Chief Inspector of Probation and the Chief Inspector of Prisons was the subject of a short debate. Despite the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, speaking in his capacity as Bishop to the Prisons, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—all of whom have first-hand knowledge of the working of the penal system—our arguments were dismissed by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, as being put forward,
"in the wrong place at the wrong time".—[Official Report, 2/10/00; col. 1204.].
I hope that this debate today is the right place and the right time.
Frankly, I was surprised by the strength of feeling expressed subsequently on this issue, both inside the House on a cross-party basis, and by the Probation Service. This further amendment is the result.
The timing is opportune as consideration is currently being given by Ministers to proposals either for an integrated inspectorate to cover both the prisons and the Probation Service, or to finding other ways for the two inspectorates to work more closely together. Under existing legislation, it would be possible to appoint the same person as both Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation. If the amendment is accepted, no such appointment could be made. All of the other options for joint working would remain open.
To avoid repeating what I said in Committee about the need for a separate Chief Inspector of Prisons, let me summarise as briefly as possible why, under the plans for a national probation service, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation believes that it is essential that the reorganised service should continue to have its own chief inspector. It should be said at once that the stance of the chief officers depends not on institutional pride or possessiveness, but on a recognition of the realities of joint working.
We are speaking now not in the vague generalities so beloved by Ministers—and so evident in the consultation document—of "joined-up government" and "seamless approaches" and so on, but of the reality of current practice. The Probation Service already co-operates closely with the Prison Service in the Form of joint inspections or thematic reviews carried out by the inspectorates of prisons and of
834
probation. Recent examples are the comprehensive reviews on life sentence prisoners and the preparation of prisoners for release and resettlement. This type of joint working is highly desirable; it is likely to continue, and it does not call for any legislative intervention.
What the recent consultation document fails to recognise is that only about one-third of the work of the Probation Service overlaps with that of the prisons, whereas virtually all of its work is linked to the courts or the police, or to both. The service also works closely with health authorities in respect of drugs and mentally disordered offenders, as well as with local authorities, particularly in the context of the relatively new and promising youth justice initiatives—I say that in the presence of the chairman of the Youth Justice Board, to whom credit is due. There is merit in joint inspections in each of these areas of probation work in the community as a means of recognising shared responsibilities and promoting best practice.
However, as to the possibility of a joint chief inspector for prisons and for probation, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation has been forthright in its response to the Home Office consultation document. The association points out that the document,
"provides no evidence of the benefits to the Prison Service of this proposal. ACOP believes it would be to the detriment of Probation, in that inspections would be driven by the larger organisation, the Prison Service. The flexibility in choice of thematics, speed of response and focus on performance would, we believe, be lost if we were to become part of a much larger Inspectorate with a very different brief and culture to that of our own".
Ministers should take heed of those words in their reply to the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we on this side of the House support the amendment. We debated this issue in Committee, and we were not convinced by the explanation offered by the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed out that at that stage the issue was being discussed in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Minister said that the amendment was flawed because it prejudged an important discussion, debate and deliberation about the inspectorate that the Government wanted to develop and deliver in terms of the final consultation.
The Minister can continue to have his consultation. But one area that we want to rule out is a merger of the two inspectorates. It is not about having a joined up service within the criminal justice system. What one suspects is at the back of it is the embarrassment faced by the Government in relation to report after report produced by the inspectorates.
No one disputes that a great deal of work is now in train to ensure that the Prison Service and the Probation Service co-ordinate their activities. A number of examples have been cited by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. Whatever is done, to merge the two inspectorates completely and appoint a joint chief inspector for prisons and probation would damage rather than improve the effectiveness of

835
inspections. First, there would be a risk of overstretching the joint chief inspector and reducing the benefits that arise from having two inspectors with specialist expertise—which has been such a strength in the arrangements under Sir David Ramsbotham and Sir Graham Smith. Secondly, there is a real risk that establishing a joint inspectorate would blunt the public impact of the reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, which have been so valuable in focusing the attention of the public, practitioners and politicians on the need for prison reform.
In a Question for Written Answer, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich asked how many organisations and individuals had, by 2nd October, expressed support for the Government's proposals and how many had opposed them. The answer may not come as a surprise to anyone on this side of the House. It was that having a joint chief inspector of prison and probation was not an option favoured by any respondent. The consultation period concludes today. It would be helpful to know from the Minister how many finally opted for the proposal. I look forward to his reply.
There are additional arguments against a joint approach. The Prison Service and the Probation Service come from historically different traditions. There is always a tension between the custodial approach and the community tradition which has never been effectively resolved by any government. We need to ensure that this healthy tension is translated into the way these agencies interact without swamping each other.
There is a clear distinction between loss of liberty through imprisonment and loss of liberty through community sentences. This distinction should never be blurred; the distinction of being in prison as against serving a community sentence must be protected.
There has always been a healthy tension in the objectives of the Prison Service and the Probation Service. On the one hand, there is the continuing culture of single-minded institutional security and management of the Prison Service; on the other, there is the local enthusiasm and initiative in the Probation Service for community based penalties. The way in which the Government intend to centralise such services is a clear indication that prison objectives would override community dynamics.
Despite the statements in the Government's consultation document, it is no secret that the Chief Inspector of Prisons has by and large stuck to inspecting custody conditions during incarceration. There are very specific, rather than overlapping issues. Moreover, his reports have not only embarrassed the Home Office in terms of its inaction but have also spurred it on to take urgent action on prison culture and conditions.
No one disputes the need for better co-ordination on matters of common interest between the Prison Service and the Probation Service. There is nothing to stop ad hoc arrangements, secondments, etc, as happens in many statutory departments.
836
I wonder whether the Home Office has taken into account the enormity of what a joint inspectorate would entail. Perhaps I may give an example. The two services have a combined staff of some 60,000; 125,000 people start probation every year and 140,000 are received into custody. Where are the resources?
In conclusion, prisons face problems that are significantly different to those of the Probation Service. Consistency of treatment is more likely to come from adhering to high standards of professional conduct and respect for human rights and the dignity of the individual than through a joint inspectorate.
Clearly, the Government are obsessed by central control. Perhaps I may quote what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, said about the criminal justice system. They are entirely appropriate to this debate. In an interview with the New Statesman, he advised the Government to leave the criminal justice system alone for a while. He added:
"There is a great danger that the system becomes punch drunk".
That is precisely the case here. We simply wish that the Home Office would stop interfering with a system of inspection which has delivered all that is asked of it and which has the confidence of the public in the way it performs its task. I support the amendment.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, the amendment, ably and skilfully introduced by the two previous speakers, gives the Government an opportunity to get out of a difficulty in which they find themselves. I am quite specific and blunt about that.
Prisons remain to a large extent a forgotten element in our society. Prisoners have no vote. I have the impression that Members in another place do not on the whole take a great interest in what happens in prisons. The attention of the media is wayward, even perverse. No serving Prime Minister, so far as I can discover, has ever visited a prison. That is a significant fact. Such forgetfulness is highly dangerous to our society. It is useful only to those whose idea of criminal justice is to fill and over-fill our prisons without considering what happens once people are inside them.
Prisons are a part of our society. Those who are sent there come from our society; they usually represent its dark underside. Perhaps more importantly, they return to society when they are released. Therefore, what happens in prison to the drug addicts, paedophiles and young offenders is of importance to all of us. We need to know.
At the moment, rightly or wrongly, the best illumination that comes to us of the state of our prisons emanates from the reports of the present Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, and those of his predecessor, Sir Stephen Tumim. Those reports cast a shaft of light through the fog of misconception, which so often surrounds this subject. Why? It is because they do not deal just with principles and generalisations; they convey the facts, the figures and the feel of individual prisons, one by one.
I had the privilege of accompanying the chief inspector and his team on a prison inspection not long ago. I was deeply impressed by the team's

837
professionalism. The team gives praise where praise is due—and it often is due—but it is also blunt in its criticism where that is justified. Of course, it is that criticism which, inevitably, gets into newspaper reports.
From their knowledge of government, noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that there is some grumbling and some tut-tutting about these reports in Whitehall; and about the brisk, military style in which they are couched and the attention which they, therefore, receive. I have not heard anyone say, "Who will rid me of this of this turbulent chief inspector?" It has not got as far as that—indeed, it could not get as far as that—but of the irritation, I have no doubt and much evidence.
That is the background against which the Government, quite properly, are considering the relationship, first, between the prison and probation services and now, more narrowly, between the inspectorates of those two services. They have issued a consultation paper. The two previous speakers clearly illustrated what the response to that consultation has been. Today the Prison Reform Trust, which I chair, has written in response to the consultation to the Home Office explaining why, after a good deal of thought and research, we share the conclusions already reached by the two previous speakers; namely, that the changes proposed—certainly the amalgamation of the inspectorates—are not justified and would be confusing.
Against the background that I have briefly sketched, it might be thought that this exercise is part of an attempt to muffle in some way the voice of the Chief Inspector of Prisons and his successors by a reorganisation—an unnecessary and confused amalgamation—of two different bodies. I hope that that belief is unfounded. At any rate, the Government have an opportunity today to dispose of any such suspicion. They can accept this amendment and that line of argument will fall away, leaving the rest of it to be discussed on its merits.
It is very important that it should be clear that this House, the other place and the Government are in favour of the kind of straightforward, clear and blunt reports that we receive from the chief inspector. In my view, it is essential that such reports continue to come through both sharp and clear as is the case at present. They should not be complicated by other considerations and other relationships. We need that clarity and we should insist on keeping it.
6 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, at the risk of being accused, again, by a noble Lord opposite of being audacious, I should like to advance a few opposing points in response to some of the extremely persuasive arguments put forward by previous speakers, whose judgment I have the greatest respect for in this area. However, I have to say that those arguments tend to look backwards rather than forwards to the future and to the kind of changes that might improve the criminal justice system in an evolutionary way.
838
I recognise that noble Lords opposite ire on something of a roll. But when people rush to the "Contents" Lobby in the way that they have been doing of late, they might like to reflect on the fact that, on the previous amendment, they actually voted for the Home Secretary to be unable to pay for accommodation to safeguard the public from dangerous sex offenders like Robert Oliver. I just mention that in passing because that is what has actually been voted for this afternoon.
Therefore, before we rush again into the Division Lobby, I should like to expound on the arguments for not voting for this amendment. I, too, pay great tribute to Sir David Ramsbotham for his excellent and thought-provoking reports, as well as the work that he has accomplished in exposing inadequacies in the Prison Service. His reports have often drawn attention also to the fact that the good work carried out in the Prison Service is sometimes undermined on release. One of the underlying approaches that the Government have adopted is to seek to improve the working relationship and the operational co-operation between the Prison Service and the Probation Service. Moreover, alongside this process, there is also the increasing use of technology in terms of community supervision as an alternative to custody, as well as changes in the character of some of the sentences being imposed in the criminal justice system. At the same time, the Government have announced a review of the sentencing framework.
I suggest to noble Lords that these ideas and developments are working to blur the line between custody and community supervision. That is all to the good, both as regards protecting the public and improving the chances of offenders not reoffending in the future. If that is going on in the services that are being inspected, it seems to me to be slightly rash—whatever one may think about the Government's intentions in relation to present incumbents—to say that we should never consider the Home Secretary of the day, whoever it may be, issuing directions (which is what the power under the Bill will provide) on the way that inspections might be conducted in relation to subject areas that straddle the probation and prison services. That is what this amendment would achieve.
Noble Lords should perhaps bear in mind the experience of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and of the National Crime Squad. A distinguished Member of the other place from the party opposite acts as chairman of both those bodies to ensure the co-ordination of their work. Indeed, it might actually be in the interests of both the Probation Service and the Prison Service if there were a greater degree of commonality of function of personnel straddling both inspectorates. I am not saying that that is the Government's intention; indeed, I do not know what that is. However, we seem to get a little anxious about their intentions in this area.

839
In conclusion, I should mention that it is the current Home Secretary who put in place rigid timetables for the publication of reports by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons—a set of arrangements that was not in place under the previous government, resulting in very long delays before the publication of such reports.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, surely the argument against the possibility of such a merger is that the tasks of the Chief Inspector of Prisons and of the Chief Inspector of Probation are, by their very nature, different. I accept that the criminal justice system must be considered as a whole, but the duty of the Chief Inspector of Probation is to deal with those services that provide for the punishment and rehabilitation of prisoners within society. The duty of the Chief Inspector of Prisons is surely to oversee the conditions in prisons as regards those who are contained within them.
It has been said that a society is often judged by the way in which it treats those whom it keeps in captivity. The great advantage with the Chief Inspector of Prisons is surely that he has shown fearlessness in acting on behalf of society and reporting what he sees, at times, to be the failings of the service. It would be a an awful pity were that task of the Chief Inspector of Prisons to be diluted in any way by giving him other tasks in addition. I am sure that the Minister will accept that there have been rumours abroad for some time that the Home Office intends to get rid of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, or his post, when he retires. Will he give the House an assurance tonight that that is not the Government's intention and that they do not intend to merge the two posts?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, an independent voice in your Lordships' House would like to add how important I think it is to have an independent Chief Inspector of Prisons. It has been this independence which has made the appointment so worth while and effective.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I refer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. If the spin that is being put out to defend the Government's position this afternoon in the light of the defeats that have occurred, distorts my amendment in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, did, I believe that that is a regrettable action on someone's part.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I was not putting any spin on the matter; I recounted to the House the practical consequences of Amendment No. 14. I spoke of Robert Oliver. The Home Secretary would not be able to pay for Robert Oliver's accommodation under the terms of the noble Baroness's amendment which the House accepted.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 amend subsection (3)(b) of Clause 5 to read:
"The provision that may be made in pursuance of such arrangements includes providing services to any person and, in particular—

(a) giving assistance to persons remanded on bail or for whom officers of the board have responsibilities,

(b) providing supervision in approved premises for persons who have been charged with or convicted of an offence".

There is nothing there that does not allow the Secretary of State to provide accommodation. As I say, if that is the spin that is being put on the effect of the amendment, that is regrettable.
The Association of Chief Officers of Probation would argue, and rightly so, that two-thirds of the work of the Probation Service does not overlap with that of prisons, and that almost all probation work is linked to the police and to the courts. Therefore, the logic of any merger is that the service has more in common with the police and the courts than with prisons. That is not to say—my noble friend Lord Windlesham made this point—that where there is overlap there should not be some coherence of inspecting services.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, reminded us that there has not officially been a suggestion that there is to be a merger of the two services. We must accept what the Minister has said, but I have to tell him that there is an extremely noisy rumour around Whitehall and throughout the service that the Government have it in mind to merge the two inspectorates. If that is not in the Government's mind, they need not fear the amendment of my noble friend Lord Windlesham.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has said that no one has argued against joined-up services. I believe that everyone who has spoken in the debate—even the noble Lord, Lord Warner—would argue that the Probation Service cannot operate or do its job effectively in isolation. It has to work with the police, the courts and, indeed, with the Prison Service. The noble Lord also said that the joined-up services have a bearing on the issue. The purpose behind the consultation exercise is to ensure that we benefit from having a more joined-up system of inspectorates and to discover how best the inspectorates can work together. We do not seek—and the consultation exercise does not propose—to merge the two inspectorates. The amendment would put that beyond doubt and quieten the anxiety that exists throughout the service.
I return to the issue of the police. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
"It is important to recognise that people go from prison into probation supervision, and into supervision in the community. There are similarities and areas of commonality. They are looking at the same client group".—[Official Report, 2/10/00; col. 1204.]
But they also pass through the hands of the police even before they are put on probation and following probation. The Probation Service works with local authorities, the voluntary sector and health authorities. Therefore, if one took the merger argument to its logical conclusion, one would have a

841
common inspectorate for the police, the Probation Service and the Prison Service. I suggest that that would be a retrograde step. I do not believe that there is an argument for that. If the Government sincerely have no intention to merge the two services, the amendment would be helpful to them and would quiet a great deal of anxiety in the service.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I speak to the amendment from a slightly different point of view from that of my noble friend. I support his amendment strongly. Its object is clearly to prevent the Government doing something that they appear likely to want to do. I certainly do not see this as a party political matter and I do not even see it as a ministerial matter. I see it essentially as a Home Office matter. I shall explain what I mean by that.
I have studied the Home Office and its workings for some 30 years, originally from inside Whitehall in the early 1970s. I remember how bitterly and successfully it used then to oppose any inquiry or review of how the prisons worked. It was not Home Office style to allow it. I spent some 16 years studying the Home Office as a political journalist and more recently nine years in your Lordships' House. I do not want to be offensive, but in my view the Home Office is the most constipated department in Whitehall. That does not mean that there are not some splendid people in it and always have been; but it is their departmental culture which I criticise. Those magic letters "NIH" might have been invented to describe the Home Office credo. Certainly they are inscribed on the banner under which the Home Office has campaigned—usually with success—to resist any modernisation or changes which have not emerged from its own bowels.
The methods that the Home Office use were the original inspiration for the brilliant "Yes Minister". The Home Office does not even subscribe to the late Lord Denning's famous dictum. It is perfectly willing to ignore and indeed frustrate a law made by Parliament, if it does not approve of it. Before I make a few remarks about the amendment itself I shall mention an example to justify what I have just said. Under the provisions of Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, the Government were required to set up a national register of all holders of firearm licences. This obligation came into legal force on 1st October 1997. Three years later it is still not there. As the Home Office Select Committee stated in April this year:
"We are appalled that the national data base is not yet in immediate prospect, over two years after the implementation of the Act".
I believe that that Select Committee received a rather revealing memorandum from a former police firearms expert explaining the lack of Home Office action. He suggested,
"it may be significant that … the proposal—
that is, the proposal for the register—
"did not come from the Home Office … but from Lord Marlesford who forced it to a division at the Report Stage in the House of Lords".
842
That is perfectly true and my noble friend Lady Blatch kindly accepted it on behalf of the then government.
I believe that the case for not allowing the amalgamation of the inspectorate—it is absolutely right to perceive that as the threat—is a simple one. The position of the chief inspector is very much as much as anyone can take on effectively. The best way to reduce its effectiveness is to amalgamate the post with something else. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made that point clearly.
I give a simple analogy. Back in 1971 I realised that the Post Office telephones needed to be privatised if there was to be the opportunity for the technology revolution to be put into effect. Noble Lords will remember that at that time there was a 12-week waiting list for a telephone in London. I went to see Mr Chattaway, the then Minister of Posts. I suggested to him that the telephones and the mail services should as a first step be split from each other. He was surrounded by his officials who put up a barrage of reasons why such a split would be a national disaster. He accepted their advice. What happened later is history.
The pronouncements of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons have long been an embarrassment to the Home Office. The wide publication of his views, and the generally extensive and favourable media attention they have received, have been a constant irritation to Home Office officials, who feel that they should have a monopoly in such matters. The fact that Sir David Ramsbotham has been outstandingly successful and shown himself to have the quality and independence of mind which mark him out as a great public servant makes it all the worse. He has been Chief Inspector of Prisons since 1995. If I were the Home Secretary, I should want to persuade him to stay on as long as possible.
My noble friend Lord Hurd pointed out that the Home Office has its own methods of ridding itself of turbulent priests. But having got rid of an inconvenient individual, it does not want a successor. So it wants to remove the very position and its potential.
I should have hoped that the Minister would have welcomed the amendment enthusiastically. It is not a party political matter. But if he does not, I shall equally enthusiastically vote in favour of my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, one could not possibly say that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is constipated in any way. Having listened to the contributions from the serried ranks of former Home Office Ministers today, one could never accuse them of constipation. They have been most forthcoming and helpful in the debate. I have enjoyed greatly their helpful contributions.
I cannot agree to the amendment, as I have been invited to do. During the previous debate, I said that it was the wrong amendment in the wrong place at the wrong time. That remains the case. The amendment prejudges an important debate. We have had a consultation exercise which finishes today, interestingly, about the future of the inspectorates of

843
the Probation Service and of the Prison Service. The amendment is defective because it assumes that the direction-making powers to which it refers relate exclusively to the functions of local area boards of probation, not the functions of the Prison Service. Nothing in the Bill affects the inspectorate of the Prison Service. The Bill and its clauses replicate what we currently have and put those provisions in place for the future.
We could not use the provisions in the Bill to which noble Lords refer in the way they suggest. The Home Secretary could use the powers to issue directions conferring further functions on the Chief Inspector of Probation set out in Clause 7(6) only in relation to the inspection of those matters described in subsection (1). Subsection (1) covers only the duties of area boards of probation. The Home Secretary could not therefore use these powers of direction in connection with the Prison Service or the inspection of prisons.
It is worth reminding your Lordships' House that we have not made up our minds on the appointment of a joint chief inspector. Let us make that absolutely clear. I assure noble Lords that we shall consider very carefully all the representations made to us as a result of our consultation exercise. No doubt we shall read carefully today's Hansard as part of that consultation exercise.
Any decision on the future of the service would have to be announced to Parliament as a matter of policy. We would, of course, want to hold a full parliamentary debate if there were sufficient interest in the matter. Today's debate and deliberations tell us clearly that there is.
I also reassure noble Lords that we have no intention of weakening the rigour and independence of the inspection process for either service. That would be in no one's interests. We have listened carefully to people's concerns on this point. Strong, authoritative inspectorates working with a clear set of standards help to drive up performance in our public services. That point has been made time and again in the debate. I believe that to be the case. The Government believe that to be the case. We believe and insist that the inspectorate should be independent and robust and offer awkward, sometimes unconventional and irritating views because that awkwardness and irritation help us to shape the service and to ensure that it performs better in the future for the benefit of the public service as a whole.
I do not see any reason why there should be a suspicion that we are somehow trying to use this consultation exercise to undermine the authority or the independence of the inspectorate. We want to ensure that the Prison Service and the Probation Service work together in a coherent way and that the inspection process supports that measure of coherence. I do not understand the argument which says that the Probation Service inspectorate and the Prison Service inspectorate should be in two completely separate boxes and compartments. They are all part of the criminal justice system; therefore, they need to work closely together. It is how one
844
achieves that objective fairly that is important. I sense from the mood of the House that many of your Lordships view that as very important indeed.
One-third of those sentenced to custody will spend some part of their sentence under Probation Service supervision. That being the case, it makes perfect sense to have inspectorates which work closely together. The inspectorates understand the issues which arise in the prisons; they need to understand them in the wider community, and vice versa.
The sentencing review which we have already announced, and which is expected to report next April, is examining sentencing options which could significantly increase that joint sentence to which those who have been convicted will be subject. Important decisions about release, conditions of supervision and custody which directly affect public safety, depend on the two services working together to a clear standard of performance. We rely on inspectorates to ensure that they do.
We have programmes and resettlement policies backed with sound evidence that they can reduce reoffending. But research also shows that if they are delivered in an inconsistent way as offenders move from custody to supervision in the community, the benefits are largely lost; the chances of reoffending can even rise.
We recognise that the Prison Service and the Probation Service perform many functions separately from each other. But it is essential that the matters I have described are examined and reported on regularly and to a consistent set of standards as part of the inspection process. That is not happening at present. We need to establish that for the future. We need to look forward to the way in which the service is developed.
As I have explained, the provisions which noble Lords seek to amend apply only to the Probation Service. We could not use them to direct any matters relating to prisons or the inspection of prisons.
A number of noble Lords contributed to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that there should be a healthy tension between the two inspectorates. A healthy tension is fine but not a tension which undermines the coherence of which I spoke earlier. Clearly there is much learning to do between the two inspectorates. I think that the noble Lord would accept that point. I think that he would also accept the point that I have made on several occasions now: that some parts of a sentence may be undertaken in prison and some in the community. There needs to be a joint understanding between those parts of the inspectorate to which the sentences relate.
The noble Lord also referred to the importance of secondments. That is a significant concession on his part. He seems to accept the point I have made: that there needs to be a greater understanding and perhaps a cross-fertilisation between the two services. So perhaps we are moving closer together.
In his eloquent defence of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said that sometimes we have an attitude of forgetfulness

845
towards prisons, the Prison Service and what goes on within them. He made important reference to the reports of the inspectorates. Sometimes it can be awkward for governments and the Home Office to listen to and take account of them. I believe that this Government have an enviable track record of having listened to the important comments—they are often pressing and critical—made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. Those comments have been helpful to us in focusing on some of the major issues relating to our prisons.
The noble Lord suggested that this merger was about getting rid of an irritation. It is not about doing that. Why have we extended both inspectors' periods of office for a further year while we considered these matters? W e could have taken the easier option of dealing with that issue earlier, but we did not because we have confidence in the way in which they conduct themselves.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that two-thirds of the work of the Probation Service had nothing much to do with the Prison Service. I suggest that one-third represents a significant part of its work. If it is one-third—I was told earlier that it was only 25 per cent or 20 per cent—of its activity, there is a significant cross-over between the work of the two services. I believe that that strengthens the argument for bringing them closer together in some shape or form.
The noble Baroness made much of links with local government and the health service, but that ignores the central issue that the Probation Service and the Prison Service are part of the criminal justice system, whereas health and local authorities have a much smaller part to play in that area.
The amendment is unnecessary. It addresses an issue that is not current in the Bill and would prejudge the outcome of an important consultation exercise. We should not legislate in that way. We have not had a fixed view on these issues. We have been open and listened extensively during debates on the future of the inspectorates. It must be right that governments think about and review the way in which inspectorates work. We must look to the future to see which direction they should go in. If the Government failed to do that, they would be failing in the exercise of their responsibilities.
The amendment is unnecessary and out of place and I urge the House to reject it.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, we can all agree that this has been a notable debate on a topical issue of public policy. It has gone to the heart of the criminal justice system—if "system" is the right word—and how it is administered.
It is always unwise in a brief summing up to refer only to one speaker, but I think your Lordships will agree that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, was one of the most profound statements on crime and punishment that we have heard in the Chamber for many a long day.
The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and others paid tribute to Sir David Ramsbotham. I join those tributes unreservedly. There is no need to add to what has been
846
said about the forcefulness and independence of his reports and the skill with which he has presented them to a wider public. As the report of this debate will be read by some of those outside the Chamber in the Prison Service and the Probation Service, I put on record my appreciation, which I am sure that Ministers share, of the long period of distinguished public service given by the Chief Inspector of Probation, Sir Graham Smith, who is well known to some of us in the House.
It is extraordinary that the two current chief inspectors, who are distinguished public servants, were not consulted about the proposals. Sir David Ramsbotham, in his forthright language, has said that he was frozen out of the discussion on the future organisation of the inspectorates. That is on public record. The fact that both were known to be utterly opposed to the idea of a merger is no reason for their exclusion.
The Minister seemed to assume that a merger would take place and defended it ably. Viewed in its worst light, the aim of that policy is to get rid of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. But even if we are more magnanimous—I see the Attorney-General nodding and smiling; he wants us to be more magnanimous—it results from a dogmatic attachment to a loosely defined concept of joined-up government. Of course it is desirable to work together in the pursuit of common aims and objectives, such as the reduction of offending and the protection of the public. However, when it comes to translating such generalities into practical working, I suggest that the voices of experience, and dispassionate assessments of future arrangements, should be listened to. We have heard such voices in the House this evening. That is why I wish to press the amendment.
6.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 188; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 6

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Bridges, L.

Addington, L.

Brightman, L.

Alderdice, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Burnham, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Buscombe, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Byford, B.

Astor, V.

Caithness, E.

Attlee, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Barker, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Biffen, L.

Carrington, L.

Blaker, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Blatch, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Colwyn, L.

Boardman, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Bowness, L.

Courtown, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Cranborne, V.

847

Cumberlege, B.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Newby, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B

Denham, L.

Noakes, B.

Dholakia, L. [Teller]

Norfolk, D.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northbrook, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northover, B.

Elton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Ezra, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Falkland, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Feldman, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Flather, B.

Palmer, L.

Freeman, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Patten, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Geddes, L.

Peel, E.

Glentoran, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Goodhart, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Goschen, V.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Razzall, L.

Greaves, L.

Reay, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hanham, B.

Rees, L.

Hanson, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rennard, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Renton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Henley, L.[Tetler]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Higgins, L.

Roper, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hogg, B.

Russell, E.

Holderness, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hooper, B.

Sandwich, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Howe, E.

Seccombe, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sharman, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Sharpies, B.

Hylton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Jacobs, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Jopling, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kimball, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Kingsland, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Kirkham, L.

Strange, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Taverne, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Tebbit, L.

Liverpool, E.

Tenby, V.

Lucas, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ludford, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Luke, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lyell, L.

Tope, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Vinson, L.

Maddock, B.

Vivian, L.

Mancroft, L.

Waddington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Walmsley, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Walpole, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Warnock, B.

McNally, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Methuen, L.

Weatherill, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Wigoder, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wilcox, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Monson, L.

Windlesham, L.

Montrose, D.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

848

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Hoyle, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bach, L.

Islwyn, L.

Barnett, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Berkeley, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jeger, B.

Billingham, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Borrie, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bragg, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brennan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brookman, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Carter, L. [Teller]

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Crawley, B.

Molloy, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Parekh, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Desai, L.

Paul, L.

Dixon, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Puttnam, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Elder, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goudie, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Greengross, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gregson, L.

Uddin, B.

Grenfell, L.

Varley, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Warner, L.

Harrison, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Haskel, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hayman, B.

Whitty, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.48 p.m.
Clause 11 [Establishment of the Service]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 3, leave out ("Children and Family Court Advisory and Support") and insert ("Family Court Child Welfare").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, and before I speak to several more in my name, perhaps I may remind the House that I am both a magistrate and a member of the family proceedings court.
In moving Amendment No. 17, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 31 which effectively concern the same issue. In doing so, it seems almost incumbent on me to quote the immortal phrase, "What's in a name?" Well, my Lords, what is? The acronym for the new service, with which we have all been labouring, is unwieldy and uncomfortable. It is also horribly easy to slip from saying "CAFCASS" into saying "Kafkaesque", a connotation which would be unfortunate in the extreme.
I am told that magistrates and those working towards the new service believe that, far from enhancing its stature, the acronym will bring it and them into disrepute. The full title of the new service is also cumbersome, even if it is not abbreviated. "Children and family court advisory and support service" is a great mouthful. It is no more descriptive of what is involved than the much simpler "family court child welfare service", which is well understood and respected and which we now propose.
At least the letters FCCWS cannot be shortened into anything other than FCCWS. I think hardly anyone would want to incur the humiliation of saying the acronym FCCWS. There is much in a name—pride, identification, professionalism. I hope the noble Lords will listen carefully to what has been said by those involved in the new service and spare them forever being members of CAFCASS.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we move into other waters from that of the Probation Service, but whether they are calmer waters or not the next few minutes will tell. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was a magistrate and a member of the family court and speaks with the experience of one who has spent years working in those fields.
The noble Baroness knows what I am about to say. The amendment would change the name of the service to an existing and very similar one, the family court welfare service. That is one of the services that will go to form CAFCASS. We think that the amendment is retrograde and would be unpopular with those who work in and use the service. The family court welfare service is the name of one of the three services that would integrate into CAFCASS. We think that it would send a negative message to the other services that will become part of CAFCASS. Consultation on setting up the new service showed considerable opposition to the term "welfare". It may be that the noble Lords will feel that to have "welfare" in the title is a mistake.
I remind noble Lords that this service will be a new one, an amalgamation of three current services—family court welfare, guardians ad litem and the children's division of the Official Solicitor. We think that to name it after one of the three services only would, in effect, devalue the other two. An important
850
argument against changing the name at this stage is that a huge amount of development work has already taken place. The new title and the acronym that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, does not like are well established with future staff and future users of the service.
Fathers' groups have been extremely critical of the family court welfare service. They would say that their fears that nothing is really changing had been justified if the name of the new service was so close to the current name. We think the new name is appropriate because it reflects what the service will do. It is the name that has been used throughout the consultations that have taken place over 12 months. It is common currency among those who would use the service and those who will be stakeholders in it. We think it is also a descriptive name. It uses a name that indicates what the new service does, and we think that is important. CAFCASS will provide advice and support to children and family courts. It will not just replicate existing services but build on their strengths to provide a better one, more child focused, more flexible and able to offer a better service to the courts.
It is for those reasons that we invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and allow the name to stand.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered reply. It seems a pity that names of services or matters to do with anything that is in a Bill going through Parliament should becorne so set in stone that it is apparently immutable when discussion is still taking place on a matter such as this. The name will be controversial. It is certainly something of which I have heard people say they are deeply unhappy. It is very cumbersome.
I wish to reflect on what the Minister said about support for the new service. It is a pity that support for the service should be diminished by the unwieldy nature of the title. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("13(1)") and insert ("13(2)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18 and speak to Amendments No. 32, 40 and 41 which are all government amendments.
I start with Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. They will ensure that the scheme that may be devised by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 15(1)— which we shall discuss shortly—falls fully within the definition of "regulations". Amendment Nos. 40 and 41 are concerned with Clause 25 of the Bill. It was felt that this clause was too narrow and would not cover the proposed amendments to which I have referred in Clause 15(1). Principally, this is because the word "regulations" does not appear in the amended text. The amendments, if passed, would ensure that the Lord Chancellor has the power to make regulations under Clause 15.
Amendment No. 18 will ensure that individuals who perform functions on behalf of the service under Clause 13 are considered officers of the service for the purpose of the Bill or any other enactment. Amendment No. 32 would ensure that the powers conferred on the inspector by the Bill under Clause 17 are fully incorporated into Section 63 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service]:
[Amendment Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Principal functions of the Service]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments No. 21:
Page 6, line 26, at end insert ("(whether or not they are exercisable for the purposes of the functions conferred on the Service by subsection (1))").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21 and speak to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. These amendments would ensure that CAFCASS would be able to act in all family proceedings under any of the current statutory definitions. The House knows that CAFCASS would bring together the family court welfare service, the guardian ad litem service and the children's division of the Official Solicitor.
Currently, there is no single statutory definition of the expression "family proceedings" under which the three existing services operate. To ensure that CAFCASS will be able to carry on the work currently undertaken by the three services it is essential that the definition of "family proceedings" in the Bill is comprehensive. These amendments ensure that the definition is comprehensive. CAFCASS would be under a duty and able to act in all proceedings classed as family proceedings under any of the current statutory definitions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Page 6, line 35, after second ("in") insert ("the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and also includes any other proceedings which are family proceedings for the purposes of").
Page 6, line 41, leave out ("that Act)") and insert ("the Children Act 1989)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15 [Right to conduct litigation and right of audience]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("an officer of the Service") and insert ("a suitably qualified lawyer").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment relates to an area of the Bill which, in Committee, prompted a most detailed and thoughtful debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Following the debate, I received a letter from the Minister, Lord Bassam, and I thank him for his courtesy. I read it with interest, but it probably does not go so far as I hoped. The Minister says in the letter
852
that parliamentary counsel had been asked to find an alternative form or words that would more precisely reflect the current position, limiting to a particular group of officers the powers of CAFCASS to authorise officers of the service to conduct litigation and to have rights of audience. They are identified as those who are qualified litigators, that is to say, lawyers, of which I believe there are three in the Official Solicitor's department and those who work for them, of which there are many more.
Noble Lords will recall that there were and remain two central issues to the concerns raised by the noble Earl and myself. The first related to a possible confusion which may be caused by the words in Clause 15(1)—"an officer of the Service"—particularly in relation to public law cases where a child has a right to the help and support of a guardian ad litem and a qualified legal representative. The current wording is ambiguous in that regard.
The second issue is in private law cases—that is, those where arrangements are being made for a child's future, sometimes as a result of matrimonial breakdown or where parents have cohabited, sometimes briefly, and arrangements are being made for future contact or residence with one or other of the parents.
Sometimes, one parent is almost unknown to the child and there may have been a history of some sort of abuse or trauma to both the child and/or one of the parents. In many cases, the child has an independent interest and a view which must be expressed. It is imperative that the court service should ensure that proper legal advice is provided for such children from a qualified legal professional and not from an officer who, however skilled, has no formal legal training.
The concerns which the noble Earl and I expressed were that the words,
"may authorise an officer of the Service",
to conduct litigation could seriously undermine those two principles. Those concerns are shared by both the Law Society and the National Association of Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers. For that reason, I have tabled these two amendments.
The first amendment seeks to enshrine the principle of legal representation for children in all cases so that where it is mentioned it encompasses both public and private law. Secondly, we seek to secure the principle of the tandem law principle in public law cases. I believe that that is completely accepted by the Government. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, went to a great deal of effort to explain in Committee. However, that could be potentially circumvented if the current wording survives. If my amendment were agreed to, it would underline the very clear assurances given by the Minister in Committee.
I know that the Minister also has tabled amendments in this regard and I hope that I may have an opportunity to comment on them after he has moved them. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the government amendments are grouped separately from the noble Baroness's amendments. That does not make much sense. Perhaps I may speak now to the government amendments on which the noble Baroness may comment 'when she responds in relation to her amendments. We are talking about the same issues.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has expressed her argument and for her thanks to my noble friend for his letter. She will recognise, and has done so, that we have moved some considerable way since Committee. We are grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl for pointing out the problems which might have existed if we had left Clause 15 as it was. But, of course, we have not done that. Our amendments seek to prescribe the "officers of the service" in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor. Those people will be able to act for children.
I want to make it absolutely clear once again on the record that the Government favour the tandem system in public law cases. We believe that it has worked well and we want it to continue to work well under the new system which CAFCASS will introduce. We are not trying to undermine that in any sense at all.
However, we seek to protect the role of caseworkers who work for the Official Solicitor. Caseworkers are an integral part of the system operated by the Official Solicitor and they need to continue to be so in CAFCASS if it is to be successful. I have said already and I repeat that we are committed to the tandem model and that commitment will be reflected in the revised rules of court which are out to discussion at present.
Reference to the tandem model on the face of the Bill, which is the last of the noble Baroness's amendments is inappropriate. The term "tandem model" would need to be clearly defined if it were to stand part of the Bill. That issue would be better dealt with by rules of court.
It is essential that the current functions performed by caseworkers on behalf of the Official Solicitor can continue to be performed by them in CAFCASS. Caseworkers play a critical role in the Official Solicitor's office. A caseworker in the Official Solicitor's office will take on his or her own cases, under the supervision—that is crucial—of a lawyer.
Typically, the caseworker will attend a first directions hearings in which the caseworkers will agree the timetable for the proceedings with the judge and the other parties involved. The caseworker will also assist the judge as is necessary. I am given to understand that the role performed by the caseworkers is greatly valued by the members of the judiciary who must deal with those difficult cases.
CAFCASS must be able to draw on the experience and expertise of these caseworkers if it is to be able to continue to provide the excellent service to the courts that the children's division of the Official Solicitor
854
currently does. Indeed it would be no less than disastrous for the courts and for children and families if they were not.
The Government recognise the strong feelings on the tandem model form of representation in public law cases, which is why we have given—and I have done so twice this evening—an assurance on our commitment to the continued use of that mode by CAFCASS and our own amendments clarify that.
I repeat that the purpose of Clause 15 is not to do away with the tandem model of representation in public law cases but to allow those transferring from the Official Solicitor's office to continue to perform the functions that they currently perform.
I shall speak briefly to the three amendments. We expect that three lawyers and 21 caseworkers will transfer from the Official Solicitor to CAFCASS. The amendments would exclude caseworkers from being authorised by CAFCASS under Clause 15 to continue to undertake the valuable work that they currently perform. We believe that such an exclusion would gravely damage the service's ability to carry on its duties. CAFCASS could not take the same number of cases as the children's division of the Official Solicitor's office currently undertake if it could not continue to use those caseworkers in the same manner as is the Official Solicitor's current practice.
If caseworkers were not able to continue to perform the valuable role they currently perform, CAFCASS would be less effective. It would not be able to safeguard and promote the welfare of children as effectively as the three existing services currently do. In effect, there would be a reduction in the service currently available. We believe that that would be a grave matter indeed.
Amendment No. 30 seeks to place on the face of the Bill a duty on CAFCASS to provide representation in accordance with the tandem model in public law cases. I repeat the assurance about the tandem model working well. We intend to cover precisely these matters in the revised Rules of Court. where the tandem model is currently described and dealt with.
Perhaps I may quote from Rule 4.11(2) of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 which states:
"The guardian ad litem shall … (a) appoint a solicitor to represent the child unless such a solicitor has already been appointed, and (b) … instruct the solicitor representing the child on all matters relevant to the interests of the child, including the possibilities for an appeal, arising in the course of the proceedings".
The amendments seek to go far beyond the current arrangements by creating a duty in primary legislation which currently exists only in secondary legislation. We do not believe that that is necessary or desirable. Our intention is to amend the rules of court to reflect the creation of the new body, CAFCASS. We are currently discussing these matters with stakeholders, and we intend to retain the tandem model in the revised rules. I cannot say that more clearly.
We do not believe that the face of the Bill is the appropriate place to deal with these matters. If this amendment were passed, there could be real problems.

855
One problem lies in the fact that a reference is made to the tandem model, but there is no statutory definition of, or reference in primary legislation to, that term. In order to stand part of the Bill such a term should have a watertight statutory definition, otherwise CAFCASS could face a number of difficulties, the main one being not knowing whether it had fully satisfied the duty imposed on it to act in accordance with the tandem model. Those are our reasons for suggesting that the noble Baroness should withdraw her amendments.
Perhaps I may mention the effects of our three amendments. First, our amendments would allow the current arrangements to be replicated in CAFCASS, with lawyers and caseworkers having the ability to conduct litigation and having rights of audience in all courts. Secondly, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be able to exercise a significant level of control, through regulations, on those officers of the service that CAFCASS can authorise under Clause 15.
We looked at the drafting of Clause 15 in Committee and we have amended it. I make it absolutely clear that we do not intend to undermine the tandem model, nor do we want to compel guardians ad litem or family court welfare officers to conduct litigation or to act as advocates. I tell the House that so that it is crystal clear. I know that that is a concern of both organisations. I repeat: we do not intend that they should be compelled to conduct litigation.
Under our amendments, CAFCASS will be able to authorise only a "prescribed" officer of the service under Clause 15. Previously, CAFCASS would have had an absolute discretion as to which officers of the service it could authorise under the clause. That concerned the noble Baroness, the noble Earl and some organisations outside the House.
As the noble Baroness will know better than any noble Lords present, it is comparatively rare for children to be separately legally represented in private law cases. It happens, but not in the same way as in public law cases, where the importance of the case to society, as well as to the child, is paramount. In such private law cases where the courts judge that the child should have representation, normally the child would be made a party to the proceedings, as is necessary, and a guardian ad litem would be appointed, in which case the tandem model would immediately come into play, or the case would be referred to the Official Solicitor. Under our proposed amendment, CAFCASS will replicate the service provided by the Official Solicitor, a service which already is highly regarded by the courts and which we seek to preserve.
In other words—this is the important part of what I have to say on private law cases—there is no question of inexperienced officers, in private law cases or public law cases, being asked to conduct litigation in such cases. Our amendment will ensure that lawyers and experienced caseworkers, who support them and work under the lawyers' guidance, conduct litigation.
856
I am conscious that I have spent some time on this, but it is an important matter. I have done my best to provide an answer in a serious manner.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for clarification on Amendment No. 25. Is the Minister concerned that the new powers of the Official Solicitor's office may lead to damage to the general partnership that is current between officers and the Official Solicitor's office? Inadvertently, it may greatly increase the power of the Official Solicitor's office, given that that office will have the power to appoint the officers of the service in the exercise of their functions.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the children's division of the Official Solicitor's office will no longer exist. I suppose that the noble Earl means officers in that capacity at the moment and who will become an important part of CAFCASS. No, I do not believe that it will increase their powers unduly. We shall have to wait and see what happens as we are slightly in the dark. I believe that the House, particularly the noble Earl and the noble Baroness opposite, wanted some reassurance that, first, we shall scrap the tandem model and, secondly, that those who are not lawyers will not be compelled to appear as lawyers, as they are not bound to do currently. I hope that gives him some reassurance.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken in relation to these amendments in Committee and today. I fully accept that "the tandem model" should not be on the face of the Bill simply as "the tandem model" because that would not explain it, but I am concerned that the principle of a public law case, where a child has the help of a guardian ad litem allied to a solicitor or a barrister, as the tandem model provides, is, as the Minister has said, not defined anywhere. I believe that we have an excellent opportunity to define it in this Bill so that we have enshrined for evermore the fact that there is a right. I do not for a moment dispute what the Minister has said, that it is in the family proceedings rules, but it is not in law. I do not believe it is difficult to define "the tandem model".
I fully understand that in his amendments the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has considerably restricted those who would work with children in private law cases. Before Third Reading I shall reflect on whether I should seek to have the words "of a qualified lawyer" inserted, particularly for private law cases because as the Bill stands at the moment the wording is "may appoint" and I believe that it would help if it were clear that priority should be given to ensuring that the child had that full legal representation. I know that in private law it is not always common for a child to need legal support, but it is not unusual; it is not unknown; and it is absolutely essential that there is no misunderstanding that that legal advice should be available.

857
I thank the Minister for the care that he has taken in relation to my concerns. I shall withdraw the amendments for the moment. I may or may not return to the matter at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("in the exercise of his functions") and insert ("of a prescribed description").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, can the Minister explain the significance of moving the words,
"in the exercise of his functions",
from line 21 to line 25? I know that these amendments have been carefully drafted but I must confess that I have been trying to work out what their significance is; in particular whether it is intended to insert the words,
"in the exercise of his functions",
at the end of subsection (1)(b) so that it no longer qualifies subsection (1)(a); or whether the amendment is intended to qualify both paragraphs (a) and (b). I raise a point of detail, but it might be helpful to know whether or not there is an explanation.
Lord Bach: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that question. My first thought on it—I shall of course take it away and consider it further—is that it was tabled to cover both subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b), which it would do in any event if it stayed where it was in the Bill. My second thought is that the expression, "of a prescribed description", which the Government seek to include, may be thought to go better with the expression "officer of the Service"; and the last expression currently in the first and second lines,
"in the exercise of his functions",
was thought to read better if it went at the end of Clause 15(1) rather than in the first part.
However, perhaps I can consider what the noble and learned Lord said and perhaps write to him with the reasoning behind it.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and am content with what he suggested.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("magistrates' court or county").
Page 7, line 25, at end insert ("in the exercise of his functions").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 not moved.]
Clause 17 [inspection]:
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 8, line 25, at end insert ("and for "that subsection" there is substituted "subsection (1) or (2A) above"").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Definitions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 8, line 36, leave out ("(other than a chief probation officer)").
Page 9, line 2, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Property]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 9, line 10, leave out ("Service") and insert ("new employer").
Page 9, line 14, leave out ("Service") and insert ("new employer").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Transfer of staff]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 9, line 29, leave out ("for") and insert ("of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 37, I shall speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. These are minor drafting amendments put forward to ensure consistency of wording in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Effect of transfer of chief probation officers]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
Page 10, line 43, leave out ("for") and insert ("of").
Page 11, line 13, leave out ("for") and insert ("of").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
Page 12, line 26, after ("in") insert ("relation to").
Page 12, line 27, after ("in") insert ("relation to").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Meaning of "offence against a child"]:
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn)The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn) moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 60, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) an offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photograph of child),").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 is a minor technical amendment. It arises in this way.
In another place an amendment was moved by the Opposition Front Bench to increase penalties for child pornography and subsequently your Lordships agreed to that increase. As a result, that offence, which we all treat with great seriousness, became eligible for inclusion in the list of offences to trigger the disqualification order in Part II. The amendment is designed to achieve that and no more; to give effect to

859
the successful opposition amendment which was then approved by your Lordships. With that short explanation, I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I want briefly to take another opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord for the consequential amendment and for accepting this amendment. As he said, this is an amendment which is welcomed throughout the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 61, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) he commits an offence under section 4(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by—

(i) supplying or offering to supply a Class A drug to a child,

(ii) being concerned in the supplying of such a drug to a child, or

(iii) being concerned in the making to a child of an offer to supply such a drug,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, grouped with Amendment No. 43 are Amendments Nos. 44 and 61.
The effect of these amendments is to include in the Schedule 4 list which I mentioned a moment or two ago, the offence of supplying Class A drugs when the supply is made to children. That means that those committing the offence of the supply of Class A drugs, and meeting all the appropriate conditions explained earlier in some detail, stand to be disqualified from working with children.
There were strong representations in your Lordships' House and elsewhere and we put our minds to the question, which is not entirely straightforward, as to whether or not to include misuse of drugs offences in the list of trigger offences. I am grateful to noble Lords who raised this issue. We paid careful attention to what was said and, rightly or wrongly, the consequence which occurred with the two ungrouped amendments earlier may arise, because the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, takes a different view on these matters. However, I am constrained by the groupings. Perhaps I can say, without discourtesy to her group, that she wishes to include cannabis as well; in other words, all controlled drugs, not simply Class A drugs.
We believe that Class A drugs are different. They have always been treated differently in the law. Sentencing for Class A drug offences is much heavier than for other drugs and we feel that one ought to maintain that clear distinction in seriousness. That is the short basis of our proposal. It is not suitable for me to pre-empt any views the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may have. I simply indicate that she has an alternative approach to this problem. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward these amendments and, secondly, I shall not press my amendments in this regard this evening. I wish only to make two points.
860
The noble and learned Lord rightly made a distinction between Class A and Class B drugs, if only to denote the seriousness of the offences. But I happen to be one of those people who believe that supplying drugs of any kind to children is absolutely wrong. Therefore I am sorry that this provision will not include the supply of all drugs to children. Nevertheless I am grateful to the Government for adding this to the list.
In the letter kindly sent to me and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, mention was made of the Class A drug Ecstasy. The letter said,
"Ecstasy, also a class A drug, is more difficult, but as we are all aware, it can have lethal consequences".
I am not sure whether the amendments include or exclude Ecstasy, given that it is a Class A drug. And the Minister is correct in that we all know how lethal it can be. One only needs to think of Leah Betts and the great work being done by her parents to make young people more aware that one Ecstasy pill can take a life. It would be helpful to know, therefore, whether or not it has been excluded. I cannot work it out from the legalese of these two amendments.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the courteous way in which the noble Baroness dealt with this amendment. I am happy to confirm that Ecstasy, being a Class A drug, will form part of the trigger mechanism, essentially for the reasons she indicated. Many think it is different from the hardest of hard drugs. But the noble Baroness is correct in that a single tablet can bring death. In all the circumstances we felt it right to use the band and category description of Class A and keep it intact.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, I am deeply grateful. I shall not oppose the amendment and will not be pressing my amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Bach: My Lords. I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion I suggest that Report stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Third Way Policies
7.30 p.m.
Lord Patten Lord Patten rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will assess their progress to date in the development of policies which are specifically designed to embody the Third Way.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad that we can have a debate like this in the measured atmosphere of your Lordships' House, uniquely in the known constitutional world a self-regulating Chamber. This is one quality of the Third Way approach that I trust the Government do not wish to destroy in the future. That

861
Government are represented tonight by the noble and learned Lord, Falconer of Thoroton, for whom I have a considerable respect. I do not seek to damage him in any way either in this House or in government. Therefore, I would not wish upon him in particular the title "Minister for the Third Way"; it is a cruel and unnatural punishment for anyone to have to bear.
Having tried to understand what the Third Way is for the past three years, it is my thesis tonight that it is a task impossible, trying to breath life into what three years ago seemed to me to be a sparkling motif of new Labour but today seems to have no political meaning whatever. With one notable recent exception, it is no longer mentioned in ministerial speeches. It is no longer spun, even by spin doctors, which is a sentence of death for any political philosophy in new Labour.
I believe that three years ago it was represented as a big idea. It is, in any event, always wise to count the political teaspoons when any politician claims new big idea, particularly the Third Way. After all, not many big ideas are given to any one century. There were probably only two big ideas worth that title in the whole of the 20th century. One of them was undoubtedly communism, with its little brother, its younger relative, socialism. The second was their eventual counterpart of socially responsible markets, in movements which began with considerable success in the United States and the UK in the 1980s.
There I was back in 1997, a new Member of your Lordships' House, absolutely bedazzled by the Third Way hype which existed then and in 1998. The trouble was that I could not see where either the political or philosophical beef was to be found. I thought myself dim for missing the point, so I set out to try to educate myself by asking some Questions of Her Majesty's Government in an attempt to be helpful to others of my colleagues who might also have found the notion somewhat challenging.
So, for example, on 8th June 1998, the then Lord Privy Seal, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, told me in answer to a parliamentary Question,
"the third way returns to the values of the left—justice, solidarity, freedom—but we are committed to rethink how we deliver them".—[Official Report, 8/6/98; col. WA 59]
I thought that I would allow a passage of time to elapse for that rethink—because rethinks take a bit of a while. Two years seemed a reasonable time, so I returned to ask another Question on the nature of the Third Way. It was answered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in his characteristically courteous way on 19th June 2000. He stated:
"The Government in their manifesto promised that 'in each area of policy a new and distinctive approach has been mapped out, one that differs from the old left and the Conservative right—
concluding triumphantly—
"That is what we have done".—[Official Report, 19/6/00; col. WA 10.]
I was not wholly clear and thought myself perhaps dimmer than I had previously believed. So being only a little clearer as to what the Third Way meant after that enviable display of masterly insouciance in answering Questions, I thought that I would try one more time by being absolutely specific. I asked the Government whether they would set out three examples of the new and distinctive approach represented by the Third Way.
A certain amount of time elapsed, but at the end of last week, and just in time for this debate, a further Answer came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. He suggested that all I had to do was to look in the Government's Annual Report for 1999–00 and there would be found examples of the Third Way. I have to tell your Lordships that I did exactly as the noble and learned Lord suggested. I read the Government's Annual Report for 1999–00. It might be interesting to ask how many Members on the Benches opposite have done so. Having done as the noble and learned Lord suggested, I found no examples. The Third Way is not even mentioned in the Government's report for 1999–00.
So after all those questions, I am back where I was more than two years ago, absolutely none the wiser as to what the Third Way is all about and I regard myself as an innocent victim of circular argument on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I also cast my mind back to when the Jesuits wished condign and savage punishments on me for obstinate refusal to answer questions. I was reminded of that experience all those years ago.
Thus I was driven to what seemed to me to be the only sane conclusion: that there is nothing in the Third Way; that there is nothing to new Labour's once-vaunted big idea; that it is now an embarrassment to them. Being fair minded to a fault, however, I thought that I might ask our splendid Library for a factual chronology of statements by Government on the Third Way. It responded on 24th October, stating that:
"Broadly speaking, there has been a decline in the Government's reference to the Third Way … In 1998, Government speeches and press releases discussed the Third Way … over the last two years the Third Way has appeared infrequently in discussions of Government policy, except in relation to Europe".
That is indeed the case. The Prime Minister is a great proponent of the Third Way, but he always goes abroad to talk about it. Your Lordships may remember that a few years ago he went to Singapore to launch the concept of the stakeholder pension. South-East Asia seemed a suitable place to do so. This year, unusually the Prime Minister returned once more to the topic of the Third Way, but he took the precaution of going to Warsaw to make the speech which he felt was important. So I am driven to assume that the Government have themselves reached the conclusion that their idea has no substance and that there is no philosophical core to their new political creed launched in 1997.
There were some exchanges over the issue between the present Lord Privy Seal and myself during Questions in this Chamber on 25th July. So robust was the exchange that it even got the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Hereford to his feet. He intervened to ask the Lord Privy Seal:
"Could we press her not for another list of facts and figures but for a succinct expression of the Government's political philosophy".—[0fficial Report, 25/7/00; col. 275.]
Needless to say, the House was disappointed.
That is not to say that there is not much of importance being written by philosophers, political scientists and other serious thinkers on the Third Way. I strongly recommend to the House an article recently written by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who I am delighted has found the time to speak in this short debate. He wrote a marvellous exposition of the Third Way entitled The Third Way and Liberty: an Authoritarian Streak in Europe's New Centre. It is to be found in a 1999 publication of the journal, Foreign Affairs, in which he observes:
"The term 'Third Way' shows a curious absence of historical awareness among its protagonists—a shortcoming that characterises the Clinton-Blair type of leadership".
He added in a further sentence:
"it is not only cynics who have observed that the best definition of the Third Way is whatever Blair actually does".
In recent years, acolytes of this movement have been falling over themselves to get off the boat and to condemn the vacuity of the Third Way that they once praised. Let us take one example. One of the leading altar boys of new Labour, Mr Will Hutton, having reassessed his views of the Third Way, said accurately on 23rd November 1999 that,
"The Third Way has bombed before it has even been properly launched".
Just so, my Lords.
It seems to me that the concept of the Third Way is an inchoate embarrassment to Her Majesty's Government which should be given a decent burial— unless the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has come here tonight to explain, perhaps after a three-year delay, exactly what it means and whether the Government, having set it out, still support it.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, those who have read the noble Lord's book Things to Come: the Tories in the 21st Century will know that he is no mean political philosopher. We are delighted that this evening he attempts to extend the range of his brain to the Left. Nevertheless, having listened to the noble Lord, he struggles with the concept of the Third Way. As someone who has practised on the Left for rather longer, perhaps I may try to help. The Third Way is nothing more or less than good old social democracy modernised and revised to fit today's conditions. As such, naturally it informs all the Government's
864
policies. Having read the Government's annual report, the excellent progress that they have made is set out very clearly therein.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, all noble Lords should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Patten for telling us about his search for the Holy Grail of the Third Way over the years. We should share with him some commiseration over his failure to secure two clearer sets of answers. I regard rather seriously a great deal of the analysis which has gone into discussion on the Third Way. I read with interest the writings of the patriarch of the Third Way, Professor Anthony Giddens, and some of his acolytes. Professor Giddens is right in his analysis that information technology has a profound effect on the structure of our society. It redistributes power away from central governments and makes it much more difficult for central authorities to administer complex systems. It also makes it much easier for individuals and groups to mobilise and to spring up very fast—almost faster than central administrations can comprehend—and apply additional political pressure to established hierarchies of society. That has profound implications for the future pattern of governance.
Many people who are involved in the business of governance will have to learn a new language and techniques to prevent e-enabled protests—and often e-enabled violence—having an enormous effect on the entire pattern of globalisation and national and international policy. There is no doubt that there is a new political landscape. To that extent, those who struggled towards something called the Third Way were right to realise that an enormous issue had to be tackled.
I have difficulty with the label "Third Way". That label belongs to 20th century ideologies which one hoped had been left behind: the Left, the Right and the new way in between. Over and above the fact that it is a very old idea, whose origin is not entirely creditable—many third ways have been tried in the past, some very unpleasant—the real difficulty is that in the past few years the whole debate has been internal to the centre-Left of politics. Those on the Conservative side who are not in the centre-Left look with amazement at the way in which some of the gurus of the Third Way have "discovered" things which have been obvious to them for many years, and were debated 20 or 30 years ago. Suddenly, it has been rediscovered and repackaged as a novel insight and called the Third Way.
In the 1950s and 1960s Tony Crosland told the Left that it need not go for nationalisation and it could get off the hook by going for the mixed economy. A great many people on the Left thought that that was the way forward. To their horror, they discovered that the mixed economy did not work and a new brand of capitalism and market economics clearly delivered a new pattern of society worldwide, not just in this country. There was a necessity to invent a new envelope to take account of the fact that market economics had to be admitted into the socialist and centre-Left pantheon. It was a very late arrival on the

865
scene. Many of the matters that we on the centre-Right debated 20 years ago have now been rediscovered by the centre-Left, which appears to have slept through the period when we first thought about privatisation and the power of markets.
One must be generous. It is better that one be saved. The centre-Left has arrived at the reality that we live in a world dominated by markets and that the problem which faces politicians is to match the aspirations and benefits of the global market economy with the fears and worries of individuals and groups. Those outside the centre-Left marvel at the slow process of discovery and how unoriginal a great deal of the Third Way thinking is. It does not carry the debate very much further.
Another problem with the Third Way school of thought is that it completely underestimates the new nature of global markets. One cannot separate the market system from the social and moral order. A good many people say that that can be done and that markets must be approached with a handkerchief over one's nose and reluctantly adopted. That is the view of parts of the Left and the Third Way school of thought. That is a completely false division. As a result of the internet system in which we live, markets, even more today than was the case in the past, are a generator of social capital and are part of the moral order. We now live in what Bill Gates calls the ultimate global marketplace. There is no choice or any third way between that and the protected sepia-tinted world of Hovis, happy homes and the beer-drinking past. All that has gone.
Politicians and those involved in public affairs must grapple with the political pressures generated by the global marketplace. Unless they do so, the results will be similar to some of the events in Seattle, Prague, Houston and the City of London where people marched and smashed up computers. Organisations which protest are good and bad, and some we do not see at all. I refer to international criminal fraternities which are organised through internet power and information technology on a vast scale and challenge the power of any national government.
What do we do about this? We become wiser. Politicians and those who want to see stable governance in society should show a little more humility and lower expectations about what governments can achieve. They should cease to place fancy labels on grand strategies which people know cannot be delivered, and concentrate on the new priorities which people seek across the world to give them a law-abiding, stable and safe society in which they can go about their business and create the wealth which governments cannot create.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, we owe the noble Lord, Lord Patten, a debt of gratitude for providing us with an opportunity for a little light relief after debates and Divisions in this House on weightier subjects throughout the day. I refer in part to the relatively light weight of the notion of a Third Way. As the noble
866
Lord, Lord Howell, indicated, in certain circumstances historically it had more weight, but perhaps history is not the strongest subject of those who in recent years have advocated the Third Way. One also refers to the notion that governments Actually apply a philosophy rather than follow the great Harold Macmillan's admonition "Events, my dear boy, events", to which one must respond in a way that stands up to the scrutiny of history.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patten said, the Third Way is no longer the current fashion. The recent notion is equally light. It is Charles Leadbeater's Living on thin air: a new economy which contains the language of modernisation, the forces of conservatism, and so on.
The Third Way was never actually a programme. It was intended to be what in post-modern language—not mine really—would be called a narrative. That perhaps is the one serious point I want to make. It is a narrative in the sense that it was intended to provide a big story which pulled together the necessarily varied and diverse strands of the policy of a government. Such big stories are rare. I am not talking about the very big stories of communism and fascism, I am talking about the next level—the national big stories.
There were two big stories after the war, whatever one feels about them. There was the Attlee story of extended citizenship rights for all and everything that goes with the extension of citizenship rights, not least as a response to the experience of the nation during the war.
There was the big story which one might call the Thatcher story of rolling back the state, and perhaps curtailing private power within the country in the interest of a more open economy and society.
If one does not have a narrative of this major kind, one is left with a list of achievements. That is fine. But it marks the different between great governments and good governments. New Labour at a certain point hoped to have such a narrative. Perhaps it was thought that my distinguished, imaginative and entrepreneurial successor as director of the London School of Economics, Anthony Giddens, had provided the language for it. He stated:
"The third way suggests that it is possible to combine social solidarity with a dynamic economy, and this is a goal contemporary social democrats should strive for".
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in a laconic way confirmed that interpretation. That sounds fine, but, in order to become a narrative which pulls things together, it not only requires major deeds to which one can point, but also some intellectual points. There are three. First, a dynamic economy is not just an economy left alone. There are many choices which can and have to be made even in economic policy. The stakeholder idea was not so bad. I was interested in the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Howell—"a socially responsible market economy". Those are varieties of economic policy. One of the weaknesses of the Third Way language was always that they simply did not appear.
Secondly, social solidarity is not just a matter of what nowadays is sometimes called life politics. I am very appreciative of the many things which the

867
Government have done for the third sector, the voluntary sector, in which I am involved. Theirs is a remarkable record. But there are big issues concerning the creation of a public sphere in which people feel at home. It is a public sphere and thus a redefinition of the boundary between public and private. In other words, there are substantive policy issues which if pursued could provide a sense of solidarity.
Thirdly, there is the missing word "liberty". I have read most of the literature on the Third Way in all the major European languages. It is quite extraordinary that the word "liberty" does not appear, as if it was no longer a problem. I believe that has a relationship with the latent and sometimes manifest authoritarianism of the advocates of this new policy.
I am a reformer. I feel that there are great problems to be tackled. But I am a reformer whose main concern will forever be liberty under changing conditions. The political economy of liberty is a possible story—social liberalism. I am not excessively fond of that term. It is a liberalism which is aware of social issues. I am not sure that is the narrative which the Government are likely to be able to use.
Thus all that remains is likely to be a long list of actions by the Government; the kind of thing which the annual report contains. That leads me to the conclusion that this is a good government, but it is not a government with a big story. Everything that has been said about the big story may as well be forgotten. Many may say that that is enough. It may well be. But it is less than the claims we heard a few years ago.
7.56 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Patten for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. The House will be deeply sympathetic to my noble friend. He has searched high and low—rather like the Cardinal's men after the Pimpernel, bursting open doors only to find the prize whisked away at the last minute—through his judicious use of the written and oral Question.
The House is also indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who in the seven minutes available flexed his considerable intellectual muscles on this subject. When I heard the succinct description by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, of the Third Way, I felt that the coded message was, "This is a private fight between the old left and the new left. Keep off, it is not your subject". My noble friend Lord Patten's brain should not be exercised too far in the direction of the left. We know that my noble friend's brain is fully capable of encompassing all directions.
This is an important subject. We are told that the Third Way is the bedrock of the Government's approach to administration. Therefore, particularly as we approach a general election in the not too distant future, a full and proper explanation from the Government of what this core principle is will be necessary for the electorate to evaluate fully the Government's performance against, albeit
868
retrospective, benchmarks. The text of my noble friend's Question invites the Government to assess their progress to date in the development of policies which are specifically designed to embody the Third Way. I am confident that the Minister will do that in his concluding remarks. He will show us the policies and the goals which represent the Third Way and give a self-assessment, as it is known in business circles, of how the Government have progressed towards those goals.
I agree with previous speakers that at the moment we have precious little to go on as to what exactly the Third Way is. Professor Giddens—the originator of the theory—has written great tomes on this and associated subjects. But in the interviews which I have seen, he has found it very difficult to sum-up concisely what the Third Way is. My noble friend, in all his years of diligence in seeking answers, has not got very far. What we are told could briefly be summarised as "Not what the old left did, but not what the Tories did either". Most telling is that this concept has not yet come to its conclusion—its definition. It seems to be under the category of "work-in-progress". Although the noble and learned Lord faces a very difficult task, that gives him some flexibility in setting his goalposts.
Therefore, we are left with something of a woolly-minded embodiment of a desire to seek new ways to address new problems. I agree with my noble friend Lord Patten that there is relatively little that is absolutely new in the world. There are certainly new technological developments. The Government have to consider carefully how they react to and address the technological change to which my noble friend Lord Howell referred in his remarks.
If we are to take the Government's production of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill as an example of how they deal with a new and fast-emerging technological sector, we are in some difficulty. I should like the noble and learned Lord the Minister to explain to the House how he felt that the Government's policy towards such a Bill, which represented the biggest technological issue with which this House has dealt for a very long time, could be considered to have been tackled in a way so very different from the way these matters have been dealt with in the past.
In short, there is a substantial gulf between the clarity of the principles which have driven the revolutions that we have seen in the past 20 years, with the rollingback of the state, the empowerment of the individual and the development of free market economies in the UK, the US and further afield, and the "things can only get better, but we're not sure how or why" approach of the current Administration.
Let us consider policies. Perhaps I may ask the Minister about the privatisation of air traffic control, a subject which will be slightly tender to the Government in the light of the consideration of the Transport Bill. That policy was wholly opposed by the party opposite when in opposition. As soon as it came to government, it suddenly decided that a 180 degree U-turn was appropriate and that it was now in favour of the policy. How is the Third Way to be measured

869
against that policy? In what way is it fundamentally different from the consideration of these issues in the past?
The Prime Minister has been quoted as saying:
"I believe that politics is first and foremost about ideas. Without a powerful commitment to goals and values, governments are rudderless and ineffective".
Quite so, my Lords. That would get a substantial "Hear, hear" from most independent commentators. But if the goals in which the Prime Minister and his Government believe, andthe means which they see are best suited to achieve them, are encapsulated in this Third Way, which in turn is a concept so vague as to defy definition, what other conclusion can the House come to than that the Government are driven by expediency and the whim of the focus group?
Perhaps the central conceit with which we have to deal in consideration of the Third Way is the concept of newness. It reminds one very much of a soap powder being relaunched—"New soap powder! Completely different from all things that went previously. All the soap powders that we have previously launched have been defective products, but look at how we clean your policies whiter than white now". We have to deal with this concept of newness, this disregard of history, this removal and attacking of institutions which have served the country well in the past—from your Lordships' House to the great universities and many other historical institutions. All those institutions have come under attack from the Government in the name of the Third Way.
The noble and learned Lord the Minister has a substantial task in replying to the debate. We look forward to his remarks. Perhaps the Third Way can be said to encompass the big tent of politics. On that, I shall await the Minister's verdict.
8.4 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Patten on securing this debate. Like my noble friend, we can speculate why it is that, for all the claims of its adherents that,
"the third way debate has become a truly world-wide one, affecting all countries",
its profile has been so lacklustre. All of us therefore anticipate the contribution of the noble and learned Lord the Minister so that the "irreducible core" of these "ideas", the "goals and values" of the Third Way, can finally see the light of day. After all, as my noble friend Lord Goschen pointed out, it is,
"the abiding philosophy and vision of New Labour".
As noble Lords have said, it is difficult to know where to begin. But what better source of a definition of the Third Way than the Prime Minister's own words:
"It is not a dogma of the Old Left, concentrating on means rather then ends. Nor is it the laissez faire of the New Right. Unlike the Old Left, we want a market economy. But unlike the New Right, we do not want a market society".
870
So now we know! Obvious, isn't it? Or is it'? All this definition really tells us is what it is not, rather than what it is. So the question remains: what is the Third Way?
Well, the list of those who have tried to define it is copious. For the light relief of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, we can rely on the American humorist, P. J. O'Rourke, who has described its broad philosophy as,
"a sort of clarion call to whatever".
Hillary Clinton is another Third Way-er. She has reportedly portrayed it as,
"a unified field theory of life",
that will,
"marry conservatism and liberalism, capitalism and statism, and tie together virtually everything: the way we are, the way we were, the faults of man and the word of God, the end of communism and the beginning of the new millennium".
Gosh, my Lords! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it is the Third Way, an attempt to give the centre left the status and values of "motherhood and apple pie". But this serves to demonstrate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. Its construction is so ephemeral, so anodyne, that it can be taken to mean—or be—almost whatever anyone wants.
Even some of the arch-gurus of the new Labour project have got in on the act. My noble friend Lord Patten cited Will Hutton. I cannot resist completing the quotation:
"The difficulty is that it is inextricably associated with New Labour and thus too readily written off as another vacuous PR stunt. Tony Blair has released a barely read Fabian pamphlet, while Tony Giddens, the director of the LSE, has produced a small book. Both works have been dismissed as purposeless guff; substance-free, New Labour meanderings lacking rigour and whose only purpose is to justify the party's temporising".
But, to be fair, my Lords, we should measure the Third Way against a practical example. Let us consider the Prime Minister's speech last week on the environment. Simon Jenkins, writing in The Times, commented:
"Mr Blair is an honest man and clearly did not enjoy this speech. He likes his politics naive and this was complicated. He was soon bemoaning his quandary, that of 'a politician's need to woo the electorate as well as to lead them'. The middle way was a crevasse".
I do not dispute the analysis of my noble friend Lord Howell but, by attempting to steer a middle course between two competing philosophies, the Third Way risks satisfying neither. In essence, there are two options. Either policy is reduced to favouring one over the other—as with, for example, the legislative output of the Home Office during the current Session, where Jack Straw has seemed vicariously to speak left while acting right and vice versa—or it is forced to sit uncomfortably on a fence between the two. Witness here, for example, the persistent and enduring fudge on transport policy—or even reform of your Lordships' House. The problem is that so much of the Third Way is, by definition, riddled with internal conflict.
To make matters worse, as the Prime Minister himself has admitted, the whole of the Third Way is "work in progress". Far from being a robust and

871
coherent set of beliefs, or what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, would call a narrative, it has no locus because it is still being formulated. But we can discern something else from the Prime Minister's environmental speech. As Simon Jenkins puts it:
"His greenery had run slap against his self-confessed 'need to woo the electorate".
In other words, the Third Way is little more in some respects than a means of pleasing the voter. As Peter Riddell has observed:
"Blairism appears as an ideological vacuum, an electoral rather than a governing strategy. Policy is merely a response to polling and presentation, to the need to find 'eye-catching initiatives"'.
Always the code hidden within the Third Way lexicon is about not damaging electoral support. Could this explain why the Chancellor felt the need to pursue his policy of taxation by stealth? What is important, above all else, is not to "scare the electoral horses". We should remember that the project was conceived long before anyone sought or attempted to legitimise it by giving it its Third Way substance. What matters to new Labour, as hinted at by my noble friend Lord Goschen, is the "big tent". Its most potent symbol is the second full term, and it is this, more than anything, that sets Islingtonia's pulses racing. The truth is that the Third Way was stitched to accommodate new Labour's electoral strategy rather than flowing seamlessly from core beliefs. Little wonder that it is so threadbare.
So what is its place now in the Government's scheme of things? As my noble friend Lord Patten pointed out, the auguries are not good. My noble friend referred to the Prime Minister's speech to the Polish Stock Exchange. Curiously enough, despite having been trailed as a statement of Third Way values, the Prime Minister did not even use the phrase, "the Third Way".
Indeed, I noted only last week that the call has gone out to the No. 10 policy unit and the coterie of new Labour think tanks to come up with the elusive "big idea" for the party's next manifesto. Could it be that the Third Way has already lost what little lustre it ever had?
The noble and learned Lord may wish to evoke "the dark forces of conservatism" in response. After all, it is part of the language and the context of the Third Way. But I hope that he—and the Government—will reflect on these wise words from Professor Anthony Giddens:
"New Labour is widely seen as depending on media-oriented politics, and as creating 'designer socialism'. 'Personal images, symbolic stagings, sound bites, visual gags' all count for more than 'issues, arguments, projects and the evaluation of campaign promises.' A precept of successful advertising, however, is that image alone isn't enough. There must be something solid behind the hype, otherwise the public see through the facade pretty quickly. If all New Labour had to offer were media savvy, its time on the political stage would be short, and its contribution to the revival of social democracy limited".
How true, my Lords.
8.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, perhaps I may join noble Lords in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for giving us an opportunity to debate the Third Way. We have had an interesting debate. I should like to single out two or three contributions.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, with respect, wrestled with the problem that gave rise to the Third Way. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, approached the issue by identifying what were the problems as regards philosophies that had held sway in previous decades. Thirdly, my noble friend Lord Lipsey spoke clearly and succinctly. He provided a complete answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, in the Unstarred Question which has given rise to this debate.
As my starting point I shall take a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. Society has changed. I do not believe that anyone would dispute that. The noble Lord referred to globalisation. That has brought with it greater opportunities for the world, but also greater risks and insecurities. Information technology and the growth of what has come to be known as the "knowledge economy" mean that people require greater training, better education and more equipment to face the different world in which we live.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, also referred to the fact that people now have different expectations of their political institutions. They expect greater connection with their political institutions. They expect them to be more responsive and understanding, as well as more connected to the individual needs of each member of the electorate. These changes require politicians to change. The noble Lord explicitly acknowledged that.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf—implicitly rather than explicitly—accepted that people are fed up with a polarised debate between the ideological proponents of state control and producer interests on the one hand and, on the other hand, those who are perceived to be too slavish to the market, who deny the value of community-driven solutions and who regard all interventions by the state as evils to be undone, irrespective of the risks that such privatisations may involve.
A new approach is required; plainly not the old left and plainly not the new right. The noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Dahrendorf, both acknowledged that. However, I must part company with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, because, having stated that a new approach was required, he then declared that the Third Way was nothing new and that the right had been wrestling with such issues for years. Unfortunately, he then failed to reveal to noble Lords the solutions devised by the right.
We all agree that a new approach is required. I believe that that approach is characterised, first, by the need for a strong and stable economy. We can all agree on that. Secondly, we need to promote social

873
justice. Thirdly, we must recognise that neither the state nor the market has a premium on the correct solution. Fourthly, the successful market economy and social cohesion need to be combined. Lastly, just as the benefits of "community" are recognised, the need for individual responsibility is also accepted. How can I summarise this approach to shorten it sufficiently to meet the question that lies at the heart of what noble Lords have pointed out in their contributions tonight?
At its heart, the approach requires that a strong economy and social justice make up two sides of the same coin. It requires that the poor, the marginalised and the excluded should all be enabled to enter into civil society as actors rather than as mere passive recipients or as victims. Welfare should be preventive rather than simply ameliorative. People must be given equality of opportunity. Education, training and the opportunity to take up work will bring about that equality of opportunity. What is new about the Third Way and about the approach being taken by the Government is that it combines an acceptance of, on the one hand, the need for a strong economy and, on the other hand, the need for social justice. Those two ideals are not perceived to be in conflict.
Why is this issue being debated right across the world, not only in Britain and America, but also throughout Europe? It is because the need to combine strong, market-driven economies with the delivery of social justice is acknowledged by this Government. The Third Way seeks to wrestle with that problem. Indeed, all political governments are wrestling with the same problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, commented that there was no "big idea" behind this. However, there is a big idea which underlines this; namely, that the old conflict—in which the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, still appears to be stuck—is not the conflict that the electorate want us politicians to fight. Electorates throughout Europe, America and, indeed, the rest of the world, seek political arrangements that will produce both strong economies and social justice.
What examples can be given to illustrate the approach? Plainly, individual policies can be consistent with a whole series of approaches. One must look at a government's work in its totality to see whether what is delivered can be judged to be consistent with the principles I have described. I shall set out some of the combinations which indicate that we are adopting that approach.
I refer first to the cuts in corporation tax and the introduction of the national minimum wage. Cutting corporation tax stimulates enterprise. Introducing a minimum wage provides social justice. At no stage has the introduction of the minimum wage threatened jobs. Thus a strong economy may be coupled with social justice.
I refer also to giving the Bank of England its independence on the one hand, which provides a stable economy and moves away from the extremities of the cycle which has characterised previous governments, and developing a programme of welfare to work on the
874
other. In addition I refer to reforming schools to ensure the better provision of state education, but at the same time tough policies on juvenile crime; giving central government greater strategic capacity, and at the same time introducing devolution; more money for health and education, and tight limits on the overall level of government spending. Those are a number of the combinations which indicate that we are approaching the issue in a way which combines a strong economy and social justice.
A number of points were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, in effect, that all the Third Way involves is introducing some aspects of the market economy into policies which previously were not prepared to acceptthe market economy. It is more fundamental than that. It is accepting particular goals which have hitherto been perceived to be at odds with each other when in fact they are not. What better way of providing welfare, for example, than providing jobs? That must be the greatest source for dealing with the problems of unemployed people.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, referred to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. I do not know enough about the detail to deal with that. He also raised the question of the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. That privatisation is a means of ensuring very substantial investment in a service that badly needs it. We did not approach the obtaining of that investment on an ideological basis, but on the basis of what would provide the best service. We believe that the method we propose achieves that. It is accompanied by an independent regulator of the service for the first time.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Minister has produced the thinnest figleaf seen in the House for some considerable time. Can the Minister explain how the approach that the Government have taken towards this privatisation of a fundamental service is any different? It seems to me very much like a "first way" or a "second way"—I am not sure which is which—rather than a Third Way.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the point I have been making is that we approach these problems in a way that delivers the best solution overall. There is no ideological commitment to state control; it is simply a way of looking at what will best deliver the solution. That is what the electorate now expect of their government.
Let me conclude by covering two further points. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said that ultimately we have not, as a government, produced a narrative to provide the big idea. With respect, I think that that is wrong. The approach that we are now taking represents, for the first time, an acceptance of the fact that social justice and a strong economy are complementary and go together.
Perhaps I may leave your Lordships with this thought. It was amusing to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Patten; it was amusing to hear the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen; it was not so amusing, but interesting, to hear the speech of the

875
noble Earl, Lord Northesk. But none even began to wrestle with the problem identified by the two speeches to which I have repeatedly referred, nor with the problems with which we, as a government, are trying to wrestle. Although it is, in a sense, easy to refer to particular difficulties, it is far more important that we are engaged on work in progress to achieve the reconciliation—which I believe we can—of social justice and enterprise.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended front 8.24 to 8.30 p.m.]

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 30 [Sections 28 and 29: supplemental]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 14, line 17, leave out ("for a term of 12 months or more").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 46 to 49.
We had a short debate on these amendments in Committee. We rather thought that we were going to hear a conclusive argument from the Minister as to why the amendments were not acceptable. I agree with the point made by the Minister in the debate on 4th October about the seriousness of a disqualification order. It does have a serious impact on an offender's life. He said that such an order,
"should only be imposed where it is seriously justified by the underlying criminal offence".
I do not disagree with that. He went on to say:
"It is also essential for the disqualification to be imposed automatically on all serious offenders against children".— [Official Report, 4/10/00; col. 1534.]
The reason for my amendment is that the order is not automatically imposed on all serious offenders against children. Daily, people appear before the courts for a first offence; but that belies the fact that the person has been abusing children or others sexually for some time—it merely happens to be the first time that the offender has appeared before the court. We know that such people are frequently given sentences of less than 12 months. There is an enormous lacuna. People who are guilty of the kinds of crimes that would qualify for a disqualification order—whether for peddling pornography on the Internet or for committing serious crimes against others—nevertheless escape, simply because they do not receive a custodial sentence of more than 12 months.
My amendments seek to make it clear that there are offences which are very serious and for which a disqualification order should be imposed on people who receive a sentence of 12 months or less. The amendments have a serious purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am certainly sympathetic to the position that the noble Baroness has adopted. We both want the same conclusion. The real question is: how do we get there?
This group of amendments seeks to remove the reference to "12 months or more" imprisonment from Clause 30. That means that the court would have to impose a disqualification order on an offender aged 18 or over who was sentenced to prison virtually automatically unless it was satisfied that it was unlikely that the individual would commit any further offence against a child. What we both want is to ensure that an effective scheme to protect children is put in place.
We came to the view that the virtually automatic imposition of disqualification in a senior court, where the 12 months sentence is imposed, would provide the scheme with coherence and stability. The problem with the noble Baroness's approach is that the courts would not simply be able to impose the order automatically.
We consulted extensively, and there were at least two alternative approaches. One approach, which has the advantage of simplicity, would have been to draw up a shorter list of offences to trigger disqualification by trying to limit it to those offences which were always in themselves extremely serious—rape, for instance—and not set a minimum penalty as a filter for disqualification.
That approach has its attractions. However, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness's implied point that such an approach, although simple, is too simplistic. Most people who responded favoured a much wider, comprehensive list of offences but with a year's minimum sentence as the appropriate trigger to ensure proper operation. I think that the majority were right in this instance—although I must say with due deference to the noble Baroness, bearing in mind our recent history and our bruising this evening, that the majority are not always right. They succeed, but they may not be right.
We should like disqualification to be seen as virtually inevitable when the conditions are met. However, I take the noble Baroness's point. We are, after all, dealing with new legislative sanctions. I entirely accept that, when the scheme has bedded in, we ought to think about revisiting it to see what evidence there is of how it has worked in practice. I give the undertaking—and I hope that this is of comfort to the noble Baroness—that we should want to keep the operation of the scheme under close review. For my own part, I should have thought that after 18 months or two years—not too long, but long enough to obtain empirical evidence—we ought to revisit this matter. I hope that the undertaking I have given is

877
helpful to the noble Baroness. It is certainly intended to be. On that basis, I invite her not to press her amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for a more fulsome and better argued reply than the one we received in Committee. Nevertheless, I remain concerned. There are people who are wholly unsuited to working with children, who receive sentences of less than 12 months, who will be on the loose, and from whom children will be at risk. It is something we ought to think about.
The noble and learned Lord used the example of an 18 year-old. I should have no compunction whatever in disqualifying an 18 year-old, under all the yardsticks set out in law, if that 18 year-old was an unsuitable person to work with children. If people commit the kind of offences that rule them out from working with children, I believe that disqualification would be in order. I should be depressed by the fact that it was someone aged 18, but I would have no compunction if I thought that a disqualification order would protect children from the behaviour of such a person.
Another point that makes me slightly hesitant when considering whether to revisit this amendment or a similar proposal is that the Government have not made it known whether they would consider, say, a term of nine months rather than 12 months, so that we get a little closer to catching some of the people whom we regard as unsuitable to work with children.
I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord has said about keeping the matter under review and possibly returning to it in a relatively short time— allowing a long enough period to see how this approach is working but in a relatively short time. However, it worries me that we should have to resort to primary legislation to make the change, and that the 12 months' term could not be changed otherwise. I know that in a sense I am arguing against myself in that I take a dim view of using secondary legislation to extend the parameters of sentencing. But it would mean fighting for time to introduce primary legislation. Again, it would be for the courts to decide whether someone was displaying the kind of behaviour that was unacceptable and that would render them a risk in working with children.
However, the Minister's reply was generous and I thank him for it. I should like to reflect further on what he said. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

  REINSTATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION ORDER
  (" .—(1) This section applies where the Tribunal has directed under the provisions of section 31 that a disqualification order is to cease to have effect in respect of an individual.
  (2) A relevant person may at any time apply to the Tribunal for the reinstatement of the disqualification order.
  (3) An application under subsection (2) may only be granted if the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it is likely that the individual will commit a further offence against a child.
  (4) Where the Tribunal reinstates an order under this section, it must state its reasons for doing so and cause those reasons to be included in the record of the proceedings.
  (5) In this section, "relevant person" means—

  (a) the Secretary of State;

  (b) a superintendent of police;

  (c) the director of social services of a local authority.").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now have before us another vexed issue. It relates to the situation where someone has had a disqualification order revoked but where the reinstatement of such an order is required. The tests are quite serious. If a "relevant person"—namely, the Secretary of State, a superintendent of police or the director of social services—believes that someone, who has been the subject of such a order which has been revoked, has subsequently displayed the kind of behaviour that would render him—if it were a primary offence—being made the subject of a disqualification order, then an application should be made for reinstatement of that order. My amendment seeks to secure provision for an application to be made for consideration of reinstatement of a disqualification order in such circumstances.
  I find it quite disturbing that one of the suggestions by the Minister about this was that one should wait for an offence to be committed. That is desperate! The idea that one has to wait for a child to be molested or abused in some way, or for another person to be sexually abused, before anything can be done about reinstatement of an order is quite disturbing. When someone displays the kind of behaviour in respect of which revocation can be considered because he has lived a blameless life and reformed his ways, the argument is that revocation can be considered. However, I have the interests of children in mind. As has been said many times in this Chamber, we all know just how manipulative such people can be. Indeed, paedophiles in particular can be extremely manipulative—they can, for a time, convince all the authorities that life has changed for them and that they no longer pose a risk, but suddenly things can change. It is only right that a chief constable, the Secretary of State and/or the director of social services—all of whom would be very knowledgeable about such matters—should be able to apply to have a disqualification order reinstated.
  I do not believe that there is any argument against the terms of my amendment. I have read most carefully what was said on the previous occasion. I have also read very carefully the letters that have been sent to me in the intervening weeks. I simply find it unarguable. If a person made the subject of a disqualification order in the first place has had that order revoked (because he has displayedthe kind of behaviour that would qualify him for revocation) but subsequently displays the kind of behaviour that causes real concern that he may be a risk to children, there ought to be a mechanism, with all the process in place, through

  879
  which an application could be made by responsible people, as set out in the amendment, to have reinstatement considered. I beg to move.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her explanation of the amendment. As she clearly said, this would allow a disqualification order, which has been removed by a tribunal, to be reinstated, subject to the filter set out in the amendment. I certainly understand the noble Baroness's concerns. I believe that I have already declared my interest here as a former trustee of the NSPCC. I also chaired the commission of inquiry into the prevention of child abuse, which the society established.
  We have sought to strike an extremely important balance. It is worth bearing that in mind. As we have drafted matters at present, the tribunal will only be able to lift a disqualification if it is positively satisfied that the affected person,
  "is suitable to work with children".
  That is a very high threshold. The noble Baroness said that this should be an authoritative and responsible tribunal. Perhaps I may emphasise the fact that that is a very high hurdle. Indeed, it seems to me that very few tribunals would be content to come to a conclusion on those bases without the most positive, affirmative material. Of course, like many of us, members of a tribunal would be familiar with what the noble Baroness rightly described as the notoriously "manipulative" behaviour of many paedophiles. One reaches the stages where the lifting of the order can only occur on positive satisfaction that the person is suitable to work with children. I trespass slightly here into the next group of amendments, but there are also the time filters to consider for five and 10 years respectively.
  We have considered the alternative approach. Obviously no one can listen to the concerns that have been expressed without reconsidering the situation. I understand the noble Baroness's reasons and motives, but I believe that we have got the balance right. It would be a very rare circumstance where the dangers about which the noble Baroness has spoken would arise. After all, a further criminal offence—I recognise her point on this, which is a good one—would trigger a disqualification order. However, there are other safeguards: if the individual in question were a sexoffender he or she could be prevented from undertaking the relevant work by a sex offender order. Of course, the person's criminal record remains and is, therefore, available in appropriate circumstances for scrutiny.
  I return to the approach that I mentioned earlier. When one looks at Schedule 4, one can see that it represents a very wide range. I believe that we have got the balance of protection right. However, I stress that no one is capable of coming to perfect conclusions in
  880
  this very difficult area. We will need to keep it under regular review. Once again, I hope that that response is helpful; indeed, it was meant to be so.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's response was partly helpful, but no more than that. At paragraph 53 of the portmanteau letter sent to me by the Minister, the noble Lord, not surprisingly, uses almost the same words as those just used by the noble and learned Lord. The noble Lord says:
  "The Government are faced with a choice of options. As drafted at present, the Tribunal can only lift a disqualification order if it is positively satisfied that a person is suitable to work with children".
  I understand that there is no appeal against this. If the tribunal comes to the wrong view and decides that someoneshould have a disqualification order lifted, that is the end of the matter and it is lifted. I have in mind the fact that members of a tribunal are not infallible: they can make mistakes. If that person goes on to display the kind of behaviour that presents a risk to other people, it seems to me that there ought to be some way through the judicial process to apply for reinstatement of the order. Such a matter would be in the hands of very responsible people, as set out in my amendment, and the tribunal would also have to take a view based on the evidence put before it.
  However, in paragraph 54 of the Minister's letter, there is the most depressing sentence:
  "This difference has a crucial impact on the process by which the Tribunal could reinstate the disqualification. In our view, this would represent a new disqualification".
  So what? If it were merited, that would not be a problem; indeed, one would not need to apologise for it. In other words, such an order should only be made if the person re-offends. That is very cold comfort for the victim, or for those who are concerned about young people being offended against in this way. In the interests of protecting children, I really believe that the Government should reflect on the issue. I hope that they will do so. Icertainly intend to return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 33 [Conditions for application under section 32]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 51:
  Page 16, line 18, leave out ("he is released") and insert ("the sentence passed on him expires").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in this amendment we return to a matter that we tried to discuss in Committee; namely, the date at which the person who has been made the subject of a disqualification order can apply to have it reviewed. Under the terms of the Bill, this can take place under Clause 33(3)(a) after five years from the date of release from custody, or the date that the disqualification order was made, if the offender is under 18 years of age, and after 10 years if the person is over 18.
  The amendment proposes that the date when application for review can be made should be five or 10 years respectively from when the sentence passed expires. We all know, especially as regards custodial

  881
  sentences, that the term served is considerably less than the sentence imposed. In our previous discussions on the matter the Minister was at pains to explain that consideration should be given by the tribunal to the time that a disqualified person had been free, under supervision, in the community as part of his sentence, even though that time was well within the terms of the sentence. However, that time would inevitably be spent either on licence or under probationary supervision and as a result may well not accurately reflect the true nature of the person concerned.
  As the Minister said on the previous occasion we discussed the matter—a statement with which I concur—the whole purpose of a disqualification order is to protect children. Rehabilitation of the offender may indeed be a purpose but under these circumstances it cannot be the primary requirement; the safety of children is. Therefore we believe that no abdication should be made until five or, respectively, 10 years after the sentence expires, following which, of course, the tribunal would still have to be satisfied—as we have discussed under a previous amendment—that the disqualified person had fully demonstrated he was no longer a danger to children. The purpose of the amendment is to change those timescales. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for the moderate way in which this amendment has been moved. At the risk of tedium I return to the rigorous nature of the two-stage process. As noble Lords know, first an offender must have leave from the tribunal to apply for review of the disqualification order. That is extremely important. It is a critical threshold to be overcome. That leave can be given only if the tribunal is satisfied that the individual's circumstances have changed sufficiently during the period in question to justify even reconsideration of the disqualification. The offender needs to get beyond that stage and still has positively to demonstrate suitability to work with children. If the tribunal is not so satisfied, it must dismiss the application. As the noble Baroness rightly said, the date we are talking about is the date at which the individual can first approach the tribunal; that is, 10 years and five years respectively. Therefore, first he has to obtain leave and then he has to demonstrate that he is positively suitable to work with children.
  One of the difficulties we have encountered is that it is really the record in the community that matters, not what happens in prison. Again I think that we all in this House are uneasy in the knowledge that quite a lot of sex offenders are exemplary prisoners. That is one of the curiosities of the prison system. It is the record in the community that ought to matter, not what they did in prison.
  There is one aspect that I need to draw to noble Lords' attention. It is not fundamental in what I suggest. The measure would mean that those who had received a life sentence—those eligible for life sentences can vary infinitely—would never be eligible to make the application we are discussing. Therefore I do not think that the spirit of our approach is entirely
  882
  different. I think that the leave, the 10-year period and the strict onus constitute proportionate protection in these circumstances.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I shall consider it carefully. I say only what is blatantly obvious; namely, that the people we are concerned about here are likely to be among the most serious offenders within the criminal justice system. To give way at any stage or to give any leeway does not seem either helpful or positive in terms of the protection of the children whom we seek to protect. The amendment would impose a statutory period at which the application for revocation could be made rather than—if I can put it this way—a "wobbly" time as everyone is released at different stages and spends a different amount of time in the community depending on the length of their sentence. As I say, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I shall consider it further and perhaps return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 34 [Persons disqualified from working with children: offences]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 52:
  Page 16, line 46, at end insert ("or performs on a casual basis (whether for financial reward or not) any functions which would constitute work in a regulated position").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, what I seek here is clarification—dot and comma, as it were—of the answers that we received in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
  "The definitions in Clause 37—
  that is now Clause 34—
  "cover work of any kind, whether paid or unpaid. Any casual work that falls within the regulated positions defined in Clause 34 will be covered. I hopethat the noble Baroness will accept my assurance".—[Official Report, 4/10/00; col. 1542.]
  I need to be convinced by references to the actual words that achieve that. We are concerned about people, both paid and unpaid, but in particular unpaid people, who work part-time with young people in a voluntary capacity, perhaps even in an honorary position. Often those peripatetic people are more worrying in terms of possible risk to children.
  The Minister further said at col. 1542:
  "The current definition will catch any casual worker who comes into regular contact with children".
  I have read and reread the clause which is supposed to explain everything but I am not yet totally convinced about the matter. If the Government are right and anyone in a paid or unpaid position, voluntary, regular or irregular, who comes in contact with children on a regular basis and gives cause for concern is caught by the measures of the Bill, I shall rest assured. However, the reply I was given on 4th October did riot do that. I look to the noble and learned Lord to put that right. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness's request is a perfectly reasonable one.

  883
  I invite her to look at page 21 of the Bill. Clause 39 is headed "General". I hope that I can give her the answer she seeks. Line 25 of page 21 states:
  "'work' includes—
  (a) work of any kind, whether paid or unpaid and whether under a contract of service or apprenticeship, under a contract for services, or otherwise than under a contract … and 'works' is to be read accordingly".
  Clause 34(1) states at page 16:
  "An individual who is disqualified from working with children".
  We need to read Clauses 34 and 39 together. It seems to me that the work definition in Clause 39 is wide enough, apt enough and appropriate enough to meet the noble Baroness's concerns. I hope that my answer has been of assistance and that it is a helpful answer to the question that she most reasonably put.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am certainly more reassured than I was. However, I hope that the noble and learned Lord can clarify whether this would include, for example, someone who is brought in temporarily by a scout leader to work with scouts or someone who is brought into a classroom temporarily, not necessarily contracted. Many parents and third parties enter classrooms to help. They are not contracted but they are nevertheless in direct contact with children. They are not in loco parentis, as the teacher, the teacher's assistant or someone under a contract of service or apprenticeship would be—
  "or otherwise than under a contract".
  Do the words,
  "otherwise than under a contract"
  subsume the kind of casual contact that a particular person would have with children in those circumstances?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords. That is why work has been defined so widely. Clause 39(1) states:
  "'work' includes—
  (a) work of any kind, whether paid or unpaid and whether under a contract of service or apprenticeship, under a contract for services, or otherwise than under a contract".
  Therefore the casual volunteer, for example, looking after children in an adventure playground on a regular basis, perhaps once or twice a week, or even intermittently, would be covered. That is why we have drawn the definition of work as widely as we possibly can.
  9 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful. I am reassured on that point. I do not know whether it is possible to have a cross-reference between Clause 34 and the line on page 21. However, even if that were not possible, I now know that under the law my concerns would be covered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 35 [Disqualification in Scotland or Northern Ireland]:
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 53:
  Page 18, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert—
  ("( ) member of a relevant local government body,").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 54 to 58, 62 and 63 are grouped with the amendment.
  These are minor amendments which add to the definition of "working with children" in Part II of the Bill. The two sets of amendments are additions or changes to Clause 35. It sets out the new definition of working with children from which disqualified persons are banned. These amendments add to or alter Clause 35(6). We have tried to include positions where there particular position of trust and respect, where the holders of those positions may have the right to go into, for example, schools or voluntary groups without supervision as a consequential privilege of that position. The children and parents may well look up to them and respect them as "safe" members of the establishment.
  We have sought, therefore, to expand the list in the context of children's services. There is one exception which noble Lords will have seen which relates to "directors of social services". We came to the conclusion that children are only a part of their responsibility but it is a central, critical role. The possibility of abuse or cover up where things go wrong is very great.
  We have therefore added to the list members of the Youth Justice Board and the children's commissioner and deputy children's commissioner for Wales. Those all fall within the boundaries that we have been discussing.
  The second set of amendments is a little more complex. We spoke earlier about social services and educational functions within local government. The question was raised whether the existing definition went sufficiently far. It was a fair question. We came to the conclusion that we should widen the definitions and categories in order to meet the legitimate concerns that have been raised on earlier occasions. With that explanation, I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 54 to 58:
  Page 18, line 35, at end insert—

  ("( ) member of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales,

  ( ) Children's Commissioner for Wales or deputy Children's Commissioner for Wales,").

  Page 18, line 37, at end insert—
  ("(6A) For the purposes of subsection (6) a person is a member of a relevant local government body if—

  (a) he is a member of, or of an executive of, a local authority and discharges any education functions, or social services functions, of a local authority,

  (b) he is a member of an executive of a local authority which discharges any such functions,

  885

  (c) he is a member of—

  (i) a committee of an executive of a local authority, or

  (ii) an area committee, or any other committee, of a local authority,

  which discharges any such functions.").
  Page 19, line 3, at end insert—
  ("( ) Any reference in subsection (6A) to a committee includes a reference to any sub-committee which discharges any functions of that committee.").
  Page 19, line 28, after ("section") insert—
  (""area committee" has the same meaning as in section 18 of the Local Government Act 2000,").
  Page 19, line 29, at end insert—

  (""education functions", in relation to a local authority, means any functions with respect to education which are conferred on the authority in its capacity as a local education authority,

  "executive", in relation to a local authority, has the same meaning as in Part II of the Local Government Act 2000;

  "social services functions", in relation to a local authority, has the same meaning as in the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 59 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 59A:
  After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
  (" . After section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child), there shall be inserted—

  REINSTATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION ORDER

    Use of electronic communications systems to procure acts of gross indecency with children.
    1A.—(1) In this section, except where otherwise stated, "child" means a person under the age of sixteen years.
    (2) Any person who uses an electronic communications system, including (but not limited to) computers, computer networks, computer bulletin boards and newsgroups, computer chatrooms, the Internet, and other analogous electronic means, for the purposes of—

    (a) engaging in an act of gross indecency with a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child;

    (b) engaging in a sexually explicit discussion with a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child; or

    (c) soliciting a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child to engage in any act that would constitute an offence under section 1 or under section 2(a) or (b), is guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

    (i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both; or

    (ii) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

    (3) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to the offences mentioned in the first Schedule to that Act shall include offences under this section.
    (4) Offences under this section shall be deemed to be offences against the person for the purpose of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (which restricts the trial by the United Kingdom courts of offenders connected with visiting forces).
    The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have two regrets in coming to the Dispatch Box. First, as regards the reprinting of the amendment, that was not my fault. When I re-presented the amendment I was conscious of the ridicule I suffered because of my reference to using technology for sexual purposes. I changed the wording
    886
    to using an electronic communications system to procure acts of gross indecency with children. The amendment had to be rewritten. I apologise for that. Secondly, I am sorry that there are not more noble Lords in the House to take note of the importance of the amendment.
    The issue has been brought home recently in a most poignant case where someone unashamedly used technology in order to procure the sexual services of a young girl. That person has been dealt with by the courts. However, I shall refer to a number of occasions when the police have had difficulty. The law is not as strong as it should be to catch people who have an evil intent in using technology.
    I have had correspondence with an organisation called Childnet International which is doing us a great service. It has set up a website called chatdanger.com to advise parents and teenagers about the dangers to which children are subject when using the Internet. The vigilance of one or two parents brought this issue very much to light and gave rise to some of the recent public comment. I strongly share the concern of Childnet International. It is not convinced by the Home Office response on existing legislation. It is unconvincing. The Home Office says that there is legislation in place and that it should suffice. It simply is not the case.
    The Home Office argues that the Indecency with Children Act 1960 is adequate to deal with online enticement. It is not. The language of my proposed amendment may not be perfect. I shall be told if that is the case. There is the problem of an online counsellor having a sexually explicit conversation with a child being caught by subsection (2)(b) of the amendment. There are good reasons for being concerned about the current situation.
    I give three examples the organisation has cited. First, I refer to the so-called Milton Keynes case where a 47 year-old man from Durham travelled to Milton Keynes to meet a 14 year-old girl. He said that he was 18. He had cultivated a relationship online with this young girl called Georgie. It included requesting her to send nude pictures of herself. Thankfully, her mother went with the young girl to meet this man and intervened. She reported the incident to the police but they did not bring charges. They claimed lack of evidence. But in the light of the e-mail that this man had sent, we wonder why he was not charged under the Act which the Home Office says is adequate.
    The second example relates to Patrick Green. Childnet International worked with the parents of the victim. The police were concerned that they might not be able to bring charges. It was only when they found DNA evidence in Green's flat that they were able to bring charges in relation to the offline sexual offences of sexual intercourse with a minor to which he pleaded guilty.
    The police tried charging him with abduction but he pleaded not guilty and the police did not press that case. It would have been helpful to have had additional offences, such as those in my amendment. Green

    887
    sentobscene photographs to his victim as well as sexually explicit e-mails. It should have been possible to use the Act but it is inadequate.
    The third example also concerns Patrick Green, who sought to meet a 14 year-old girl from Cumbria while he was on bail. The police learnt about this from colleagues at work, who discovered disturbing e-mails on his work computer. The police had already confiscated his home computer. The police arrested him red-handed when he was picking up the girl from a railway station. He had prepared a hotel room for them to go back to. The police again tried charges of abduction, but they were not pressed when Green pleaded not guilty. No charges were brought, even though he travelled more than 200 miles to meet the girl with clear sexual intent.
    Those examples show that the law is not strong enough. The Government would be crazy not to take this opportunity to strengthen the law. The amendment would go a long way towards doing so.
    We have to ask why the police did not bring conspiracy charges in those cases. None of us knows. Could it be lack of police training and awareness of the possible charges, or is the evidential test too high? We need to know why the provisions are not being used. Whatever the answer, there is a clear case for strengthening the law. I strongly implore the Minister to consider the amendment for the sake of parents, who are now extremely concerned. We have a strange situation in which many parents are not conversant with the technology. Their young people may be in other rooms in the house where they could be downloading such information and establishing relationships with people whom they falsely believe to be somebody they are not and may then find themselves entrapped for the evil purpose of sex. In the interests of children, I hope that the Minister will be positive and accept the amendment or promise to bring forward one that would achieve the same end. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to the present law. It already applies online as it does offline. Conspiracy, incitement or attempts to commit gross indecency with a child under 14 are already offences under the Indecency with Children Act 1960, regardless of whether they are done over the Internet. They carry a significant penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment.
    One problem with the amendment—I am not making a drafting point; I agree that the issue is much too important for that—is that it refers to,
    "engaging in a sexually explicit discussion with a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child".
    That would criminalise activities such as sexual chat between adolescents and even medical advice online. It would also rightly criminalise—I draw that distinction—the misuse of the Internet by paedophiles to contact children. That is the harmful, wicked activity that the amendment is aimed at. "Sexually explicit discussion" is not an adequate description of the criminal conduct.
    888
    Sanctions are available. The noble Baroness mentioned conspiracy. I am not in a position to comment on what police decisions were made. Bearing in mind the date of one of the convictions and sentences, I ought not to do so anyway. If the noble Baroness writes to me, I shall take up the issue with the Crown Prosecution Service to see what explanation is available. I do not know the answer and it would be wrong of me to guess.
    The noble Baroness mentioned the case of a 12 year-old who was sexually abused. As she rightly said, the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse was committed and the offender was sentenced to five years in prison, so imprisonment as a sanction followed in that case.
    One problem, as the noble Baroness pointed out, is that children may be in another room downloading material that is grossly offensive to any rational mind. The amendment would not catch that, although it is arguable that in some circumstances the mischief is just as great.
    We have been waiting for the report of the Internet relay chat sub-group. It was put on an Internet site this morning. I shall provide a copy for the noble Baroness, because it contains some useful and thoughtful material about how to deal with the issue. A legal sanction will not always be the most effective. I am more than happy to discuss that briefing paper, which was only posted this morning, if she thinks that that is helpful.
    We need to work out a definition of "criminal activity" that does not cover the exploratory discussions of adolescents or legitimate medical advice. There are significant problems of definition. This is not the usual ministerial pap along the lines of, "You've got the drafting wrong"—I hasten to add that I do not have any particular ministerial colleague in mind! I do not believe that it is simply a drafting difficulty; it is genuinely a difficulty of describing a criminal activity without criminalising those whom one does not intend to criminalise.
    I shall provide a copy of the report to the noble Baroness and I am more than happy to discuss any possible improvement by way of an amendment. However, I have an uneasy feeling that we shall not be able to find a satisfactory definition, although I am certainly willing to make the effort.
    9.15 p.m.
    Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find that answer disappointing. If we had passed all the tests and scored highly on the Richter scale for producing well crafted legislation which was without fault, meant what it said and was accurate in every dot and comma, I would accept what the noble and learned Lord said. However, we have been privy to passing in both Houses legislation which is inadequate in terms of the quality of its drafting. I believe that this year in particular we have probably seen the greatest quantity of poorly drafted legislation. Therefore, I do not regard poor drafting as a reason for not accepting an amendment.
    I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord was saying that the proposal behind the amendment should not be accepted. However, the message that I have from

    889
    him is that it will not be accepted in this Bill because it is too difficult, because people are still meeting, because other people have interesting things to say, and perhaps we should mull the matter over and contemplate what other committees have to say on the matter.
    If paragraph (b) of the amendment has the side effect of catching someone who legitimately gives medical advice to a young person or, sadly, of catching two young people who are having an unsavoury sexual discussion over the Internet, then I accept the criticism. However, my amendment seeks to deal with people who indulge in that activity with the intention of deceiving young people and of procuring the advances, the interest and the attraction of young people. Only when they meet physically does the young person realise that he has made a terrible mistake or, worse, that he is entrapped in a situation which could even lead to his death.
    The Minister referred to a case of sexual intercourse with a young girl which led to a charge being made. Eventually the perpetrator was dealt with in the courts. Of course, that person would have been dealt with in the courts whether or not he had used technology to bring about the situation. My amendment seeks to make it a crime for anyone to use technology—the network of the Internet—in order to bring about such a situation. The intention of bringing, about such a situation should be a crime in itself. Therefore, I do not regard what the Minister said in relation to that case as being a reason for not accepting the amendment.
    I hope that I do not have to write to the noble and learned Lord to ask him to look into this matter. I hope that he will accept that this debate is sufficient evidence of my concern. I speak for many people outside the Chamber who are equally concerned and would like the noble and learned Lord to investigate why the police are not using the relevant section of the Act. As I asked earlier: is it because the test is too high? Our lawyers should be able to answer that question, even if we do not go to the police. Where a conviction was secured, it was because DNA evidence was found in the flat of the person concerned. Technology had been used quite ruthlessly to secure the attention of the young person, but it was only by sheer luck that the guilty person was caught and taken to task through the courts.
    The noble and learned Lord has not given a satisfactory answer. Indeed, I am deeply unhappy that the main message that I take from him is that we shall not see a change in the Bill. I believe that, when the House is more full and more people are able to listen to the arguments, there will be much sympathy for taking action, even if that action is not perfect. The law as it stands is anything but perfect. It falls short of protecting our children properly. I believe that between now and Third Reading we should attempt to produce an amendment which is acceptable and which will offer some comfort to the parents of our children. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 60:
    After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  INDECENT CONDUCT TOWARDS CHILDREN
  (" . For section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child), there shall be substituted—
  INDECENT CONDUCT TOWARDS CHILDREN

    Indecent conduct towards children.
    1.—(1) In this section, except where otherwise stated, "child" means a person under the age of sixteen years.
    (2) Any person who—

    (a) knowingly commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child, or who incites a child to commit such an act with that person, or with another;

    (b) travels with the intent of committing any act of gross indecency with or towards a child;

    (c) knowingly employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices or coerces a child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, an act of gross indecency with or towards any child; or

    (d) transports a child with the intent that that child engage in an act of gross indecency,

    is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both.
    (3) Any person who—

    (a) abducts, detains or otherwise restricts the liberty of a child for the purpose of sexually exploiting that child; or

    (b) organises or knowingly facilitates such abduction, detention or restriction,

    is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years, or to a fine, or to both.
    (4) Any parent, guardian or other person having for the time being custody or control of a child who knowingly permits that child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, sexual activity, or who knowingly permits the sexual exploitation of that child, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both.
    (5) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to the offences mentioned in the first Schedule to that Act shall include offences under this section.
    (6) Offences under this section shall be deemed to be offences against the person for the purpose of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (which restricts the trial by the United Kingdom courts of offenders connected with visiting forces).".").
    The noble Baroness said: My Lords, if I may be so presumptuous as to jump to a conclusion as to what the noble and learned Lord may say, I suspect that I shall probably receive the same type of answer from him in relation to this amendment as I did in relation to the previous one.
    This amendment relates to a subject which also causes us great concern. It deals with a person who,
    "knowingly commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child, or who incites a child to commit such an act with that person, or with another; … travels with the intent of committing any act of gross indecency with or towards a child; … knowingly employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices or coerces a child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, an act of gross indecency with or towards any child; or … transports a child with the intent that that child engage in an act of gross indecency, is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both".
    I understand that in America this is seen as an offence. It is dealt with by the courts. The person found guilty of any one of these activities can be dealt with by the courts.
    Abduction is a very serious offence. We all know, and are painfully aware of, little Sarah Payne, who was abducted in the first instance before she met her cruel end. Just occasionally that kind of person is intercepted and the child's life is saved. That should be seen as an abduction that both restricts the child's liberty and is for the purposes of sexually exploiting the child. It is possible by policing methods to find out whether a person is organising or knowingly facilitating such an abduction, detention or restriction and whether that person is guilty of the offence of any of the activities I have enumerated today.
    I hope that the noble Lord will see that this is a very real issue, that there ought to be an offence in these matters and it ought to be properly dealt with by the courts. Certainly, as the law stands, it is not strong enough. It is my view that it ought to be strengthened. I beg to move.
    Earl Russell: My Lords, clearly there is a mischief here. It is my recollection that that mischief is dealt with by the Abduction Act 1489. I have not been able to check whether that Act is still in force, but were the Minister able to do so before the next stage I would be extremely grateful.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Certainly I shall, my Lords. I have ample time in which to do these tasks. Abduction remains an offence. Kidnapping is an offence if it is associated with murder. Commonly, it will not be charged as a separate offence—sometimes it is—because the penalty for murder is mandatory life imprisonment, which I, for one, support.
    One of the problems in the area of sexual offences is that the law is extremely unsatisfactory and confused. I remember the notable advice given by the Lord Chief Justice recently that we need, above all, in the criminal law clarity, coherence and understandability. That was why the sex offences review was set up. The recommendations to the Government were published in July 2000. The document is called Setting the Boundaries. The recommendations are in Volume 1 and the supporting evidence in Volume 2. The consultation period closes on 1st March 2001.
    The point of the review is to get clear, coherent offences that are understandable and which can be prosecuted successfully. There are few things worse than criminal law that does not work. That does an awful amount of harm, not least to victims, complainants and their parents. The purpose of the review was to protect individuals, particularly children and other more vulnerable people, from abuse and exploitation and to enable abusers to be appropriately punished. The review has looked at all sex offences. The protection of children has been the central theme. The point is to get a coherent package of measures to protect all victims of sexual violation, particularly children and other vulnerable persons.
    892
    It has been a very extensive consultation. My own department has been involved, as have the Bar Council, the Law Society, the NSPCC, Victim Support and the former Chaplain to the Speaker. The advisory group represented a wide range of pressure groups, faith groups and other interests, including Rape Crisis and victims groups in addition to many others. If we have such a review, which has been long overdue, we really should see whether we cannot achieve coherence, consistency and appropriate sanctions in the law of sexual offences.
    I hope that the noble Baroness will not say that that is a disappointing reply because it is intended to be constructive and to deal with a basis which is longer term than merely this year or next. We really need to achieve clarity and coherence in this area of the law.
    Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble and learned Lord but I find his reply disappointing. Parliamentary time has been found, without waiting for the outcome of the sexual offences review, to lower the age of consent for homosexuals and even worse, to lower the age for buggery in relation to girls aged 16. Why has parliamentary time been found to bring in those measures and yet we cannot apply ourselves to do something about the sort of crimes we read about every day in our newspapers? There is great wringing of hands; statements are made; conferences are convened, but nothing is done.
    I have seen the report to which the noble and learned Lord referred. Many of its recommendations could be implemented very quickly. A great deal of thought has gone into the matter but it is taking an insufferably long time for anything to be done about it. The sexual offences review was initiated when I was a Minister at the Home Office. Now, here we are, almost four years later, and the review has not formally reported, nor has it yet given rise to any draft measures for consideration.
    I return to the letter which was sent to me by the Minister. It states, in relation to the scheme which has already been set up in the Bill, that,
    "once it is up and running and operating well in practice, we could, if we thought it right. revisit it in future legislation to extend it further".
    What future legislation? We have a Bill before us now in which it is possible to address some of the very real and urgent issues which have arisen out of the death of little Sarah Payne and cases of Internet procurement for sex.
    But then the Minister goes on to say in his letter:
    "but to do so from the start would, in my view, weaken and complicate the measures".
    It certainly would not weaken them. It may make them more complicated but as the noble and learned Lord has said, such legislation is complicated. That should not be an argument for putting off the day to address it.
    I believe that we should get on with this. This is a golden opportunity. We shall have a Queen's Speech in a very short space of time. I know that the noble and learned Lord is not allowed to say what is in it.

    893
    However, it seems that other Ministers are allowed to say what measures will be brought forward. I understand that some draft Bills likely to be included in the Queen's Speech are already in public circulation. If the noble and learned Lord was able to break all the rules of convention and say that there will indeed be a Bill to deal with these matters in the coming Session of Parliament, then that would go some way towards relieving my fears. I am afraid that it will be some time before we see any resolution of these matters. This is extremely serious; it was a disappointing reply; but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 39 [Interpretation of Part II]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 61:
    Page 20, line 40, at end insert—
    (""Class A drug" has the same meaning as in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971,").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 62 and 63:
    Page 21, leave out lines 2 and 3.
    Page 21, line 30, leave out (""works"") and insert (""working").
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Clause 43 [Exclusion orders]:
    Baroness Match Baroness Match moved Amendment No. 64:
    Page 25, leave out lines 31 to 43.
    The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67.
    When the delegated powers committee looked at this Bill between Second Reading and Committee stage, it made an unequivocal recommendation. I referred to it previously and I said that the House should take a view about whether to accept that advice. If the House itself decided not to accept the recommendation, then the matters should be at least subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Government have gone that far and they have done that.
    Subsequently, as I said at the previous stage of this Bill, I received a letter from the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which forcefully reminded me that when that recommendation was made it was the unequivocal recommendation of the committee that those powers should be omitted from the Bill and that secondary legislation should not be used to extend the parameters of sentencing. I strongly agree with that advice, as I believe the House should. As I said earlier, the committee went on to say that in the event of the House not accepting its recommendation, at least such matters should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I believe that to be the case.
    The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in replying to these amendments in Committee did not see the necessity for omitting the powers, but he made reference to particular penalties where it is possible that a
    894
    parameter of one or two years would not be enough and perhaps that ought to be increased. If we believe that that is the case, we should do that now. It does not mean that the courts will award tougher penalties because the maximum is increased; it means that at least the courts will have the flexibility to go to a higher sentence if they believe that to be appropriate.
    Unless the Government have in mind a particular penalty where that kind of flexibility is needed, I believe that we should wait until the next opportunity to pass primary legislation before increasing the parameters of sentencing. I also believe that we should heed the advice of the committee on this matter.
    My last point is one that I made in Committee. This could be the first time ever that this House has not accepted the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It takes its work seriously for which this House has been grateful. The committee tests the kind of powers that various Secretaries of State seek in legislation. I have been a Minister so I know the tendency of all departments to resort to either Henry VIII clauses or to general powers that give rise to secondary legislation. The temptation is enormous. I have sat in the same position as the noble and learned Lord, desperately trying to defend the situation, but in the end, under the previous government and, so far, under this Government, we have always accepted the advice and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I believe that this matter should not be an exception and that we should accept that committee's advice today. I beg to move.
    9.30 p.m.
    Earl Russell: My Lords, I support this amendment to which I put my name. To be more precise, I support this string of amendments. The point that concerns us—the conferring of power to lengthen criminal sentences by regulation—is one that applies in a whole sequence of clauses.
    I know something about the consultations that led to the setting up of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. As the noble Baroness has said, it has given this House extremely good service. It is extremely careful in its use of language. It does not seek to lay down the law to the House; it seeks to draw issues to the attention of the House. In the light of the way in which that committee usually uses language, I find these recommendations, by its normal style, particularly strongly worded.
    I shall quote a few passages from the report of the committee because we should hear the flavour of the recommendations. It states:
    "The committee … considers that it is inappropriate for Parliament to delegate the power to increase the severity of a sentencing power".
    That is sufficiently unambiguous. It also states:
    "In so far as precedents do exist"—
    other than in one single Act of the year 2000—
    "they date from before the establishment of this Committee, and so this issue has not come before us before".

    895
    It continues:
    "the order-making power should be deleted from the bill. If, contrary to our recommendation, the power is to remain, the bill should be amended to make it clear that only affirmative procedure applies".
    In the light of those words, I do not believe that it is possible to maintain that introducing an affirmative procedure constitutes compliance with the committee's recommendation.
    I am reminded of the letter the King wrote to this House asking it to spare the life of the Earl of Strafford. He added at the end of the letter, "PS If he must die, it were charity to reprieve him till Saturday". Reprieving him till Saturday could not be regarded as complying with the letter; and I do not believe the House so understood it.
    The reason why it is important, and has been regarded so for quite a long time, that criminal sentences should not be lengthened by regulation is that it is a basic principle that we are subject only to law to which we ourselves have consented. We do not have law made by the executive. We do not have imprisonment by administrative decree. How far regulations are law to which we have consented is a question it would be uncomfortable for us to go into at too great length. It might give rise to too many other interesting questions. And when we get to legislation, not all of those need raising.
    It is much safer to have the lengthening of the maximum sentence that can be imposed done clearly, in primary legislation, with everybody knowing what is going on. That is a principle which goes back to the Donoughmore committee of 1932. Certainly, when I was first briefed on this subject by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and others when I arrived, they regarded it as one of the absolutely fixed points; that that was something which simply did not happen. They took exactly the same view which the committee has taken.
    I am the last person in the matter of regulations to say that nothing should ever change. But I shall repeat to the House the advice that was given to me when I started raising the question of this House voting on regulations. I was told that if that was ever to happen it was something which required the most exhaustive preparation and that there should be the fullest consultation and consideration by all the relevant organs of the House over a long period, which indeed it had. It was considered by the Procedure Committee. It was upheld in 1994 by a resolution of this House, and it was not until six years after that that it actually happened.
    So if the noble and learned Lord is to tell us that the convention that criminal sentences cannot be lengthened by regulation is to be changed, it would require, before that could be done, that element of preparation. And it would have to be a necessary condition of any such preparation that it would be understood that voting against regulations would become a great deal more frequent than anybody suggested it should be when we discussed the Greater
    896
    London regulations. I am not sure that that is quite what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General would like. But if he were to persist with ignoring the advice of the committee in this matter, that is the direction in which his action would lead. I hope between now and the later stages of the Bill he will consider whether that is really what he wants.
    Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I realise that the hour is getting late. But, like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, there is a fundamental principle behind the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Blatch, and I am delighted to see that the Attorney-General has been good enough to attend to reply to this debate.
    I did not take part in the Committee stage and therefore I want to set out, I hope briefly, what I understand it is the Government are proposing and the effect of this amendment. As I understand it, if one looks at the clauses referred to, the Bill provides four new orders for a court to make: first, an exclusion order which, in certain circumstances, would prevent an individual going to certain places at certain times; secondly, a drug abstinence order which would require an individual to undergo drug tests; thirdly, a curfew requirement which imposes requirements on persons subject to curfew; and, fourthly, an exclusion requirement, which would impose requirements on those who were the subject of an exclusion order.
    The Bill lays down the maximum period for which any of those orders can be made. I understand it to be proposed that the Secretary of State or the Home Office should have power by secondary legislation to extend the maximum period of the order which this House is now approving in the Bill and therefore the maximum order, which by the decision of this House, the courts can now impose. It is proposed that that should apply at any stage to this Bill and the powers which we are providing in it. They may be small matters but every one of them in some way curtails a right of the individual. It may be his right as against an exclusion order; his right to refuse to be tested for drugs; or his right to go where he wishes during the period of a curfew order.
    We should consider carefully what is the situation of this House when increasing the powers of the order which a court can make. I believe that the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature is extremely important. I believe that there is a delicate balance often to be struck. I believe it vital that we should always realise that the power of the judiciary is to impose sentences—and I accept in this case pass fairly nominal orders—within the power granted to them by the legislature.
    The question is whether it is right that the legislature should allow those powers to be varied by means of secondary rather than primary legislation. I put it to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that the parameters—where we draw the line of that which the court is entitled to do—are extremely important. Those who draw the parameters must be accountable to society for the parameters they draw.

    897
    I am not saying that Parliament is not responsible for a statutory order. It is, but it is not in the same way responsible as it is for primary legislation. I believe that when we are changing those parameters so as to prevent the citizens of this country doing acts which otherwise they lawfully can do it is important that that matter should have the opportunity of full parliamentary debate. I suspect that pretty well all I have said, if it made sense at all, would not be disagreed with by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
    The argument put by the Minister who replied in Committee went no further than to say, "You have to have flexibility and there is not enough time". Of course, I accept that the whole object of an Opposition is to take up time. The Government's legislative programme is always under pressure but it is no excuse to say, "We wish to affect individual rights by order merely because we do not have time to get the primary legislation through the House". I hope that the Attorney-General will reflect on what is said in this debate. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, who is a member of the Select Committee, may also say a few words. The Select Committee made it absolutely clear that it was concerned about the powers being taken in the Bill.
    The Minister who replied to the debate said that there were precedents for what was sought to be done. That is probably so. However, what are those precedents, and is it right to move in this way? It is difficult to go against the advice of the Select Committee comprising people of such eminence as my noble friend Lord Alexander. I hope that the Attorney-General will confirm my understanding of the effect of these amendments and reflect on whether it is right to act by secondary rather than primary legislation.
    9.45 p.m.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I do not speak as someone who considers himself an eminent member of the Select Committee or of an Opposition whose only object is to take up time. My noble friend Lord Carlisle and I share the additional objective of helping Parliament as a whole to get the legislation right.
    It is helpful to turn to the mantra which heads every report, including the 22nd report, of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee:
    "By the Select Committee appointed to report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislation".
    I speak tonight only for myself and not for my colleagues on the committee. I respectfully endorse what has been said by my noble friend on the Front Bench, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle. When one considers, not the reduction, but the maximum of a sentencing power, one must approach the matter with great care. If this House does not regard the liberty of the citizen as of overriding importance we have moved a long way from our traditional priorities. I do not believe that we have.
    898
    The committee is called upon to express an opinion as to whether the delegation of power in a Bill is appropriate. One has only to read the annual report of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, who chairs the Select Committee, to see that it is an all-party committee which since its establishment has never expressed an opinion as a result of a vote. That is certainly so in the case of the report now under discussion. I pause, or perhaps I am flannelling, to allow the Attorney to be informed, because Attorneys do not take instructions. On this occasion, as on all others, the committee arrived at the conclusion, without any division, that it would be inappropriate to permit the extension by order of a sentence of each of the kinds dealt with in the amendments.
    I hope that when he comes to reply the Attorney will tell the House why he considers it appropriate, contrary to the views of the committee—which are not binding—to increase the powers. If noble Lords were debating a provision to diminish a sentencing power it would be a different matter. That would not impinge on the liberty of the subject, whereas here it does.
    In conclusion, I should like to put two questions. First, what are the precedents, if any? In paragraph 16 of the 22nd report we find that the Home Office identified two precedents: Sections 45 and 50 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. A footnote reminds us that there is a third precedent in Section 50. However, paragraph 16 states that the Home Office,
    "readily admitted that these were not an exact parallel. In so far as precedents do exist they date from before the establishment of this Committee, and so this issue has not come before us before".
    Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that those are the only quasi-precedents and that there are no exact precedents?
    Secondly, what are the circumstances in which the Government would view it as expedient to have an order-making power to enlarge this sentencing power? We are not in the habit of suffering a drought in legislation from the Home Office in the criminal justice field. What is the urgency? Why not wait for the next criminal justice Bill or similar measure? I would be greatly assisted by replies to those two questions.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions that have been so moderately made. There is no question of ignoring the advice of the committee. It is a committee of great eminence. It is always enormously respected by the House. What the committee said was that it recommended that the powers should be omitted. If those powers are to remain—contrary to its recommendation—the committee suggests that they should be subject to affirmative procedure. So it is only fair that I should read out the whole of the caveat and point out that we have gone to the compromise position of the affirmative procedure.
    The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, put to me one or two questions about precedents and what would be the requirement for the order-making power. The requirement comes because the orders are experimental in nature and are due to be

    899
    piloted. We cannot be absolutely certain about the most effective period of time for the orders because they differ. The maximum length of the exclusion order is set at one year, partly because it is less intrusive than the curfew order where the maximum is six months. The exclusion order may be too short to be effective against a stalker or someone intent on domestic violence. That is the reasoning and the answer I give to the second question which the noble and learned Lord put to me.
    The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, asked me to confirm that he was correct in his description—I do—where speaking of exclusion orders, drug abstinence orders and exclusion and curfew requirements of community service orders. So the noble Lord is quite right.
    I return to precedents. The maximum period of a community order can be increased by secondary legislation. The maximum term of a probation order and a curfew order can be amended using delegated powers. Section 49 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 allows the proportion of a prison sentence spent in custody to be changed, including its increase by secondary legislation. I am happy to deal with the points—the two barrels of that very fine shotgun, respectively the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
    It seems to me—I put this only for consideration— that that power is a very significant power going directly to the liberty of the individual who is incarcerated. If one wants to look qualitatively at the differences between imprisonment and the kind of orders which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, correctly identified, I would suggest, with great respect, that Section 49 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 is a more significant potential interference with the true liberty of an individual and that it can be increased by secondary legislation.
    Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the 1991 Act implemented the proposals of the committee, which I had the honour of chairing, for reforming the parole system and provided for the release of those serving sentences of four years or less at the 50 per cent stage?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right and reinforces my point. If in those past liberal days—I am deliberately not looking at the noble Earl, Lord Russell—it was right to release at the 50 per cent stage, I think that the noble Lord has honourably, if I may say so, identified and crystallised my point even more. I would suggest—I do not think that there is a tolerable argument to be levied against my suggestion—that the increase from a half, on the noble Lord's recommended scheme, to three-quarters by secondary legislation, which is possible under Section 49 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991—that type of potential interference with the liberty of theindividual—is much more fundamental than what is proposed here. We propose that if the pilots produce evidence to imply that these periods are wrong,
    900
    secondary legislation, subject—I say this firmly—to the affirmative procedure, is much less objectionable if one wants to attack the principle, and it is the principled approach which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, have put to me for my comment.
    Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister explain why it is a good argument to say that because Homer nodded in 1991, he should nod again in 2000?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not a good argument, but when someone as distinguished as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, asks me a question, I think it is right that I should give him the answer. If he asks me about what happened in the past and asks me to help him, I think I have a duty to the House, as well as it being a courtesy to him, to do it, however inconvenient the answer may be to certain factions. That is the unhappy truth of the matter. I am only the bearer of the message. I was not the constructor of the message in 1991, which I think was some six years before the last election.
    There are other points to be made, all of which will be equally disagreeable. Under the European Communities Act 1972, the Secretary of State can make regulations to bring into effect treaty obligations, including any provision as might be made by an Act of Parliament provided that this does not include creation of any criminal offence punishable by imprisonment of more than two years. That is a reasonably significant interference with the liberty of the individual. Therefore, what is proposed is not without precedent. Even if it were, the principled argument ought to be met.
    I have dealt with the argument on precedent, I have dealt with the argument about significant interference with individual liberty and I have given the reason for flexibility. We ought to pilot these new remedies if the evidence about what works and does not work is available. I submit that we have done decently by the recommendation of the committee. We have certainly not ignored it. We have not accepted it in full but we have adopted something which I suppose it would have described as the "least worst".
    These are all respectable arguments. I have not been instructed on them. They are perfectly tenable arguments to put in your Lordships' House, and I put them.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I am most grateful to him for the care with which he has addressed the questions which I have put to him. The 1991 Act, which he cited, certainly eluded the Home Office representatives when they gave evidence to the committee. The question of precedent is interesting and important. Members in both Houses always look at precedent.
    Does the noble and learned Lord agree that there is a distinction to be made between the provision of the 1991 Act, which varies a component of the sentence—on the one hand, the proportion to be spent in custody

    901
    and, on the other hand, the proportion to be spent on parole, but still serving the sentence—and what we are dealing with here? We are considering sentences which are whole and complete in themselves. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate the distinction that it is one thing to vary a component within an overall sentence, but quite another to take powers to increase the sentence itself. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that that is a legitimate distinction which can be drawn?
    10 p.m.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, precedent can be an unhappy boomerang. If no precedent has been set, I shall be struck on the back of the head. If there are precedents, those who have inquired about them are in danger of being struck unless they duck.
    I agree that we cannot be bound simply by the existence or otherwise of precedents. However, I shall focus on the question put to me by the noble and learned Lord by returning to the correct identification made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. We are discussing, on the left hand, exclusion orders, drug abstinence orders and the exclusion and curfew requirements of community orders. On the right hand, we have the prospect that someone serving a sentence of imprisonment may have, by secondary legislation, the component to be suffered in prison—which, in direct response to the question put to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is much more important than the notional sentence—rising from one-half to, say, three-quarters. If one wishes to balance those, I am happy to do so because I reassert—I believe that I am fundamentally right here—that in terms of interference with individual liberty, the left hand interference is infinitely less, both in its effect and in its quality, than the right hand.
    We all know that the apparent sentence imposed by the court is not the actual length of time that is to be served. What matters to the individual, his friends and family, relations and acquaintances, is not what has apparently been imposed by the judge, but the real time. Under Section 49, real time served in prison can be increased by secondary legislation. That does not reside in the same category of levels of interference with individual liberty as the power specified here.
    Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, perhaps I may speak once more before the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General sits down. Of course I had nothing to do with the framing of the 1991 Act, nor did I take part in the discussions on it; but I accept that I was responsible for the review of parole which led to it. However, there may be a difference in what he is saying and I should like to look again at the Act. The fact is that the three-quarter point was the point at which remission started for all prisoners. The proposal put forward by the Parole Review Committee was that those serving under four years should be allowed out once they had served 50 per cent of their sentence.
    However, without looking again at the provision I do not think that Section 49 in any way gave any power to a Secretary of State to increase the maximum
    902
    sentence available to a judge to pass without referring back to Parliament. Surely the issue here is not the effect on the individual, but whether in principle it is right that the executive—I accept that there are arguments on both sides—should have the power, through order-making procedures rather than in primary legislation, to increase the order that the court can make. As I understand it, that did not apply in the noble and learned Lord's explanation of the 1991 Act. I believe that he was saying that the executive took to themselves the power to vary the period within the sentence which was passed.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with great respect, that is entirely my point. The principle derives only from the effect made on the individual. That has been the reasoning behind the careful arguments which have been put. To paraphrase the principle rather crudely and not entirely satisfactorily: it is Parliament, through primary legislation, which must act as the watchdog over individual liberties. If that is the principal thrust, which I see it to be, then if the Secretary of State can say that the 50 per cent introduced by the Parole Review Committee can be increased by secondary legislation to, let us say, two-thirds or three-quarters, effectively the real time to be served by the individual will be determined by secondary legislation introduced by the Secretary of State. It does not seem to me that there is any distinction in principle there at all.
    Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has been meticulous in picking up the arguments and the tests set for him by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and my noble friend Lord Carlisle.
    My noble and learned friend and my noble friend have valiantly fought back and argued against the example cited by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. However, another point was picked up by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. If I may use non-lawyers' language and be more colloquial, the Select Committee said that two wrongs do not make a right. The Select Committee made reference to the fact that it was not in being at the time of the previous legislation. Implicit in what it said was that, had it been, it might have queried even the power to which my noble and learned friend and my noble friend referred.
    We should judge the recommendation in the light of the here and now; in the light of the way in which the Select Committee does its work. The Select Committee was set up because there was a growing concern about the numbers of powers being taken by various Secretaries of State, the width of those powers and the fact that they gave rise to a great deal of legal activity through secondary legislation. I know that this has been a particularly vexed issue for the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who has constantly cited the convention of the House that one does not amend secondary legislation—one either rejects it or accepts it—which always makes it particularly difficult.
    The principle established by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee is that before the House considers an issue the Select Committee looks

    903
    carefully at the powers to be taken in legislation and proffers its advice. Up until this moment that advice has always been taken. The Select Committee in this instance has made an unequivocal recommendation that these powers should be omitted from the Bill.
    The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General read out the whole recommendation. I did the same. I made it absolutely clear that the caveat—which was confirmed in the letter sent to me after Second Reading by the chairman of the Select Committee—applied only if the House, as a House, rejected the recommendation of the Select Committee.
    I believe that we should accept the recommendation of the Select Committee. I do not believe that two wrongs make a right. I do not believe that we should go back simply because it was used in 1991, albeit a real distinction has been made in that we are talking about whole sentences and not component parts of sentences. The noble and learned Lord is right: if one is talking about a component part of a sentence it can, potentially, impact on the liberty of an individual.
    The Select Committee has proffered good advice. It should be taken. We should continue consistently to accept the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee unless we have very good reasons for not doing so. When there are more learned noble Lords in the House than the few qualified people present at the moment, the House should take a view on these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 44 [Drug abstinence orders]:
    [Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
    Clause 47 [Community sentences: curfew requirements]:
    [Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
    Clause 48 [Community sentences: exclusion requirements]:
    [Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
    Clause 50 [Breach of community orders: warning and punishment]:
    Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 68:
    Page 35, line 17, at end insert—
    ("1D) In addition to making an order under sub-paragraph (1C) above, the magistrates' court may impose a fine which shall not exceed f1,000."").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to another item of unfinished business from the earlier stages of the Bill. In the form in which it was debated on Second Reading, Clause 50—originally numbered Clause 48—was one of the most objectionable in the entire Bill. To remind ourselves of the nightmare that has now passed, it provided for a mandatory sentence of up to three months' imprisonment, other than in exceptional circumstances, for the breach of a community order, the offender having received one prior warning.
    Fortunately, the Summer Recess afforded time for second thoughts on the part of the Home Secretary, prompted by representations from various Members of your Lordships' House and others, notably the Lord Chief Justice.
    In Committee earlier this month, what is effectively a new clause (now Clause 50) was inserted by way of a government amendment. Although the process that has been substituted is extremely complicated and will take a lot of getting used to in the courts—difficult decisions will have to be taken when an offender is brought back for breach—nevertheless, the unacceptable degree of rigidity has been relaxed, and that is very welcome. Within some limits, sentencing discretion has been returned to the courts, where it belongs.
    There is, however, scope (as there always is) for one further improvement. It does not affect either the principle of certainty of outcome, to which the Government are so wedded, or the way in which the clause is now drafted. Both of those are in general acceptable. But there is one omission; namely, the question of the ability of the court to impose a fine.
    Perhaps I may briefly rehearse the sequence of events proposed in the amended Bill. As it stands, if an offender is over 21 years of age, and the court decides that the original order can continue, then the options are: a community punishment—that is, unpaid work for the benefit of the community—or a curfew order. These are the two principal penalties available to the court.
    There are cases where the offender may not be suitable for a community punishment order—for reasons such as addiction, mental illness, or incapacity because of poor health, when it would not be within the capacity of the offender to carry out the obligations under such an order—and where a curfew order may be unsuitable. These two orders look all right in government discussion papers; but the curfew order would simply not be appropriate where there is unstable accommodation, and many offenders have no stable home address. Then there is the question of domestic violence. What happens if an offender is sent back to a home at which a partner will be at risk? In such cases the courts would be wrong to consider a curfew order; nor would they be willing to do so. In these circumstances a fine should be available to the court.
    That sanction is not currently listed in the Bill as an option, although its inclusion was urged by several speakers in our earlier debate, including the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. We might pause here to note that it was the noble and learned Lord's first speech in his new capacity as Lord Chief Justice, bearing in mind that he was only appointed to that high office during the summer, although he had previously been a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and Master of the Rolls. It was very welcome that he allowed so little time to elapse before following the practice set by his predecessors in office of bringing high judicial experience of sentencing to bear in debates in this House on criminal justice.
    So without the possibility of a fine, where an offender is unsuitable for any other disposal, the alternative left to magistrates and judges would be to revoke the order and to re-sentence to imprisonment. Thai would be cumbersome and also—surely more importantly in the interests of justice—it would be disproportionate.
    I am aware that the Government are concerned about the failure rate in collecting fines, but there are grounds for hoping that the changes in enforcement to be brought in by the Access to Justice Act 1999 will improve the situation. The only reason offered by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, in response to our earlier debate, for not including fines—namely, that it was a lower sentence in the tariff than the community sentence originally imposed—was, if I may say so, blown out of the water by no less a figure than the Lord Chief Justice, whose comments on that proposal can be found in Hansard.
    In the circumstances, I hope that the Government will be willing to think again about making this relatively small, but potentially useful, change. I beg to move.
    10.15 p m.
    Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I support this amendment to which I have attached my name. We were delighted in Committee when the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General put forward certain amendments that brought some flexibility to a clause that we found very objectionable in the first instance. The one aspect missing here is something that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, demonstrated; namely, the fact that, although there is some flexibility, what is required is the inclusion of fines as one of the alternatives that a magistrate and a Crown Court could consider.
    The amendment has the backing of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation. I hope very much that the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will be taken into account and that fines can he included as an alternative in the clause.
    Lord Brennan: My Lords, in my view, the amendment is unnecessary and unhelpful because it would undermine the effectiveness of the new system for dealing with breach of community orders, at which Clause 50 is directed. There are three reasons for my disagreement. First, if fines become an alternative, the amendment would produce an inconsistency in sentencing. Those on the Benches opposite will remember the events of 1991 when the Criminal Justice Act introduced the concept of unit fines, which was rapidly withdrawn—in fact, abolished—by the Criminal Justice Act 1993. That piece of history is not put forward critically but merely to indicate the complexity with which the philosophy of fines has affected this House and the courts. There is no philosophy. We are now left with Section 18, as
    906
    amended in the 1991 Act, which leaves a wide and ill-defined scope to the power to impose a fine. The court must reflect the seriousness of the offence and the offender's financial circumstances.
    In that loosely-defined regime, one can readily see, despite the good intentions of those proposing the amendment, that many courts will treat the possibility of a fine as a cheap and easy alternative, which, in some cases, they will adopt, while in others they will go to the other extreme. However, in either event, they will undermine the effectiveness of the alternative penalties of curfew or a community punishment order. The state of thinking about fines has led a distinguished academic to talk about the "diversity and indiscipline" with which courts apply them. Hence my first reason; namely, that there is a real risk that the amendment would introduce inconsistent sentencing.
    My second reason is practicality. Many of those who will be in breach of such orders as we are concerned with will be living upon the minimum state security benefits to which they are entitled. A fine may have some punitive effect on a rich or well off defendant; it will always have a serious punitive effect on someone on a minimum income. If the state has designed that income to reflect the minimum that is necessary for ordinary life, to impose a fine on such a person is immediately to put him or her below the standard which the state has said is the minimum that is reasonably acceptable. That hardly becomes a theory of effective penal reform. It is therefore, I submit, impractical.
    Finally—this is perhaps much the most important point—if introduced, fines imposed on this kind of offender create the real risk that because they cannot afford to pay they will reoffend. I can find only one piece of research carried out by the Home Office in 1973 based upon reasonable data. It sought to investigate the effect of courts imposing fines on probationers and consequent reoffending. The data led the study to conclude that there was a consistent tendency for probationers who had been fined to have a relatively high failure rate; in other words, to reoffend. The literature is based on reasonable data and is against the concept of fining those who are the subject of conditional orders such as community orders.
    I hope that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General will deal with my next point. The terms of the amendment appear to suggest that the fine will be an additional penalty rather than an alternative one. However, I shall leave that to him to explain. I conclude by opposing the amendment on the basis that a reasoned critique shows it to be inappropriate.
    Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made some interesting points about fines. I do not know whether he will be present when we discuss the proposal in Clause 69 to double fines for another group of people to whom many of the arguments made by the noble Lord apply.
    I shall leave my noble friend to respond to some of the detailed technical points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. However, my understanding of the

    907
    amendment is that it seeks to increase the choices available to the courts which have at least one primary obligation; namely, to mete out the most effective and appropriate punishment for the criminal activity that has been committed by the person before them. The amendment offers one further option to the courts; namely, to be able to consider a fine alongside all the other available measures. If the imposition of a fine is appropriate and has the effect of appropriately punishing an individual, why deny the court that choice?
    The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made some interesting points on the effect of the imposition of a fine and the impact on the effectiveness of the proposals that the noble and learned Lord is defending on behalf of the Government. I look forward to hearing my noble friend address the points I mentioned. As I say, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, will repeat some of the arguments he has made when we discuss the option of a fine for parents whose children are truanting from school.
    Lord Brennan: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I invite her to note that Clause 69 deals with parents of children who truant. I am talking about penalties against convicted offenders who are the subject of court sentences.
    Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I take that point but I understand that a parent brought before the court would be convicted of being at least complicit in their children not having attended school.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is sad to find the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, insistent on heavier penalties. It is a unique experience for me.
    Lord Windlesham: My Lords, we argue for neither heavier nor, after the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, less severe penalties. These are alternatives. If the noble and learned Lord can fasten that thought in his mind it would help the discussion.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have it firmly fastened in my mind. I understand an alternative and an addition. As my noble friend Lord Brennan rightly pointed out, the amendment states:
    "In addition"—
    not "instead of" or "as an alternative"—
    "to making an order under sub-paragraph (1C) above"—
    sub-paragraph (1C) relates to the attendance centre order—
    "the magistrates' court may impose a fine".
    Thus I fix my mind firmly to the only point which offers itself. Our present proposed sentence is an attendance order. As co-conspirators, the noble Lords propose not an attendance centre order but the attendance centre order and a fine.
    Lord Dholakia: My Lords, it is "may".
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is, of course, "may" but that is not an alternative to simply having
    908
    a fine as opposed to an order. In other words, the noble Lords take the proposed present sentence and add—I take the words "in addition"—£1,000 on top of the attendance centre order. That may be what they want—they may have been mixing with unsuitable company—but I do not think that it is.
    That point is fatal to the presently constructed amendment. But I believe that the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, was correct. I have nothing to add to it.
    Lord Windlesham: My Lords, that response, charmingly given as usual, is disappointing in substance. The House will welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. The Government Front Bench will welcome his speech even more. Discussion has continued over seven hours with a break for dinner—a civilised habit in this House. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is only the second person on the government Benches in all that time to speak. The first was his neighbour—he loyally still remains in the House at this hour—the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who made an earlier intervention. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, was extraordinarily powerful, ingenious and well argued.
    However, whatever the drafting, we cannot disregard the fact that the Lord Chief Justice said in an earlier debate that he felt that fines should be an alternative penalty available to the courts. I studied and wrote about unit fines in the early 1990s. It is a sad and involved story. But I do not accept any parallel between the story of unit fines and their collapse and what we talk about now.
    To my astonishment, the Attorney-General—he is normally so flexible on these matters—insists that the court cannot impose a fine. We shall ban the court from even considering a fine. It will not be beyond the wit of the Home Office or others giving sentencing guidance to say that the intention is that it should be one of these three orders. I mention only the two because the attendance centre order relates only to young people. But he rules out and removes from the discretion of magistrates and the Crown Court the ability to impose a fine when they believe that that is right. It may be the only remaining penalty that can be imposed.
    The examples I gave came from the Association of Chief Officers of Probation. Those individuals see offenders in court day in and day out. They feel strongly that in some circumstances—I mentioned the examples that they cited—the court will not be able to impose a curfew order or a community service order. In those cases the outcome will be a prison sentence, which could be a disproportionate and unjust penalty. I would greatly regret that, but at this time of night I shall say no more, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
    10.30 p.m.
    Clause 57 [Life sentences: tariffs]:
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 70:
    Page 41, line 13, leave out from ("direction") to ("there") and insert ("which it would have given under section 87 below (crediting periods of remand in custody)"").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment. The earlier reference was incorrect. I hope that the amendment corrects it. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 58 [Abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life, etc.]:
    Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia bad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 71:
    Page 42, line 6, at end insert—
    ("( ) This section will he commenced only after standards have been set and age appropriate provision made for young adults (18 to 24 years old) in custody.").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I drafted the amendment I was not aware that the Government intended to table Amendment No. 72. It meets the concern that lies behind Amendment No. 71, so I shall not pursue my amendment, on the assumption that Amendment No. 72 will be carried.
    [Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
    Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 72:
    Page 42, line 15, at end insert—
    ("( ) On the coming into force of this—

    (a) paragraph (b) of the definition of "qualifying sentence" in section 30(1), and

    (b) paragraph (b) of the definition of "relevant sentence" in section 66(9),

    are omitted.").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. He and I share a concern that, although all those over 18 may be sentenced as adults, they should not all be treated in the same way as more hardened criminals. We want to introduce flexibility to the prison regime and make more appropriate provision for young adults and a large number of prisoners whose maturity and vulnerability is not necessarily related to their chronological age.
    In another place, the Minister of State, Mr Boateng, made it clear that we would not implement the abolition of the sentence of detention in a young offender institution until appropriate arrangements were in place. I repeat that intention. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is well aware of that. I happily give a further commitment that the Prison Service will produce an order covering young adult offenders before DYOI is abolished. That will be drawn up after consultation with interested bodies. The order is likely to focus on the reduction of reoffending by moving young adult offenders from custody to work more effectively. Consultation will continue. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 73:
    After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—

  INFORMATION ABOUT PROSECUTION
  (" . It shall be a duty of the authority prosecuting an offence listed in schedules 1 and 2 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 to inform the victim of that offence, or the representative of the victim, of the progress of the prosecution.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return again to our concern for the victim, particularly in the case of sex offences. They should receive better information and should be told about the progress of the prosecution. That should be an obligation on the prosecution. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are already tackling the issue. I fully understand the intention behind the amendment, but the Government are already there. The amendment would not add significantly to the steps currently in train to ensure better communication of significant decisions to all victims of crime, regardless of the type of offence. Those steps are being taken by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
  Any victim who asks will, as at present, be kept fully informed of the prosecution of such an offence. Under the victim's charter, that is currently the responsibility of the police rather than the prosecuting authority. However, following the review of the Crown Prosecution Service by Lord Justice Glidewell, and a recommendation made in the Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Crown Prosecution Service is now running pilot projects to establish more effective ways of communicating its own decisions to victims; that is, decisions on whether charges are to be preferred or dropped, or 'whatever the step in the process may be. It is intended that a new system for all victims of crime will be put in place by April 2001.
  As I said at the outset, I fully understand that the noble Baroness's intention is to improve the current system. However, the Government believe that the measures which are already in hand and which have been in train for some time achieve that purpose, not only for this particular tragic group of victims but for all victims of crime. For those reasons, I do not feel able to accept the amendment and I trust that it can be withdrawn.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. Perhaps I may put two questions to him. First, can he confirm specifically that the intention behind my amendment is covered? Can he say specifically that in relation to the offences listed in Schedules 1 and 2 to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 the prosecutor will have a duty to inform victims of the progress of the prosecution? Is the noble Lord responding with an unequivocal "yes" to that?
  Secondly, he referred to the fact that a new system for all victims of crime would be in place by 2001. Has that already been legislated for or does it require legislation?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I indicated in my earlier comments, the proposal is based on pilot schemes. As I made plain, it is intended that this approach will cover all types of offence and that a new system for all victims of crime will be in place by April 2001. The victim's charter is guidance only; it is not legislation. However, as is often the case, legislation is not always required in order for schemes to take effect; they can be carried out by administrative fiat. That is our preferred approach in this case. The service on offer to victims of crime will be universal. Of course, we need to ensure that it is effective and that it works well. It will be run through the Crown Prosecution Service and the police.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps it is the lateness of the hour or perhaps it is me, but I did not understand the answer to my question. I believe that the noble Lord said that the duty to inform victims is not an obligation under the law and that it is no more than as set out in the charter. The right of victims of crime, and particularly of offences listed under Schedules 1 and 2, to be informed of the progress of the prosecution is not specifically covered. The noble Lord did not appear to say yes to that, and I should be pleased if he could give me an answer.
  Secondly, on the one hand, the noble Lord said that pilot schemes would be put in place next year; on the other, he said quite clearly that a system covering all victims of crime would be in place by 2001. Which is it? Is a pilot scheme being trialled in order to put a system in place, or has the scheme been finalised, is ready to be implemented and will be in place for all victims by 2001?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, at the peril of repeating myself, I said that the system would be in place for all victims by April 2001. The answer to the noble Baroness's first question is: yes, it is indeed the case that pilots are now being run by the CPS, but a full system for all victims of crime will be in place by April 2001. I do not believe that I can express my answer more plainly, simply, basically or straightforwardly than that, but that is exactly what we are intending to do.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord missed cut the key point. Is that an obligation under the law or is it simply an obligation under the charter?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not law; it is an act of policy. It is already in place and being implemented. We do not require law in order that it should be carried out. We are doing it as a matter of policy.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this was a concern of the victims themselves who do not believe that it is being done. I shall return to this at Third Reading and make it a matter of law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 74:
  After Clause 62. insert the following new clause—

  CONDITIONS FOR RELEASE OF SHORT-TERM PRISONERS ON LICENCE
  (". In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(j) there is inserted—
  "(k) the court, when passing sentence, did not state in ordinary language and in open court—

  (i) the existence of the power of the Secretary of State to release prisoners under this section; and

  (ii) the period of imprisonment that the prisoner would serve were the Secretary of State to release him immediately after having served the requisite period under subsection (4) below."").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a series of amendments, Amendments Nos. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79. The Government's early release scheme allows the Secretary of State to release certain categories of prisoners from gaol early, often before they have served half of their sentence. They may spend the final two months of their custodial sentence in the community subject to a nine-hour electronically monitored curfew. If this curfew period is breached the offender can be recalled to prison. An offender sentenced to custody for six months will ordinarily be released in three months. If included in the scheme an offender could be out in a mere six weeks implementation of the scheme in January 1999 and 54 of those persons have been convicted of manslaughter, 145 of resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer and over 3,500 of drug offences. Over 800 of those released have breached the terms of their curfew. Forty-one people have disappeared and remain unlawfully at large in the community. Just over 750 further offences have been committed by offenders who were out on the scheme. There are 750 further victims of crime because of this policy.
  We have consistently opposed the scheme. We make no apology for that. We moved the amendment throughout the Commons stages and in Committee in this House. It was also the topic of an Opposition day debate in the Commons in July. It is not right that serious criminals are able to leave prison after less than half their sentence has been served.
  Amendment No. 74 focuses on the needs of victims rather than criminals. In Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, stated that the consequences of my amendments would be to ensure that no one in prison could go on the scheme. I do not deny that. This is one of the precise aims of the amendment. The amendment also seeks to keep victims of crime better informed. Again, in Committee the noble and learned Lord said:
  "We believe that the net result would be additional time-consuming bureaucracy for the courts".—[Official Report, 4/10/2000; co1.1633.]
  If informing victims more fully and involving victims more in the court process is more work, then I say that is not bureaucracy. So be it. Certainly, it would be in a good cause. We are concerned that victims should be able to understand the sentences when they are meted out in court.I turn to Amendment

  913
  No. 75. Section 111 of the Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act sets a minimum three-year sentence for a third conviction for domestic burglary. Such an offender would be eligible for the scheme resulting in him being released possibly after 16 months, that is, the automatic half-way point minus the two-month period on the scheme. This is a nonsense. It renders Section 11 completely pointless. What is the point of an automatic sentence if it can be completely undermined by this scheme? So far over 2,000 offenders convicted of burglary have been released on this scheme. We do not know how many of them have committed a third burglary. A scheme should not overtake the power of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act that makes a mockery of the legislation passed by Parliament.
  I turn to Amendment No. 77. At present any offender can be placed on the scheme provided he meets the criteria of having been sentenced to more than three months or less than four years. They are also eligible if convicted of sex offences. The amendment gives the judge the power to rule out the scheme at the point of sentencing. This would have two benefits. The court could say at the outset that a person would or would not qualify for the scheme. It would allow the home detention curfew scheme to be used as part of the sentencing procedure; for example, maybe a lesser sentence but ineligibility for the scheme. It would allow the victims of crime to understand the sentence given because the judge would be forced to explain the consequences of the scheme in open court. I know that this would reduce the scope of the scheme by limiting it to the judge's discretion, which, so often in this Chamber, has been hard fought for. However, use of the scheme would have more merit by being underwritten quite explicitly in open court.
  Amendment No. 78 relates to an offence under Section 89 of the Police Act 1996, of assaulting, obstructing or resisting a constable followed by an offence under Section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which is assault with intent to resist arrest, and an offence under Sections 18, 20 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which includes wounding, causing grievous bodily harm and causing actual bodily harm committed against a constable in the exercise of his duty.
  So far, nearly 150 people convicted of resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer have been released early. The average sentence imposed for those offences is 4.6 months but the average sentence served in prison was only 1.5 months. The offender then served 0.8 months on the scheme. I wonder whether that makes sense to those who have been assaulted in that way.
  Seventeen assaults on police officers and two assaults in the course of resisting arrest have been committed by offenders who were on the scheme. At the very least, the Government should show their support for the police by accepting this amendment at a time when the police are demoralised. Huge numbers of officers are leaving the force and police numbers are falling. That would at least show that the Government's manifesto promise is not completely forgotten.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 76. While no prisoners are eligible for the scheme if they receive a sentence of more than four years, they would still, under this amendment, be eligible where the maximum possible sentence is more than this amount. In fact, according to my amendment, it would be a maximum of 10 years or more. Anybody who is sentenced to, for example, three-and-a-half years, where the maximum for the sentence is more than 10 years has committed a fairly serious crime. It seems to me that those people should be excluded from the scheme. The amendment, I accept, reduces the scope of the scheme, excluding from the scheme those convicted of such serious offences—and I mean serious offences—if the maximum is 10 years or more. The sentences include burglary of a dwelling and aggravated burglary, importing orexporting Class A and Class B drugs, robbery and making threats to kill people. The amendment reduces the focus on the sentence given and transfers it to the offence actually committed. These are important amendments. I beg to move.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said today and has said previously, there is a fundamental disagreement here. She has said quite candidly, as has Mr Hague, that she wishes the total destruction of the home detention curfew scheme. My stance is completely the opposite. It has been a remarkably successful scheme and we have no intention of scrapping it. It is one of the biggest electronic monitoring schemes in the world; it has had an extremely successful first 20 months of operation.
  I should say as a matter of history rather than as a partisan point that the home detention curfew scheme received the unanimous support of the All-Party Home Affairs Committee in the Commons which said that it would,
  "provide adequate protection to the public because of the tagging element, and would give prisoners an opportunity to readjust to life outside prison".
  That is the critical point. I must correct a slip that 1 made. I believe that on the last occasion I said four months and, as the noble Baroness rightly said, it is two months available on home detention curfew. All of those persons, every one of them, would inevitably have been out at the conclusion of that two month period.
  Earlier this evening, we had a number of discussions in the probation context about rehabilitation. As the All-Party Home Affairs Committee unanimously said, home detention curfew provides an opportunity for offenders to readjust to life outside prison. We all know the indicators of recidivism—no job, no home, no settled social surroundings. In my experience of visiting prisons where the scheme has been carried out, many prisoners regard it as more difficult than imprisonment because it imposes personal obligations on people who have never had them before. Some prisoners, in significant numbers, I found, were unwilling to ask for home detention curfew because, as

  915
  they said, "They couldn't hack it". A sobering thought is that for them the easier life is to be locked up in prison with no responsibility for their own lives.
  Prison governors have been extremely prudent and restrained in the use that they have made of this power. Only 30 per cent of eligible offenders have been released. I know from my own visits that there is extremely close co-operation between prison governors, probation officers and the police. They are extremely cautious about the risk assessment process, remembering that that process takes into account the risk that offenders may pose to the victim, the risk they may pose to members of the public, the likelihood of reoffending during the curfew period and the likelihood of failure to comply with the conditions of the curfew. It is a remarkably successful scheme.
  The noble Baroness dealt fully with the amendments so I shall mention them in a little detail. The first new clause would prevent any prisoner being put on a home detention curfew scheme unless the existence of such a scheme had been explained by the court at the time of sentencing, together with the way in which the scheme would affect the length of time to be spent in custody. That means that the court would have to be asked to determine whether a given offender should be eligible for consideration for release on such a scheme. If the court does not mention the matter, the offender is automatically barred, even though he would otherwise be appropriately and properly eligible.
  The new clause requires the court to specify the precise amount of time that would be served in custody. That is the way to false expectations. The sentencing court has no basis at all for determining whether a given offender will be eligible because it does not know what will happen in prison. Behaviour in prison, response to therapeutic regimes, response to probation guidance, and how the sentence plan is fulfilled in prison are critical criteria for the determination of eligibility. I repeat, with great respect to the noble Baroness: the sentencing court has none of those materials to hand, and it is being asked to come to an impossible conclusion, as any magistrate who has sat in those circumstances or any sentencing judge will readily recognise.
  The amendment also gives the courts power to prevent an offender being considered for home detention curfew. We believe that the statutory exemptions are sufficient.
  Considering the other discretionary release, parole, no such provisions by way of limitation are attached. The interest of public protection must always be paramount, and the fact that a prisoner is eligible for home detention curfew or parole does not mean that he has a right to be so released.
  The fourth new clause is similar to the first. It requires the courts to look up to two years ahead and to try to make a judgment on what, I repeat, are inadequate, vestigial or non-existent materials.
  The second, third and fifth of the new clauses would add to the exclusion categories. The second new clause would exclude domestic burglars who have committed
  916
  more than three offences, whatever the nature of the burglary. The third would exclude anyone committing any of the wide range of offences for which the maximum period is 10 years in prison or more. That sounds quite attractive until one considers the list of such offences. It would mean that someone who was guilty of conspiracy to defraud—maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment—would be automatically ineligible, but such a conspiracy may be quite trivial or ineffective for which the sentence was quite small.
  Cruelty to or neglect of children is an offence that has an infinitely variable spectrum, but it carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. Other offences carrying a similar penalty include destroying or damaging property—Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971; threatening to commit damage to property; forgery; copying, using or using a copy of a false instrument; and making a counterfeit coin or note, however inadequate the attempt. Are all such offenders—many petty inadequates—who are of no continuing harm to the public, their victims, or at risk of committing further offences, to be rendered thus ineligible? Are offenders convicted of interfering with goods with the intention of causing public alarm, anxiety and economic loss, to be ineligible? We know that indecent assaults vary extraordinarily in their effect. Are offenders convicted of obtaining property by deception under Section 15 of the Theft Act, or those convicted of fraudulent application or use of a trademark, to be excluded?
  The fifth new clause would exclude prisoners who had committed any one of three offences against police constables. In fact, the numbers of those placed on HDC whose original offence was committed against a police officer were 13 assaults with intent to resist arrest; 12 obstructions of, or resisting, a constable; 178 assaults on a police officer. All of those can be serious offences and some are less serious than others. The actual sentence length for the 13 was an average of 5.6 months; the obstruct or resist a constable was 5.5 months and the assault on a police officer was 4.7 months.
  We already have statutory exemptions: violent and sex offenders currently serving an extended sentence; prisoners serving a sentence for failing to return to custody following a period of temporary release; and prisoners who at any time have been returned to prison for committing an offence on licence. We have made provision within the present Bill to exclude sex offenders, subject to registration requirements.
  We shall not agree on this matter. This has been an extraordinary, flexible use of an imaginative remedy that, by and large, has been successful. Every one of those offenders would have been out in two months and would need to be got back into the community. That is one way of protecting the public.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, let me say at the outset that I was a staunch supporter of electronic monitoring long before the noble and learned Lord joined us in that support. I believe we have nowhere nearly sufficiently exploited its use. There is still great scope for it. So the idea that somehow I am against it

  917
  is entirely wrong. But I am against this early release scheme. It takes early release a step too far. To release people early affects the protection of the public.
  The Minister did not give a satisfactory answer to the notion of giving an automatic sentence to persistent burglars; not those who have burgled twice or three times, but in many cases hundreds of times, and who will now be eligible for the scheme. That seems to me to be a nonsense. It flies in the face of automatic sentencing.
  There have been breaches. People have disappeared and remain at large in the community. Over 750 further offences have been committed. One hundred and fifty people have resisted arrest and/or assaulted police officers. I regard those as very serious offences, certainly for the police officers in question. I argue therefore that the public are at risk and that people are released indiscriminately too early.
  Many of those people have relatively short sentences. For example, many people receive sentences of around six months and the idea that they should serve only six weeks of that sentence is an insult to those in the community who look to the sentencing process to give effective and proper punishment.
  But the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right. We will agree to differ on this and I shall return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 75 to 79 not moved.]
  Schedule 5 [Amendments of the Sex Offenders Act 1997]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 80:
  Page 62, line 10, leave out from ("requirements),") to end of line 18 and insert ("in subsection (1), for "14 days" there is substituted "three days".
  ( ) For subsection (5) of that section there is substituted—
  "(5) A person may give a notification under this section by—

  (a) attending at any police station in his local police area, and

  (b) giving an oral notification to any police officer, or to any person authorised for the purpose by the officer in charge of the station,

  and a notification under subsection (2) above may also be given by sending a written notification to any such police station".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments extend to Scotland provisions in the Bill to increase the penalties for failure to register under the Sex Offenders Act 1997; to require initial registration within 72 hours and to allow for fingerprints and a photograph to be taken by the police at that stage; to provide for notification for foreign travel; and to provide for disclosure between agencies in respect of the requirement to register.
  I explained at Committee stage that the Scottish Parliament would be considering whether Westminster should legislate to extend some of the amendments to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 to Scotland. All these amendments, I am delighted to say, are consequential on the decision by the Scottish Parliament to adopt the measures to strengthen the
  918
  regime for the registration of sex offenders which we introduced in Committee and which are part of the package often referred to as "Sarah's Law".
  The Scottish Parliament has agreed under the Sewel convention that the provisions of the Bill should be extended to Scotland to introduce these measures north of the Border. They will have the same effect and provide the same public protection, especially to children, in Scotland. I view this as a positive decision which will help to ensure that these crucial protections remain strong and coherent throughout the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
  11 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord made no reference to the Law Society of Scotland, which has commented on these proposals. It is concerned and I want to be a vehicle for explaining its concerns.
  It has been suggested that there should be an increase in the maximum penalty from six months to five years if a sex offender fails to register within a specified time. The society appreciates the policy intention behind the proposal and agrees that if the seriousness of the offence is to be marked in some cases the six-month period may not be sufficient.
  The society would also welcome confirmation that in Scotland the procurator fiscal will have regard to the forum in which the original offence was prosecuted in deciding on the appropriate forum in which to process the failure to register. In the society's view, if the original offence was prosecuted on indictment, the failure to register should be treated in a similar fashion.
  As regards disclosure of information contained on the register, the society is concerned to note that no reference is made in the proposed amendments to a possible sanction for the unauthorised disclosure of information contained on the register. Such disclosure may have potentially serious consequences and consideration should be given to extending criminal liability if such disclosure is made.
  I put those points on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, having read Hansard, I shall consider carefully the points made by the noble Baroness and shall reflect further on them.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 81 to 84:
  Page 62, line 25, leave out from ("above") to ("shall") in line 26.
  Page 62, line 28, leave out ("(5)(a)") and insert ("(5)(b)").
  Page 62, line 34, leave out from ("persons") to ("or") in line 35 and insert ("subject to the notification requirements of this Part").
  Page 62, line 46, leave out from ("Part") to second ("or") and insert ("who leave the United Kingdom").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 85:
  Page 63, line I, leave out from ("regulations") to ("is") in line 7 and insert ("make provision for requiring them—

  (a) to give in accordance with the regulations, before they leave, a notice under subsection (6E) below, and

  (b) if they subsequently return to the United Kingdom, to give in accordance with the regulations a notice under subsection (6F) below.

  (6E) A notice under this subsection must disclose—

  (a) the date on which he will leave the United Kingdom, the country to which he will travel (or, if there is more than one, the first country) and his point of arrival, determined in accordance with the regulations, in that country,

  (b) any other information prescribed by the regulations which the person holds about his departure from or return to the United Kingdom or his movements while outside the United Kingdom.

  In this subsection "country" includes territory.
  (6F) A notice under this subsection must disclose any information prescribed by the regulations about the person's return to the United Kingdom.
  (6G) The power to make regulations under subsections (6D) to (6F) above").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords—
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Whips' office grouped this amendment with the others. The grouping was Amendments Nos. 80 to 85,87 to 93,121 and 122.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if it expedites matters, I am happy to accept a regrouping on the Floor of the House. I beg to move Amendment No. 85 formally.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown moved Amendment No. 86:
  Page 63, line 10, at end insert—
  (" . After subsection (8) of that section there is inserted—
  "(9) The information in (2)(a) and (2)(b) above, may be made available by the police to any person on application where it is considered that such availability would be in the interests of the residents of the local police area, as defined in section 2(7) above."").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, first, I should like to declare an interest. I have a 14 year-old daughter, a 12 year-old son and a daughter who is not yet two weeks old. I must therefore catch a train very soon and I hope that everyone will take that into account!
  Having said that, this is an important issue. My amendment seeks to grant the police the power to allow a degree of controlled access to the information held on the sex offenders' register; that is, the names and addresses of known sex offenders in their local community. I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendment today and I move it simply to ask the Government about their current thoughts on the issue. It is obviously something of a vexed subject at the moment and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
  In tabling the amendment, I am not suggesting that registers should be made generally available to the public, nor that the police should be forced to reveal information when they are asked.
  The amendment changes the method of disseminating information and grants a right of access rather than relying on the police to disclose it. The wording of the amendment is precise. First, it ensures that the police are under no obligation to accept the application for information, but they may do so when it would be in the interests of residents of a local police area. It also specifies that the information should not be given out until the police receive an application for it. The amendment intends that the onus should be very much on the applicant to prove his suitability to receive the information and to justify the reason for needing it.
  Secondly, the amendment allows for only the names and addresses of those registered to be given out, not photographs or any other information. To reveal the names and addresses of specific persons will give parents greater power and ensure that they are able to do all that they can to protect their children.
  It is now some four months since we were all shocked by the tragic death of the young schoolgirl Sarah Payne. I am sure that the whole House, even at this late hour, will join me in paying tribute to her family who have coped remarkably well in such terrible circumstances. They have also campaigned ceaselessly for a "Sarah's Law" to be introduced in this country. I acknowledge that proposals have been made by the Government, with the support of the Opposition, to tighten the laws on child sex offenders. However, I am also aware that those who have campaigned for a "Sarah's Law" are concerned that its central tenet—the control of public access to the register—has not been granted.
  The introduction of the register in 1997 was a massive step forward in the protection of children in this country. The register commands a compliance rate of at least 97 per cent, and we should not do anything that alters that situation. However, as it stands, the information on the register is disclosed only to specific groups, such as social services organisations, at the discretion of the police: there is no right of access to it. The amendment seeks to reverse the position. The notion of controlled public access to information on the register has attracted a large amount of support from the public which cannot be ignored. The response to this issue raised by the News of the World was a measure of the level of anxiety felt by parents.
  I do not expect the Minister to accept any such amendment today. However, I shall be interested to hear the Government's current thinking on this contentious and important issue. I hope that the noble Lord will reassure me that the Government will continue to monitor the working of the system. I am aware that the Minister has great sympathy with this matter, but I realise that there are difficulties.
  I welcome the opportunity to open the debate, and hope that the House will give the arguments that I have raised serious consideration. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I extend to the noble Earl my congratulations on his new fatherhood and my commiserations on his train. If I take a few moments of the time of the House, I shall try to be mindful of the train. None of us has yet thought our way round what is a very urgent and serious issue. The trouble is that it puts the two primary purposes of the law at odds with each other. On the one hand, the law is for the protection of the public, which is the one area on which the noble Earl has perfectly properly concentrated. On the other hand, it is also the purpose of the law, and has been for as long as there has been law of any kind, to prevent private vengeance. The danger of the amendmen: is that it may encourage the one in achieving the other. Clearly, that is not a happy state of affairs, any more than is the opposite.
  The basic trouble we face with paedophilia is that we do not yet have any adequate way to reduce the marginal propensity to offend. Until we do, whatever measures we take will necessarily be imperfect and inadequate. I cannot be happy about the encouragement of private vengeance. If people have suffered the penalty appropriate to their crime and are discharged from prison, they have a right to live in safety so long as they live peaceably. I feel unhappy about anything which threatens that. As Sherlock Homes once remarked:
  "A Judge Lynch may try the case".
  I do riot want that to become recognised as the normal way to behave, because it weakens respect for the law. That is something which threatens us all.
  What is really needed is more understanding of the roots of the offending behaviour. At the moment we have practically none at all. Until we have that understanding, we really cannot know the proper way to treat the problem, Therefore, if anything we do will be a mistake, I would rather try to understand the subject a little better than we do at present before we do more than keep up the eternal vigilance which is the duty of law enforcement. That something must be done—I think the noble Earl knows—is one of the most dangerous cries in politics. I agree that something must be done; but I do not know what, and I would rather not do it until I do.
  Lord Bassani of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Earl. It is some 19 hours since my four year-old woke me so I understand the noble Lord's dilemma perfectly well.
  The new clause is a troubling clause. It is a clause which as a parent I find very difficult. I find the whole area difficult because, like any other parent, I want to afford to my children the maximum protection that I can. My problem with the amendment is that I do not believe it will achieve the objective that it has at its heart. I cannot believe that it will protect people in the way some might argue that it will, although I do understand the strength of feeling behind it.
  922
  The issue of access to the information contained on the Sex Offenders' Register obviously has sparked an extensive debate since the sad and tragic death of Sarah Payne. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we are at a loss to be absolutely certain what is the right course of action. The noble Earl is right, we need a better understanding of what motivates that type of crime by the criminal. But, notwithstanding that, because the Government share the public's concern about sex offenders, they have moved very quickly indeed with a whole package of measures which are reflected in the Bill. They were considered during the Committee stage. They were also considered this evening when we put further measures into the legislation and extended their effect to Scotland. We are on the case. We are there. We are with the public on this. But it is getting the approach right that will drive us all forward.
  The police already have the power to disclose information about registered offenders where they consider that doing so would prevent a serious crime being committed. Therefore, they already disclose information to individuals and to organisations in local communities when they believe the circumstances justify that approach.
  The proposed new clause will affect the current position in two ways. First, anyone can apply to the police for such information. The question has to be, is that right? Secondly, the criteria for disclosure of the information will be changed from the prevention of serious crime to acting "in the interests of the residents of the local police area". Both of those changes would create further problems without necessarily enhancing the protection of the public and, in particular, children.
  The Government have carefully examined whether there should be "controlled" access to the sex offenders' register but have concluded that there is no practical way of achieving that. Therein lies the difficulty in this whole debate. They have done so following careful and detailed consultations with those who have primary responsibility for protecting the public from sex offenders. Once information has been disclosed, it is not possible to control what is done with it, whether it is given on to a third party or how it is used or perhaps abused in the public domain.
  The danger of the kind of public disorder incidents that we saw during the summer months is that they lead to a lower level of knowledge and monitoring about the behaviour of sex offenders. The understandable fear is that sex offenders will be driven underground and that it will be much more difficult for the police and Probation Service to keep track of their movements. A number of those who might have been affected by a controlled access approach, were it workable, have gone to ground as a consequence and their new identities and addresses are not known to the authorities. That makes it much more difficult to subject their activities to any form of monitoring or control. That fundamentally undermines rather than strengthens the protection of children and others and perhaps casts them into a more vulnerable situation.

  923
  There are occasions when the police judge that, despite these possible reactions, it is not only necessary but essential to share information with individuals and organisations to prevent a repeat of some horrific sex crime. But such decisions have to be carefully balanced and considered. The lower threshold of "the interests" of the local community is another strangely ill-defined notion and would make it more difficult to control the disclosure of such information in a way which limits the risk of public disorder while at the same time maximising the protection of children.
  For those reasons, while I certainly sympathise with part of the motivation behind the amendment—certainly the concern behind it—we do not feel able to accept the amendment. I am sure that the noble Earl understands that. I read in a News of the World cutting that it is a probing amendment. The noble Earl has repeated that across theChamber. But that is where we see public policy at this time.
  It is worth placing on record that we have a debt of gratitude to all of those who have been involved in the Sarah's Law campaign and to Members of the party opposite who have given their support to our package of measures to strengthen the law and deepen further the protection of the vulnerable public.
  11.15 p.m.
  The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the Minister for their contributions. In many ways I understand the points they have made, but at the end of the day I speak as a parent. If someone on the sex offenders' register was living next door to me, I would want to know. I understand the arguments that have been made. In no way do I condone vigilante activity. I think that both the noble Earl and the Minister would agree with what I am saying. But I am thinking of the position of parents with young children who have someone on the sex offenders' register living next door. I shall read carefully what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 87 and 88:
  Page 63, line 15, leave out from beginning to ("a").
  Page 63, leave out lines 21 to 23.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 89:
  Page 63, leave out lines 26 to 30 and insert ("or
  ( ) a person fails to comply with any requirement imposed by virtue of section 2(6D) above to give a notice, or gives a notice which does not disclose the required information or which discloses information which he knows to be false").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Lord Brennan: My Lords, I appreciate that at this late hour it may be tedious for noble Lords to listen to a short speech dealing with an exceptionally important point addressed in this amendment. I regret that,
  924
  because of the grouping arrangements, the House may not be aware that, since we considered the Bill in Committee, the Government, through Amendments Nos. 85 and 89, have substantially altered the Bill. They have altered it much for the better. The enforcement of the register kept on sex offenders who travel abroad has been rendered far more effective. While applauding them for that, I should like to raise points on the regulations that are to be made under the Act.
  Noble Lords may recall that in a previous contribution I said that the register has achieved a 97 to 98 per cent rate of compliance. That is phenomenal. The Association of Chief Police Officers regards it as a most effective way both of controlling and of detecting sex offenders. That association, along with ECPAT (UK)—the NGO dealing with this problem—wants the register to be extended to cover people travelling abroad. These amendments achieve that and will increase the penalty imposed on those who breach the requirements.
  The points I wish to raise are as follows. The regulations introduce a power to require the offender to give information on his movements while travelling outside the United Kingdom. Surely that should include details of the itinerary as well as the addresses of hotels or other accommodation. To frame regulations which state that such information should be given only where the offender knows exactly where he is going would demonstrate far too much latitude to a convicted sex offender. The requirement must be much tougher. The reason for that is obvious: the compliance that exists in this country could then be transferred abroad. The police authorities, once they have been notified over here, could then tell the police authorities in the relevant countries where the person was travelling. The children in those countries would then enjoy protection, just as the register seeks to protect children living here.
  On a person's return. Amendment No. 85 would require that details of the journey should be given. Again, surely the relevant regulations should include a requirement to disclose the countries in fact visited. The immigration authorities can then examine the passport; and if someone states that he went to France, it will be discovered whether subsequently he visited the problem countries such as Sri Lanka, Thailand, the Philippines and so forth. What is the point of this requirement? It would establish, first, where such people were staying at the time when sex offences may have been committed. The information would be an aid to potential detection. Secondly, it would establish any change from the previously declared route. That in itself will be an offence under the restrictions provided in Clause 89.
  These matters occupy not only this country, but also the United Nations. When I visited Geneva two weeks ago, I discovered that those in the United Nations Commission for Human Rights looking into the rights of the child consider that international sex crime has now reached major proportions. Informally—subject to studying the details of the Bill—the commission's representatives indicated that they thought that the

  925
  Government's initiative on the development of the register was of major potential importance to act as a model for other countries.
  With that important prospect in mind, I invite the Government to consider the following points, namely, that all existing offenders on the register must be notified both of the new law and of the penalties for not complying. Secondly, when are they supposed to give notice of their intended trip abroad? As I read the Bill, no precise timing is required. That timing will be required by the police in the countries they will visit, and notice needs to he given in due time.
  Thirdly, a question arises as to the giving of the notice to go abroad, either orally or in writing. With due respect to our constabulary, if someone comes into a police station and mumbles four or five foreign names and three or four hotel names, there is no real likelihood that there will be accuracy unless it is written down then and there, one copy being given to the person orally reporting and the other being retained by the police to be acted upon. If it is given in writing, the notice can be checked for its adequacy. In either event, Section 2(6) of the Sex Offenders Act allows the police to acknowledge the notice—in other words, to keep a precise record of what they were told. The net result should be that the register is effective.
  Your Lordships have been most patient. While the time is late and this topic comes up at the very end of the debate, it would be unfortunate, after the tribulations of today, if a change—which I think is welcomed on all sides of the House—was not properly recorded and the steps I have mentioned implemented to make this an effective reform.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for his intervention. I apologise for any unintended discourtesy in the way in which we rapidly moved through the amendments earlier.
  The amendment is very useful. It will provide for basic information to be sought from offenders on the register of the detail of their travel arrangements—the date of travel, the country of destination, the place of entry and so on. As part of the present review of the Sex Offenders Act, it is our intention to look at some of the other detail that may be usefully brought forward into this method of regulation. We think that the detail of that regulation will be very important. Some of the points made by the noble Lord—for instance, the address of where offenders may stay, the details of their tour itinerary, where their onward travel may be from their first destination, and so on—can be dealt with as part of the regulations.
  This is a very helpful contribution. We are leading the field in terms of dealing with international sex crimes against: children. It is an area of developing law and developing regulation. We shall, of course, consult on the detail of the content of the regulations. I shall make careful note of the points made by the noble Lord, particularly the importance of giving written notification and ensuring that those offenders who fall
  926
  within the remit of the amendment receive adequate advice, warning and information as to its effect. That is a very helpful suggestion.
  These are matters we shall further explore. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful contribution to this area of developing policy.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise profusely if I was responsible for the noble Lord missing the natural opportunity to make his points. My understanding of the instructions I received from the Whips' Office was that Amendment No. 85 was included in the group of amendments. I thought there had been a mishap involving the Minister. Had I realised that it would open up an opportunity for the noble Lord to make important comments duo should be on the record, I apologise.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, it was certainly not the noble Baroness's fault.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 90 to 93:
  Page 65, line 10, leave out from ("hospital") to end of line 11.
  Page 65, line 28, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 32 and insert—
  ("At the end of section 10").
  Page 65, line 37, leave out (""3") and insert (""3(1A)").
  Page 65, line 37, leave out from ("(b)") to ("there") in line 38.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 65 [Section 64: interpretation]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved amendment No. 94:
  Page 45, line 31, leave out ("in England and Wales").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 65 deals with how you define those offenders covered by Clause 64 in respect of whom arrangements have to be made by the responsible authorities for assessing and managing the risk they pose.
  The technical amendments to Clause 65 have been proposed to clarify the statutory duty in respect of offenders sentenced by a court martial or by a courts-martial appeals court, to make it clear that it is limited to those offenders who are subject to the notification requirements under Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 or to whom the conditions for disqualification from working with children set out in Sections 28(2) and 28(3) and 29(2) and 29(3) apply.
  The amendment to Clause 66 will have the effect that the local board will not have to inform the victims of offences where the offender has been convicted or dealt with by a court martial or courts-martial appeals court.
  I ought to record my gratitude to noble Lords who highlighted in Committee the defect in the present Clause 66(2) which caused us to re-visit the drafting in this area. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 95 to 99:
  Page 45, line 31, after ("convicted") insert ("by a court in England or Wales").
  Page 46, line 6, leave out ("in England and Wales").
  Page 46, line 6, after ("guilty") insert ("by a court in England or Wales").
  Page 46, line 16, leave out from ("if') to ("satisfied") in line 17 and insert ("the first condition set out in section 28(2) or 29(2) or the second condition set out in section 28(3) or 29(3) is").
  Page 46, line 17, at end insert—
  ("( ) In this section "court" does not include a court-martial or the Courts-Martial Appeal Court.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 66 [Duties of local boards in connection with victims of certain offences]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 100:
  Page 46, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("on") in line 20 and insert ("a court—

  (a) convicts an offender of a sexual or violent offence, and

  (b) imposes a relevant sentence").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 101 and 102:
  Page 46, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
  Page 47, line 13, leave out subsection (8).
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 103:
  Page 47. line 17, at end insert—
  (""court" does not include a court-martial or the Courts-Martial Appeal Court,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 69 [Failure to secure regular attendance at school: increase in penalty]:
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 104:
  Leave out Clause 69.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment would attempt to leave out Clause 69. That is the clause that deals with parents whose children do not regularly attend school. It raises the fine to which they may be subject from £1,000 to £2,500.
  As the Minister pointed out in Committee, my objection is to the principle behind the clause. The principle of vicarious guilt is being applied to the parent. Since I was not in a position to come in at the ground floor, I am at least, I hope, entitled to say that planning permission should not be given to build another storey on this house, because I believe that it should not have been here in the first place.
  This clause altogether over-rates the power that some parents have over teenage children. Queen Elizabeth I once heard a protest from the Spanish ambassador about the activities of Sir Francis Drake, and replied:
  "The gentleman careth not if 1 should disavow him".
  928
  The language is different, but I believe that the reaction of many parents who are asked to control the activities of their teenage children boils down to very much the same thing.
  The number of sanctions available to the parent of a teenager is strictly limited. Sometimes it can be done simply because the child wants approval, but that is not always the case. My father once remarked, "Most children desire approval. If they did not, all discipline would be impossible". However, the minority who are the exceptions are very often the ones with whom we are dealing in this situation.
  I believe that the clause also misunderstands the likely reaction of parents who may be very shamed and distressed by the imposition of this procedure. I understand that the object is not actually to levy the fine but to secure an attendance at court. But very often the reaction of parents whose children bring them into disgrace is to want to dissociate themselves from them quite forcefully; in other words, "It's nothing to do with me". That reaction means that they will not want to appear in court. In fact, the more shamed and disgraced they feel, the more those parents will want to be nowhere where their child's record is being examined.
  The ultimate sanction available to parents of teenagers is, I regret to say, expelling them from home. If noble Lords were to read the report of the Children's Society, Still Running, they would find that a very high proportion of children—indeed, I believe it is 19 per cent—who run away from home are expelled by their parents. I do not want that proportion to increase. Very often, those children have to take refuge in what the Children's Society describes as "risky survival strategies"—for example, selling sex or drugs, stealing or begging. None of the latter is an activity that any of us from any quarter of the House would wish to see more of than we do at present. In so far as this clause has an effect, that is the likely effect that it will have.
  In Committee, the Minister faced me with evidence to which I listened with some care. He cited cases where parents are actually in collusion with the child who does not attend school because they are involving the child in some money-making activity, or taking him away on holiday when he ought to be in school. I am not defending such actions. Indeed, in such cases, the clause might possibly have a useful effect because it would hold the parent responsible for something that the parent had actually done. That seems to me to be proper.
  I cannot move an amendment on Third Reading for the deletion of a clause. However, I hope that the Minister wants to come out of this Bill with some reasonably amicable compromises; indeed, I trust that he may. We do not always have to have a confrontation on everything: but it takes two to compromise. I have in mind what we may do hereafter. Before we return to the matter on Third Reading, I wonder whether the Minister will consider an amendment to this clause suggesting that it should apply only where the child has been evading attending school with the "knowledge and consent" of the

  929
  parent. The active involvement of the parents in approving this seems to me to be an essential constituent of their deserving any punishment; and, indeed, of it being possible practically to impose it.
  I do not know whether that compromise will be acceptable to the Minister. However, I am prepared to discuss it in detail, make adaptations and see what we can do. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my name has been attached to this amendment. I have a few questions for the Minister. It would be useful to know the extent to which the schemes to reduce truancy in schools that have been put in place at very great cost have been successful. Right across the country local authority schools have received money to help them produce strategies for reducing the number of young people who are truanting from school. It would be helpful to be given that information.
  In May this year I tabled a Question for Written Answer which was answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I asked,
  "How many parents have been found guilty and fined in connection with the offence of non-attendance at school; and what is the average fine for parents found guilty in connection with the offence of non-attendance at school; and how many parents have received the maximum fine of £2,500 in connection with the offence of non-attendance at school?".—[Official Report, 18/5/00; cols. WA 37–38.]
  To all three Questions the answer was that the department did not know and that it would be disproportionately costly to find out the information. If that is the case, what is the basis for doubling the fine? What is the argument for saying that doubling the fine will have an effect?
  I re-tabled the Question in a different form in October. I received a reply on Monday 30th October. In that Answer, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, argued that it was disproportionately expensive to find out the information. However, the noble Baroness added:
  "Most importantly, our proposal"
  —that is, doubling the level of the fine—
  "will force parents prosecuted for school attendance offences to turn up in court to face the consequences of their actions, or risk arrest. It will also give magistrates greater flexibility when deciding on the fine level to impose when parents are found guilty".—[Official Report, 30/10/00; col. WA 72.]
  I find that extraordinary. I understand that 80 per cent of parents do not turn up in court now. I have done a little detective work of my own in a number of courts with which I am familiar. The levels of fine are derisory. They range from £10 to £20 and up to £50. Evidence shows that some parents are fined an average of £50 to £100. The Government are talking of doubling the limit of the fine but the courts are nowhere near using the limit of the fine at the moment. What is the rationale for the measure? If 80 per cent of parents do not turn up in court when a lower maximum fine may be imposed, what makes the noble Lord believe that they will turn up if it is doubled?
  930
  How much more flexibility will such a measure give the courts if they are not using the flexibility available to them at present to levy greater fines on parents who commit offences in relation to non-attendance at school? How will the measure that is proposed increase flexibility in this regard? The department does not know how many parents are found guilty or appear in court. It would be helpful to hear the Minister's views on that matter.
  As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, we all have an interest—this is common to Members on all sides of the House—in seeing our young people in school. Every day spent out of school constitutes another lost opportunity for young people. The most vulnerable children are the ones who are most at risk of losing out on education. That blights their lives for ever. Anything that can be done to reduce the incidence of truancy would have my support. However, it must be something practical that will work. I believe that the Department for Education recently announced giving the police powers to conduct a sweep of streets and shopping areas during school hours to take truant children back to school. I support that practical measure. I am sure that the police would carry it out in a sensitive manner. The important matter is to find a way of getting truanting children back in school.
  I refer to another proposal that I would have supported when I was a Minister if we in the department had not been thwarted by confidentiality rules. Children who spend time out of school will often say that they have been to the dentist or to the doctor or they have been doing this, that or the other. It was not possible for the police to check with the dentist or doctor to verify the excuse. I was sad about that as I thought that it would have been breaching confidentiality for good reason if a dentist or a doctor were allowed to say that the reason he was giving the information was to ensure that the children in question did not get away with false excuses for being out of school illicitly. I hope that across Whitehall ways can be found to allow for that kind of breach of confidentiality.
  At the end of the day, I believe that it is in the interests of the child to be back at school. I am not against reducing truancy. I am not against practical suggestions. But simply doubling the fine will do nothing for these parents. We have already talked about instances where the parent is not culpable. In good faith, the parent ensures that the children have their breakfast and are sent to school. I gave the example of a case known to me where for three months the child had been sent off to school. The school rang to ask whether the child had left the school or the family had left the area. The parent was completely unaware that the child had not attended school but was playing with friends somewhere else in town. How culpable is a parent in that situation? As parents we have a responsibility to ensure that our children attend school. Where does the culpability lie when the parent sees the child through the school gate, the child registers for school, and then disappears?

  931
  Finally, there is confusion about where those cases are dealt with. The adults appear in the adult court; the children appear in the juvenile court. The same issue is discussed. They are treated very differently in the courts. It is unsatisfactory. I believe that the clause should not be in the Bill. I support the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
  11.45 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this sounds like dangerous liberalism with perhaps Conservatives going soft on the issue of truancy.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not going soft on truancy. I believe that I gave sufficient examples to underline that we should do all that we can to get children back into school. It is for the Minister to defend why this policy will be effective.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am more than happy to make that case and put that argument. However, when we come up with measures which are quite hard nosed and tough, Members from the party opposite do not seem to want to deal with that toughness.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I remind the Minister, first, that there are two parties opposite; and, secondly, that the point at issue is whether these measures are effective. I should be grateful if the Minister will address that point.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am well aware that there are two parties opposite; and, yes, I intend to deal with whether these measures will be effective.
  I am acutely aware that our children have only one chance at education. I have three children at school. As a parent I, too, have to account for their behaviour and attitude, and what my children do in and out of school. I see that as an important parental responsibility. Today I have had to send a letter to my son's school to advise the school on why he had a day and a half off school, and why he could not get to school on time yesterday. I believe that that is an important responsibility placed on parents. I take my responsibilities seriously and expect others to do exactly the same
  At least 1 million children at school play truant in any one year. I was interested in the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He seemed to conjure up an image of the average truant: an early teenaged boy, perhaps a child under duress at home, not enjoying happy home circumstances. That may be the case in some instances. But the noble Earl may need to take account of this important statistic: the majority—some 600,000 of those who truant—are of primary school age and their parents know and collude with the fact that they are not at school.
  The Government believe in practical, quite hard-nosed measures. For that reason the truancy sweeps referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch,
  932
  initiated by the Government, and mounted by the police working with local authorities, work very effectively. They have found that two-thirds of those children are out of school without permission and are with their parents when they are found. That is further evidence of collusion.
  As the noble Baroness rightly acknowledged, 80 per cent of parents prosecuted for school attendance offences fail to turn up at court. Clearly they do not believe that it is worth their while or that they should be interested. Most are fined in their absence. The noble Baroness referred to parliamentary Questions that she has asked. I am happy to confirm that those Answers show that the courts fine as little as £1 to £10, with an average fine of £50 to £100. Only a small number of fines reach the maximum level of £1,000.
  The background information suggests that there are 60 prosecutions a year using the relevant provision in education legislation, which has been in place for 50 years or more. There may not be a large number of cases that make their way to court, but there is an important issue at stake. If we as a society disapprove strongly of people playing truant, we should say so. This is a way of making a powerful public statement of our disapproval of truancy. Truancy leads to young people getting into trouble and can lead to terrible offences. That is why the Government have taken the issue so seriously. Everyone says that they want to do something about truancy, but thus far nobody has been prepared to do it. We believe that we should. If the measure sends a powerful message to society, we shall have achieved our aim.
  On 19th October, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Home Secretary announced a series of measures to tackle unauthorised absence from school. Next year, £43 million will be made available to schools and local education authorities to use on a range of initiatives to tackle truancy and improve discipline in schools. The two are undoubtedly linked.
  The Secretary of State has called for a renewed effort to tackle truancy through a co-ordinated programme of truancy sweeps in every local authority. Funding will be provided for more learning mentors in Excellence in Cities areas where extra provision can be made to help individual children at risk of not attending or not succeeding at school. We intend to consult carefully with schools that have above average truancy levels. The new Connexions service will provide further advice and guidance to all 13 to 19-year-olds. All young people who want support will have access to a personal adviser.
  The noble Baroness made great play of the level of fines. I suppose that the nub of her argument was that if the fines are generally low—perhaps £10 or £50 to £100—what is the point of raising the maximum fine to £2,500 or of making the offence potentially imprisonable? The point is that a warrant can then be issued so that the parents can be brought to court. The

  933
  magistrates can then see the parents and make clear not just their displeasure at the parents' inability to get to grips with the issue or to share responsibility—
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, cannot a person who defaults on a fine be brought back to court already?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is the case, but it is much better that the parent should have a responsibility to be present in the first instance when a case is brought before the court. I am sure that the noble Baroness agrees that it cannot be right that parents do not show up at court in 80 per cent of cases. Our strategy will mean that there is every possibility that parents will be brought before the court and the magistrates will be able to discuss in the court why they are failing to ensure that their children turn up at school. It will then be at the discretion of the magistrate to reach a decision on the best course of action and assess whether a parenting order or a community sentence is more appropriate. However, without the appearance of the parent and without proper parental explanation, the magistrates are not in a position to do that. We believe that for that reason many magistrates take the understandably easier option of imposing a low level of fine. They know that if they impose a heavier fine or penalty it will have little effect and, in many instances, may go unpaid—one of the banes of a magistrate's life.
  I have not been at all convinced by the noble Baroness's arguments for taking no further action on truants. I understand the arguments and am perfectly prepared to be sympathetic to the point made by the noble Earl with regard to seeing whether we can improve the quality of our approach and whether we can explore the issue of knowledge and consent. That is clearly important and I am quite prepared to do that. However, we believe that our position on this matter is right. We cannot accept the amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We believe that our course of action is appropriate. It offers a way in which we can not only express our displeasure at parental collusion to truancy but also take effective action.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for his concluding words about being prepared to explore the issues of knowledge and consent. I hope that that may provide a way forward. I must confess that I am not quite so happy with some of the other parts of his reply. He said that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was proposing to do nothing about truancy. However, in her speech I listened with interest to a considerable number of proposals for possible action on truancy. On the spur of the moment, I am not certain how many of them I support. However, at the very least I believe that they prove that that charge was unjustified.
  We cannot deal with this matter simply by suggesting that those who are against the clause are in favour of truancy. When any measure is put before this House we are entitled to ask two questions about it. First, is it effective, and, secondly, does it punish the
  934
  guilty and not the innocent? Only if those two questions can be answered in the affirmative is the proposed measure justifiable. I am not certain that either question can be answered in that way in relation to this clause. If that cannot be established, the question as to whether we are for or against truancy does not arise.
  Incidentally, since the Minister raised the question, when I paid my newspaper bill last Saturday I talked to the newsagent's daughter, who is a teacher. She told me that she intends to return to Nigeria to continue her teaching career because she says that there the children value what they are getting when they are taught. She says that here they simply say, "Miss, what is the point? Why do I have to do all this?" As does the Minister, I recognise that as a very serious problem. However, I believe that the solutions stretch rather wider than any envisaged in this Bill. Rather more of them are educational and rather more are connected with the pattern of subsequent employment than the Minister's defence of this clause would suggest.
  I take his point about primary school children. However, he must admit—and, if he does not, his noble friend Lord Warner will tell him because such people come his way—that a number of teenagers of the type that I envisaged do truant from school. In those cases the parent may be quite unable to deal with the truancy. I believe that the Minister should be concerned if he has caught a large number of innocent or helpless parents in his net together with the guilty. It is not an awfully desirable system of law enforcement and we should avoid it.
  I turn to the effect of the measure. I believe that I am correct in saying that, as it stands, the measure will lead to a considerable increase in teenage homelessness. The homeless do not normally have a particularly good record of school attendance. In that way the measure could be counter-productive.
  The point the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made about the funds is important. Courts have to live in the real world in a way that Whitehall does not. Whitehall is shut away from the public. It does not have to contest elections. Courts face members of the public every day. Their judgment of what can realistically be expected and what funds can be levied may be the better judgment of the two. My conclusion from the evidence of the noble Baroness is to wonder in how many cases the money envisaged in these funds is actually to be had.
  The point the noble Baroness made about knowledge is also of considerable importance. If a child goes out of the house and there is no complaint heard from the school any parent is entitled to assume that the child is in school. I cannot see any way of rebutting that. Meanwhile if there is any chance of informal protest I should welcome it. Without that I would put down a revised amendment of the son: that could properly be discussed at Third Reading. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 105:
  Page 75, line 7, leave out from ("board") to end of line 8.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 105 and speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 106 to 115. These amendments are all consequential on the substantive provisions of the Bill. I shall give a brief explanation of why each is necessary. Amendments Nos. 105, 106, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114 are all consequential on the reorganisation of the Probation Service and in particular on a replacement of probation committees by local boards. They insert definition of "local board" into those existing statutes where references will be made—as a result of further consequential amendments—under this Bill to "officers of a local board". Without these amendments, references to "officers of local boards" in these statutes would be meaningless.
  Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 are minor drafting amendments to consequential amendments already in Schedule 7 to the Bill that are consequential on the abolition of detention in a young offender institution.
  Amendment No. 105 is a minor drafting amendment to a consequential amendment already in Schedule 7 to the Bill that is consequential on the reorganisation of the Probation Service and, in particular, to the change in name of "probation officer" to "officer of a local board". I beg to move Amendment No. 105.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 106 to 115:
  Page 75, line 10, at end insert—
  (" . In section 70(1) (general interpretation), at the appropriate place there is inserted—
  ""local board" means a local board established under section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;".").
  Page 82, line 9, at end insert—
  (".In section 6(1) (general interpretation), at the appropriate place there is inserted—
  ""local board" means a local board established under section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;".").
  Page 82, line 12, leave out second ("prison") and insert ("or prison").
  Page 82, line 28, leave out (""sentence of").
  Page 82, line 37, at end insert—
  (" . In section 99(1) (general interpretation), at the appropriate place there is inserted—
  ""local board" means a local board established under section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;".").
  Page 83, line 14, at end insert—
  (" . The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 is amended as follows.").
  Page 83, line 15, leave out ("of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993").
  936
  Page 83, line 17, at end insert—
  (" . In section 27(l) (interpretation of Part I), at the appropriate place there is inserted—
  ""local board" means a local board established under section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;".").
  Page 87, line 1, at end insert—
  (" . In section 54(1) (general interpretation), at the appropriate place there is inserted—
  ""local board" means a local board established under section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;".").
  Page 87, leave out lines 8 to 12 and insert (", in each of paragraphs 8(5) and 11(6), in the table, for "Probation officer" there is substituted "Officer of a local board").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 116:
  Page 106, line 32, column 3, after ("3,") insert ("paragraph 9(2),").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 116 which I move and Amendment No. 117 to which I speak are minor drafting amendments to Schedule 8, the schedule of repeals. I do not need to go into further explanation unless noble Lords require me to do so. I beg to move Amendment No. 116.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 117:

  Page 107, line 7, at end insert—

  ("2000 c.

  Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

  In section 30(1), paragraph (b) of the definition of "qualifying sentence". In section 66(9), paragraph (b) of the definition of "relevant sentence".")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 77 [Commencement]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 118:
  Page 50, line 33, at end insert ("and different areas").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 118 and speak to Amendment No. 120. These two amendments deal with the commencement of the provisions of the Bill. Amendment 118 enables the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State to appoint different days for the commencement for the provisions of the Bill for different areas.
  As the Bill stands, different days may be appointed for commencement only for different purposes. Amendment No. 120 has the effect of removing paragraph 137 of Schedule 7 to the Bill from the list of provisions that will come into force on Royal Assent. I beg to move Amendment No. 118.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 119:
  Page 50. line 33, at end insert—
  ("( ) No day may be appointed for the commencement of sections 40 to 42 until the results of the review of the sentencing framework of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 can be taken into account.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour, I shall be brief. It is our understanding that the review of the sentencing framework of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 will encompass community orders. It would be confusing and unhelpful to both the courts and the Probation Service if there were to be more than one change to either the nature or name of such orders. For that reason, we propose delaying the implementation of the name changes under this Bill until that review has been completed and has made known its recommendations so that they may be taken into account by this House. I beg to move.
  Lord Bach: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her ingenuity in bringing back the famous Clauses 40, 41 and 42 in this particular form towards the very end of our proceedings.
  I am afraid that I cannot agree with her. The sentencing review must be distinguished from what we seek to do in the Bill. The sentencing review has been asked to look at the sentencing framework, which includes looking at the rationale for sentencing and at creating different types of sentences. That is a relatively long-term process.
  The reason for renaming the orders is to deal with what we are sure is the public's current lack of understanding of what the existing community penalties mean. That does not pre-empt any of the issues being considered by the review. We believe that
  938
  it is right to change the names as soon as is convenient in order that the public will get a better sense of what we want the existing orders to be.
  One consequence of agreeing to the noble Baroness's amendment would be that the dreadfully named "combination order" might last a lot longer. No one knows what combination orders are, apart from the professionals who deal with them. The sooner that is changed, the better.
  As I said, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her ingenuity, but we shall not fall for her suggestion. I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I suppose that at this hour of the night, it is better to be called ingenious than incoherent. The noble Lord clearly understood where I was coming from and where I hoped to go. In view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall perhaps return to it at a later stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 120:
  Page 50, line 40, after ("136") insert (", 138").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 78 [Extent]:
  Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 121 and 122:
  Page 51. line 13, at end insert—
  ("( ) this Chapter,").
  Page 51. line 22, at end insert—
  ("( ) For the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998. any provision of section 63 and Schedule 5 and, so far as relating to those provisions and extending to Scotland, any provision of this Chapter is to be taken to be a pre-commencement enactment within the meaning of that Act.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at eight minutes past midnight.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 28 September
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 28 September
  Terrorism Act 2000: Implementation
  Terrorism Act 2000: Implementation
  Immigrant Advisers and Service Providers: Regulation
  Immigrant Advisers and Service Providers: Regulation
  Sentencing Guidelines: Women
  Sentencing Guidelines: Women
  Custodial Sentences: Policy
  Custodial Sentences: Policy
  Voters' Rights
  Voters' Rights
  Millennium Volunteers
  Millennium Volunteers
  Employment and Social Policy Council, 17 October
  Employment and Social Policy Council, 17 October
  Sudan: Chemical Weapon Allegations
  Sudan: Chemical Weapon Allegations
  Burma
  Burma
  Arms Exports: Licence Criteria
  Arms Exports: Licence Criteria
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  MoD: Legal Advisers
  MoD: Legal Advisers
  Centre for Defence Medicine
  Centre for Defence Medicine
  Royal Army Medical Training Centre Site, Millbank
  Royal Army Medical Training Centre Site, Millbank
  Officer Training Corps
  Officer Training Corps
  Army Base Repair Organisation, Sennybridge
  Army Base Repair Organisation, Sennybridge
  Territorial Army Centre, Horsham
  Territorial Army Centre, Horsham
  Armed Forces Widow's Pensions: Retention on Remarriage
  Armed Forces Widow's Pensions: Retention on Remarriage
  Viagra: Use in Fertility Treatments
  Viagra: Use in Fertility Treatments
  Smoking in Public Places: Control
  Smoking in Public Places: Control
  Hospice Costs: NHS Contribution
  Hospice Costs: NHS Contribution
  Manufacturing: Profitability
  Manufacturing: Profitability
  Sudan: Precursor Chemical Agents
  Sudan: Precursor Chemical Agents
  Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000: Government Actuary's Report
  Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000: Government Actuary's Report
  Benefit Disentitlement and Child Poverty
  Benefit Disentitlement and Child Poverty
  Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Chardon LL Maize
  Chardon LL Maize
  Judicial Appointments Annual Report
  Judicial Appointments Annual Report
  House of Lords: Smoking Policy
  House of Lords: Smoking Policy