Sitting of 2 July 2001

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

  Members Sworn
  The following Members took and subscribed the Oath, or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law:
  Bill Etherington, Sunderland, North Robert Jackson, Wantage

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Police Manpower
    Mr. James Gray: How many police officers were serving on 7 June 2001; and how many there were on 1 May 1997. [610]
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: If he will call for a report on police numbers in Greater Manchester. [619]
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement about police manpower in London. [622]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I last announced the figures on 28 June. There were 125,519 officers in post and, as I announced in the Queen's Speech debate last Wednesday, there were 127,158 officers at the same time in 1997. Numbers nationally have increased by 1,349 in the past 12 months—the largest annual increase for 13 years.
    Greater Manchester police has 6,909 officers—an increase of 115 officers on this time last year. In London, comparisons are distorted by boundary changes with Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey; as a result, the figure of 24,878 is 607 down on a year ago, but up by 183 in the past six months.
    Mr. Gray: In the run-up to the 1997 general election, the Labour party promised thousands more officers on the beat, but, as we have just heard from the Secretary of State, the reality is that the number has fallen by 1,639 while it has been in office and resignations have increased. Resignations are running at 81 per cent. across the police. [Interruption.] Labour Members are not all that good at statistics. Resignations have risen by 81 per cent. That is exactly correct; those are the figures.
    In a spirit of helpfulness, may I suggest one way in which the Secretary of State could stop that haemorrhage in the police force? The police in North Wiltshire—a relatively prosperous area—are 30 people undermanned simply because police pay and conditions have not kept up with other pay and conditions in the area, as they are set nationally with the sole exception of those for the Metropolitan police. Will the Secretary of State consider allowing the chief constable of Wiltshire to set pay and

    3
    conditions separately for Wiltshire and other chief constables throughout the country to do the same for their forces?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am very pleased indeed that, despite the tale of woe, the crime figures show a 9.5 per cent. drop on the previous set of statistics—for which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is deeply grateful. As hon. Members know, we are embarking on a reform package, which will, of course, have to be considered by the police negotiating body in the usual way. I hope that we can consider how to recruit more effectively because the 76 additional officers allocated to Wiltshire in the crime fighting fund review would then be more easily attainable.
    Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend's comments about increased police numbers for Greater Manchester will be very welcome, but crime has gone up in the city of Manchester and the issue is right at the top of the agenda.
    Is my right hon. Friend aware of the case of my 84-year-old constituent, Florrie Birch? She was mugged last week by a young thug, who broke her hip. It took 20 minutes for a glazier to turn up to repair broken glass and it took 20 minutes for an ambulance to arrive. However, it took two and a quarter hours for the police to respond. My constituents tell me all the time that police responses are not adequate. Although we want more policing, we want better-managed policing so that the public receive the service to which they are entitled. Will my right hon. Friend help me and my constituents by responding to that legitimate plea?
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is right that we should increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the police. The fact that police numbers in Greater Manchester will rise by next spring to 7,100 will assist, but the management and effective deployment of the force will be crucial.
    I am personally sorry for Florrie Birch, and I am sure that the chief constable is also sorry, given the juxtaposition that my hon. Friend described in terms of the service received.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new appointment, but may I remind him that there is no doubt that the number of police officers in the borough of Barnet has declined sharply while the level of crime has gone up? Does he recognise that, apart from the problems caused by early retirement, the Metropolitan police force faces the specific difficulty that it is unable to stop police officers being transferred of their own will to police forces in other parts of the country? Will he assure me that he is tackling the problem and that he will provide incentives so that police officers do not transfer to other police forces?
    Mr. Blunkett: My predecessor as Home Secretary addressed strongly the issue of providing incentives to police officers. An uplift in special payments was made, and that is one reason why the Metropolitan police force is optimistic that it will be able to recruit more than 2,000 extra officers in the forthcoming period. The hon.
    4
    Gentleman will know from his discussions with Commander Sue Akers that we face a real challenge, and it is one that we must face together.
    Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) spoke about the recruitment difficulties faced by the Met. I represent a constituency that is five miles outside that area, but it has the same crime levels. In contrast to the hon. Gentleman's area, police officers in my area do not receive the extra benefits in terms of pay and costs of travel that Met officers receive. There is a recruitment crisis in areas around London—particularly in areas such as Slough that have high crime levels—and my judgment is that the police negotiating board has not addressed the problem sufficiently seriously. In coming new to this responsibility, will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will take steps to make sure that the board will consider such issues when it discusses police pay shortly?
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend knows that I am very familiar with the problems of areas just outside that covered by the Met. I spent four years dealing with similar problems facing teachers.
    There is a problem that must be addressed, but it must be considered in the context of the 77 per cent. increase in recruitment and the substantial targets that we have set for retaining and recruiting officers. I spoke about this issue in the debate last Wednesday, when I referred to a target of 130,000 by 2004. I hope that we will be able to exceed that, and I hope that we shall be able to do so evenly, and so ensure that people, wherever they live, receive the policing that they deserve.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Since taking up his new responsibilities, on which I warmly congratulate him, has the Home Secretary asked his Department to make up-to-date comparisons with other countries in north America or on the continent of Europe on the number of police officers per head of population? Even at this early stage, does he have any thoughts on whether the numbers that he is talking about rather optimistically will come anywhere near meeting the requirements and expectations of our hard-pressed city and rural communities?
    Mr. Blunkett: We are always interested to learn what is taking place in north America. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), met a senior police commissioner at the beginning of last week, and it seems to us that effective policing and effective management of policing are as important as the critical issue of raising numbers.
    Not only have I made a comparison with north America, but I have compared police numbers in South Yorkshire with other areas of the country. Given its numbers, the force in South Yorkshire is doing a phenomenal job.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in addition to the 83 extra police officers in Suffolk who are being provided by the Government's crime fighting fund, Suffolk police authority is funding a further 100 officers from the council tax, having asked local people whether they wanted to pay a little more to get them? The fruits of that policy can be seen in the

    5
    Lowestoft sector of my constituency, where 500 fewer crimes occurred last year than in the previous year. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Suffolk police authority, the chief constable of Suffolk and the Lowestoft sector commander, John Everett, for deciding to do that, and will he commend the policy to other police authorities?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the considerable progress that has been made in London recruitment has been entirely negated by the high number of retirements and resignations, which amounted to 1,100 in the last financial year? What measures is he proposing to improve retention, and is he seriously considering retaining retired officers on a part-time basis?
    Mr. Blunkett: I have the facility as an incoming Home Secretary to consider any measures to retain and improve occupational health and prevent seepage from the police force. I am prepared to receive suggestions from hon. Members on both sides of the House and will discuss those with the Police Federation, as I am doing later this week.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: As the Home Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that the number of regular officers is now 1,639 fewer than at the same time in 1997, will he give the comparative figures for specials?
    Mr. Blunkett: No, because I do not have them with me. However, I shall happily refer to the right hon. Lady's previous questions to the former Home Secretary so that I can remind her of his answers.
    Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps I can assist the Home Secretary. There are 7,500 fewer special constables than in May 1997. Given that there are more than 1,600 fewer regulars and more than 7,000 fewer specials, what comfort can he give to people who suffer from menacing activities? I have in mind the reports in today's newspapers of someone who was harassed literally to death. That person, to whom I referred in the Queen's Speech debate last week, was harassed so often that he put the police number on his "Friends and Family" list with BT. Such harassment occurs daily and makes people's lives a living hell, in particular—although not exclusively—on big estates. As this is likely to be the last question that I ask him from the Dispatch Box, can he give a straightforward explanation of what he will do for people who live in those conditions?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am deeply sorry that this is likely to be the last question that the right hon. Lady asks me from the Dispatch Box and I wish her well in whatever guise she takes on in the House.
    There is no party political divide on the desire to protect people from the circumstances that were described in this morning's papers. We all want to do that and give people the support that they deserve quickly and effectively. That is why last Wednesday I gave a clear commitment to provide a rapid improvement in the recruitment and retention of police and why, in addition to uniformed
    6
    police, there are 1,577 additional non-uniformed staff in the police service compared with last year. Those people matter because they improve the management and effectiveness of the delivery of the uniformed service.
    Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that Gloucestershire has more police than in 1997, but we need a proper debate on the visibility of the police and the effectiveness of the way in which they operate, which is no less relevant to rural areas. More than anything, we need a proper reform of the way in which we fund policing, especially in the light of the previous Tory Government's failure to fund police authorities properly.
    Mr. Blunkett: That is absolutely true. It is why the additional money from the spending review, £500 million in the coming year and £300 million the year after, will be good news for everyone who wants us to tackle head-on the disorder, antisocial behaviour and thuggery that make people's lives a misery.

    Police Authorities (League Tables)
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What proposals he has to introduce league tables for performance for police authorities in Wales. [611]
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): There are currently no plans to publish performance data specifically for Welsh police authorities. However, recorded crime statistics, to be released later this month, will be published in families of comparable basic command units and crime and disorder reduction partnerships. That will allow comparison of local police performance with similar areas elsewhere in England and Wales.
    Mr. Thomas: I hope that such proposals do not emerge and that there are no league tables for police performance in Wales. Will the Minister say a little more about the performance indicators that he mentioned? How can they measure non-numerative advances in policing? I think especially of progress in restorative justice and in community policing, such as today's decision not to prosecute people for the possession of cannabis in parts of London, and the steps being taken in decision-led policing, which is increasingly being used in a sophisticated approach to solving crime. How can any performance measures take account of those? Does the Minister have anything to say about the use of performance measures to enhance the retention of police officers?
    Mr. Denham: I agree that modern policing requires the effective use of resources, which must be devoted to the right targets to ensure that we are tackling and reducing crime. It is important that performance indicators, which are used, for example, in best value, are capable of capturing a range of different measures of the effectiveness of the police and of reinforcing best practice.
    In the near future, we will consult the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities on the indicators to be used in the coming year. The public, who pay for the police service, have a right to a range of useful information about the

    7
    effectiveness of the police and our success or failure in the fight against crime, so that they know whether their local police are doing well or whether their performance needs to be improved.
    Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend think that it was a sensible use of police time for a Welsh police authority, two years ago, to have prosecuted and subsequently jailed two men for using cannabis, although they were suffering from severe illnesses? That drug is now being decriminalised in parts of London. Is it right that the police are doing the job that we politicians have dodged? Is it sensible to have creeping decriminalisation by postcode? Should we not stop wasting the time of the police, the jails and the courts in prosecuting people for using a drug that is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is wrong about the position in London. In Brixton, the divisional commander has made a decision about the use of police resources so that he can prioritise those crimes that do most damage to the community, particularly the peddling of hard drugs. It is not the case that cannabis has been decriminalised or the law changed. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has expressed his interest in the experiment in Brixton and his belief that resources need to be targeted at hard drugs. My hon. Friend knows well that there is a research programme dealing with the potential medicinal use of cannabis or its extracts that is akin to the research for any prescribable drug. We all await the results of those tests.
    Dr. Robert Spink: Does the Minister agree that we need league tables for English and Welsh police authorities if we are to spread best practice, as we must? Will he confirm, however, that he cares about the independence of all police authorities?
    Mr. Denham: Nothing that has been said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or any other Minister in this Government has suggested that we should remove the operational autonomy of chief constables. It is quite right that we should publish information showing how well the police service is performing and, through the new standards unit, be able to identify best practice and ensure that it is spread as quickly and effectively as possible across police forces throughout England and Wales.

    Antisocial Behaviour Orders
    Kevin Brennan: If he will make a statement on the number of antisocial behaviour orders that have been successfully sought since their introduction. [612]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend.
    Up to 31 March this year, 214 antisocial behaviour orders had been issued across England and Wales. Thirty-three of the 43 police authority areas have been responsible for their issue. I hope very much that there will be an acceleration in that programme.
    Kevin Brennan: Will my right hon. Friend be able to take steps to ensure a much more widespread use of
    8
    antisocial behaviour orders? Does he share my concern that I have come across many people in my constituency who have been disappointed that the police and the local authority are not making greater use of such orders, which, together with measures to tackle the causes of crime, represent a potent weapon in the fight against crime and disorder?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I do. I am sorry that it looks as though only one antisocial behaviour order has so far been issued in my hon. Friend's area. I hope that, by examining any suggestions for slimming down the procedures and speeding up the process, we shall be able to persuade local authorities and the police to take them up. Of course, they are civil orders—and were opposed for that reason—as opposed to criminal orders, which are available as part of broader community sentencing.
    I read in The Times this morning an article that suggested that I was about to abandon antisocial behaviour orders. The article was full of all sorts of other inaccuracies. I want to make it clear that, far from abandoning them, I want to strengthen them and spread them more widely.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: Three years ago, when considering the proposals in Committee, I warned the Government that antisocial behaviour orders would be unworkable and over-bureaucratic. Ministers responded that more than 5,000 would probably be made every year. Is not the fact that only just over 200 have been made evidence that this flagship policy has been an utter failure and flop? What will the Government do to stop these orders? They are an absolute waste of time.
    Mr. Blunkett: So, we have someone who warned before the orders were introduced that they would be a failure, and who now thinks that, because the procedures adopted are not in line with what he believes, the orders are a failure—even though more than 200 have been issued and only 10 per cent. have failed to achieve their goal, which is a tremendous record compared with other aspects of the application of the law. Other Conservative Members want us to slim down the procedure so that the orders might be used more effectively. I wonder which faction the hon. Gentleman will be backing and which of the candidates for the leadership are for or against antisocial behaviour orders. On the Government Benches, we are wholeheartedly in favour of using them to protect people in the neighbourhoods and on the estates that are bedevilled by crime.
    Ross Cranston: May I assure my right hon. Friend that antisocial behaviour orders are working—despite what is said from the Opposition Benches? In Dudley, some eight have been issued already and another seven are in the pipeline. They are having a ripple effect in the community. However, there are some technical problems. One is non-appearance by defendants. Cases can of course be proved in absence, but there is a reluctance among the authorities to do so because that means releasing to defendants the details of complainants.

    9
    Will my right hon. Friend look at some of the technical problems to ensure that antisocial behaviour orders have a beneficial effect in all parts of the UK?
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right, and yes we will.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Like the constituents of a number of Members, some of my constituents—some elderly and others young families—are having their lives made a misery by the activities of neighbouring households. The right hon. Gentleman has, effectively, challenged my right hon. Friends and I on what we would do to deal with such people. The way is to make it easier to have them evicted. The one prospect that really puts fear into those people is that of eviction. No one should be allowed to use security of tenure as an excuse to enable them to continue to terrorise their neighbours.
    Mr. Blunkett: One thing that is undeniable is that a considerably greater number of people whose lives are bedevilled by antisocial behaviour by their neighbours come to Labour Members' surgeries—including mine—than come to most Opposition Members' surgeries. That is because the incidence of such crime and nuisance tends to lie in areas of greatest disadvantage, and that is why we are totally committed to doing something about it. I shall co-ordinate plans with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to take whatever steps are necessary—whether using social housing or some other means—to ensure that we get such measures in place. However, simply evicting people, without a court order, would be denounced overnight by the Opposition—and quite rightly, too.

    Criminal Assets (Confiscation)
    John Robertson: What plans he has to confiscate the assets of serious criminals. [613]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): As part of our manifesto commitment to crack down on crime, we announced the proceeds of crime Bill in the Queen's Speech. The Bill will attack the profit motive that drives organised crime. It will reform confiscation procedures, modernise the criminal law on money laundering, establish an agency with powers to recover criminal assets—including through a new form of civil litigation—extend the provisions for forfeiture of cash derived from or intended for use in crime, and provide for the taxation of criminal gains.
    John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that there has been substantial investment in the new Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which has been welcomed universally by those in my constituency who try to fight drugs. However, a drug knows no boundaries, so how does my hon. Friend envisage his Department's scope in relation to the Scottish Executive in fighting that evil trade throughout the whole country?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I can assure my hon. Friend that the proceeds of crime Bill will apply in Scotland as well as
    10
    in England and Wales. We are discussing its provisions with, and have received full co-operation from, members of the Scottish Executive. That consultation process will continue to make absolutely certain that there are no loopholes when dealing with the purveyors of organised crime, many of whom are involved in drugs trafficking.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Minister will probably know that in the Republic of Ireland there is a Criminal Assets Bureau dealing with confiscation of such assets. Is he aware that many of those who have dealt with the bureau—myself included—believe that the balance is tilted too much in favour of the bureau? It is very important to establish law that ensures that, if there is to be a confiscation of criminal assets, the burden of proving the fact that they are indeed criminal assets must rest firmly on those seeking the order, and that the standard of proof is a high one. Otherwise, injustice will be done.
    Mr. Ainsworth: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has studied the Irish experience, he will know that our country's record on the recovery of the proceeds of crime is not good. Taking into account the different sizes of economies, we recover about a quarter of that which the United States recovers, and about a tenth of that which Ireland manages to recover. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman supports our general thrust, which is to make certain that we bear down on the profits of crime and that we improve our record considerably.
    John Mann: In my constituency, historically, many problems were sorted out down the pit, but a previous Government shut the vast majority of the pits in my constituency. Can we expect this Government to continue to pursue stronger policies that will lead to the harassment of the harassers and allow ordinary, decent people in my constituency to go about their business in peace?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The proceeds of crime Bill is about bearing down on organised crime rather than issues of harassment. I assure my hon. Friend that it should apply underground as well as overground.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I welcome the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends to their new posts. Does he recognise that the Government have created a problem for themselves with their proposals, given that the Prime Minister decided that none of the previous Home Office Ministers should continue in their posts, so the entire team was either promoted, moved or fired; and given that the new team of which the hon. Gentleman is a part does not have a single legal qualification among its members?
    Does the Minister recognise that Labour's friends among human rights lawyers are already pointing out to The Guardian that the Government's only Human Rights Act—that of 1998—will make it difficult for the new Bill to be compatible with that Act? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise also that there is a real issue about confiscating the assets of those who have never been convicted by a criminal court? How does he reckon that he can square the circle between confiscating the assets of those who are convicted and confiscating the assets of those who have never faced a criminal conviction?
    Mr. Ainsworth: We will introduce the Bill after the summer recess. I hope that we will have the co-operation of Opposition Members, even if they are legally qualified. We shall obviously seek to ensure that our proposals are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. I have confidence that we shall be able to do so.

    Youth Inclusion
    Jim Dobbin: If he will make a statement on the effectiveness of youth inclusion projects in high-crime areas. [614]
    The Minister for Prisons (Mr. Keith Bradley): There are currently 64 youth inclusion projects helping about 3,500 hard-to-reach young people in the most deprived neighbourhoods in England and Wales.
    We expect the evaluation report in the autumn. Meanwhile, early indications from the first wave of projects, which started in April 2000, are encouraging. They point to reduced crime, development of local delivery capacity and increased local community engagement. Burglary has been reduced by an average of 14 per cent. and criminal damage by a third.
    Jim Dobbin: I thank the Minister and welcome him to his new post. Does he agree that it is vital to involve young people in constructive activities, such as the programme called "make a difference", which was introduced by the chief constable for Greater Manchester and which encourages schools to take part in community environmental projects and community security projects for pensioners, to refer to only two examples? There is also the youth inclusion project on the Langley estate in Middleton in my constituency, which does a similar job. Surely this is the way to re-engage young people with communities and to help to reduce youth crime.
    Mr. Bradley: I welcome the initiative taken by Greater Manchester police and the fact that the youth inclusion project on the Langley estate has so far attracted about 200 young people—13 to 16-year-olds—in a variety of projects in the area, which I know well as a Manchester Member. The early feedback from the project shows a positive reaction from the young people, the workers who are involved and the volunteers who are also working with the scheme. I hope that we shall be able to extend it in future years, to ensure that we target more young people who are at risk in the community.
    Simon Hughes: I understand that when Home Office Ministers arrived in the Department they were briefed that the two major issues of concern to the public were the amount of violent crime and the amount of recurring crime committed by young people, especially in urban areas. Evidence shows that many of the young people concerned live in areas of high unemployment with few prospects of alternative activity. Police clear-up rates are extremely low, being a quarter or less. The punishments that are normally given to the youngsters involved are noticeably unsuccessful at stopping early reoffending.
    On behalf of the Home Secretary and his colleagues, will the Minister make it clear that what the Home Secretary indicated last week will be their policy—that they are willing to engage in a real debate across the
    12
    parties and more widely about what works in terms of sentencing—and that we shall have an end to Home Office pronouncements by Home Office Ministers that amount to soundbites and gimmicks announced before consultation, which are adhered to irrespective of the weight of the evidence or of how unsuccessful they are?
    Mr. Bradley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, while there are briefings in the Home Office when new Ministers arrive, we also brief ourselves from our experience in our own communities. Certainly, from my own experience in Manchester, I am aware that the issue of youth crime is of great importance. I only have to talk to my own constituents to be reinforced in our drive to ensure that we have effective policies, including sentencing policy, for that particular group. I can also repeat the Home Secretary's assurance and offer last week: that everyone in the House, of every party, is welcome to give their views on the matter. We want to develop measures consensually and ensure that everyone has the opportunity to express positive views so that we can reflect on them before we introduce legislation.

    Young Offenders (Drugs)
    Mr. David Borrow: What plans he has to ensure that all young offenders with drug problems are identified, assessed and treated for their drugs problems. [616]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): Our aim is to reduce repeat offending among all drug misusing offenders by 25 per cent. by 2005, and by 50 per cent. by 2008. For young offenders in particular, we have introduced a raft of measures to tackle the problem of drug abuse, including a comprehensive drug strategy for young offenders in prison; the Youth Justice Board is extending the drug treatment programmes and services available to juveniles. In addition, we have introduced the drug treatment and testing order, a new community sentence targeted at problem drug users aged 16 and over.
    Mr. Borrow: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. In Leyland, in my constituency, there is genuine concern that young people with drug problems who are not classed as young offenders still have to wait far too long to get access to drug treatment; they often have to leave Leyland and go to other places to get treatment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that local drug services be readily available, both for offenders and non-offending young people with drug problems? I am highlighting Leyland in my constituency, but such problems exist in many areas, which is unacceptable. If the drug strategy on which the Cabinet Office, the Home Office and the Department of Health are working is to be effective, those waiting times need to be speeded up and access to facilities improved.
    Beverley Hughes: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, not least because we want to prevent young people who may be misusing substances from getting into offending. My hon. Friend therefore makes an important point, and I commend him on the interest that he has taken in the issue in his own constituency. Under the 10-year strategy, £153 million has been allocated to young

    13
    people's services over the next three years. Only £24 million of that sum is for youth justice; the rest is to be used to develop non-offending specific services for young people. The new National Treatment Agency, established in April, will oversee that development.
    My hon. Friend is right: because we recognised the unevenness of provision across the country, the Government took that initiative last year. I can also tell him that, at the very least, a new community drugs team is planned for Leyland, in addition to the Chorley team, which will begin to have an impact soon.
    Mr. John Bercow: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. Do she and her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rule out any possibility whatever, during their tenure at the Home Office, of the decriminalisation of cannabis?
    Beverley Hughes: Let me make it clear: in our 10-year national drug strategy, we had a top priority—
    Mr. Bercow: Answer the question: yes or no.
    Beverley Hughes: I shall answer the question in my own time and in my own way. Our priority is to deal with class A drugs, which do the greatest harm. The Government have no intention of legalising controlled drugs, but we are interested in the experiment in Lambeth and in what it can help us to understand about the effective policing of the drugs that do most damage to our young people.
    Glenda Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that many young offenders are multiple drug abusers, and that one of the drugs for which there seems to be insufficient detoxification units in London is alcohol? If the Government do not yet have an alcohol strategy ready, will she consider including the abuse of alcohol in the existing drugs strategy?
    Beverley Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend. So far, services for alcohol misusers have concentrated too much on adults and not sufficiently on young people. My hon. Friend will know that, by March next year, the new drug action teams are required to produce plans for their areas to deal with young people's substance misuse across the spectrum of drugs, including alcohol. In the light of those plans, we shall be discussing with the Department of Health what we need to do to put the focus on alcohol misuse. I agree with my hon. Friend that such a focus is necessary.

    Police Recruitment (Hampshire)
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about police recruitment in Hampshire. [617]
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): Recruitment by Hampshire police has increased in each of the past two years. The force took on 192 new officers in 2000–01, compared with 152 in 1999–2000, and 117 in 1998–99. Hampshire has been allocated 243 recruits from the crime fighting fund over the three years to March 2003. The force recruited 19 CFF
    14
    officers in 2000–01. The force's latest forecast is that it will take on 121 officers through the CFF in the current year.
    Mr. Swayne: The Minister will be aware that crime in Hampshire is rising—it is up by 7 per cent. Notwithstanding what he said, there are fewer police officers in Hampshire than there were at the time of the 1997 election: we are running faster just to stand still. The Minister knows that the recruitment of officers under the crime fighting fund last year had to be deferred to this year because officers of the right calibre could not be found. Does that surprise him, given that a trainee manager at a McDonald's restaurant can earn more than a Hampshire police recruit?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman and I share a common interest in ensuring that Hampshire is successful in recruiting police officers, as we both represent Hampshire constituencies. The Hampshire constabulary was the first that I was able to visit and see at close hand after my appointment to my present job. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this year, which is the first year in which the impact of the new allowances agreed earlier this year will be felt, we will see the increase in recruitment to the Hampshire constabulary that everyone wants. Right across the country, police numbers are going up as a result of the ring-fenced funding—the crime fighting fund—that is going to the police force. Because those numbers are going up, we can be confident that we will achieve record numbers of police officers in England and Wales in the lifetime of this Parliament.
    Sandra Gidley (Romsey): I wish I could share the Minister's optimism, but unfortunately in Romsey we are only too acutely aware of the decrease in police numbers, as we have lost seven officers recently. Bearing in mind the fact that many young police men and women in Hampshire cannot contribute to the police pension fund because they simply cannot manage on the money, and that the chief constable asked for £2,000 a year extra as the Hampshire weighting and that was not given, how will the Minister redress the problems that are not being resolved? Will he take notice of the chief constable of Hampshire?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Lady is also a Hampshire Member of Parliament, and it does not do a great deal for police recruitment in Hampshire to overstate its problems, as she has been doing. The wastage from the Hampshire police service is lower than in any of the other seven forces covered by the new allowance agreed by the police negotiating body. However, I assure the hon. Lady that I am not in any way complacent. Despite those figures, I hear stories and concerns, and I assure her that I will consider carefully whether there are any trends in recruitment or people leaving the force that we should be concerned about, so that we can make sure that we have the best practice in recruitment and retention in place in every police service.
    I hope, for example, that in the not too distant future, Hampshire may be one of the areas that benefits from the new starter home initiative aimed at key public sector workers, although that decision and announcement are yet

    15
    to be made. We are continually examining ways of addressing the real issues that arise, but let us not overstate the current situation.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities. Does he agree that police morale is at the heart of the recruitment and retention problems both in Hampshire and across the country? Is he aware that there has been a very large increase every year in the number of officers who voluntarily resign from the regular police service and that the number of special constables—which is down by one third since 1997—has collapsed?
    Does the Minister not understand why police are demoralised? Does he understand that they are demoralised when they see criminals who have been convicted and sentenced to months of imprisonment released in just weeks? Does he understand that they are demoralised when it takes them a whole shift to do the paperwork for one arrest? Does he understand that the time-wasting bureaucracy of the best value system as it currently operates is wasting police officers' time behind desks when they could be out on the streets doing their jobs?
    Mr. Denham: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about police morale. Whenever I meet front-line officers, I am struck by their commitment to the job that they are doing and by their love for the job. However, the hon. Gentleman was right on one point: front-line police officers express frustration about aspects of their job that prevent them from doing the job of policing as they would like. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bureaucracy. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have already instituted a study of the daily diary of police officers on the front line to identify how that issue can be tackled.
    Parts of the criminal justice system need overhauling. Changes to the sentencing regime, for example, were being discussed earlier in this Question Time, and we recognise that that issue needs to be tackled. It is also true that front-line officers often feel frustrated with the quality of support that they receive, including the equipment that is made available to them. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that the commitment is there. We must support police officers. When there are real problems, we will tackle them.

    Drug Abuse
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If he will set up a royal commission on drug abuse. [620]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I am not in favour of royal commissions and never have been. They are a way of putting off decisions that should be taken by those who carry responsibility for them. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) said in answering Question 6, we are of course prepared to update and respond to information and advice, including that from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, in developing the 10-year drug strategy.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. Does he not think that, halfway through the 10-year
    16
    strategy, this is an appropriate time to stand back and examine the effectiveness of the current drug policy? The most recent independent inquiry was conducted 18 months ago by the Police Foundation, and some of the proposals that are now being implemented in Lambeth were recommended in that report by Ruth Runciman. Those recommendations have only now been accepted by the Government.
    The circumstances surrounding the issue are changing almost daily. Last month, for example, The Guardian published a compelling series of articles by Nick Davies on the ineffectiveness of the Government's strategy. The Secretary of State may not be prepared to have a royal commission, but does he accept the need for an adult and open forum for discussion so that we can consider some of the consequences of this terrible scourge, including drug/crime links and better treatment for addicts?
    Mr. Blunkett: I accept that there is room for an adult and sensible debate that has, as a common cause, the need to deal with the misuse of class A drugs, which bring misery to individuals, families and the wider community. The fact is that 30 per cent. of those who are arrested are found to have taken heroin or crack cocaine. In some parts of the country, the situation is desperate for the families involved. We all need to discuss the issues openly and sensibly, without blunt questions such as "yes or no: are you or are you not?", so that we can have sensible answers that respond to the public need.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: The trials for the medicinal use of cannabis have now entered their third phase, which suggests to me that it is highly likely that evidence will be available shortly that cannabis has medicinal properties. If that is proved to be the case later this year, will it lead to a reclassification of the substance?
    Mr. Blunkett: There is a difference between the classification of the substance and the use of the residue in terms of medical application. I shall be interested to see the evidence as soon as possible on the latter point, and to deal with it accordingly.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: I agree with the Home Secretary that royal commissions are just a way of playing issues into the long grass—appropriate, perhaps, for cannabis. Does the Home Secretary accept that the issue is becoming urgent? When statutes and penalties that are on the statute book are not being applied on the streets, that brings the law, the police force and, ultimately, this place into disrepute. Should not these matters be brought into line sooner rather than later?
    Mr. Blunkett: I liked the joke. I noticed in an article in a newspaper for which I normally have a great deal of time that what is an experiment has been dubbed "chaotic policy". We need to monitor, and we need the police to use discretion without there being a feeling that the whole policy is unravelling. That is part of a sane and sensible debate. Credibility in terms of prioritisation of the use of police time and resources has to be applied on the ground, and it is, day in, day out; not just in terms of wider substance abuse, but in the way in which local communities are policed. Since taking office, I have heard

    17
    cries that, on the one hand, we should allow the police discretion and, on the other, that any discretion would somehow dismantle the overall policy.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Derek Twigg: What measures he plans to introduce to tackle antisocial behaviour. [625]
    Vernon Coaker: What plans he has to tackle antisocial behaviour in local communities. [626]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): The Government are determined to tackle antisocial behaviour and disorder and have taken a range of initiatives. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced crime and disorder partnerships, antisocial behaviour orders and changes to the youth justice system.
    Derek Twigg: During the general election campaign, the biggest single issue raised with me was antisocial behaviour and nuisance caused by young people, from which the communities around Dundalk road and Our Lady's Roman Catholic church in particular have suffered over the last six months. One of the problems is that some parents—albeit a minority—think that there is nothing wrong with a 12, 13, 14 or 15-year-old having alcohol and being dropped off at a local trouble spot and left there until 11 or 12 o'clock at night. Clearly, there is a problem in terms of community involvement. What initiatives can be taken in this regard? In Widnes, on a number of weekend evenings, there have been only two police officers available to deal with the problems. While we are getting some extra officers in the near future, police numbers need to be increased substantially in areas such as mine.
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right, and anyone who has been on the doorsteps in the last month or two will have had the same experience. We all understand the importance of cracking down on disorder and antisocial behaviour. This matter needs to be taken seriously by parents, people in communities and the authorities. My hon. Friend may want to know that, in September, the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 will introduce provisions that will allow public drinking to be banned from particular areas. That will make it a lot easier for police enforcement, because there will not be a problem with local byelaws.
    Vernon Coaker: Will my hon. Friend look at the measures that we as a Government can take to put pressure on local authorities to use the powers they have to tackle antisocial behaviour in their communities, in conjunction with the police? In particular, will my hon. Friend look at the powers that local authorities have to do something about antisocial tenants who sign a tenancy agreement that, frankly, as far as Gedling borough council is concerned—and, I am sure, many others—is not worth the paper it is written on, since the tenants continue to have noisy parties, to abuse their neighbours, to have untidy gardens and to carry on in a way that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens find an absolute disgrace?
    Angela Eagle: I am not sure that we should have compulsory gardening, much as I would like that. However, we need to take the issue seriously. On 1 October, there will be new housing and land rules that will enable courts to deal with serious harassment more quickly. There is also an issue in the private sector that has yet to be tackled.
    Tony Baldry: Does the Minister appreciate that most people concerned with tackling antisocial behaviour want not new initiatives but more police officers? Since the Labour Government came to office, the Thames Valley force has increased its strength by just eight officers. Indeed, over the past year, the number of officers in the area fell by 37.
    I endorse everything said by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) earlier. There is indeed a serious problem in the Thames valley. May I ask the Home Secretary, through the Minister, whether he will receive an all-party delegation of Members from the Thames valley after the summer recess to discuss the issue? It is not a matter on which any of us wants to make party political points, but there is serious concern about police strength, recruitment and retention in the area. It is no good the Government coming up with more and more initiatives on antisocial behaviour if there are simply not the officers there to enforce them.
    Angela Eagle: It is important, when people are having the life tormented out of them by antisocial behaviour, that the police and local authorities take it seriously and take responsibility for dealing with it, ensuring that such behaviour stops. That is where antisocial behaviour orders can be very useful. Clearly, Home Office Ministers will receive delegations from Members who want to present information to them. I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman gets in touch with my right hon. Friend, he will be on his way to the Home Office—at least, as part of a delegation—after the summer.

Northern Ireland
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on recent developments in Northern Ireland.
As the House will know, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) resigned as First Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly with effect from yesterday. I regret his resignation, and the reasons that brought it about. He has played a courageous part in the process so far and will, I am sure, continue to do so. Under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which implemented the devolution arrangements in the Good Friday agreement, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) automatically ceases to hold office as Deputy First Minister at the same time. Both have provided distinguished leadership to the devolved Executive over the past year or more—a year in which the four parties in the Executive have worked together to tackle real problems on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Under the Act, the Assembly must hold an election to fill the vacant offices of First and Deputy First Minister within six weeks. In the meantime, the functions of both offices can be exercised, but if that period expires without a successful election, I am obliged to propose a date for fresh Assembly elections.
We face a serious and sombre situation in Northern Ireland, but I think that it is right at the outset to recall the progress that we have already made: a new Assembly; devolution of power to a cross-community Executive; new North-South and British-Irish institutions; new protection for human rights and equality of opportunity; new policing legislation; and the first recruitment exercise for the new Northern Ireland police service, on a 50:50 basis. All that is already under way.
This process has, I believe, created the conditions of stability and confidence in Northern Ireland in which economic development is thriving. What we have achieved so far has been the result of efforts by all the parties in Northern Ireland. Of course, we still face many challenges: to ensure the stability and full operation of all the political institutions; to deliver a police service that attracts and sustains support from the community as a whole; and to take further steps towards the normalisation of security arrangements, as the threat diminishes.
Crucially, the basis for progress in Northern Ireland is the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in full, in all its aspects. That requires every party to be committed, and to be seen to be committed, exclusively to democratic, non-violent means. It requires that every party rejects the use of force or the threat of the use of force.
It also means that, as the institutional, social and legal changes set out in the Good Friday agreement are implemented, they must be accompanied by the putting of illegal weapons completely beyond use. In this, of course, we all have a collective responsibility, but some parties have a particular position of influence with the paramilitaries and, under the Good Friday agreement, are obliged to use such influence to achieve decommissioning.
20
It is because there remain problems in implementing the Good Friday agreement in full, as I have described, that I am here today to report further developments to the House. Over the weekend, we and the Irish Government received a further report from the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, chaired by General John de Chastelain. Both Governments have published the report today and a copy has been placed in the Library.
The report notes that during the past year, the Ulster Volunteer Force and Ulster Freedom Fighters representatives gave the commission general agreement on methods of decommissioning and supporting issues. It also notes the opening of some IRA arms dumps to inspections by the international inspectors.
Regrettably, however, the report also notes that despite previous commitments and assurances being reaffirmed in good faith, and all the paramilitary representatives wanting to continue to engage with the commission, there has been no decommissioning by the IRA, the UVF or the UFF to date.
The commission reports that the IRA representatives assured it of the IRA's commitment to put arms beyond use, completely and verifiably, on the basis it set out last year. This is, of course, welcome, but I am disappointed that the commission has still to receive answers to the other two key questions—how and when arms will be put beyond use. The simple fact is that the Good Friday agreement needs to be implemented in full.
The people of Northern Ireland want to see a fair and equal society, but they—indeed, as the Taoiseach has made clear, the people of Ireland, both North and South—insist that illegal arms must also be put completely beyond use, as part of the process of transformation. We will succeed only if we all work together to move forward in all these areas.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach said after their meetings in Northern Ireland on Thursday, there is now little time left to resolve the difficulties and obstacles that remain. We are determined to live up in full to our obligations under the Good Friday agreement; but others must do so as well. The agreement involved compromise—even pain—for all sides; it will not work if each side implements only those parts with which it is entirely comfortable.
The overwhelming desire of the people and parties in Northern Ireland is to see Northern Ireland's democratic institutions functioning as intended. They are valued greatly. They want to see them working, not suspended, but on the basis of a total commitment by all to democracy and exclusively peaceful methods.
I expect to be working with the parties, together with the Irish Foreign Minister, this week. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have stated their clear determination to engage intensively to resolve these issues as soon as possible.
I will not hide from the House the difficulties we face. We have seen, in recent weeks, the dangers when politics appears to be stalling. There have been murderous sectarian attacks. People have been intimidated out of their homes. Young children have been used as pawns in sectarian disputes and, as so often, the police have had to step in, with the support of the Army, to maintain the peace and uphold the rule of law. In the course of so doing, 57 police officers were injured on one day at the

21
end of May in Portadown, and a further 39 in north Belfast, on the evening of 21 June alone. The security forces have come under attack from a range of missiles, including petrol, acid and blast bombs, and shots have been discharged too.
Nevertheless, Saturday's Whiterock parade in Belfast passed off relatively peacefully. I commend the responsible attitude taken by the vast majority of those on both sides in a very tense situation, as we approach further parades and marches over the coming weeks.
In the corning weeks, all of us must show that it is politics, not violence, which works. After such a long period of division, death and deep pain, it is not surprising that we face difficult challenges. But these hurts of the past impel all of us to find a way through to peace and stability for the future—a way that ensures that the bomb and the bullet are put completely beyond use as a way of solving our problems. This is not a matter of victory or defeat for one side or the other. It can only be a victory for all of us and all of the people in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: This is a very bad day for the people of Northern Ireland, but it is an almost inevitable day, because the Government have appeased the men of violence and are now paying the price. I put it to the Secretary of State that the Belfast agreement has not been implemented by the Government. He stated today that the agreement was a deal, but the deal has not been met. Every single terrorist prisoner has been released from jail, yet not one gun nor one ounce of Semtex has been handed in.
Does not the Secretary of State agree that the process started by John Major has been squandered by his Government and his Prime Minister? Would the Secretary of State be good enough to reiterate to the House what his Prime Minister said to the people of Northern Ireland at the time of the referendum? He gave pledges, in his own handwriting, that there would be decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives ahead of all terrorists being released and ahead of Sinn Fein members of the Assembly becoming Ministers in the Executive. He has let the people of Northern Ireland down.
The Prime Minister has also let down my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I commend everything that the First Minister has done in terms of moderate Unionism and trying to keep the people of Northern Ireland together. I regret to conclude that he has been right to resign: he had no possible alternative.
Will the Secretary of State look again at General de Chastelain's report? After all this time, without a gun or an ounce of Semtex having been handed in, the general reports to us that the IRA has not spelled out how it intends to put arms beyond use. It is not surprising that the arms have not been put beyond use, because the IRA has got what it wanted: it has got all its terrorists out and Sinn Fein members as Ministers.
I have several questions for the Secretary of State. Assuming that no decommissioning occurs in the foreseeable future, will he bring before the House or before the Assembly an order that excludes Sinn Fein Ministers? They cannot remain as Ministers when those to whom they are inextricably linked have not given up violence and have not decommissioned any of their weapons. Secondly, if it is necessary to reintroduce direct rule, can we have an absolute assurance that there will be
22
no question of increasing the involvement of the Dublin Government in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom? Finally, will the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be absolutely no question that—to obtain decommissioning—the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be further reduced and demoralised or security arrangements put at risk? Those questions need to be answered in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
Dr. Reid: It has just occurred to me that I may have made a slip of the tongue and said that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had resigned his position from the Assembly. I should, of course, have said the Executive, since he remains in the Assembly as leader of the Ulster Unionist party and obviously as an honoured Member of this House as well.
I think that we should distinguish between sound and fury and constructive engagement in a process that all of us—at least those on these Benches and, I think, all in Northern Ireland—still want to succeed. It is important, in so doing, that we should be seen to have kept our side of the bargain, to have acted honourably and to have gone as far as we possibly could, as I believe the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has done, because of his will to meet the circumstances of a peaceful Northern Ireland. I do not think that it helps in that process when a few cheap debating points are thrown across the Chamber.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) may regard human rights incorporated into Northern Ireland society, the equality agenda or a police service that is acceptable to and participated in by the whole community as unworthy objectives that are merely concessions and appeasement to Sinn Fein. I believe that they are good things in a modern democracy. If we are, from a position of moral and political legitimacy, to criticise anyone in this process for failure to meet their commitments, we are better placed to do so if we can illustrate, as this Government can, that we have met our commitments in all these areas.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell spoke of what might happen in the case of exclusion, suspensions or the process falling apart. The Prime Minister, the Government and I are intent not on suspending parts of the agreement or excluding people from it but—because it is the will of the people of Northern Ireland, expressed in overwhelming numbers in a referendum—on implementing the agreement and saying to everyone who has signed up to it that they are obliged, politically and morally, to implement it as well. That is not because I say so and not because the right hon. Member for Upper Bann or anyone else in this House says so, but because the agreement was supported by the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland. It is their will that we are all engaged in implementing.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: I think that most people in the House this afternoon will deprecate the grandstanding of the Opposition spokesman. I compliment my right hon. Friend on the very clear and measured tone of his statement this afternoon and of his remarks on television and radio over the weekend. I think that most would share the view that the First Minister's resignation is highly regrettable but also, I am afraid, inevitable in the circumstances.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Sinn Fein's logic-chopping over the British Government's failure to implement and fulfil every last dot and comma of our

23
obligations is, frankly, risible in the light of the IRA's refusal even to have a sustained telephone conversation with General de Chastelain's decommissioning body? More importantly, does he also agree that for the coming talks on decommissioning, security normalisation and police reform to be successful, the two Governments must stand together and be equally involved in making a success of these talks? It is very important for the Irish Government to identify themselves strongly with an agreed position with the British Government. Is my right hon. Friend confident that that will be the case?
Dr. John Reid: I thank my right hon. Friend. On behalf of the House, I also thank him for his contribution to the whole peace process.
My right hon. Friend is right to point to the progress made. By definition, a process involves a series of events, some of which are interlinked, and many of those on constitutional issues are utterly interlinked. He is right to point to the fact that progress on the institutional side in Northern Ireland and on the social and legal side in recent years has been, by any standards, monumental: the establishment of the Assembly and of the Executive, and the powers passed to it; the incorporation of human rights—the Human Rights Commission; the equality agenda; and, on policing, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the police commissioner and the police ombudsman. There has been a whole host—a plethora—of moves forward.
There is a widely held perception in the whole island of Ireland—not led by me or, indeed, by the House, but by the Taoiseach, the Social Democratic and Labour party, every opposition party south of the border as well as every party north of the border, with the exception, I think, of Sinn Fein, and also expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—that any movement on decommissioning has not been commensurate with the movement made on other sides. We must all recognise that any agreement has to carry two sides. When people believe that the process is not advancing as it should in all its aspects, we run the risk of losing their support for that agreement. That is what should concern us: with due respect to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, it is not so much his resignation but what it symbolises—the concerns of the people whom he represents about the progress of the process.
As my right hon. Friend said in the second part of his contribution, it is necessary for the two Governments to work together. They have been working extremely closely together, and I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach has recently made his view on the issue plain—in the Dail, in public, and on radio and television: that is, that the decommissioning aspect is vital to the process; that all the parties must be seen to have eschewed not only violence but the threat of violence; and that the democratic process demands that there be further progress in putting paramilitary weapons beyond use.
Mr. David Trimble: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about me and for correcting so quickly the little slip that he made during his statement.
Will he confirm that the timing of my resignation as First Minister was determined wholly by the Government's decision to set June as the date for the full
24
implementation of the agreement? Does he remember coming to the House, towards the end of the previous Parliament, with provisions for the extension of the remit of the General de Chastelain commission until February next year? Does he recall the advice that we gave him then—that such renewals should be limited to the end of June? Does he appreciate that it would probably not have been necessary for me to resign had he followed the advice that we gave him then?
The Secretary of State has made reference to the report published today by the Decommissioning Commission. I am sure that he will confirm that a close reading of that report reveals that there has been absolutely no progress whatever by the republican movement in the discussions—brief, or whatever—held during the past few weeks or months. There has been no progress at all in carrying out the obligation in the agreement. During the past few months, I have made frequent references to the failure of the republican movement to keep the promise it made directly to us 14 months ago; but much more serious is its failure to keep the obligation in the agreement. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recalls that we made that agreement only after we had received assurances from the Prime Minister on the afternoon of 8 April 1998, one of which stated specifically that, in the Government's view, decommissioning had to begin immediately—immediately in 1998. It is more than three years later.
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that folk in Northern Ireland, across the board—I am not thinking of our own party's supporters or indeed of Unionists generally—will be appalled if, more than three years later, the failure of the republicans even to begin to keep their obligations is rewarded by the Government, by the making of further moves on policing that have already done so much to undermine policing in Northern Ireland? Does he not realise that the only way to see that that obligation is kept is to make it absolutely clear to republicans that they will suffer if they fail to carry out their obligations?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall what my colleague the Deputy First Minister said in an interview yesterday, when he invited the Government to take a lead in the matter and referred specifically to the Government's power to table provisions to exclude? Will the Government also consider what will now happen with regard to the Decommissioning Commission? Two deadlines—22 May 2000 and June 2001—have been ignored by the republicans. What will the Government now do with regard to the Decommissioning Commission's remit, bearing in mind the fact that the legislation has only some six months left to run and that there is now a very great urgency in ensuring that the issue is tackled?
Perhaps the Minister might like to point out the irony that republicans could have sustained progress over the past few months by taking even modest measures, but the situation can now be resolved only by ensuring that the issue is completely dealt with and resolved once and for all, and there is now less than six weeks left to do that.
Dr. Reid: On the last point, I think that most observers would remark that, in the course of the process, when things are done early, in good faith and with good heart, they have a much better effect than if there is a continuing concern and pressure for them to be done, and I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I also take the

25
point that the Deputy First Minister, as he was yesterday, has drawn to our attention the constitutional requirements and potential as regards exclusion. That is, of course, a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly in the last instance, on a cross-community basis, but I note what he says on that.
All I would say is that we are still committed to making the agreement work. We are still committed to implementing the agreement because my own view is that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland have concerns about the manner in which it is being implemented, but they want it to be implemented and, therefore, to turn away from that would not be to the benefit of any hon. Member or anyone in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that, at Hillsborough last May, the two Governments anticipated and, indeed, believed that substantial progress would be made on all those issues, including putting paramilitary weapons verifiably and permanently beyond use. That has not been done; it is reflected in the de Chastelain report, and I expressed in my statement deep disappointment about that. What we are now resolved to do in an urgent and intensive fashion is to engage once more with the parties—in particular but not exclusively to address the concern about paramilitary weapons. Of course, if other people have concerns, we have made it plain all along that we will listen to such concerns, but not to the exclusion of actual progress and putting paramilitary weapons beyond use.
Lembit Öpik: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is disappointing that, seven weeks after the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) expressed his intention to resign, no progress has taken place in the key areas that could have prevented that from happening? Does he also agree that it is good that the paramilitaries are still talking with the Decommissioning Commission, but that it is not good that deadline after deadline has come and gone and still a small group of paramilitaries, together with some hardliners, stand in the way of creating lasting peace?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept—I believe that it is very important to say this—that it is disappointing to hear Her Majesty's official Opposition apparently mixing up the role of the House with the responsibilities of those same paramilitaries to deliver that part of the Good Friday agreement which it is self-evidently in their hands to achieve, and that it will not be achieved simply by our passing resolutions in the Chamber? In that context, does he agree that the challenge is now for the British and Irish Governments to work together to create the conditions that will generate such public pressure in both key communities in the Province that the paramilitaries will filially realise that, for all their holding on to those weapons, they will not achieve a lasting settlement of interest and benefit to their own communities without finally renouncing control of the tools for war?
Finally, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that if he proceeds in a strategic way and works with Dublin in a public and open fashion with clear and specific deadlines, he will continue to have the support of the Liberal Democrats?
Dr. Reid: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's constructive comments, which—I regret to say—stand in contrast to the contribution made by the official Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman.
26
Yes, I welcome the fact that the paramilitaries are still talking to the de Chastelain commission and I should also place it on record that I welcome the fact that the IRA has opened up its arms dumps for inspection. That was welcomed by everyone and I do not for a minute diminish the significance of that.
However, just as we are prepared to meet our responsibilities, I ask everyone involved—on either the political or the paramilitary side—to reflect on their responsibilities. Very often, there can be commitment, sincerity and good faith all round, but people can make dreadfully wrong judgments. I do not want anyone to make dreadfully wrong judgments and that is why I share with the House my view that, although the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want the agreement implemented, they have great concerns about the manner in which it is being implemented. I hope that people will reflect on how to use their influence to make sure that what is probably the major concern is addressed. If they do that, they can be assured that every other party, including this Government and, I am sure, the Irish Government, will accept our responsibilities and use whatever influence we have.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has not the official Opposition Front-Bench spokesman entirely misjudged the position? We should not be entering into a party ding-dong in the current circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have agreed with him in the past on several issues and on what developments should take place, but we should be united in directing our attention towards Sinn Fein and the IRA. We should tell them that the time has finally come for decommissioning to take place.
I understand the concerns and arguments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). He has highlighted the fact that he had nowhere else to go. Therefore, everyone should be behind the demands that are being made and that point should be made as clearly as possible by Conservative Front Benchers as well as by the Government.
Dr. Reid: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In a liberal frame of mind, the best that I can say about the contribution of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is that it was perhaps motivated by frustration and anger at what he sees as a lack of progress on the issue. Frustration and anger, however, are very rarely a good guide to action.
Of course, we must be prepared to be determined to retain the integrity of the whole process and, in that sense, we must be ever watchful that it is implemented in all its aspects. The best way to do that is to maximise the unity of those people who are committed to its success. That is why I was heartened recently to hear that some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann were not exclusive to him. They have been made by people from different traditions and different parties and by people in different countries, such as the Taoiseach and the Opposition parties in southern Ireland.
Rev. Ian Paisley: From time to time, the Secretary of State has reminded my party and me that he was absolutely convinced that IRA-Sinn Fein would decommission their weapons. A long time has now

27
passed. Our view was scorned; it was abused in this very House when I expressed it and people said that we had no faith and that we should be prepared to take the leap.
Does the Secretary of State not realise from the tone of what has been said from the Government Front Bench that the heart of this matter rests with putting restrictions on IRA-Sinn Fein in government in Northern Ireland if they do not keep to the terms of the agreement? Sweet words from Bertie Ahern or from anyone else are no use. The IRA will not decommission. Therefore, it must pay the price of not decommissioning and sanctions must be taken against it. I agree fully with the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who made that point.
The Secretary of State must respond to urgent matters that concern the ordinary individuals of Northern Ireland. A serious security situation is arising. Will he assure me categorically that he will not put on the table to IRA-Sinn Fein conditions that will drastically change the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998? Will he also assure me that the watch towers in South Armagh, an area that members of the so-called Real IRA claim to be theirs, will not be demolished, because the people there live in fear of the Real IRA and its supporters?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm to the people of Northern Ireland that the full-time police reserve will not be laid off until security is fulfilled? Will he give them the opportunity, which is in law in the agreement, of an election to the Assembly so that they can say who they want to represent them? Knowing that the Secretary of State has read the hearts and minds of all Unionists, and bearing in mind the fact that the Prime Minister told me not long ago that the vast majority of Unionists agree on that, why does he not put it to the people?
Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his usual constructive contribution and I shall try to respond to the five points that he raised.
We believe that we have enshrined the Patten recommendations in legislation. If any parties believe that we have not and want to make their concerns known, we shall speak to them. The RUC has undertaken a monumental change in a very professional and very determined fashion. Any organisation would find such a change difficult even without coping with the security situation. However, if someone believes that we have not implemented parts of the Patten recommendations, we shall discuss that with them.
As for the military presence in Northern Ireland, if the threat lessens, we may be in a position to reduce it, but only on the recommendation of security advisers and so that it is commensurate with the threat. The hon. Gentleman might know that discussions on the full-time reserve are under way between the federation and the Chief Constable. They will take a little time and, again, any decision will be made in the light not only of those, but of the security situation.
On elections, it is my intention—so far as it is within my power—to implement the Good Friday agreement, not to suspend or exclude or throw aside sections of it. If we are asking others to implement aspects of it, we should be prepared to say that we, too, aim to do that. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that there will never be any circumstance in which we might have to take other action.
28
He understands that. However, it is not my intention to do that. My intention is, as far as possible, to leave those matters with the people of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that I had said that I was absolutely certain that the IRA would disarm. I think that he must have been speaking about some other Secretary of State. I have never been absolutely certain of anything in this process. I have exercised my judgment and said that I believe, on the basis of what I heard and the discussions that we had, that there was the will to put paramilitary weapons beyond use. Like any sensible person inside or outside the House, I make my judgments on the basis of evidence. People are beginning to question that evidence. I believe that it is still the will of those engaged in the process to put paramilitary weapons beyond use, but I am merely reflecting a general concern in political parties and the wider constituency of Northern Ireland that there should not be an indefinite time scale for that. It has to be part of the process, and it has to take place alongside the other changes that we are making.
David Winnick: Is it not the case that the IRA's refusal even to start putting its arms beyond use plays right into the hands of those Unionists, such as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who are totally opposed to the Good Friday agreement, regardless of any form of decommissioning whatsoever?
The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) certainly went over the top. Would not it be useful for the Conservatives to bear in mind the way in which, during the years in which Labour was in opposition, we fully supported the Government on Northern Ireland, even when they were found to be negotiating with the IRA, although there were always denials beforehand? That is the support that a responsible Opposition would give on Northern Ireland matters.
Dr. Reid: I think that we have said enough on that last point. My hon. Friend has made his point, and I shall merely reiterate what I believe to be the essence of the matter. Yes, there are many details to be addressed, and hon. Members have raised them, but the essence of the problem is that the agreement will not work if individual parties pick and choose which parts they are prepared to implement. The success of the agreement depends on its full implementation in all its aspects.
Secondly, cross-community consent and co-operation are at the heart of the agreement. Ultimately, the institutions and the agreement itself are sustained and sustainable only if they continue to command the support of both sides of the community. On the basis of that simple but profound knowledge of the nature of the agreement, I hope that everyone in the House and far more widely will reflect on the role that they have to play in ensuring that cross-community support continues.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Is it not tragic that we seem to have delivered extremist government in Northern Ireland? The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—a man with whom I have not always agreed but whom I greatly admire—has to resign his position, yet representatives of terrorist organisations remain in government, the RUC is being dismantled and terrorists are allowed on to the streets. Is not the reason for all that the fact that the agreement was slightly flawed in the first place? It was not watertight in

29
requiring decommissioning to take place before prisoners were released, and it does not allow Ministers to be removed from Government without the full agreement of both traditions in the Assembly. Is it not time to start again? In doing so, should we not be determined to place the blame for the situation where it really lies—not with the Unionists but with the terrorists in Northern Ireland?
Dr. Reid: I understand why the hon. Gentleman says what he says, but there is a misunderstanding. He speaks as though the agreement were a sort of legal insurance contract, whereby if the parties to it did not agree, we could take them to court and sue them.
This is an historic agreement—an historic compromise—based on the voluntary participation of people from different backgrounds, with different histories and different pain, although that pain may in a sense be indivisible, and they have come together to try to fit together the pieces that enable such an historic move to be made, but they all do so voluntarily. I can no more dictate to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, as anyone who knows him will know, than I can to the IRA or to the paramilitaries on the other side. I can of course use some sanctions, but, ultimately, we are all masters of our own fate in this matter, and, ultimately, if the agreement is to work, it must do so by the principle of consent. That is what we shall be trying to do during the next few weeks. Of course, in that, there will be benefits for everyone and difficulties for everyone, but if the agreement is to work, ultimately it must be with the full participation of every party to it.
The question is not just one of collective responsibility. Yes, we have collective responsibility but it is also a question of us using our appropriate influence. Just as I have some influence greater than other parties in some areas, so some parties have greater influence over the paramilitaries in that area. Therefore, it is no excuse, in order to avoid the use of our influence, to say that we all have responsibility. Yes, we do, but part of that responsibility is to use our influence in the area where it is most effective.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the process as a result of the Good Friday agreement has largely moved from open war to what one might call bad-tempered peace? Does he feel, like some on the Opposition Benches, that the problem is a shortage of rhetoric and ultimatums or does he agree that we must continue to seek progress in the spirit of the agreement? Will he confirm that, despite everything that we have said today, and despite the concern that we all feel about the deadlock, there is no evidence that any of the parties has turned away from the basic commitment to move towards a Northern Ireland at peace? If we had that impression, that would be the most serious issue of all. Will he confirm that they appear still to be intent on peaceful means?
Dr. Reid: My judgment is that all the parties to the agreement still wish to move towards a Northern Ireland where decisions are made by democratic and peaceful means—yes it is—but translating that into action is not easy, as the events of the past few days have shown. However, I am sure of one thing: the agreement will never be translated into action unless each and every aspect of it is addressed and we avoid one aspect appearing to lag
30
behind the others. It will not work that way because it will not take the broad swathe of the whole community and the two traditions with it. I think that it is as simple as that.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Those of us in the House who want a lasting peace in Northern Ireland will share the disappointment at today's events, of which the Secretary of State has spoken. He also spoke of good faith and of evidence. What evidence does he have of the good faith of the IRA and Sinn Fein in decommissioning weapons? Does he now come to the conclusion that many of us have reached that the IRA and Sinn Fein have no intention of decommissioning weapons and, indeed, probably never had any such intention? If he accepts that view, what will he do about it?
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman asked me a very fair question: what is the evidence? The evidence on which I base my judgment is not the psychoanalysis of any of the parties or individuals involved, but what has happened over the past five to 10 years. Many of the things that have happened would have been entirely outwith the realm of predicted possibility 10 years ago.
I would not want to assume that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the cessation of violence by the IRA was of huge significance, but I think that in the history of the past 30 years it was of considerable significance. He may not believe that the decision by the Irish Republican Army to open up its arms dumps was of huge historical importance, but anyone who knows anything about the history of the IRA knows that that was a hugely significant step. Therefore, there is evidence that the people who said that they were committed to going on this journey, as it is sometimes called, did indeed embark on the journey and wish to continue it. That is not the question.
The question is not whether nothing has happened—things have happened—but whether progress has been sufficient. I believe that progress has not been sufficient. Along with accompanying changes on the legal, social and institutional side in Northern Ireland, I believe that there was a commitment to make progress in putting paramilitary weapons beyond use. At the moment, not one weapon has been put beyond use. Therefore, to hold the view that there is evidence about the sincerity and commitment of those engaged in the process is perfectly compatible with believing at the same time that progress has been insufficient.
Mr. Stephen Pound: I can assure my right hon. Friend that his words on the futility of war and blood sacrifice spoken yesterday on the still blood-soaked fields of the Somme, surrounded by the ghosts of the lost generation, resonated far beyond those fields. They stand in stark contrast to much that I have heard in the Chamber this afternoon. When next he hears expressions like "Sinn Fein must pay the price", I ask him to look to the future, not the past. For a more stark and graphic example of the failure of constructive negotiation, he need not look much further than the fields that he saw yesterday.
Dr. Reid: Yesterday's visit to the battlefields of the Somme was a very moving experience, as it always is. One general point and one particular point came back to me. As my hon. Friend says, if there is anywhere on earth

31
that exhibits the tragedy of the failure to resolve differences by peaceful means, it is surely the Somme. First, I think that in about 48 hours during the opening of the battle, more than 5,500 members of the 36th Ulster Division died. The second point that came back to me, in historical terms, is that not far from the Ulster Tower is another monument—to the members of the 16th Division who also gave their lives. They were not from Ulster, but from the rest of Ireland. I was there with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann.
It struck me that in those circumstances, pain is indivisible. I am sure that, like me, the House does not want the next generation of young people in Northern Ireland to see more than 300 police officers killed and murdered, 40,000 or 50,000 people injured, and 3,500 families experience the pain of seeing their loved ones killed. We in this country should remember that to achieve commensurate figures for the rest of the United Kingdom, we would probably have to multiply those figures by 35 or 40: we would be talking about almost 100,000 dead. Preventing that from happening to the next generation is the measure of the prize that we can achieve if the process succeeds. I am sure that the vast majority of hon. Members want to achieve that.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I shall not give in to the temptation to follow the bizarre interpretation of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) of the events that led to the first world war. Given the equivocation that so often surrounds matters to do with Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State tell the House precisely what he means when he talks of putting illegal paramilitary weapons completely beyond use?
Dr. Reid: What I mean is an acceptance of some form of action, under the remit and legislation that has been given to him, by General John de Chastelain.
David Burnside: What precisely does the Secretary of State mean by sanctions? We have yet another deadline: there was 22 May and the end of June, and now we have another six weeks. Will he define sanctions against republicans and rewards for democrats? In the political set-up in Northern Ireland, the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party, the Alliance party and the Social Democratic and Labour party are purely and 100 per cent. committed to democracy. Other parties—Sinn Fein-IRA and loyalist paramilitary parties—still adhere to terrorism, violence and the threat of violence. In six weeks' time, what sanctions will he impose on terrorist-related parties and what reward will he give to the democrats in Ulster?
Mr. Reid: I said that a range of sanctions are open to all the parties and to the Government in a number of instances. One of the sanctions was raised yesterday by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the Deputy First Minister, and that was exclusion. The issue is not whether sanctions are hanging about but whether it is sensible and productive to use sanctions to exclude people from the process. I have made my view known, and it is that I am committed, as are the Government, not to suspending, excluding or putting people or parts out of the process, but to implementing the full agreement.
32
If the full agreement can be implemented, it will create a peaceful and prosperous Northern Ireland. Also, it is exactly what the people of Northern Ireland voted for in overwhelming numbers. I am concentrating on that. What sanctions might be available in what hypothetical situation should perhaps be considered when such a situation arises. At present, surely we should all be ascertaining what can be done to implement the full agreement, and thereby maintain the full support of the full community in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the main causes of concern in Northern Ireland has been the on-going process of concession to the IRA and Sinn Fein, with little or nothing in return? That is accepted on all sides.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept also that further concessions to the IRA and Sinn Fein as part of any fudged settlement on the question of terrorist arms would further increase alienation of the Unionist community and lead to further political instability in the long run?
All decent and right-thinking members of my constituency share the right hon. Gentleman's abhorrence of the attacks on the police that have taken place in my constituency, to which he has referred. However, they want assurances that the police will be present in sufficient numbers to protect them, that reforms such as reducing the number of police, as suggested by Patten, will not take place, and that police numbers will be maintained, with the police being strengthened, and not demoralised and decimated as proposed by the Government under the Patten reforms.
Mr. Reid: First, the hon. Gentleman seems to think that anything that has been agreed and already implemented arising from the agreement is somehow a concession. I do not accept that these things are concessions. Most constitute a major move forward in creating a new, open and democratic Northern Ireland, and should be seen as such.
Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman is asking me—if we leave the word "concession" aside—whether I realise that there is concern in Northern Ireland about how things have been implemented, with some things being implemented faster and more substantially than others, the answer is that I do.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked me about policing. The intent behind a police service that is participated in and accepted by the broad swathe of Northern Ireland society is to create the conditions, along with the rest of the agreement, where we do not have the sacrifices that had to be made by members of the RUC, with more than 300 deaths, and we do not have the widows who have been left—at the very least, not in the same numbers.
In implementing the agreement, I will listen carefully to my security advisers, including the Chief Constable. The operational capability of the RUC and then the Police Service of Northern Ireland will be of paramount importance, not least because that is what the people of Northern Ireland as a whole want. Catholics as well as Protestants are murdered. They are burgled and their cars are stolen. I want to see operational capability, but above all I want to see a Northern Ireland where the ultimate sacrifices that had to be made by so many in the RUC do not have to be made by the next generation.

Orders of the Day

  Homelessness Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.29 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I hope that the whole House will agree that losing one's home, and the security that goes with it, is one of the most harrowing experiences that anyone can face, and that the possibility of homelessness is often related to other life problems. Frailty brought about by old age, the breakdown of a marriage, drugs and mental health problems simply compound people's anguish.
  Earlier today, I spent some time at the Passage day centre in Victoria, and I should like to pay tribute to the remarkable work of Sister Ellen and her team of staff and volunteers. They not only provide the basics of food and clothing to homeless people but help them to find jobs, rediscover their self-confidence and their families and tackle their addiction to drugs and alcohol. If ever there was a justification for righting past wrongs—which the Bill seeks to do—I heard it from some of the people whom I met this morning.
  I met many people for whom the changes to be brought about by the Bill will make a genuine difference to their lives; those changes cannot come soon enough. I spoke to an ex-service man who, because he did not get the help that he needed when he left the forces, has been homeless ever since. I met someone else who, as a child, was in care; for him, the help given by the Passage, although welcome and essential, was too late. He needed help when he first had difficulties to prevent him from needing help now and from wasting years of his life.
  The principal aim of any decent society should be to support those in need in practical ways and when the need arises. Local authorities fulfil that role when they carry out their homeless duties. Every week, authorities, social landlords and voluntary bodies demonstrate practical compassion in helping individuals and families to manage the trauma of being without somewhere that they can call their own home.
  Members on both sides of the House know that the present system is far from perfect; the Government are determined to improve its operation. A demonstration of that commitment is the fact that the Bill—the first one to be introduced after the election—will offer hope and protection to some of the most vulnerable groups in society.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new position. He referred briefly to mental health. Does he accept that a high proportion of people who are out on the streets are suffering from mental health problems and that that has something to do with the policy, followed by successive Governments, of closing institutions where people with mental health problems could find refuge? Has he consulted his colleagues in the Department of Health about whether joint work by the two Departments can help people in that situation?
  Mr. Byers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations on my appointment. Perhaps for the first
  34
  and last time in this Parliament, I agree with the points that he made. The record of care in the community and the way in which we dealt with people with mental illness do not do credit to previous Administrations of both political persuasions. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the need for joint working between housing authorities, local authorities and authorities that have specific responsibilities for people with mental illness. I shall talk a little bit about joint working arrangements later, but I certainly endorse the broad thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  The Bill will enable local authorities to offer stronger protection to vulnerable families and individuals who find themselves homeless. It will lead to more effective strategies and services, both to help homeless people and, crucially, to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. It will help to ensure that everyone has the opportunity and choice of a decent home. The measure should not be seen in isolation. It is not a one-off, but part of a wider housing strategy set out in our housing Green Paper and in last year's policy statement entitled "The Way Forward for Housing".
  Our homelessness measures are complemented by a massive increase in investment, which will be crucial. The investment includes doubling the Housing Corporation's budget for new affordable housing, which will amount to an extra £872 million being made available for that purpose; a target of 100,000 new or improved homes for low-cost rent or ownership over the next three years; doubling the programme of affordable housing in small rural settlements; and increasing resources for local authority investment from £750 million in 1997–98 to £2.5 billion by 2003–04.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I congratulate him on his appointment. He referred to affordable housing and the sum that would be given to the Housing Corporation to increase the stock of affordable housing available. What does he think affordable housing is, and what should it cost? One of the biggest problems is deciding what affordable housing means. I would grateful if, as a new Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman could give the House his view.
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman will agree, I think, that the worst thing would he for us from the centre in London to impose a blanket view for the whole country on what constitutes affordable housing. We need flexibility, allowing local areas to respond to local need and local rents. That is the approach that I want to adopt, to ensure that people are not priced out of good accommodation because of the amount that they can afford to pay. That will involve a range of new initiatives that need to be taken. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have been examining housing benefit in particular and the role that it plays. A range of levers need to be pulled to make sure that people have a genuine choice. A little later in my opening remarks, I shall say something about that.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: There is competition, I see. I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn).
  Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being appointed Secretary of State.

  35
  On choice, may I ask him to reflect for a moment on the situation in London, where the very high prices of houses and of land mean that there is little development to create affordable rented housing? Will he look again at the planning guidelines under section 106 agreements to ensure that, in all sites of whatever size, at least half the properties are developed for affordable rent, either by housing associations or by the local authority, in order to provide poorer and average-income Londoners with some chance of being able to stay in their city?
  Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words on my appointment. I understand the difficulty that is particularly felt in London, although similar pressures exist in other parts of the country. They come about because of a lack of investment over a number of years. We are beginning to put that right, with the investment that will be made over the next two to three years. There are, I believe, opportunities to use the planning process with far greater imagination than in the past, and I am conscious of the debate that is going on in London and elsewhere about the need for some gain from planning along the lines that my hon. Friend describes.
  I have reservations about putting a specific figure on the amount that needs to be achieved, but we must work closely with the relevant authorities to expand and extend the amount of affordable homes for rent or other types of tenure that are available in London and other parts of the country.
  I give way now to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter).
  Brian Cotter: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment, and on mentioning the fact that problems exist not only in London but in areas such as Weston-super-Mare. I shall write to him with information about our particular problems. Having seen the right hon. Gentleman operating in the Department of Trade and Industry, I am very hopeful that he will be able to tackle those problems. Specifically, has he taken on board the very severe problem across the country of the number of, and the difficulty in releasing, empty properties?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. From my reading of the brief so far, I think that various steps will have to be taken to ensure that empty properties, of which there are a staggering number, are made available for those who are in great need. I shall say something a little later about what we can do specifically about private landlords, with whom there is a particular problem in some parts of the country. There may also be a specific problem in seaside towns that will have to be dealt with. One of the lessons that I have learned is that it is wrong to take the view that one size fits all. We have to build a system with local flexibility. Consequently, the role of local authorities, which are the bodies with housing responsibilities, will be particularly important.
  A major part of the £2.5 billion that we are making available will be used for major repairs to the council house stock, making more council properties available for use. Taken together, our proposals and the investment that we shall put in place will bring all social housing up to a
  36
  decent standard by 2010, improve the supply of affordable housing in areas where need is greatest and promote sustainable home ownership and a healthy private rented sector. We believe, however, that we need statutory measures in addition to that investment. That is why we are debating this Bill today.
  The Bill will particularly help families with dependent children and individuals who become homeless or face the threat of homelessness through no fault of their own. Our proposals will strengthen the homelessness safety net, promote a more strategic approach by local authorities to preventing and managing homelessness and encourage local authorities to offer more choice to people applying for social housing. In doing that, the Bill will achieve the following objectives: first, it will protect the most vulnerable in our society; secondly, it will promote greater housing choice; thirdly, it will help to create sustainable communities; and, fourthly, it will tackle social exclusion.
  One of the most important changes that we want to accomplish with the Bill is to channel much greater effort into preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place. That is our key priority. Our proposals will require local authorities to adopt a more strategic approach to tackling the causes of all forms of homelessness and to preventing its occurrence.
  The Bill's first three clauses will require local housing authorities to review the position of the homeless in their area and to create a comprehensive strategy, involving all the key bodies, to prevent people from becoming homeless and to ensure that adequate resources are available to those who might become homeless. There will have to be close co-operation between housing authorities, social service authorities and, as the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said, health authorities.
  The housing authority will have to consult widely. It will be expected to talk to registered social landlords and to other voluntary and statutory agencies that have a key role in tackling the position of the homeless. All the key players will be encouraged to work together to assess the extent and the causes of homelessness, to identify the most effective solutions and to ensure that adequate accommodation, advice and support are available to those who need them.
  Mr. David Drew: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new role and on taking the first Bill through this Parliament. Does he agree that one of the key problems in rural areas is hidden homelessness—people being driven out of rural areas because of a lack of accommodation? Can we ensure that the other layers of local government—especially parish and town councils, which have a vested interest in keeping younger people in their communities—are engaged in the process, as they will be so important in allowing us to overcome hidden homelessness?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I thank him for his kind words on my appointment. He is right that the needs of rural areas are often hidden and are not exposed or publicised to the same extent as some of the derelict areas in our conurbations. That is why it is particularly important for those of us in responsible positions to ensure that their needs are not overlooked.
  The measures that we are proposing to increase the amount of housing in rural settlements will begin to make a difference, but I take the point made by my hon. Friend

  37
  the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). If we are talking about genuine partnership and about people working together, housing authorities and district councils must consult parish councils to make sure that the specific housing needs of rural communities are not ignored. He is also right to stress that in ensuring that a community can thrive and develop, the provision of housing to the younger generation to ensure that they are not forced to leave rural communities will become increasingly important in the months and years ahead.
  The Bill also strengthens the existing safety net by providing a number of amendments to and repeals of the provisions of the Housing Act 1996. The Bill will ensure that all applicants who are unintentionally homeless and have a priority need are secured suitable accommodation for as long as is necessary until a settled home becomes available for them. This is an important change and one that will bring real benefits. To achieve this, the Bill will remove the current rule that prevents an authority from doing more than provide advice and assistance if other accommodation is available locally in the private sector.
  Clause 6 will remove the current two-year limit on the main homelessness duty to secure suitable accommodation. The 1996 Act gives authorities the discretion to continue to accommodate beyond two years, but their statutory obligation to provide assistance ends at that point. That gives homeless households cause for great uncertainty about their future and about whether they will continue to have a home. That needs to go; under this Bill, it will.
  The Bill will also remove the restriction that prevents authorities from using their own housing stock to discharge their statutory obligations and to provide short-term accommodation for homeless people for more than two years in three. This is unhelpful and bureaucratic, and it limits local authorities' flexibility to secure adequate short-term accommodation. As the law stands, when a local authority decides to exercise discretion to continue to accommodate beyond two years a household that has been accommodated in local authority housing, the authority must secure alternative accommodation from another landlord—at a cost—uprooting the household in the process. This is red tape and bureaucracy and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will be pleased that we are cutting it. The measure, which we will do away with, creates delay, is costly and is disruptive. Under the Bill, it will come to an end.
  The Bill will make an number of important changes to the current legislation to strengthen the protection available to homeless people. Clause 10 will provide stronger protection for those at risk of violence. It will make clear that applicants who would be at risk of violence or who would face serious threats of violence if they remained in their current home must be treated as homeless by the local authority. At present, it is at the discretion of individual authorities to decide whether a threat of violence means that it would not be reasonable for someone to continue to live in that same property.
  Mr. John Bercow: I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. My cup runneth over at the thought that one so great as he should be willing to draw on my advice. It would be very helpful if he would flesh out the way in which statutory teeth will be given to the Government's welcome intentions towards the victims
  38
  of domestic violence. Will he confirm that people will not only not be obliged to return to the homes in which the violence was committed or threatened but will not be obliged to return to the area where they are at risk?
  Mr. Byers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words on my appointment. I am pleased that his cup runneth over—although I know that it is a very small cup—and I shall try even harder, because I am pleased to confirm that his broad point is covered in the Bill.
  Many of us will have come across exactly this problem in our constituencies. An example was given to me by Shelter, which I am pleased is warmly supporting the provisions in the Bill. Shelter recently assisted a pregnant young woman living in a small privately rented flat who had suffered persistent racial harassment by a neighbour, culminating in her being physically assaulted and the police being called.
  Despite evidence from the woman's GP of the distress that the harassment was causing her, and its potential impact on her pregnancy, the local housing authority insisted that it was reasonable for her to continue to live where she was, and would not accept that she was homeless. The Bill will ensure that that could not happen again and that others suffering such violent harassment will, in future, be dealt with as homeless.
  Mr. Hancock: When we discussed this element of the Bill in the previous Parliament, in which it failed to get through all its stages, the issue of violence was raised. We never got a satisfactory answer on who was to arbitrate on whether a case was genuinely one of violence. On large council estates, there are often allegations of threats of violence, but the local authority says that it cannot accept them as true until there is proof—that is, until someone has been assaulted or the police have become involved. If we are placing that responsibility on local authorities, we have to have a clear definition of what proof would be needed to justify someone's being moved on grounds of violence.
  Mr. Byers: First, let me stress that local authority decisions can be reviewed. This will be a fruitful matter for discussion in Committee. Hon. Members will be aware that the Government intend to issue guidance to cover all such matters, on which we will want to consult. I know that guidance has been discussed at some length, and I am waiting for the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who I understand is a real anorak on this issue, to intervene.
  Mr. Bercow: All Liberals are anoraks.
  Mr. Byers: There is a great danger of my agreeing with the hon. Gentleman yet again.
  Clause 8 will make it clear that applicants can ask the housing authority to review the suitability of accommodation that is offered to them without having to take a risk that the homelessness duty might be brought to an end as a consequence. That is important, as it will correct a serious weakness in the provisions of the Housing Act 1996, compounded by a recent judgment in the Court of Appeal in the case of Alghile v. City of Westminster, which seriously undermined the position of

  39
  homeless applicants. As the law now stands, following the Alghile judgment, applicants cannot both accept an offer of accommodation and ask for a review of suitability. If they want a review, they must refuse the offer. The 1996 Act provides that the duty to assist them as homeless comes to an end if they refuse that offer. So homeless applicants have to take a serious gamble if they wish to ask for a review of the suitability of the property that they have been offered.
  The Bill will put that right, and we intend clause 8 to come into force as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. Applicants will also be better placed when they wish to appeal to the county court against a decision on homelessness. The Bill will give the court the power to extend the 21-day period for making an application where there is a good reason for doing so.
  The court will also have the power to require an authority to continue to accommodate an applicant pending such an appeal, where that is necessary to ensure that the individual concerned can continue to pursue the appeal. It is obviously right for the greatest protection to be available to families and other vulnerable groups with priority need, but the Bill also strengthens the duty to provide advice and assistance for those who become homeless unintentionally but do not have a priority need. Authorities will have greater flexibility to assist that group, through a new power to secure suitable accommodation for them.
  As I have said, the Bill will ensure that local authorities offer everyone in priority need who is unintentionally homeless somewhere suitable to live until they obtain a settled home.
  Tony Baldry: I am not clear what new duties local authorities are being given to provide accommodation in the private sector. Local authorities have a finite amount of their own housing stock and housing association stock. Is the Secretary of State saying that local authorities will now have a duty to help people find suitable accommodation in the private rented sector? Will he flesh out a little further what new obligations local authorities will have? There is a danger that the Bill will raise applicants' expectations, but that those expectations will be unfulfilled.
  Mr. Byers: I want the local housing authority to work in partnership with the private rented sector. There are now some good examples of that happening, and it is benefiting individual tenants, but I am also mindful of the fact that in some parts of the country that partnership is not operating. We need to send out a clear message from Government that we expect people to work together with a real sense of partnership—and some of the investment to be made available will benefit the privately rented sector as well as the local authority sector.
  We shall not solve all the problems overnight. As hon. Members know, the number of people who are homeless or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has increased, so there are real problems that we have to tackle. I believe that the Bill, combined with the additional investment that is coming through, will begin to make a real difference—but that will not happen overnight, or even in a matter of months; it will take years to remedy the problems.
  40
  However, improvements are taking place, and if people can work together—in particular, if local authorities can work with the private sector—we shall begin to see real improvements.
  The private rented sector has responsibilities as well, and must recognise that it has a role to play. Increasingly, housing difficulties are resulting from problems being caused in certain parts of the country by landlords who fail to discharge their responsibilities. I am thinking in particular of those who receive housing benefit directly from social security offices, but do not pay proper attention to the condition of the buildings for which they are responsible.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: As ever, my right hon. Friend has my good wishes. On that point, will he recognise that there is nothing in the Bill to reinforce good practice in the private rented sector by, for example, introducing at last the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, or including the proposals for registering all private landlords in defined areas, which were in the housing Green Paper?
  Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words on my appointment. He makes an important point about houses in multiple occupation and he is right to say that we have clear commitments in that area. During the lifetime of this Parliament, I am confident that measures will be introduced through this House. However, we can take some steps now, and we will do so by improving the provisions that are currently available.
  My hon. Friend raises a second point about houses in multiple occupation that goes beyond the powers we currently have. We had a welcome opportunity to discuss that point on Friday, when he drew my attention to the need to consider the introduction of licensing schemes for private landlords generally, which will tackle some of the issues that have arisen in various parts of the country.
  I had the opportunity to consider the point over the weekend, and I can inform my hon. Friend that later this year my Department will issue a consultation document on proposals to give local authorities in such areas powers to introduce licensing schemes for private landlords generally. I hope that that will tackle some of the issues about which my hon. Friend is especially concerned. I hope that when that consultation document is published we can have a debate on the right way forward and reach a solution for which we can legislate, if necessary, to tackle a growing problem that is affecting far too many areas.
  The Bill includes measures to give improved rights to new applicants for local authority housing and existing tenants in the social sector who are seeking a transfer. It is, however, vital to ensure that the measures we introduce cannot be abused by those who would seek to disrupt communities through antisocial behaviour. People who are unsuitable to be tenants because of a history of unacceptable behaviour will not benefit from the provisions of the Bill. Clearly, someone who has a history of causing deliberate and serious nuisance to neighbours, and who has refused to reform in any way, would be regarded as unsuitable to be a tenant.

  41
  The Bill will also encourage local authorities to introduce letting schemes that give new applicants—and existing tenants who wish to transfer to another property—more say in choosing where they live.
  Jeremy Corbyn: On the question of disruptive and antisocial tenants, it is a given that nobody wants antisocial, disruptive or racist tenants living next to them, but the problem is that by removing any option of housing from such people, their children end up with foster parents or in care. One could be creating a greater social problem in the future in order to deal with a more immediate problem. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a strategy of more intensive support and intervention might be more useful than his approach?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to point out that we need an integrated approach, and we must always take into account the needs of children in particular. As on most issues, it is a question of striking the right balance. Most hon. Members will understand the need to protect a community from the disruptive and antisocial tenant, to keep communities together. I have seen in my own constituency communities being blown apart because of the actions of just one or two people. Communities that have lived together for years have been wrecked by the conduct of one or two people, and I am not prepared to put at risk those solid and sound communities by looking after the needs of one individual when the needs of the whole community should be taken into account. Early intervention may be able to assist an individual to reform and change the way in which they conduct themselves. I agree wholeheartedly that that should be the emphasis of many projects from my Department and across Government.
  Mr. Hancock: The Secretary of State referred to giving greater choice to people in existing properties who wanted to transfer. I am fascinated by the concept of choice being offered by authorities such as mine, given that the options available for transfer in Portsmouth, a densely populated urban centre, are at present limited. How will such a choice be offered?
  Mr. Byers: I hope that in a few years' time, if I am answering on housing matters from this Dispatch Box, we will have changed the situation, with more investment in housing resulting in such choice being available. I am the first to accept that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, probably like mine, there is currently no such choice. However, in this area above all, the status quo will not be an option. Great problems are being created and we have to move change through.
  The Bill is about looking forward, not looking back. It looks forward to the housing needs that require to be met, and to investment. I want people to have a real choice. I accept that it is not available at the moment—we have to build to ensure that it will be.
  Most of us in the Chamber would not accept simply being told where to live. We will not provide all the choices that everyone will want, but providing a choice will make a real difference to the whole debate. We should not reduce our ambitions or our vision. The Government are taking actions that make a real difference.
  When I was at the Passage this morning, I talked to people who had benefited from the work undertaken by the rough sleepers unit. The number of people sleeping
  42
  rough has fallen by more than a third. In 1998, almost 2,000 people slept rough. Last year, that number had fallen to just over 1,000, and we are well on the way to meeting our target of only 620 people sleeping rough by 2002, which will be a real improvement.
  One of the most disturbing things that I saw when I took over this brief was that the number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation had increased dramatically. The bed-and-breakfast unit was established by the Minister for Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), when he was responsible for housing. It came into being in May this year. Its remit is to reduce within two years the number of households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, particularly those with families and young children.
  Ms Oona King: My right hon. Friend must be getting a bit weary of all these congratulations, but I should nevertheless like to congratulate him on his post. I also thank the Minister for Local Government, who answered the Adjournment debate that I secured on bed-and-breakfast accommodation when he was responsible for housing matters. Will the taskforce be looking at the introduction of targets and at reducing the numbers of young children who are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation with people who have severe mental health problems and alcohol and drug dependency problems?
  Mr. Byers: Congratulations are fine. I have learned that one can never have too many of them.
  Mr. Bercow: Enjoy it while it lasts.
  Mr. Byers: It does not last very long, as the hon. Gentleman says.
  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One way to judge genuine progress is by tangible improvements. It is probably right for the taskforce to come forward with targets once it has looked at the situation. I will draw its attention to my hon. Friend's points.
  There is a real challenge to be addressed. Those of us who have seen at first hand the often appalling conditions in which young people in bed-and-breakfast provision are having to grow up regard that as simply not acceptable in the United Kingdom of 2001. We can do far better. Now that the unit is set up, we will be expecting it to do great things and give real dignity to mothers, fathers and children who live in frankly unacceptable accommodation.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: Only if there are congratulations attached.
  Mr. Waterson: I was saving those for later, but if the right hon. Gentleman is so desperate for congratulations, let me congratulate him. I shall not congratulate him, however, on the explosion of the number of people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. He did not quote the figures, but they have gone up from 4,000 to nearly 11,000. Does he agree with Shelter, which says that the current crisis-driven approach to homelessness is

  43
  not working? That sounds like coded language for setting up another unit, another taskforce, and crowning another tsar or tsarina.
  Mr. Byers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations on my appointment.
  I am not a great one for tsars or tsarinas, but the hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I do not regard the present situation as acceptable, as regards either the number of people who are homeless or the number who are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That situation has come about owing to a lack of investment for several years for which both parties carry responsibility, but we are beginning to see a difference.
  I have outlined a twin-track approach: investment is going in, backed up by the provisions in the Bill. That will make a real difference. I accept the criticism; none of us can take pride in the current situation—we must move together. The Bill will be important in beginning to ensure that we can tackle the difficulties.
  Before I conclude, I want to refer to one more important group: those former members of the armed forces who find themselves homeless at the end of their service. The Government have set up a veterans taskforce to tackle the issues facing those people, who include the most vulnerable—those who are homeless, sleeping rough or in ill health. In 1998, the social exclusion unit report on rough sleeping found that between a fifth and a quarter of all rough sleepers had served in the armed forces. In response, the rough sleepers unit has been working with the Ministry of Defence, the armed forces and the ex-service benevolent sector to ensure that the best advice, practical assistance and support are given to the people who leave our armed forces and end up sleeping rough.
  The work of the taskforce will continue during coming months. We aim to report by the end of this year and we look to the taskforce to propose measures to complement the RSU's effective strategy to reduce rough sleeping to as near zero as possible. I hope that all Members will agree that people who have given service in our armed forces deserve that support, advice and assistance.
  Taken together with the Government's sound economic policies, our substantial increases in capital investment in housing and the wider policies that we are pursuing following last year's housing Green Paper, we can make a real difference for the people of this country. The Bill will make a real difference to tackling homelessness. It will provide protection for the most vulnerable, dignity for the distressed and the security that comes from having somewhere that people can call home. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I begin properly by welcoming the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to his new position. I also welcome the new Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and pay a passing tribute to the Minister for Local Government. The right hon. Gentleman has finally been unchained from the housing oar in the Government galley; I hope that he will enjoy his time in local government.
  44
  Speaking for myself and, I hope, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), we shall try to make the. Committee stage as little like the film "Groundhog Day" as possible and find some new things to say. The Opposition broadly welcome the Bill; indeed we did so in its previous incarnation as the second part of the Homes Bill during the previous Parliament. The measure will of course receive proper scrutiny in Committee—as is right—but we wish it a fair wind. We are not alone in wanting to discuss several detailed points in Committee; organisations such as Shelter and the Local Government Association have also flagged up some issues that will need debate.
  It is a remarkable U-turn that this monumental—if we are to believe the Secretary of State—measure was not even mentioned in the Queen's Speech but is the first Bill of the Parliament. We welcome that. It must be a real testament to the right hon. Gentleman's power and influence in the higher echelons of the Government.
  Ms Oona King: I take the hon. Gentleman's mention of remarkable U-turns as a declaration of his acceptance of compassionate conservatism. Does he agree, therefore, that the then Conservative Government's decision to remove the protections that we are now reintroducing was indeed as pernicious as it turned out to be?
  Mr. Waterson: We believe in housing policy that actually works—whether it is called "compassionate" is neither here nor there.
  I wonder whether the Secretary of State took the trouble to mention that the measure could have been put on the statute book before the general election when he was hobnobbing with Sister Ellen et al this morning. The reasons for not enacting it are clear. First, there was the Government's insistence on linking in the same Bill such measures and compulsory seller's packs—issues that had no natural connection at all. We made it clear in the previous Parliament that we opposed that measure and that we did not broadly oppose these provisions. Secondly, the Government did not allow enough time for the measure to be debated in the House of Lords before Dissolution.
  Let us be clear that it is entirely the Government's fault if we have to re-run such debates in the Chamber and in Committee, and that it is also entirely their fault if people are being disadvantaged in housing terms by the fact that the measures are not already on the statute book because of the Government's arrogant insistence on continuing with the measures on compulsory seller's packs.
  I should like the Under-Secretary to confirm in her reply whether the Government have now abandoned the policy of introducing compulsory seller's packs, and that we shall certainly hear no more about them in this Parliament.
  Mr. Don Foster: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but in the last hour I have received a parliamentary answer in which I am assured that the Government appear to have every intention of pressing ahead with seller's packs. Does the hon. Gentleman share my dismay that it appears that the Government still intend to attach criminal sanctions to them, which would be disastrous?
  Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that extremely informative intervention. In that case,

  45
  I have my answer, and it is very depressing not just for those who buy and sell houses, but for those involved in surveying and the legal aspects of buying and selling houses. However, it is certainly true, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, that we spent more time in Committee considering seller's packs under part I of the Homes Bill than we did discussing the issues in this Bill. No matter; I must move on, having made it abundantly clear that if the proposals on compulsory seller's packs reappear in any guise, we will continue to oppose them as ferociously as possible.
  I join Shelter, the Local Government Association and several others in broadly welcoming the proposals in the present Bill. We welcome the emphasis on prevention, rather than cure, in housing problems; the wish to achieve greater flexibility and more strategic approaches by local authorities, which many of them welcome; and the move towards choice-based housing allocations where workable and appropriate. I think it fair to say that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock)—who is leaving the Chamber, but may be coming back—touched on a useful point. It is almost possible to draw a line across the country: in some areas there is an over-supply of social housing, and in others—my constituency is a good example—people still have to wait a long time, on average, for housing to be allocated. I am pleased to say that because of my oiling up to the Minister for Local Government, who then had responsibility for such issues, my constituency has been included in the pilot scheme for what the aficionados call the choice-based Delft system of housing allocation.
  Mr. Foster: So has Bath.
  Mr. Waterson: I understand that Bath was included, too. That was obviously a technical oversight. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative party is not in coalition with the Government, but it is none the less nice to be included without having to give anything in return. We shall see how things turn out on the ground, and it is important that the proposal is considered on a pilot basis. I do not know whether Portsmouth has been included, and now we may never know, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South seems to have made his final exit from our proceedings.
  Partly as a result of previous debates, there are some good measures in the Bill, including the provisions for the right of review of decisions on eligibility and priority for housing. The Bill also contains provision for the strengthening of the duty on local authorities to provide advice and assistance to non-priority homeless people. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee considering the previous Bill were concerned about that, and I am glad that it is being considered again. Perhaps it is a good illustration of why Bills should come round more than once. As the Secretary of State mentioned in his opening remarks, the Bill also provides for greater recognition of the special needs of those fleeing racial or other forms of violence.
  It is right but hardly surprising that the Bill has the strong support of the Local Government Association. In its excellent briefing, it points out that its report "No Place Like Home", which was published in December 1999,
  46
  contained 37 recommendations. A number of them have surfaced in the Bill. The association is a strong supporter of the idea that authorities should have a
  "more strategic multi-agency approach to preventing homelessness, and rehousing homeless applicants".
  It is in favour of strengthening the safety net but, above all, the important issue for local authorities is to have flexibility in approaching such issues.
  The Bill seeks to abolish the duty to maintain a housing register. Members of Parliament know the extent to which artificialities have crept in to the administration of housing registers. Well-informed applicants know how to build the right number of points to get towards the top of the list.
  The Secretary of State touched on an issue to which we shall have to return in Committee. The problem of antisocial neighbours—the so-called neighbours from hell—united members of the Committee considering the Homes Bill. Antisocial neighbours cause intractable problems of the kind about which we learn from our mailbags and in our constituency advice surgeries. Wherever they are housed, some families and individuals will always create problems; whether by their simple failure to pay rent, by their behaviour towards neighbours or by their simple unwillingness to maintain their home and keep it in good order.
  That issue has been flagged up by the Local Government Association, which says that
  "it is important that local authorities retain an element of discretion over the use of their own stock … It would be perverse if an applicant who is evicted for anti-social behaviour or racial harassment then has a right to be offered other council accommodation".
  It points out that, during the Committee stage of the Homes Bill, the Government said that they were willing to amend that Bill to give authorities the right to refuse to allocate accommodation on the ground of unacceptable behaviour.
  We all shared the concern about having the policy of blanket refusals that some authorities operate, but the Local Government Association adds:
  "The definition of unacceptable behaviour as that which would enable a local authority to obtain a possession order is fair."
  The association refers to the matter of review, which was another matter of concern in Committee.
  Different views are taken on the issue of neighbours from hell. In its most recent briefing, Shelter repeats a point that it made during the Committee stage of the previous Bill. It is concerned that
  "some local authorities may use the framework set out in the Bill to deny people in need access to social housing in unjustifiable circumstances."
  The Green Paper made it clear that that should occur only in exceptional circumstances, but there is a potential problem if local authorities operate a harsh or unbending policy in their areas. Shelter also commends the changes that have been made to this Bill on the issue of review, but it flags up its wish to return to some of the technical issues involved. I am sure that it will have the opportunity to do that.
  A separate but important problem arose in Committee. It became clear that some authorities allow homeless applicants as little as 24 hours to make up their minds about a final offer of accommodation. I do not think that

  47
  that happens in my area, but it strikes me as a rigorous policy to enforce. Shelter is flagging up the need for homeless people to have a minimum of three days to consider such an offer, and I shall table an amendment suggesting four. On a practical level, it is unreasonable to expect people to have so little time in which to make a decision that will affect their happiness and comfort for a long time.
  I agree with the Secretary of State on one thing: the Bill should be seen not in isolation but against its proper background. The general election proved several things, including the fact that only one in four of the electorate thought it worth while to support the Government, who have rightly sought to play down any triumphalism about that victory. However, the Government have a second chance to deliver on their promises on a range of public services and social issues, not least, on housing and homelessness, on which they have a truly dismal record.
  We do not draw any comfort from the appointment as Minister for Housing and Planning of Lord Falconer, fresh from his success with the dome, and whose only direct experience of the housing market was probably when he shared a flat with the Prime Minister. We look forward to his contributions to our debates on housing in the next few years. However, it was the Prime Minister who, in an interview with The Big Issue a few weeks ago on 3 June, said:
  "We have to do better … I accept we need to do more"—
  and that after four years of a Labour Government who did little, if anything, to tackle the issues. No wonder Shelter commented:
  "During the election, a lot of attention was given to improving education and health services. We hear much less about the thousands of families stuck in grotty B&Bs …The current crisis-driven approach to homelessness is not working."
  In 1996, the Prime Minister also promised that Labour would
  "do everything in our power to end the scandal of homelessness, to tackle the spectacle of people sleeping rough on the streets and to end the waste of families sleeping in bed and breakfast accommodation."
  However, the Government's figures show that homelessness in England soared by 8,000 in the past three years. The latest figures, contained in a Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions press release of 15 June, show that homelessness priority acceptances in England rose from 102,410 in 1997 to 110,790—nearly 111,000—by the end of 2000. In addition, the number of homeless in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has risen from just over 4,000 households in the first quarter of 1997 to nearly 11,000 in the first quarter of 2001.
  The Secretary of State was fair and right to be defensive and embarrassed about those figures and to say that no one would defend them, but the Government have had four years to tackle those problems. As those statistics have risen inexorably, the gap between rich and poor has widened since 1997. Figures show that 100,000 more
  48
  children and 700,000 more people are living in poverty than in 1997. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation had this to say:
  "since its election, the Government has introduced over a hundred policies designed, at least in part, to tackle problems related to poverty and social exclusion. But as our report shows, the problems continue unabated."
  Ms Karen Buck: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Joseph Rowntree report and many of the reports on poverty and inequality that have been published in the past year are based on statistics that are two years out of date and predate almost all the significant anti-poverty initiatives such as the working families tax credit, this year's children's tax credit and many other measures? He paints a deeply misleading picture by implying that those figures reflect current circumstances.
  Mr. Waterson: I am fascinated by that intervention. Those are the only figures by which we can work. I would be interested to know whether the hon. Lady genuinely feels as a result of her experience of looking after her constituents—which I am sure she does well—that things are getting better rather than worse. That is certainly not my impression from my constituency. However, I am happy to bow to her if she believes that things are getting better.
  Mr. Bercow: Given that the Secretary of State reiterated the need for a healthy private rented sector but that the 85 changes to the housing benefit regulations since 1997 have consistently militated against that and have stifled the growth of the sector, does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State needs urgently to speak to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ensure that the housing benefit rules are clear, simple and intelligible and work in the interest of landlords, tenants and taxpayers?
  Mr. Waterson: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a penetrating point. Housing benefit regulations are almost impossible to understand, whether one is a claimant or a landlord. How many landlords in the private sector have been put off by delays, or have ended up out of pocket because of those delays or because of bureaucracy and the often inefficient administration of the housing benefit system?
  We heard a lot about empty housing from Labour in opposition. However, under this Government the amount of empty council housing in England has risen by 7 per cent., from more than 81,000 empty dwellings in April 1997 to more than 87,000 by April 2000. That development would not be so worrying if it were not taking place against the background of an enormous fall in the amount of social housing being constructed under this Government, which has plummeted compared with the amount built under the Conservative Government. Between 1993 and 1996, more than 150,000 new dwellings were built by local authorities and registered social landlords. Between 1997 and 2000, only 95,500 were constructed. The amount of new social housing built under this Government has already fallen by 37 per cent. Yet organisations such as Shelter estimate that we need 100,000 new units of affordable homes a year over each of the next 10 years.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Shelter several times. He must be

  49
  aware of its research showing that 26 per cent. of English authorities that transferred their stock found it less easy to house homeless people after the transfer. I asked him a question during the Committee proceedings on the Homes Bill, and I did not receive an answer. It is groundhog day, so I ask it again. Is it still Conservative policy to transfer all council housing as quickly as possible? It is important to receive an answer to that question this evening, as council tenants are rather nervous about the Conservatives' proposals.
  Mr. Waterson: I apologise profusely if the hon. Gentleman feels that I did not answer his question in Committee. One of the wonders of the Government's legislative programme is that such opportunities come round time and again. If I do not answer his question to his total satisfaction now, I am sure that he will be placed on the Standing Committee and we can do it all over again.
  The hon. Gentleman must have peeked at my notes, because I was about to discuss large-scale voluntary transfers. Not only are large-scale transfers still our policy—in due course, we would transfer all council accommodation, with consent—but it is worth reminding him, although I am sure that he does not need reminding, that they were a Conservative policy in the first place. It is fascinating that, although the Government have failed in all sorts of respects, their flagship housing policy has been to adopt and put into high gear the Tory policy of large-scale transfers. Indeed, the figure had reached about 500,000 units by the time of the election.
  Like me, the hon. Gentleman might have stumbled across the written answer on the subject the other day from the new Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Northampton, North. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), the Under-Secretary announced the names of 27 local authorities that will proceed with 32 transfers of all or part of their housing stock. She went on to say that
  "the programme will involve over 328.000 dwellings in large scale voluntary transfers over two years, generating capital receipts of over £1.1 billion for the authorities." —[Official Report, 22 June 2001: Vol. 370, c. 10W.]
  Dr. Iddon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waterson: I will of course give way, although I hope that the hon. Gentleman will answer my question in intervening. Does he commend the adoption and success of a Tory policy, or is he against what his own Government are doing?
  Dr. Iddon: There is a difference. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would answer a second question. At least we give the tenants the right to vote on the proposals. It is my understanding that, were Conservative policy to be adopted, council housing would be transferred not only as quickly as possible but without tenants being given the right to vote. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the real situation?
  Mr. Waterson: I thought that I made it clear in Committee, but I shall do so again on the Floor of the House: we do not believe in taking away the need for the consent of tenants, but want to encourage, if anything, a quickening of the pace of the programme. I am sure that
  50
  the hon. Gentleman has grasped the fact that if, on top of what happened over the past four years, the policy continues under the present Government, there will be hardly any council housing left by the next election. When the Conservatives storm to inevitable victory in four years' time, or earlier if this Government collapse under the weight of their own rhetoric, the problem or challenge or opportunity will no longer exist.
  Glenda Jackson: Does not the difficulty for the Conservative party reside in its definition of tenants' consent? On the introduction of the policy in the dim, dark recesses of Conservative government, it then averred that tenants who did not vote were automatically voting yes.
  Mr. Waterson: I would still love to know whether the hon. Lady, like the hon. Gentleman, agrees with her party's policy of speeding up large-scale transfers.
  Glenda Jackson: It is about consent.
  Mr. Waterson: She must take that up with the current Minister responsible for housing. Even if she thinks that such Conservative policy is flawed in some details, it is going full steam ahead under this Government. We commend them for that; we support it. They will not receive any criticism from us for carrying on with it. Our only criticism would be that it would be nice if they occasionally found some of their own policies in this field.
  I should like to touch on another issue that was debated in Committee: the effect on social accommodation of housing asylum seekers, which seems particularly to be a problem in London. We discussed in Committee the comments of the Association of London Government's housing panel, which pointed to the increase in asylum seekers as a "significant contributory factor" in rising homelessness. The London Research Centre took a similar view. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister in reply whether the Government are taking that into account, particularly in the London context, in their policies on homelessness.
  The Minister touched on the issue of houses in multiple occupation and the licensing system. It is as well that he did, because not only did that feature in the Labour party's 1997 election manifesto but the most recent manifesto repeated the pledge to do something about it. However, this Government have not introduced any such legislation on the matter, and this Bill does nothing to address it. There has been a chorus of disappointment and criticism from bodies such as Shelter, asking why on earth the Government are not tackling the issue. If I understood the Secretary of State correctly—I hope that I am not misreporting him—there will be a consultation document later this year. That sounds as though it is some way off and that any legislation is even further off.
  It is important to make it clear that we as a party will continue to support effective action on rough sleeping. The initiative relating to people discharged from the forces is extremely important. Anyone who knows anything about homelessness has known for years that a very high percentage of those discharged from the forces cannot, for various reasons, cope with running their own lives outside a structured environment. I am sure that that important initiative is bearing and will bear a great deal of fruit.

  51
  Will the Minister who replies to the debate confirm that it is still the Government's policy to wind up the rough sleepers unit when it has met its targets and to devolve its responsibilities, powers and funding to local housing authorities?
  In their first term, the Government fell far short of meeting the expectations of those involved in social housing and homelessness; they have even fallen short of their own promises and rhetoric. The time for delivery is now. The Bill is a start, but it is only a start.
  5.41 pm
  Glenda Jackson: I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their new appointments. Assiduously arguing the importance of housing and of preventing homelessness has clearly ensured that the Bill is the first that the House considers after the long debate on the Queen's Speech. When I was campaigning in the general election, I found that homelessness was an issue of particular importance here in London. At this point, I should declare an interest: I am a member of the Mayor of London's cabinet and his adviser on homelessness.
  One point that the Bill brings to the fore is that the prevention of homelessness is not exclusively a question of bricks and mortar. The multi-strategy approach inherent in the Bill will prove vital in tackling homelessness, which is particularly prevalent in London. It will also ensure that rough sleepers who can be persuaded to come in off the street are kept off the street. I pay tribute to the Government for funding the rough sleepers unit initiative and to the work that that initiative has done in London. It is entirely possible that the unit will reach its target of reducing the number of people who have nowhere to sleep other than the pavements and shop doorways of this great capital city by two thirds by 2002.
  In the London context at least, the number of rough sleepers pales into insignificance when compared with the number of those who are deemed to be "hidden homeless". The most recent assessment puts the number of hidden homeless as high as 160,000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), mentioned the number of people in temporary housing and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The most recent figures for London show almost 48,000 families in temporary housing and almost 8,000 people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  The issue is clearly of enormous importance, but there is little point in any Government—certainly not a radical, reforming Government such as ours—attempting to tackle homelessness unless they also tackle the other basic problems that deny the citizens of this country equal opportunities: poverty, ill health and the inadequacies of our education system. I should point out to the Conservatives that it was they who left us to tackle those problems. I found it incomprehensible that the hon. Member for Eastbourne should ask why the Government had not solved the problem of homelessness in their first four years. He neatly side-stepped the real issue, for which he should have been apologising in spades. Conservative Governments, after almost two decades, left us with appalling problems, not least in social housing.
  52
  When the Conservative Government came to office in 1979, London boroughs were building affordable social housing at the rate, on average, of 15,000 units a year. When Labour came into office in 1997, I believe that only one property had been built in the Greater London area by a local authority. That was the direct result of Conservative Government policies. There was no mention of the number of families who became homeless because of Conservative party economic policies when they lost their houses because they could no longer keep up with the mortgage payments.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Bill looks to the future, not the past. It behoves us as a radical and reforming Government, with a clear commitment to the idea of affordable social housing, to learn from the disastrous mistakes of disastrous Conservative Governments and place, as the Bill clearly does, housing at the top of the agendas of local authorities and the Government.
  Poor housing creates ill health. It reduces the ability of young children to learn. It can affect the ability of people to re-skill themselves and therefore to earn for themselves and their families a decent living wage. Housing is essential in delivering on other major strands of social reform, which is the Government's clear commitment.
  In an intervention, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made the salient point that many people who are homeless are suffering from mental illness. The point was accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in terms of the multi-agency approach to tackling and preventing homelessness.
  When local authorities begin to set in train their homelessness strategies, I sincerely hope that they will not regard the approach as being limited either to the housing officer or to the director of social services. There must be links with health departments, and in many instances they should go much broader than the remit of a local authority. There should be links with basic education, with further and higher education and with the many programmes that are already being put in place by the voluntary sector that relate to affording homeless people meaningful occupations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred this morning to his visit to the Passage and to Sister Ellen and her remarkable band of volunteers. Their work is extraordinarily valuable. I feel confident that he would not wish to say that the Passage was the only place in London where sterling work is being done.
  Only this morning, I visited one of the hostels run by St. Mungo's, which is situated in Kingsway. Programmes at that hostel are designed to help many young people to develop skills. They were not given the necessary encouragement or the straightforward training to develop skills when they were at school. Of course, they were at school under a Conservative regime. It is hardly to be wondered at that they left school with so few skills to enable them to create a life for themselves in the wider world.
  By taking a multi-agency approach, we can begin to tackle a problem that no nation as rich as ours in the 21st century should have to face. However, we do have to face it, and the multi-agency approach is right. The clear commitment given by the Government and the vast amounts of money being poured into the creation of social housing are the way forward. We will not be able to

  53
  transform the situation overnight and no single agency can tackle the issue. However, if we accept that all the agencies must work together, with a clearly defined goal to eradicate for ever poor housing and, certainly, homelessness, much can be achieved.
  That will be achieved only by central and local government working together, by the public and private sectors working together and by the statutory and voluntary sectors working together. Again, in the London context, we hope that local authorities will be able to involve the private rented sector in a continuing relationship that will ensure that families are taken out of appalling bed-and-breakfast accommodation. No child should have to sleep next door to someone who is severely mentally damaged or suffering from drug and alcohol abuse, where the only division between them is not even a lath and plaster wall but often something that a violent fist could easily come through. It is no use pretending that that can be achieved and that affordable housing for all can be provided unless there are careful partnerships, and careful understanding by those who decide where people will live. There must be genuine consideration of who the neighbours are.
  We have heard much about neighbours from hell. Every hon. Member could cite a constituency case involving a neighbour from hell—[Interruption.] Not everybody lives next door to a Member of Parliament; hon. Members should not be quite so quick to castigate themselves. The issue can certainly be complicated. For example, what does a local authority do when people who own their own property object to people who are moved in next door because they have been harassed on the ground that they do not like the colour of the incomers' skin? The local authorities with which I have dealt are clear that they will not tolerate or indulge that kind of malice by neighbours.
  There are other cases in which, for example, a woman has to move from her home because of domestic violence. However, that means that her children have to move from their local school and she has to move away from the supportive circle of friends and family. Quite often, she has to move a considerable distance. In one case, which I have mentioned in the Chamber before, the perpetrator of domestic violence was prevented from going within a certain distance of his partner and her family. However, his brothers took over the job and decided that it was their duty to harass and even physically attack my constituent. The issue involves many complex matters.
  Tony Baldry: One thing that concerns me—and I declare an interest as a lawyer—is that it is now practically impossible for many of our constituents to get access to the courts. In the case to which the hon. Lady referred, it would be possible, as it was in the past, to get an injunction at the county court to restrain individuals themselves, their agents or servants that would have prevented the brothers from taking such action. If suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House, who see constituents at their surgeries, find increasingly that vulnerable, inarticulate people are obliged to represent themselves in the county court in eviction and other proceedings and, not surprisingly, find it difficult.
  Glenda Jackson: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but I can look only at the example of my own local authority; no such individual would be without some form of advocacy if he or she were in that situation, as there
  54
  is close working between the authority's relevant bodies. However, I do not claim that all local authorities are such shining examples.
  I am a believer in short, sharp speeches in the Chamber, and the hon. Gentleman has brought me neatly to my final point: we must not lose sight of the fact that the most vulnerable people in our society can be some of the most unpleasant, difficult and, in some instances, the most violent and hardest to reach. They can be the most obdurate and they dislike and fear authority in any shape or form; they are not the easiest people to deal with. However, it is surely our responsibility as a civilised society to ensure that, in any strategy proposed by a local authority or consortium of local authorities, the needs of those people will be considered and, in future, adequately met. Otherwise, there will simply be a revolving door of people being taken off the streets, put in the wrong kind of situation, denied the right kind of social interchange and going back on the streets.
  I shall end where I began by welcoming the commitment that is symbolised by the Bill being the first of the Session to be debated on the Floor of the House; I wish it well in its passage.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I join a large number of hon. Members who have already congratulated the Secretary of State in the knowledge that he will bring a certain flair to his post. It was clear from his speech that he has a genuine interest in this issue. I also welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble); I hope that she enjoys her new brief.
  I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). Interestingly, the Secretary of State began his contribution by referring to his visit this morning to the Passage and the work of Sister Ellen in helping homeless people. In doing so, he drew attention to the very point highlighted by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate: the Bill, by itself, will not solve all the problems of homelessness. It is important to recognise that homeless people rarely need only a roof over their heads; they need a wide range of support, often for problems related to unemployment, marriage breakdown and, as others have said, mental health difficulties and drug and alcohol abuse. It is vital that we continue work that will ensure the development of the inter-agency activities to which the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate referred.
  The Secretary of State was right to draw attention to a number of issues that need to be addressed if we are to begin to tackle the serious problem of homelessness that we still have in this country. I was delighted that he referred to the urgent need to increase the amount of social or affordable housing; at least he recognises that that there is a continuing problem concerning the need to tackle the significant number of empty houses in this country. It is a disgrace that there are more than 100,000 homeless households, yet a staggering 750,000 empty properties in this country. I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that he will look at measures to address that. I am also delighted that he will start to look, albeit rather belatedly, at the promise in the 1997 Labour manifesto to develop measures for licensing schemes for houses in multiple occupation.

  55
  Those measures are all welcome, but the Bill does not seek to deal with them. It is important to recognise that we must not only address other measures but look at those that will impinge directly on the Bill. In particular, we must consider the Bill alongside the proposal to extend the categories of homeless people who, in future, have to be supported by local authorities. As we know, that package is likely to include 16 and 17-year-olds, care leavers and people who are vulnerable as a result of violence, harassment or an institutionalised background, including, as has been said, ex-service men and women.
  I note that a consultation document on those new categories was published at the end of last week, with a consultation end-date of 21 September. I hope that when the Minister replies she will assure me that copies of that document will be made available in the Library. Perhaps she will also tell us when she expects the new categories to come into force. That will be an important measure, which we welcome, and we hope that it will be introduced as soon as possible.
  I am delighted by the Bill. Like other hon. Members, I am pleased that it is the first Bill in the new Session. Perhaps that is a sign that housing will have higher priority in the work of this Parliament than it has had in recent years.
  I was somewhat surprised by the frequent references of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to the work of Shelter. He rightly praised to the skies the work that Shelter has been doing for years, but I remind him that one of Shelter's long-standing concerns is the fact that the previous Conservative Government's Housing Act 1996 repealed measures introduced by my late hon. Friend the Liberal Member of Parliament, Stephen Ross, in his Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. Nevertheless, if there has been a U-turn—a conversion—that is welcome.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said that on topics such as housing Liberal Democrats sometimes tend to be anorak-like. On this occasion, I am afraid, I may prove him right. Having said that there is much in the Bill that I welcome, I acknowledge that there is still scope for improvement. In the measure's first outing, in its earlier guise of part II of the Homes Bill, a number of Liberal Democrat amendments were accepted in Committee. I am delighted—indeed, my cup runneth over—that the Government saw fit to incorporate in the Bill several elements that we proposed last time round, but which they rejected at that time. Nevertheless, further work is necessary in some areas.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given that he is now a self-proclaimed anorak, and notwithstanding the importance of the availability of public finance for good housing, will he tell the House what assessment he has made of the effect of the change in the rules on the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses on the size of interest repayments on local authority debt?
  Mr. Foster: To save the House time, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave about three months ago to an identical question.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) referred to widespread concern about the impact of the rather large number of stock transfers that are taking
  56
  place. Reference was made to the Minister's recent announcement that 328,000 properties are to form part of the second wave, bringing to 580,000 the total number of properties that will have been transferred. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt well aware that with a number of large metropolitan areas such as Birmingham and Sheffield planning to go down that route, it is likely that by 2004 registered social landlords will be the main owners of social housing.
  My concern, which I expressed in Committee when we discussed part II of the Homes Bill, is that in the proposed legislation there is not a strong enough relationship between local authorities, which have responsibility for homelessness strategies, and registered social landlords, which will have the majority of the properties. As the Minister knows, the Government made it clear in the housing Green Paper that they intended to impose further requirements on RSLs and their relationship with local authorities; the Government spoke of a mechanism to ensure that.
  During the passage of the previous Bill, I moved an amendment to try to improve that relationship. The Government assured me that that was not necessary, as the Housing Corporation would have more teeth. On the strength of that assurance, I was prepared to drop the argument. I followed up with a series of parliamentary questions about the Government's promise that the Housing Corporation would be able to ensure that registered social landlords worked constructively with local authorities. The answers left me somewhat disappointed.
  I had hoped to receive confirmation that the Housing Corporation would strengthen its statutory housing management guidance. I was told that a new draft would be available in May, but so far that has not happened. However, in the draft that has been produced, there is considerable cause for concern.
  The draft refers directly to the responsibility of registered social landlords to work with local authorities, but I can tell the Minister that that reference is very low down on the list of priorities, and that there is no sign of a performance indicator to monitor the circumstances in which RSLs refuse to accommodate households nominated by local authorities.
  The Secretary of State mentioned my concern about guidance, and I certainly am concerned when guidance is weak. I prefer the legislative framework to be used, rather than guidance. If the guidance before us is the only guidance that there will be, I do not believe that it is strong enough to ensure that vital relationship, as more and more local authorities go down the stock transfer route.
  The Minister may be able to persuade me not to introduce amendments to the Bill if she can assure me, first, that the Housing Corporation will give further consideration to increasing the priority attached to working with local authorities; secondly, that she will consider persuading the Housing Corporation to introduce a performance indicator in the code of practice; and, thirdly, that she will guarantee that there will be wide consultation before the guidance is approved.
  There is another aspect of the Bill in which the guidance may be too weak. We have heard much about neighbours from hell, and it is right that that should be discussed. The hon. Member for Eastbourne pointed to

  57
  the tension inherent in the issue. We want to ensure that local authorities do everything they can to assist homeless individuals and households, but we want them to retain the right to refuse to assist people who have consistently failed to maintain good standards of behaviour or to pay rent on time. There is a huge tension between the two objectives.
  Glenda Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that rent is not being paid on time in some London boroughs because the housing benefit system is in such an appalling mess? That is one area in which there should be multi-agency working. Ministers in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions should be speaking to their counterparts in the Department of Work and Pensions to get the problem sorted.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the nature of the mess, and some of us have long waited for the Government to propose reforms of the housing benefits system. There is, however, an additional problem. Some local authorities have "out-sourced"—privatised—their work to address the issue. In just the past week, one local authority became so fed up with a privatised organisation's way of addressing the issue that it had to bring the service back in-house. As the hon. Lady said, it is so difficult to address the issue because it encompasses so many other aspects of local authorities' and other agencies' work. Indeed, it is doubtful whether it is possible to address the issue in isolation or to out-source it.
  Jeremy Corbyn: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments on housing benefit and the need to bring it in-house to enable a multi-agency approach. Will he therefore contact Liberal Democrat-controlled Islington council and advise it to discontinue the contract with ITNET that it wrongly signed rather than extend it for another four years?
  Mr. Foster: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am already in discussions on that very point with various authorities of all political parties that have taken that route and are increasingly encountering difficulties with the contracts that they have signed. I shall continue that dialogue.
  Glenda Jackson: May I strongly recommend that the hon. Gentleman recommend that those local authorities contact the London borough of Camden, which has received two citizens charter awards for the efficiency of its housing benefits system?
  Mr. Foster: I shall certainly bear that point in mind.
  We must ask whether the Bill properly addresses the difficult issue of the conflict between ensuring help for the maximum number of people with homelessness needs and trying to ensure that local authorities have some discretion about who they help. Ministers plan to address the issue primarily in guidance, but I do not believe that guidance alone will work. Perhaps the less-emotive issue of the suspension of people with rent arrears can best illustrate why I believe that.
  The guidance says that the exception of such people should be the exception rather than the rule. Nevertheless, the Government's own research has demonstrated that 29 per cent. of authorities that disqualify housing register
  58
  or transfer list applicants because of arrears have absolutely no documented rules specifying the circumstances or debt level that should trigger exclusion or suspension. Moreover, 63 per cent. of authorities that have such policies regard any debt level as sufficient grounds for exclusion or suspension, so, although such a policy is not within the spirit of the Government's own Green Paper or guidance, one is being operated. If Ministers wish to persist in using guidance as the only tool to tackle the problem, that guidance will have to be considerably strengthened.
  I should like, finally, to mention three or four small matters where I believe that further change is necessary.
  Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that people with arrears should be eligible for transfer? As he said, local authorities tend to try to persuade people to balance their books.
  Mr. Foster: I have some difficulty with that intervention. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I would agree that an authority should be able to decide not to provide support to some tenants, such as in some cases of anti-social behaviour or persistent rent arrears, but such a decision should be taken only in extreme cases. The Government's own research has shown that, in many cases, some local authorities have used any rent arrears, even a single instance of rent arrears, as a justification not to house. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Secretary of State that other means of providing support to such individuals or households should come first and that the prime concern should be to meet the housing need of that family, not least for the sake of any children.
  There have been welcome changes in the review process for those who are concerned about a local authority's allocation decision, but as a result of the various changes that have been introduced there is an inconsistency in the process. A review may be based on two aspects of the process: the determination on eligibility for support, and the priority given to individuals who are deemed to be eligible.
  The procedure at the eligibility stage—dealt with in clause 13 in proposed subsections (9) to (11) of new section 160A—places the onus on the local authority to notify the applicant of his or her right to a review. Rather bizarrely, however, clause 15(4), which deals with the priority point, turns the process on its head by placing responsibility on the applicant to request information from the authority on his or her review. Given the nature of those whom we are seeking to assist, it seems sensible that the same procedure should apply to both parts of the review process by placing the onus on the local authority to notify the applicant.
  Mr. Hancock: Is there not another aspect of the review process? Although a property may have been allocated, a local authority will not have discharged its responsibilities until the applicant has been informed of his or her right to a review of the suitability of accommodation. That is a new provision. Does my hon. Friend believe that local authorities will be able to cope if the right of suitability is exercised in all cases?
  Mr. Foster: As the Secretary of State admitted earlier, given the shortage of high-quality temporary

  59
  accommodation, that is clearly going to be very difficult. Currently, 75,000 people are in temporary accommodation. I would love the legislation to include provisions on the suitability of temporary accommodation and requiring local authorities to continue to provide accommodation in the review period. If a person does not have access to accommodation, it would be very difficult for him to exercise fully his right to ensure that the review had been conducted appropriately.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly raised the issue of the minimum period allowed when a final offer is made. In the previous Parliament, when the Committee was considering the Homes Bill, I gave various examples of local authorities that had given people less than 24 hours to accept a final offer. Although all the Committee members accepted that that was unacceptable, the Government were unwilling to accept an amendment proposing to allow applicants a minimum of three days to reflect on whether to accept a final offer. I very much hope that the Government are prepared to think again on that issue.
  I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to discuss particular aspects of the Bill, but the most important point is that the Bill has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, all organisations working in the homelessness sector and the local government associations. It is therefore incumbent on us to give the Bill a speedy passage, to ensure that it can begin to provide the additional help that homeless people desperately deserve.
  6.20 pm
  Mark Tami: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in such an important debate, and I add my congratulations to my right hon. and hon. Friends on their appointments.
  It is a great honour to represent the people of Alyn and Deeside in this House and, equally, to follow such an excellent Member of Parliament as Barry Jones. Barry represented the seat for 31 years and was the very model of a good constituency Member of Parliament: dedicated, hard working and always available to the people of Alyn and Deeside.
  During the election campaign, I was struck by the number of people whom Barry had helped personally. It was not just what Barry had done for Alyn and Deeside, but what Barry had done for them. I am sure that if it had not been for Labour's years in opposition, Barry would have achieved high office in this country. I am sure also that the House will join me in wishing Barry well as his service to the people of Wales and the rest of Britain continues in the other place. I have been told on many occasions that Barry will be a hard act to follow.
  As a new Member of Parliament, I recognise that the political institutions of Wales have changed and that the Assembly now plays an important role, particularly in respect of education and health. I look forward to working with our AM, Tom Middlehurst, on these issues.
  In preparation for this speech, I took the opportunity of using the resources of the Library and found out what my predecessors, Barry Jones and Eirene White, had said in their maiden speeches. I also found that Barry was
  60
  followed in his maiden speech by another new Member—the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who has just left the Chamber, probably because he has other more important issues on his mind.
  Both Barry and Eirene talked at length about a constituency dominated by the steel industry at Shotton, then our largest employer and with the whole community reliant upon it for its livelihood. It is with great sadness that I cannot talk in such terms today. Only last week, we had further job losses at Shotton and yet another part of this once great industry fell to the vagaries of the marketplace. For those who remain, we recognise that there is a long fight ahead. Above all else, we now have to ask the company to look to the long term and not to react to short-term market movements.
  The industry's employees have shown their commitment with improved productivity and flexibility. We now need a similar commitment from Corus. However, I welcome the ISERBS package, which will help redundant steelworkers to train for the future. It is not just industry that suffers, but whole communities in Shotton and Connah's Quay: the shops and other businesses that are supported by the steel community. This is too often forgotten.
  The debate today is about homelessness and housing need. We need adequate social housing but, equally, we need stable communities, jobs and security. In 1980, Alyn and Deeside suffered terrible job losses in steel production and there were few opportunities for the men and women who lost their jobs. Thankfully, we are no longer reliant on just one industry for our livelihoods.
  The British Aerospace facility at Broughton is a shining example of what can be achieved, and is now recognised as a world leader in aircraft wing production. With the building of the new large aircraft, the A380, Broughton will employ more than 6,000 people. It is a matter of great credit and vision that it was this Government who supported the venture, which I am confident will go on to have great success. Airbus is competing in a difficult market, but Airbus is winning through. My predecessor campaigned long and hard for Airbus, as he did for Raytheon when it looked as if that company would shift production to America. I am pleased to say that that factory is now doing well and plays an important role in the community.
  There are many other successful businesses in Alyn and Deeside, including Toyota, which has recently expanded production of engines at its plant. My constituency also contains a fanning community, which, although spared foot and mouth, finds itself struggling, as does the industry as a whole.
  The House may have noticed that my accent is not one of a native of north Wales. As a new candidate and Member of Parliament, however, I could not have asked for a warmer welcome for me and my family from the people of Alyn and Deeside. I must make special mention of Ivor Roberts MBE, who has worked tirelessly as a county councillor for Buckley and as agent for Barry Jones and me.
  My confidence during the campaign was put to the test, surprisingly, after the result. On Friday, I bought a copy of The Chronicle election special and was somewhat alarmed by the headline "Tory triumph". Had it been a dream? Was this now the nightmare? Thankfully—although not for the people of Cheshire—the headline was

  61
  referring to the Cheshire county council elections. Underneath, in much smaller writing, there was something about another Labour landslide. I breathed a sigh of relief.
  While my constituency is doing well and continuing to increase its industry and employment, there are still areas of social deprivation and great need. It is often in constituencies such as mine that those problems go unnoticed, particularly by those outside the community.
  I am always concerned when I see empty properties. They are not only wasteful, but they bring down an area, sap morale and deter people from moving into the community. It is important to note, however, that these properties are not necessarily council owned, and that shop properties in particular are owned in the private sector. We must get such properties back into the system as quickly as possible. If we do not, it will be very difficult to reverse the trend.
  I believe that, in the main, if people have access to decent housing, they will respond accordingly, taking pride in their property and the community around them. Like all hon. Members, I receive many letters from constituents regarding housing issues, but that is a positive thing. It is when people cease to care that we have a problem. It is our task to ensure that councils and housing associations have the resources to meet the aspirations of the people.
  6.27 pm
  Tony Baldry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) on his commendable maiden speech. As he said, his predecessor Barry Jones was much liked in all parts of the House. I suspect that we would all agree that had Labour not been in opposition for 18 years, Barry would almost certainly have served on the Treasury Bench at some point. He was a good friend and it is good news that he is now in the other place, or soon will be. It is always a mystery how people are spirited there. They are gazetted, and are given such wondrous names that one has to catch up with who they are.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside's speech was a model of a maiden speech and I look forward to hearing from him in the future. He will discover that he and other colleagues will get ragged incessantly by English Members of Parliament who are concerned that Wales, and indeed Scotland, seem to get a disproportionate amount of the UK cake, notwithstanding the fact of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. However, all that is for another day.
  I am conscious that today is a day on which one should not make long speeches, because I see many hon. Friends who wish to make their maiden speeches. Many of them are as knowledgable as—if not far more knowledgable than—me on the subject of housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) —who I hope will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—was a special adviser to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and me when we were Environment Ministers.
  For a long time, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was a special adviser to the Conservative group on Oxfordshire county council. There is considerable expertise on the Conservative Benches and it is significant that so many of my hon. Friends wish to make their maiden speeches on this subject. That
  62
  demonstrates the commitment that the Conservatives have had to housing since the time of Disraeli, and our belief in one nation.
  This is obviously a very worthy Bill, but it is difficult to work out what will be different in housing policy once the Bill is enacted.
  Clauses 1 to 3, which are the main thrust of the Bill, require local authorities to develop a positive, proactive homelessness strategy, but I suspect that most local authorities already do that. Certainly, Conservative-controlled Cherwell district council in my area has long had such a strategy. Its initiatives include a "move on" policy, to allow the—mainly young—people living in supported housing who have demonstrated an ability to live independently to move into permanent social housing.
  The council participates in a countrywide scheme with the drugs action team and other statutory and voluntary organisations to provide housing for individuals who have successfully tackled their drugs misuse, facilitating their rejection of drugs and possibly an offending life style. A registered social landlord, with the council's support, has sought funding from the Housing Corporation for the development of emergency accommodation for single homeless people, with day care provision.
  We are setting up a women's refuge in Banbury. The council, working with the community mental health trust, is providing some flats in the new social housing in Bicester for people with a mental health problem, and a similar scheme is being developed for new social housing development in Banbury.
  I am sure that the Government would welcome all those initiatives. We have had a large-scale voluntary transfer in Cherwell, where people were given a choice of staying with the district council or going to a housing association, Banbury Homes. As part of the strategy, Banbury Homes, too, has some excellent initiatives. It has a scheme whereby 19 young people aged 16 to 25 reside in a foyer in central Banbury. To qualify for one of the eight bedsits or 11 flats, they have to agree to some form of education and training.
  The foyer scheme has led to many young people not only finding decent housing but taking up educational opportunities that they would otherwise have missed. One youngster said:
  "If I hadn't come to the Foyer I wouldn't even have known about the Prince's Trust … I wouldn't have got the encouragement and support I've been given. They don't just stick you in a flat and say 'get on with it'. They're with you every step of the way … The Foyer has opened windows and doors of opportunity that I never imagined were possible."
  Banbury Homes provides a safe and secure environment at Cotefield house, where vulnerable families are given the support and encouragement that they need to rebuild broken lives. It is of especial benefit for people fleeing domestic violence.
  Banbury Homes also runs a north Oxfordshire tenancy support project, helping both its own and Cherwell district council's tenants to deal with financial and social problems that are making it difficult for them to maintain their tenancies. There are about 650 tenants in Cherwell with significant rent arrears, and the project is designed to help them, because, as Banbury Homes says, those arrears are often just a symptom of other underlying problems. It tries to link them to the various support services to help tackle the root causes.

  63
  Banbury Homes runs a rent deposit guarantee scheme, which has helped about 600 people to find accommodation in the private rented sector by guaranteeing a deposit. The tenant benefits and the landlord is given some security.
  Housing authorities such as Cherwell district council are, quite properly, doing everything that the Government want them to do. What more is to be required of them? Is it intended that the Bill should seem to be doing more than it actually does? Clause 5 covers the
  "Provision of accommodation for persons not in priority need who are not homeless intentionally".
  It is designed to get away from a points system. Cherwell district council is already away from a points system and into bands.
  The reality is that it is very difficult to get council accommodation in Cherwell—I suspect that this is true everywhere—unless someone is a high-priority case. Cherwell has about 2,000 families on the housing waiting list, and about 200 vacancies a year in social housing. For the vast majority of families who apply to the council, the only route is into private rented accommodation, with the support of housing benefit. Those people are concerned that they are then deemed to be adequately housed and cease to be anything approaching a high-priority case.
  I welcome clause 11, which makes it easier to appeal to the county court, because it was ridiculous for tenants or those concerned about their housing to have to appeal to the High Court, especially as it is increasingly difficult to get legal aid. That put access to justice beyond many people's reach. Clause 8 was introduced on similar grounds. I welcome all those worthwhile tidying-up provisions, but it is unclear how the Bill will make it easier for people to have access to affordable social housing.
  What does the Bill do that responsible authorities such as Cherwell district council, in conjunction with housing associations such as Banbury Homes, are not already doing? Is not the danger that the Bill will give the impression that the Government are seeking to do something on which they cannot deliver, and that it will raise expectations that cannot be fulfilled?
  I do not make this as a party political point. Recent research carried out by Cambridge university suggests that 80,000 to 85,000 new affordable homes are needed each year to meet extra demand, and that we are currently providing only about half that number. Providing such homes is an incredibly expensive exercise, not least at a time when it is increasingly difficult to find land on which local authorities or, more realistically, housing associations can build.
  By the judicious demolition of five pairs of postwar prefabs in the centre of Banbury, Banbury Homes is creating 16 new two and three-bedroom homes. Such an initiative requires the most enormous amount of delicate negotiation with existing tenants, planning authorities and the Housing Corporation, which provides the funding.
  I ask the Minister, in her wind-up, to make clearer to the House, in a couple of sentences, what the Bill will do that responsible local authorities and social landlords are not already doing. How will it improve people's ability to move into social accommodation, and what real changes will it make to people's lives? If the Bill does not make real improvements, although it may give the impression of doing something, it will not deliver very much.
  6.40 pm
  Ms Karen Buck: I congratulate the new ministerial team on their appointment and my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) on his maiden speech, which demonstrated a powerful commitment to his constituency. He also paid a moving tribute to his predecessor, and in particular to the efficacy of his efforts with his casework. I wonder whether, now that he no longer has a constituency of his own, my former hon. Friend might be interested in a little outsourcing; I am sure that I could come to an arrangement with him.
  We have heard contributions from both sides that have shown a clear consensus about the underlying principles of the Bill, especially the requirement for local authorities to develop homelessness strategies alongside their housing strategies, the emphasis on prevention and the development of choice-based lettings.
  I also welcome the ending of the arbitrary requirement for local authorities to provide accommodation for two years only. Although that rule was more often breached than practised, it none the less sent out an unwelcome message to homeless people and others in housing need that the Government were not prepared to put their housing needs centre-stage, or to recognise the vulnerability that accompanies homelessness.
  It is a great credit to the Government that they have reintroduced the Bill into the House so quickly, and I hope that we will be able to give it a swift passage. However, the sky over the Liberal Democrat Benches seems to be darkening with anoraks, and I think I hear the sound of distant thunder—so I shall be relieved when we have been able to see the Bill through and put it into action.
  The election campaign was a sobering experience for me in that it revealed housing need. In the four previous years, housing issues were by far the most frequent and serious of all the casework problems that I experienced, but in the campaign I found to my surprise that in dealing with the people who had found their way to my surgery, I had not necessarily been dealing with the worst housing problems. Behind almost every third door that I knocked on—certainly in the needier parts of my constituency—I found yet more cases of housing need.
  I therefore welcome the opportunity to set the Bill in the context of the issues of housing supply that have to be addressed. Over a number of years, and under different Governments, there has been an unsustainable fall in the supply of affordable and social housing. In places such as London and the south-east, and in some other parts of the country as well, we are reaching a crisis point in the provision of social housing. Something must be done to tackle that problem.
  Of course, I welcome and appreciate the fact that there has been a dramatic increase in housing investment through the comprehensive spending review. That is working its way through. Unlike the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I do not look back on the past four years of the Labour Government as a dismal record. The money has been increasing, and housing has moved up the ladder of political importance, with the targets being set—within the framework for ending child poverty—for reducing the number of children being brought up in substandard housing.
  Particular emphasis has also been put on improving the condition of the housing stock. That is welcome, but that emphasis addresses the needs of some parts of the country

  65
  more than those of others. There is no doubt that some parts of the country have a real problem with the chronic substandard quality of their accommodation. However, the problem that areas of low demand, often in the north, are experiencing are not the same as those that face London and the south-east. It is now time to shift—or rather, to balance—the emphasis towards addressing those needs.
  Between 1995 and last year, the number of new lettings by councils and housing associations fell from 51,650 to 36,100. Therein lies the problem: until we reverse that decline in letting we shall go on having to deal with all the problems of unmet housing need outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson).
  Unfortunately, and in parallel to that, the provision of private rented accommodation for families on low incomes has been halved. There are several reasons for that, and they all have to be dealt with. One reason is the absolute chaos that faces people in private rented accommodation when they make a claim for housing benefit. There is no doubt about that, and it has been mentioned before.
  My local authority of Westminster privatised its housing benefit service using Capita, and the system went into free fall a little over a year and a half ago. Although the volume of cases in arrears has now fallen substantially, scarcely a day goes by when I do not find yet another case of someone receiving a notice seeking possession, or even being evicted, because of non-payment of housing benefit. Private landlords, unlike registered social landlords, simply will not stand for that.
  That is definitely one of the reasons, but it is not the only reason—another reason is London's economic success. Landlords who five to eight years ago, during the slump in the housing market in the mid-1990s, were renting to families on lower incomes and housing benefit, no longer need to do so. They can rent their property at the higher end of the market and receive a substantial private rent. The whole nature of the private rented accommodation market has changed.
  In addition, property that was being used as hostels for homeless families and others in need is now being converted to backpackers' hostels, and used for other purposes connected with the tourist trade. The supply of that form of accommodation has now almost dried up. One of the great challenges that we face, alongside that of increasing the supply, is making good that shortfall in private rented accommodation and giving people an alternative, particularly those who move in and out of London on a short-term basis for work and other reasons.
  The drop in such provision is unsustainable, and is doing vast damage to our communities and incredible damage to the individuals who, as a result, have to go through the hell of living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate discussed some of the conditions in which people are living.
  Two years ago, the Dixon inquiry into the conditions that led a severely mentally ill man to kill a young policewoman in east London, revealed what pressure cookers the bed-and-breakfast hostels and hotels are turning into. Families with young children are living next door to people with severe and enduring mental health
  66
  difficulties, and the pressure under which they live leads to further mental stress, emotional breakdown, the breakdown of relationships and many related problems.
  Geraint Davies: As the chair of the London boroughs housing committee in a former life, I know that, as my hon. Friend is saying, bed and breakfast is not only completely socially unacceptable but economically ignorant. Obviously, the cost of keeping people in bed and breakfast is much higher than sustaining them in affordable housing. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Bill provides extra rights for homeless people and gives extra duties to government to provide more affordable housing, which is desperately needed in London today?
  Ms Buck: I agree with my hon. Friend, particularly about the economic illiteracy of bed-and-breakfast accommodation; it is now estimated that we spend £150 million in London alone on it. That is mad. It is not only bed and breakfast that is economically illiterate, but temporary accommodation, too—although I do not say for a second that we shall be able to deal with all that overnight. We are now housing about 50,000 families in London in temporary accommodation, in some cases leasing back former council flats for which tenants would have been paying £80 or £90 a week in rent, whose rent is now £1,000 a month.
  Housing benefit frequently picks up the bill, and although families would like to be able to be free of benefit and go to work, they cannot do so because the cost of their rent traps them in welfare dependency. If we are to consider temporary accommodation instead of bed and breakfast as a medium-to-longer term solution to housing need, we will need a new deal that is specially targeted at families in temporary accommodation to enable them to overcome that benefit barrier to work.
  The term "temporary accommodation" has become something of a misnomer, because we are talking about interim accommodation. People in temporary accommodation such as a leased flat stay for five or eight years—as long as many people would expect to stay in a social tenancy.
  The Government can and should do much to tackle the problems that I have mentioned, but local authorities must not be let off the hook. We need a multilayered approach to the problem of homelessness. The two local authorities that my constituency covers—Kensington and Westminster—have, at best, a chequered record in securing affordable housing from partnerships with the private sector under section 106. Better-performing councils, such as Hammersmith and Fulham, have been able to secure more than 50 per cent. of development on private land for affordable housing, and that is considerably to their credit.
  In south Westminster, we recently had to look to an intervention from the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone; fortunately, he managed to raise the contribution from the developer from £850,000 to £2.5 million. That goes to show what can be achieved when the clear political will exists. Westminster has made progress—I congratulate the council—because instead of requiring 25 per cent. of new development to be affordable housing, it now requires 25 per cent. plus a further 5 per cent. to be made available to key workers. However, that welcome change has

  67
  required some pressure from the Mayor. I support the Mayor's initiatives on housing and, as a member of his housing commission last autumn, I welcome the strategies to boost the supply of accommodation set out in its paper, which were advanced in the spatial development strategy.
  When we discussed the Homes Bill in the previous Parliament, I tabled a probing amendment, which was not reached because of lack of time, to set targets for a reduction in the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In response to a parliamentary question that I tabled, we had the announcement of the establishment of the bed-and-breakfast unit, which is a great step forward. It is the single most pleasing action the Government have taken on the issue of housing recently, because the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation has no place in the 21st century. We cannot allow families with young children, and other vulnerable people, to spend more than the shortest period, in emergencies, in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It damages their health and relationships and severely disrupts children's educational performance. Strategies aimed at tackling social exclusion cannot work effectively so long as thousands of families can expect to spend months, and sometimes years, living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
  With so many strategies, one substitutes a focus on a particular problem—in this case, bed and breakfast, but it also happened with rough sleepers—for an eye on the bigger picture. In this case, that is housing supply. Overcrowding and the loss of privacy in hostel and hotel accommodation is a critical problem, but it is no worse than the loss of privacy and overcrowding that an increasing number of households experience under existing social and registered social landlord tenancies. In the weeks before the election as I went around my constituency, I met hundreds of families—some already known to me—living in levels of chronic overcrowding that are nothing short of a scandal.
  Unfortunately, although the Housing Act 1996 expected local authorities to give due preference to overcrowded households, the legislation on which that definition is based is now 70 years out of date. There is an urgent need to bring up to date the framework of overcrowding legislation to enable local authorities properly to reflect the duties they owe to all households seeking accommodation, especially larger family units, which do not get the priority they need.
  One family I met—I could easily have chosen 99 others—living on an estate in Westminster, had seven people, ranging in age from two to 35, sharing a small two-bedroomed flat that the council has, technically correctly, assessed as not overcrowded until the nine-year-old turns 10, when, with the charm that characterises so much of our legislation, he ceases to be half a person. We cannot be serious about a system that allows a family of seven living in a small two-bedroomed flat to be defined as not overcrowded. However, the statutory overcrowding legislation, based on the conditions that prevailed in the 1930s, gives no incentive to local authorities to give due priority to larger households.
  One problem that arises, as we increasingly shift our housing stock from council-owned to registered social landlord accommodation—whether through supply or transfers—is that larger family units cannot be moved out
  68
  of their present accommodation into an alternative that is technically not large enough for their requirements. So, my family of seven, who would technically require four or five-bedroom accommodation, cannot be moved to a housing association property with three bedrooms, even though that would significantly relieve their housing pressure, because the rules do not allow that. The extent of that problem is now so great and so entrenched across London that there is a real risk that tens of thousands of overcrowded families will be trapped in local authority accommodation with no prospects of moving. That is unacceptable.
  I warmly congratulate the Government on bringing back the Bill, on all the action that has been taken and on the investment that has been made to tackle housing issues. However, there is much more to do, and I would welcome an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government have fully accepted the need for two housing policies, and not just one.
  The needs of large areas of this country, especially Birmingham and further north, which have poor-quality estates where nobody wants to live, are completely different from the needs of areas of high demand. On some estates—I know that there are exceptions—we might need to tear down unwanted housing and investigate social and economic regeneration strategies. So long as we have a single housing policy mindset, as I fear still exists at official level, we will not satisfy the needs of communities in low-demand areas or the desperate bottled-up housing needs of communities such as those in my constituency. We expect a consultation paper soon on housing capital allocations, which will be an opportunity to demonstrate that those different needs are being addressed and balanced. I assure my hon. Friend that we will watch developments closely.
  I wish the Bill good speed. It is welcome for homeless families, but we now face the huge challenge of delivering for those hundreds of thousands of families, especially in London and the south-east, for whom overcrowding is a daily nightmare.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Andrew Selous: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) on his excellent maiden speech, and wish him well during his time in the House. It is a great privilege to be called to make my maiden speech in this important debate on homelessness, a subject very close to my heart.
  I speak as the first new Member of Parliament for South-West Bedfordshire since 1970. It is with great humility that I take the place so honourably occupied in this House by Sir David Madel for the past 31 years. David was respected and liked by hon. Members on both sides of the House for his constructive and courteous contributions in the Chamber. He is a true gentleman, in the finest meaning of that word. He embodies, for me, so much of what is best about conservatism. He is kind, conscientious and compassionate, and his heart is in the communities that he has so faithfully served for the past 31 years. He and his wife Susan have been unfailingly helpful to my wife and me since my selection. No tribute to David would be complete without mention of his faithful secretary, Jill Burge, who so loyally supported him throughout his time in Parliament.

  69
  All elections are full of drama, passion and intense debate, but they also have their lighter moments. There was the time when my intrepid mother-in-law, canvassing hard for our county council candidate and me in Houghton Regis, passed through the security gates of a house only to find them locking behind her. The picture the press missed of her rescue by a fire engine would no doubt have graced several local front pages. Rumours of my collusion with the householder are wholly without foundation.
  Just after the election, my speech at my first branch event was rudely interrupted by my five-year-old daughter falling in the goldfish pond during the finale. I was under the illusion that it was new Members of Parliament who were supposed to make a splash in their constituencies.
  South-West Bedfordshire is a varied, interesting, dynamic and beautiful constituency. It includes the three towns of Leighton Buzzard, adjoined with Linslade, Dunstable and Houghton Regis, 17 villages, the renowned Whipsnade wild animal park and the London gliding club. The majestic Dunstable downs, with the massive lion carved deep into the chalk, dominate the southern skyline. Much of our countryside is stunningly beautiful. I encourage right hon. and hon. Members to come to South-West Bedfordshire to enjoy our historic towns and attractive villages as well as our tourist attractions.
  I would also encourage any entrepreneurs to come to south-west Bedfordshire to expand or locate their business. We have huge advantages in that we are only 40 miles north of London with excellent transport links from Euston and King's Cross, and the M1 and Luton airport are close by. Our towns have preserved their historic character and we can offer a wonderful quality of life in our surrounding countryside.
  I wish to raise several matters of concern to my constituents. Leighton Buzzard and Linslade have a significant number of commuters and it is vital that Silverlink retains access to the fast line to London. I also trust that it will not be too long before a new police station, with sufficient officers to man it and with its own cells, is provided for the town. That would mean that police officers would no longer be taken off the streets as they transport those arrested to the cells in Dunstable.
  I shall be pressing Ministers to provide a minor injuries clinic in Leighton Buzzard. I shall also be watching teacher numbers very closely at Vandyke and Cedars upper schools to ensure that the pupils in those two fine schools receive the education they deserve.
  Dunstable and Houghton Regis need two bypasses very urgently. A full north-south bypass for Dunstable is the first priority, so that the A5 no longer goes through the middle of the town and so that residents, as well as the children in the 11 schools close by, can have an improved quality of life. The extension of the Leighton Buzzard southern bypass from the Thom turn to the M1 is also urgently needed to relieve congestion on roads not built for the traffic volumes that they are experiencing. I will also be looking to ensure that there is more visible policing in Houghton Regis, and that the town has a bank of its own as a matter of urgency.
  I would like to see the reopening of the Luton to Dunstable railway, which the people of Dunstable have requested in poll after poll. In time, I would like the line to run all the way from Luton Airport Parkway to Leighton Buzzard, thus linking Leighton Buzzard and Dunstable with Milton Keynes and Birmingham all the way through
  70
  to the airport. I firmly believe that, if reopened, many of the branch lines axed by Dr. Beeching would be huge assets to the community they served.
  Dunstable and Houghton Regis supply car components to many companies. I am sure that I am not alone in the House in wanting Ministers to be driven in British-made cars. I was somewhat surprised recently to see a Minister arrive in New Palace Yard in a large Mercedes. Could he not find a British-made car? I can recommend several excellent Vauxhall models made by some of my constituents. Indeed, why do not our police and other public bodies just buy British-made cars? When was the last time we saw the French police drive anything other than French cars? The same applies to the German police. Let us back our workers with the public purse in the same manner.
  I am delighted that my constituents can enjoy cheap air travel from Luton airport, but serious issues of accountability to local people, over whose homes aircraft fly, need to be addressed. Aircraft are frequently "vectored off' the agreed flight paths to fly over the homes of many of my constituents. In motoring terms, that is the equivalent of a bus cutting across the village green to save a few minutes' journey time. I find it unacceptable, as it causes repeated aircraft noise over my constituents' homes that could and should be avoided.
  The siting of mobile phone masts close to people's homes is also causing anxiety to many of my constituents. Although I welcome the usefulness of mobile phones and the jobs that the industry creates, I feel strongly that we should not enjoy this technology at the cost of causing distress to those whose homes, hospitals and schools are next to the masts.
  I have already spoken of our beautiful countryside, maintained by the farmers who are the custodians of so much of our rural landscape. I am, however, horrified at the amount of fly tipping that spoils our roads and lanes. This has got worse since businesses were charged for using municipal tips. We must make the disposal of waste convenient, accessible and free so that we eradicate this eyesore. There should be far higher fines for offenders, and rigorous enforcement of the law by the police to deter people from engaging in this dangerous and unsightly practice.
  My motivation for aspiring to become a Member of this House is my Christian faith. It is my wish to see the Conservative party become the party for the poor and disadvantaged. My inspiration hails from those great giants, William Wilberforce, and the poor man's earl, Lord Shaftesbury. We need to draw deeply on their example of perseverance to put right the ills of the present day. Chief among those, in my view, are the pain and suffering caused by family breakdown. Juvenile delinquency, educational under-achievement and homelessness are so often the direct results.
  Over the past few years, it has been my privilege to help raise funds for homeless charities, not least the Passage, which the Secretary of State mentioned in his opening remarks. I have raised funds by collecting sponsorship for sleeping rough myself, and I intend to continue doing so. There is a great need for money for charities helping the homeless, as homeless advice centres run by First Place Housing in Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard closed last July as they failed in their bid for further lottery funding. Surely charities helping the

  71
  homeless are among the most worthy recipients of lottery funding. They should not have been denied resources in that way. Lottery funding priorities need to be reviewed to ensure continuing support for such causes.
  Many homeless people come from an institutional background, be it local authority care homes, prison or the armed services. Although all homeless people are equally deserving of support, I feel strongly, as a former soldier, that those who have been prepared to die to protect their fellow countrymen and women deserve special recognition. Surplus Ministry of Defence accommodation should be used for ex-service personnel as they reorientate themselves to civilian life. I applaud the first steps taken along those lines by the Government last year, but much more needs to be done. It was encouraging, however, to hear the Secretary of State talk about the veterans taskforce.
  One of the major causes of homelessness is young people leaving home when their parents split up and they are made to feel unwelcome by new spouses or partners. The "Cost of Family Breakdown" report produced last year for the all-party family and child protection group estimated the cost at about £15 billion. The total could he double if indirect costs are included. Expenditure on marriage preparation and enrichment is money well spent from the public purse if it saves public expenditure later on.
  In Italy, a nation which has significantly higher unemployment than the UK and regional variations as pronounced as any in Europe and where a third of couples divorce within five years of marriage, homelessness is almost unknown—be it in Milan, Rome or Naples. The Italian sense of family solidarity means that 50 per cent. of 25 to 29-year-olds live at home, whereas the average age of leaving home in the UK is 22. Italians are also more willing to let children return home when times are hard. Any moves to encourage similarly accommodating British social attitudes would be most welcome.
  It is the greatest honour ever bestowed on me to be an advocate for my home constituency and to be able to contribute to debate that will shape our nation's future. In particular, I look forward to following the progress of this important Bill, which my party is pleased to support.
  7.12 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: I congratulate both the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous) and my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) on making their maiden speeches in this auspicious debate. I hope that their interest in housing will continue throughout their time as Members.
  Labour Members who have an interest in housing waited a long time for housing Bills to appear on the agenda of the previous Parliament. When they finally did appear, one never escaped the other place and the other got shot down there. In his comments earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) blamed Labour Members for the demise of the Homes Bill, but if the Conservatives had wanted the Bill to come back from the House of Lords and the homelessness agenda to become law, they could have achieved that. I blame them for delaying the measure in the other place.
  I was not called to speak on Second Reading on the Homes Bill so it is a great privilege to be called to speak in this debate. I have been in politics long enough to
  72
  remember the impact of a television documentary that is frozen in the mind of people of my generation—"Cathy Come Home". That programme spurred on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). Those of us involved in housing at the time were extremely proud of that legislation, which for the first time placed a duty on local housing authorities to secure permanent accommodation for unintentionally homeless people in priority need.
  After 18 years of successive Tory Governments, however, the provisions of the 1977 Act had been significantly watered down by various pieces of legislation. We have to remind Opposition Members that, during those years of Tory government and caused by their housing policies, the number of homeless people doubled to an astonishing 139,000 in 1992. Admittedly, even under the Tory Government, the number fell from that high figure, but even under the Labour Government, the current figure is more than 100,000. Ministers have accepted that that is still far too high.
  I was a member of the housing committee in Bolton for 21 years and its chairman for 10 years—from 1986 to 1996. It was my passion for housing that made me seek election to this place at the last-but-one general election. When I became chairman of the housing committee, I made a commitment that we would put homelessness at the top of the housing agenda of the Labour group, and we did so.
  At that time, there was little provision in Bolton. An ancient former children's home was used as a hostel for families and there was a newly built Salvation Army hostel. Women's refuges were becoming important: women suffering domestic violence could escape to Fort Alice. Since the early 1970s, Bolton has had an excellent housing advice centre—currently in a different, much improved location in the town centre. The staff work closely with everyone involved in housing, including the best of the private landlords in Bolton who have particularly helped to rehouse non-priority homeless people.
  Hon. Members have already referred to a difficulty that deters private landlords from accepting homeless people who are in receipt of benefits—the significant delay in the payment of housing benefit. That is caused not only by such things as the implementation of the housing benefit verification framework, but by a collision of that policy with best-value policy.
  The number of priority cases accepted as homeless in Bolton averaged about 1,000 during the 1970s and 1980s. The number has fallen to about 800 cases at present—although of course that remains too high.
  There have been changes. More single people present as homeless in Bolton, although fortunately the number of families—especially those with children—presenting as homeless has fallen significantly. That is probably because Bolton is not short of accommodation; the problem we face is one of quality rather than quantity. Our need is for increased investment in regeneration, especially in the private sector.
  Significantly, the complexity of the accepted cases has increased. That is an important point. It is not uncommon for officers to deal with cases that include issues not only of domestic violence but of drug or alcohol misuse and child protection. As a result, the amount of multi-agency work required at present is much greater than it was in

  73
  the past. For example, Bolton has a borough-wide multi-agency strategy to deal with domestic violence. The council has produced an excellent directory of services, which is readily available throughout the borough.
  The importance of dealing with the causes of homelessness as well as homelessness itself cannot be stressed too highly. Bolton has adopted a homelessness strategy that involves not only all the statutory agencies but all the voluntary sector agencies. The Catholic Children's Rescue Society and the Manchester Methodist housing association have set up mother and baby units in various parts of the town. Irwell Valley housing association runs a short-stay hostel for women—Fleet house.
  In addition to the Salvation Army hostel, Manchester Methodist housing association runs a hostel for men. The Carr-Gomm Society provides accommodation in flats in a large house for vulnerable people with special problems. MIND manages a small number of flats for people who have experienced serious mental illness.
  When I became chairman of Bolton's housing committee, I discovered that bed blocking had become a real problem in our short-stay hostels. Consequently, we established a special needs and resettlement team, which finds permanent accommodation for the homeless and supports vulnerable tenants in that accommodation. Many of the homeless have previously been in the armed forces or come from backgrounds in care of one sort or another—prisons or local authority placements.
  Another problem faced by homeless people is the provision of furniture. Sad to say, the Benefits Agency is not always helpful to homeless people, so Bolton Community Transport picks up unwanted furniture, refurbishes it and makes it available, at modest cost, in a showroom in the town centre. The Salvation Army performs a complementary role.
  Many private landlords require an up-front payment not only for the rent due but as a breakage deposit if the accommodation is furnished. One of my proudest achievements as chairman of the housing committee was setting up Bolton Bond Board, which helps homeless people into such accommodation. It will be 10 years old shortly, and I recommend those local authorities that have not implemented a bond board in their area to do so.
  Bolton council has researched the provision of a French-style foyer scheme, but after consulting potential users it has decided to adopt the dispersed-foyer concept instead. The Bolton accommodation, support and education project—BASE—manages 22 properties for 43 people from a prominent location to the north of the town centre. It is an innovative partnership between the local authority, various voluntary sector organisations and the North British and Portico housing associations. As the name implies, it is a housing-plus scheme, offering advice across the board, as well as accommodation.
  The Bolton young persons accommodation support scheme—BYPASS—also has a shop-frontage presence, but to the south of the town centre. That innovative scheme not only provides help and advice on accommodation and other issues at a drop-in centre, but offers a creche, a coffee bar, a clothing exchange scheme and laundry and bathing facilities for those without a permanent home of their own. For many years, it has also provided an advocacy service for scores of young people who have left the local authority's care.
  74
  The most difficult group to deal with are the single young males, many of whom are often involved in alcohol or drug misuse, and whose lives are usually chaotic. In addition, some of them are mentally ill. After talking to many of those people in the centre of Bolton, I became convinced that we must deal with one of the commonest causes of sustained homelessness—substance misuse—in a holistic way.
  I have to tell the Government that the way in which the cases of Ruth Wyner and John Brock have been dealt with—especially the aftermath of those cases in which section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was strengthened—has made it much more difficult to include that group of people socially, and I implore the Government to talk again to the professionals and to think again.
  Ironically, drugs are also available in our prisons, but we make no attempt to close them down or to take any action against the management of those institutions for allowing drugs to be used on those premises. Why, then, should even housing associations, often involved in some of the housing-plus schemes that I have referred to, now be afraid of providing housing and opportunities for some of our previously socially excluded citizens? We must be prepared to go the extra mile to rehabilitate drug addicts back into society, and we should applaud those people who work with them in a voluntary or a paid capacity; we certainly should not persecute them.
  I welcome all the commitments to dealing with homelessness that the Government made during the previous Parliament, as well as those that they are making in the Bill—for example, the inclusion in the priority need group of 16 and 17-year-olds and those leaving care, prison or the armed forces. I welcome the clause that will prevent a local authority's duty towards the homeless from being discharged through the use of assured shorthold tenancies in the private sector.
  I welcome the requirement for all local authorities to provide adequate housing advice not only to those homeless people in priority need but to all those who do not have a home. I welcome, too, the recognition that those suffering from racial harassment or domestic violence are also in priority need.
  I was very pleased that the housing Green Paper referred to regional difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) has already referred to the fact that there are great differences between the north and the south. In fact, differences exist in each region. My hon. Friend is right to ask the Government to consider localised housing policies, rather than having a national housing policy. Certainly, that is the way in which the Government are moving.
  I realise that what I am about to say is not politically correct, but it makes no sense to continue to operate the right-to-buy policy in areas of greatest demand—Greater London and rural villages. I know how popular that policy has been, and I have never criticised those who have exercised their rights, but that does not make the policy right, especially in the light of this debate. Is it any wonder that public sector workers are difficult to employ in London and that so many people have to spend so long in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, when former council properties are still being sold at discounted prices

  75
  then re-sold at unbelievable prices? I implore the Government to review the right-to-buy policy in those extremely high-demand areas.
  The clause that will provide a new duty to allocate temporary accommodation for unintentionally homeless people that is brought to an end only when the applicants have been provided with settled accommodation will have little impact in towns such as Bolton, but it will have a great impact in areas of high demand. The clause will end the insecurity faced by many homeless people and restore the recognition that homeless people need long-term solutions.
  Many local authorities will welcome the greater flexibility offered under the Bill to develop their allocations polices. I am very pleased that my local authority is one of the 27 that the Government have chosen to try initiatives such as the Delft proposal, and I look forward to the outcome of the pilot scheme.
  I am happy to recommend the Bill to the House. Its enactment will meet another of our 1997 manifesto commitments: local authorities will provide unintentionally homeless people in priority need with temporary accommodation until they are provided with settled housing. I hope that housing will remain high on the Government's agenda throughout this Parliament.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this debate. I, too, should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous) on their maiden speeches.
  To have been elected to represent the constituency of Huntingdon is a great privilege; it has an ancient and famous history, to which I shall return. I feel honoured to have been chosen by my constituents to follow such a distinguished predecessor as Mr. John Major, whom very many Members will remember with respect and affection.
  John Major served the House and his constituents for some 22 years, and his party for very much longer than that. In government, he achieved an outstanding, hardly matched record of public service, having been, in succession, a Government Whip, a Social Security Minister, Foreign Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister.
  John Major is a perfect gentleman—a man of immense charm and warmth who is kind and dedicated to public service. As Prime Minister, he proved himself a true statesman: on one hand, showing courage and determination in his conduct of the Iraqi conflict and, on the other, displaying his qualities as a peacemaker in his relentless pursuit of a lasting settlement in Northern Ireland. He was also a hard-working constituency Member who, despite his national responsibilities, dealt with his constituents' concerns with great efficiency and the minimum of fuss and self-advertisement.
  In Huntingdonshire, John Major is regarded with the very highest respect and admiration. His standards of public service, integrity and decency will be a tough act for me to follow, but I believe that they present the best
  76
  example to all new Members. Indeed, I shall be very satisfied if, after 22 years of service, I have the same relationship with my constituents as John had with his.
  The Huntingdon constituency—with its four market towns of Huntingdon, Godmanchester, St. Ives and St. Neots, with their connecting artery, the Great Ouse river, together with some 40 related villages—has a distinguished and ancient past, not least in being the birthplace of Oliver Cromwell, who was elected as Member for Huntingdon in 1628. That Parliament was perhaps the most crucial in moulding the British system of parliamentary democracy that we have today. It was a time when the champions of civil rights and parliamentary liberties addressed how the law could be on the side of individual liberty as much as on the side of authority. Of course, it was the Parliament in which Members physically held down the Speaker to assert the right of the House to control its own Adjournment. I do not think that that could happen today, but one can only wonder what the reaction of the 1628 Parliament would have been to such things as the Government's proposal to restrict the ancient right against double jeopardy.
  As to Cromwell's contribution to the 1628 Parliament, I managed to find his rather unimpressive maiden speech—indeed, his only speech in that Parliament—in which he attacked a bishop for popery at St. Paul's Cross. Clearly, inclusiveness was not on the agenda in 1628.
  The Huntingdon constituency is a place of immense variety of business sectors and living environments. There is the established agricultural sector. Although it has so far been spared the horrors of foot and mouth disease, it has none the less suffered all the decline in income and the unemployment that has blighted that sector of our economy in recent years. Defence, too, is an important local employer. With four air bases and many thousands of British and American service personnel living in the area, issues relating to the proper funding of our armed forces are frequently mentioned to me.
  Huntingdonshire, as part of the Cambridgeshire administrative area, has one of the highest numbers of self-employed people and small businesses in the country. That includes manufacturing but it increasingly includes self-employed consultants and new economy start-ups drawn to establishing their businesses in the so-called silicon fen. Larger technology-related companies are also basing themselves in the constituency and the healthy and welcoming business environment that we have is something that I shall continue very much to encourage.
  Also important to the local economy and local quality of life are the shops and pubs of the villages as well as the retaillers and markets of the market towns. I mention them in particular because all too often they are overlooked, with the result that, over the past 30 years, business and retail policy has prioritised cities or out-of-city retail sites very much to the cost of our market towns. It seems to be increasingly the case that market towns are targeted for new housing and, in the towns of Huntingdonshire, there is barely a cul-de-sac that has not been opened up for new development in recent years. That creates the risk of towns being turned into dormitories for people to sleep in and then leave to work in the surrounding cities.
  Market towns were developed to be destinations, not dormitories—destinations for townspeople and surrounding villagers to work in and to sell their produce

  77
  and buy goods. To lose sight of that and to believe that market towns can just keep building houses with no ill effects would be a grave error. Indeed, it would be as great an error as was made by planning policies over the years that led to the depopulation of many of our nation's inner cities, with the subsequent disastrous impact on businesses and balanced social environments that ultimately resulted in displacement and homelessness.
  Furthermore, such an error would cause us to ignore the reality of changing life styles in this country. Indeed, one of the most striking events of the general election campaign in 2001, compared with 1997, was the physical presence of people in their homes during the working day. In 1997, I mainly found retired people or housewives at home during working hours but this year, in home after home, I came across employees and the self-employed working from home.
  I believe that that trend will dramatically increase in coming years and it will involve a return to a village and town-based life rather than a commuting life. To that extent, it is vital that we proactively maintain and improve local shops and public services in our towns and villages so as to avoid the essentially reactive measures that have been and are still required in many of our inner cities.
  What is needed is a balance. Growing areas need more housing, of course, but, at the same time, that housing needs to be fairly dispersed around the country—not just dumped in the south of England. Cambridgeshire has been ordered to build 4,000 new homes each year for the next 15 years, and that is about three times more building than the county has had in the past 10 years. The impact of that will be abundantly clear to anyone who lives in Huntingdonshire: more concrete, fewer green fields and, importantly, even more pressure on public services.
  When we talk about a balanced approach to new housing, it is also vital to bring public services into the picture. Hinchingbrooke hospital in Huntingdon is well loved and admired for its quality of service and yet—mainly due to the increase in population and the resulting increase in health demands—its waiting lists have grown in each of the past three years.
  Again, although our local schools provide an excellent education service to our children, the fact remains that local secondary schools, particularly in the St. Neots area, are bursting at the seams, but Cambridgeshire has still not been taken into the area cost adjustment. That means that our pupils receive up to a third less funding than children in surrounding counties. Again, the increase in population has meant that we have fewer police per head of population than anywhere else in England.
  Huntingdonshire has one of the fastest-growing populations in the country. Indeed, when David, now Lord, Renton was last elected as its Member in 1974, the constituency had roughly the same number of people as now but it was double the geographic size. It prospered greatly during the time of John Major and that happened because a balance was maintained. For all the new housing, public services were expanded, businesses flourished, roads were built and school places were increased.
  I speak for the Huntingdon constituency, but I am sure that my concerns will be shared by many Members with rural or market town constituencies. Of course we need housing, and more affordable housing, not only to deal
  78
  with homelessness but to assist local areas to keep their local workers and to give their children the chance of living close to their families.
  Somehow, however, I do not see a balanced and integrated approach coming from the Government and from this Bill. Reducing homelessness is a sound objective, but it cannot be an isolated one. It needs to be considered in the context of the effects of displacement and the maintenance of stable communities. It needs to have regard to the maintenance of public services, the need to increase business opportunities and jobs in the affected areas and the need to address local people's sensitivities. It needs to allow local authorities to have a strong input rather than simply be dictated to from Whitehall.
  To deal effectively with homelessness will require even more than examining the impact of building thousands of new homes in the south. It will also require a much more careful assessment of why homelessness happens in the first place. Why are people moving en masse from the north of our country to the south? Why has the number of homeless people increased to 110,000 and the number of homeless in bed-and-breakfast accommodation from more than 4,000 in 1997 to almost 11,000 now, while, at the same time, the number of empty council properties now stands at 130,000 properties, of which 90,000 are in the midlands and the north?
  The Bill aims to require local housing authorities to put together a strategy for tackling homelessness in their districts, and the Government describe that as solving the problem at its roots. Of course, that assumes that the homeless in any one area originate from that area. However, as any London social services department will say, hardly any of the homeless come from the borough concerned. They are mainly from out of town or asylum seekers.
  To that extent, I suggest that although the Bill will certainly deal with some of the problems involved with homelessness, it fails to address the key strategic issues at national level. Surely, before mandating yet more thousands of homes in Huntingdonshire and the rest of the south of England, we should address inner-city deprivation and the need to fill up empty council houses, not only on a local basis as envisaged by this Bill, but through a system of co-ordinated national allocation. Indeed, the Government accepted this principle for asylum seekers and I would be interested to hear from the Minister why that approach should not be adopted for the homeless.
  Additionally, we need to appreciate that there are 620,000 empty properties in the private sector. If some of those homes could be brought back into use, the problem of homelessness could quickly be solved. The Bill will require housing authorities to assess the problems of empty homes but it will not solve the problem—to do that will again require action from the top.
  In particular, there should be tax incentives for residential letting and developers should be encouraged to redevelop existing sites rather than build on more green fields. At the moment, developers pay zero VAT to build on green fields but they pay VAT to refurbish in an inner city. The position needs to be equalised. Furthermore, it needs to be appreciated that the red tape and regulations involved in refurbishing for letting purposes has stifled the affordable homes end of the private lettings market. The regulations require a thorough review.

  79
  The Bill will go some way to clarifying the position of the homeless at a local level but what it will not do is solve the national problem.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. John Lyons: I congratulate the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous) and my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) on three outstanding maiden speeches. They were excellent.
  It is a great honour and privilege to speak in the House, representing Strathkelvin and Bearsden. The constituency is the gateway to the Campsie hills north of Glasgow and a large part of it follows the Forth and Clyde canal. It is an area of difference and diversity in which traditional industries, especially engineering and mining, have been in decline. It would be convenient to relate that to the period 1979 to 1997, but it would be untrue because the decline has been occurring for much longer than that.
  Like other maiden speakers, I pay tribute to my predecessor. Sam Galbraith served in the House from 1987 to his election to the Scottish Parliament. He served with distinction and was held in the highest esteem and affection by fellow MPs and staff. He entered the House after a brilliant career as a neurosurgeon. His hard work and commitment has been costly to his health and well-being. I am certain that hon. Members will join me in wishing him well.
  Over the years, Strathkelvin and Bearsden has continually changed in size and shape. Many Members of Parliament have had responsibility for various parts of the constituency. Hugh McCartney, Margaret Bain, Norman Hogg, Dennis Canavan and Sir Michael Hirst all served with distinction and are held with the highest regard in the area. Indeed, I was driven to distraction by people in one village who delighted in telling me, rather pointedly, that no one could match my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). He had served them 10 years earlier, but they thought that no one could replace him and still had fond memories of a good MP.
  My right hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that the most famous MP was Tom Johnston, a leading member of the Independent Labour party and an MP for periods in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. He was born and educated in Kirkintilloch at the heart of the constituency. He was chairman of the first municipal bank, a gifted writer and went on to change the face of post-war Scotland.
  Every MP who has represented the constituency will respect and honour the memory of Thomas Muir of Huntershill. As a parliamentary reformer, he supported the French revolution, which was not a popular cause, and was inspired by Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man", published in 1791. When charged with making seditious speeches and circulating "The Rights of Man", he conducted his own defence. Muir, who was an advocate, said:
  "I am accused of sedition and yet can prove by thousands of witnesses that I warned the people of that crime, exhorted them to adopt none but measures which were constitutional, and entreated them to connect liberty with knowledge and both with morality."
  Thomas Muir was sentenced to 14 years and transported to Australia. After 14 months in Sydney, he was rescued by the United States of America and later died in France
  80
  in 1798 at the ripe old age of 33. Today, Thomas Muir of Huntershill is a familiar name to thousands in the communities of Strathkelvin and Bearsden and throughout Scotland. Indeed, there is a thriving Muir society of lawyers and advocates.
  Strathkelvin and Bearsden values its past, but looks forward to a prosperous future. We accept that diversity is a way of life, and are interested in looking to the past and future. Unemployment is falling monthly. Before the general election, there was a 38 per cent. reduction over the previous four years. Today, there are plans in Kirkintilloch for a new health centre, supermarket, swimming pool and town hall. We hope that 1,000 new jobs will be created in that £39 million development.
  The Forth and Clyde canal flows through the constituency and has received major investment. I hope that those millions of pounds will attract new boats and visitors to the canal and new cyclists to its towpaths, allowing them to enjoy the beautiful countryside. Our small and medium-sized companies are striving to become more successful with the assistance of their hard-working employees. The community is well served by a strong local press, which always ensures that there is a distinct local voice to challenge all politicians when necessary.
  The printed word plays a central role in Strathkelvin and Bearsden. We boast of having HarperCollins publishing, which distributes books to cities, towns and villages not just across the United Kingdom, but all over the world. We are also proud of Omnia Printing, which takes J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter from Bishopbriggs in the constituency to Boston and Brisbane. It introduces Hogwart's school of witchcraft and wizardry to millions of children—and, dare. I say it, adults—and helps those children to rediscover the joy of reading, which cannot he a bad thing.
  The diversity that we strive for is a familiar story. We want a blend of tourism and enterprise, and to build a strong local economy. We want everyone in our constituency to share in any improvement that might come along, and we want social inclusion to be a reality for all constituents, which means tackling homelessness. In Strathkelvin and Bearsden, a correct and proper emphasis has been placed on dealing with homelessness at its early stages when young people are thinking about making themselves homeless, perhaps because of family circumstances. Project 101 offers advice to young people about the seriousness of homelessness and the problems that they would face. We want to continue that work.
  As a new Member, I have interests in international development, employment rights, transport and, of course, homelessness. My constituency has active churches, all of which are interested in third-world issues of debt relief and international development, which are close to my heart. During the general election, I canvassed one voter who, hearing of my interest in Africa and similar issues, said, "Do you not think it would be a good idea to go and feel at first hand what it's like in these countries?" I said that it certainly would and that I would be prepared to go for a few days to which she said, "I was thinking more of four or five years." I put her down as undecided.
  On a serious note, I welcome our leading role in reducing debt and encouraging development. It is a tremendous honour to be in the House and I shall try to engage with all constituents.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Roger Williams: It is a relief to be called now because it allows me to speak in the Welsh Grand Committee tomorrow and to address several issues that relate to my constituency.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) on his maiden speech. His obvious knowledge of and affection for his constituency will stand him in good stead. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous) on their maiden speeches.
  When I stood for selection as a candidate and for election as a Member of Parliament, I made it clear that my affection was for one constituency only. It is a bit like proposing marriage, the main difference being that marriage needs a unanimous decision whereas a majority decision will do for election. The good people of Brecon and Radnorshire rarely elect Members with a large majority: we come on probation. My majority, which is in the hundreds, is the second largest in that constituency in the past 20 years. I understand the temporary nature of the contract, but I give notice that I will apply for an extension.
  The people of Brecon and Radnorshire have always elected good constituency MPs. The one that I first remember is Tudor Watkins, a traditional Labour Member of Parliament. He was as well-respected in the hill farms of Radnorshire as he was in the industrialised Swansea valley that was his home. He fought hard to get electricity into those farms. Every year he was given the work programme of the South Wales electricity board, which listed those farms that would get electricity next year. He would then travel to the farms and tell the people how hard he was working to get them electricity, and when they got it he was doubly rewarded by their support. He was a very good constituency MP and a man of high principles.
  Tudor Watkins was succeeded by Caerwyn Roderick, who had a deep well of generosity and humanity that allowed him to respond to constituents' problems with great magnanimity. He, too, was a very good constituency MP, and a dear friend of mine.
  Before the boundaries of the constituency were changed, which made it less favourable for the Labour party, it was won by a Conservative, Tom Hooson. He was one of the Hooson tribe in mid-Wales who were all political, but of different persuasions. John, a friend of mine, was Labour; Emlyn, whom many hon. Members will know, was the Member for Montgomeryshire for many years, and Tom was the Tory. He was a gentleman and a gentle person, and he is remembered with enormous affection in the constituency. Tragically, he died while in office, halfway through his second term. That, of course, led to a by-election. The Liberal Democrats fought it with all the fury that rises in them at by-elections, and Richard Livsey was elected. He held the seat at the next general election.
  Richard Livsey, to whom I shall return in a moment, lost the seat in 1992 to another Conservative, Jonathan Evans, a very able Member of Parliament and a liberal, progressive Conservative. He still holds true to policies that some of the present members of the Conservative parliamentary party find difficult. He has gone on to sunnier and more exotic climes in the European
  82
  Parliament. It is interesting to note that at one time I was Jonathan Evans's landlord. He was an excellent tenant, but he had one complaint about me as a landlord, which was that I went round the constituency delivering leaflets that said that he did not live in the constituency. As I said, he was an excellent tenant, but he very rarely occupied the premises, and I still stand by the leaflets.
  In 1997, Jonathan Evans lost the seat to Richard Livsey, who was my immediate predecessor. The constituency is the largest in England and Wales, but he managed to fill it completely. He was known in every street in every town and village, and he was well-respected and highly regarded. His loss is enormous. Many new Members have said that they have a huge gap to fill, and I can say the same.
  The constituency extends from the coal measures in the south, through the limestone escarpments, to the massive red sandstone blocks of the Beacons and the Black mountains, which comprise the Brecon Beacons national park. That is, of course, the most beautiful, wonderful national park in England and Wales, and I say that without any bias whatsoever. I see Labour Members present who represent other areas of that park. The hidden jewels in my constituency, and indeed in Wales, are the northern parts of Breconshire and Radnorshire, which not many people see. All new Members have been advising people to take holidays in their constituency, and I have told our tourist operators to write to every Member of Parliament, asking them to come to the constituency, because it is so big that even if they all came at once they would not stand a chance of bumping into one another.
  The general election was fought against the background of unprecedented social and economic doom in the constituency. Several years of decline in manufacturing because of cheap imports and difficulties in exporting had led to job losses from Ystradgynlais to Knighton, Llandrindod Wells, Rhayader and Presteigne. Those jobs will be difficult to replace, and on top of that we have been affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. As a fanner, I know the stress of getting up in the morning and not knowing what one will find.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) recently experienced the tragic circumstances of the coroner presiding over three inquests in which it was found that farmers had committed suicide because of the stress that they were under. A worker on my farm, who has been with me for 30 years, recently suffered a stroke, partly due, I am sure, to stress and to not knowing what would happen next. My thoughts go out to all the farmers in the constituency who have suffered culls, whether their animals had the foot and mouth virus or whether the cull was contiguous. I think also of other farmers who, because of the restrictions on them, cannot move or trade in livestock and find themselves in financial difficulties. Being continuously strapped for cash puts huge pressure on them.
  On top of that, tourism, which is a major employer in our area and one of the largest businesses, is being completely run down. I took the time this weekend to meet two groups of tourist operators, who said that unless a package is made available shortly to tide people over the lean winter months many existing businesses will not be there in the spring to make use of all the promotion that will occur in future. It is a sad time when so many businesses, in which people have worked so hard and invested all their money and time, see that they have no

  83
  future, not because of mismanagement or bad investment but because of something that happened out of the blue and for which no one could plan.
  Homelessness is not just an urban issue, and I am pleased that many of the Bill's clauses address the problem in rural areas. Homelessness occurs for many reasons. One of the key issues for farming and other small businesses is that, sadly, when a business is lost, often a home is lost too because it has been put up as a guarantee for the bank. As a Member of Parliament and a councillor, I have often dealt with those situations.
  We must tackle the need for affordable housing in rural areas. Somebody asked for a definition of affordable housing. Many people in rural areas aspire not only to be tenants but to be property owners. Properties in national parks and other designated sites are very attractive to people who live outside the area. We must find a way, through the planning system or another means, to ensure that property is available not only for rent but for ownership.
  Members come to the House bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, with lots of enthusiasm and many ideas for improving the lives of their constituents and people throughout the nation. I recently read the maiden speech of a farmer who came from mid-Wales, Geraint Howells, in which he said he sought reform of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that the interests of farmers and consumers would be better looked after. I hope that new Members will achieve their aims more quickly than Geraint Howells did—he made that speech in 1974.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: Maiden speeches are coming thick and fast, and they have made this debate even more pleasurable than it would otherwise have been. I congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches tonight. I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). There was a nice vein of gentle humour in it, but he also dealt responsibly with serious issues such as debts in farming and the present crisis caused by foot and mouth disease.
  I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman paid such a generous tribute to his immediate predecessor. Richard Livsey was not so quick on his feet by the end of his time here, and he and I had offices over at Millbank. Many times, I enjoyed a good conversation with him while walking between the offices and the House. The hon. Gentleman said that the electors of Brecon and Radnorshire have enjoyed a long line of good, hard-working constituency MPs, and in him they have the makings of another.
  I should like to declare a non-pecuniary interest as honorary president of a voluntary sector charity, the Bethany project, which provides accommodation for homeless people in Stafford.
  It is a pleasure to be able to take part in this debate and to welcome this measure to help homeless people. It will be the first Bill to be given a Second Reading in this Parliament. It is a slight oddity that it was not mentioned in the Gracious Speech, but I put that down to the
  84
  dexterity and skill of my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State. Like others, I welcome him to his post and congratulate him on it.
  What I like about this Bill is the way in which it restores the value of dignity to this area of public policy—restoring to people the dignity of a shelter, of a home of their own. As many Members have said, the Bill keeps a manifesto promise from not just a few weeks ago but 1997. In the same two manifestos also came the promise to license houses in multiple occupation. I look forward to an early start by the Government on keeping that promise, too.
  I am particularly pleased that the amended Bill—it represents part II of the previous Homes Bill—contains a new duty on local authorities to adopt a strategic approach to dealing with homelessness. It is an excellent idea, but requires resources. Many have mentioned the resource of other agencies—registered social landlords, some private sector landlords, social services departments, health authorities and, particularly, the voluntary sector—but local authorities will need the ability to spend money to meet their strategic aims and to borrow enough money to invest in housing stock.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the scourge of empty homes. It is a sad fact that, in England every year, about seven homes stand empty for every one household recognised by councils as homeless. I commend to hon. Members the ten-minute Bill that I introduced in the previous Parliament, the Empty Homes Bill, which attempted to deal with the problem. Sadly, my Bill never saw the light of day as an Act of Parliament, but this Homelessness Bill offers the opportunity to take up some of its measures. For example, my Bill suggested that local authorities should be under a duty to adopt a strategy to deal with empty homes, and that fits nicely with the requirement in this Bill for local authorities to adopt a strategy to help people to avoid homelessness or to meet need when people are homeless.
  I would like the Government to explore the ideas in my Bill of giving local authorities more financial instruments—principally, the ability to deal more creatively with council tax charged on empty properties. It is vital that the Government give local authorities greater powers of compulsory purchase to be able to deal with the regeneration of areas where properties are standing empty. That would help to meet the need of homeless people by filling empty properties.
  Another strategic issue of which it is important the Government do not lose sight as they consider this Bill is the interaction of housing benefit and homelessness. Several hon. Members have commented on the matter already. Some have commented on the inability of some local authorities or the private companies to which they have passed the duty to administer housing benefit; others have commented on the difficulties of detecting fraud and the requirements placed on local authorities to investigate and verify claims before they can make payments. Throughout that time, people are under the risk of losing their homes for non-payment of rent.
  The parts of the Bill that I welcome include the long-term approach to meeting the needs of homeless people, and especially the emphasis on the prevention of homelessness. I also like the suggestion that there can be more support for homeless people of lower priority, such as single people. I should like local authorities to be

  85
  encouraged to develop the offer of housing-focused interviews, in the same way as we now have work-focused interviews for those who are seeking to claim benefit. I also like the emphasis in the Bill on quality of service.
  I want help to get through to all those who are in need of housing owing to homelessness or the threat of it. For those who are hard to reach, I hope that local authorities will have full regard in their strategies for the help that can be given by social partners who are doing the work already. For those who are hard to help—those who are unable to speak for themselves or put their case effectively—I hope that all authorities are able to develop a systematic approach to offering advocacy services.
  I also agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, about the involvement of registered social landlords in developing a homelessness strategy. They will not merely be major providers of accommodation for homeless people. They have a wealth of experience, alongside that of local authorities, in tackling day-to-day housing issues, and they have much to offer local authorities in developing strategies for dealing with homelessness.
  I want to emphasise that, as other hon. Members have said, none of the fine words in the Bill and the strategies that will follow will be of much use if there is not an adequate supply of affordable housing in which people can live. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) mentioned Cambridge university research suggesting that there is a need for 80,000 to 85,000 new units of affordable housing a year. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) mentioned the Shelter figure of 100,000 units of affordable housing every year for the next 10 years.
  Those figures have meaning to most people around the country because they see people waiting in overcrowded circumstances, bed and breakfast, temporary homes—or no home at all—for homes to be provided for them. Hard though local authorities work to meet that need, they simply do not have an adequate amount of housing. Tackling such problems will take a determined effort over the next few years, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear at the beginning of the debate. I look forward to watching that determined effort take shape and to delivering the fruit of it as a home and the dignity of a shelter for every citizen of this country.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I should like to start by complimenting the hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) on their maiden speeches. I must also, of course, compliment the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), who mentioned that his constituency had continually changed in size and shape. My constituency seldom changes in size or shape. Indeed, I do not believe that it has done so since the early 19th century, although it is getting a little further from France every year.
  I am not the sort of Conservative who is known for wearing his compassion on his sleeve, but I am passionate about public service—or, should I say, the better delivery of essential services?—including education, health and housing. I greatly value my experience of working with
  86
  Governments of both political parties. I worked with the former Conservative Government on the improved delivery of health and social security and with both Conservative and Labour Governments on education, most recently in helping the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) to deliver his policies in the London borough of Southwark, a failing local education authority, which was required to privatise the management of the education service. That was a great privilege.
  Today, I am here not to talk about myself, but to say a few words about my constituency, which is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful in the country. Today, London is only a little overcast, but even when the rest of Britain is battered by gales, our island basks in the sunshine. Its charms are well known to yachtsmen, walkers and cyclists. I occasionally say that it never rains on the Isle of Wight, but that is a slight exaggeration. In fact, it seldom rains on the Isle of Wight.
  The island is famed for Osborne house, Cowes week and Parkhurst and other prisons. Incidentally, I should like to compliment the island's prisons and, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), put on record the fact that they are driving down drug abuse within their walls. Some aspects of the island are less well known: for example, it is one of Britain's biggest producers of garlic—indeed, we export garlic to France. There is a garlic festival each year, which I commend to hon. Members. There, one can sample not only garlic bread and garlic mushrooms, but garlic beer, garlic honey and garlic ice cream. I strongly recommend them.
  We also have Britain's biggest collection of dinosaur remains, as illustrated by the recent BBC programme "Dinosaur Island", but the best collection of dinosaurs on the island are the former Liberal Democrat councillors who now run the island from county hall. They have stopped using the name Liberal Democrat—perhaps as a result of certain setbacks earlier this month—and now call themselves something else. They frequently call for less Government intervention and direction in the way in which local authorities are asked to deliver their services, so it was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) ask for far more detailed intervention and guidance, as well as for that guidance to appear on the face of the Bill. They speak with forked tongue, those Liberal Democrats.
  We are fortunate to have our own highly successful and effective media on the Isle of Wight. I must be the only Member of Parliament to have his own local newspaper, radio station and television station. The most recent addition is Angel Radio, which boasts that it never broadcasts news or timechecks, but only music first recorded before 1959.
  It is appropriate that I should speak on the Homelessness Bill, because the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 was piloted through the House by my distinguished predecessor but two, Lord Ross of Newport. The Act caused local authorities nightmares, but provided a lifeline for many people in need. Local authorities have learned to live with the Act, and the improvements and changes made to it since it became law, to provide a far better service for homeless persons. Lord Ross's successor was Barry Field: it was a great loss to the island when he was forced to retire on grounds of ill health shortly before the 1997 general election.

  87
  My immediate predecessor was Peter Brand—a general practitioner and local councillor for many years before his election to Parliament. He fought the 1997 election on the slogan "Put a doctor in the House" and this year's election with "Keep a doctor in the House". It is a testimony to his qualities as a general practitioner that islanders preferred to put a doctor in the surgery. I thank him for the care he gave the island in his four years as its Member of Parliament. I am grateful.
  I also thank Etty McKinley of the island organisation People Off the Streets. She drew the Homes Bill to my attention at a public meeting during the general election campaign and asked whether I would support it if it were reintroduced. I had to reply that it would depend on which parts were reintroduced, so I am glad that the Government have dropped the more controversial elements—at least from the current version of the Bill—and that the Opposition will have the opportunity to support most of the proposals. I also congratulate Etty on her effective work when undertaking the homeless persons count on the island at the time of the recent census. It is most important that we have accurate figures on homelessness which, as many hon. Members have mentioned, is not confined to large cities.
  Solving the problem of homelessness does not require a massive housebuilding programme—my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon has already made that specific point. The Deputy Prime Minister's proposals for 8,000 new homes, half of them on greenfield sites, were deeply unpopular on the island. Housebuilding is not the right cure for homelessness. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire said, we must work to prevent homelessness, especially by supporting family structures, because most youth homelessness is a result of broken families.
  When dealing with homelessness, we must have proper priorities for the allocation of housing. The system must be seen to be fair to those who already live in a particular area. The genuine local connection rule should be sustained and, if possible, strengthened. It is not a genuine local connection with the Isle of Wight to have been on the island for a few months picking tomatoes. It should be a requirement that people claiming that they are homeless—or, for that matter, those claiming jobseeker's allowance—demonstrate that they have not moved from an area of low unemployment to one of high unemployment, such as my constituency. I welcome the commitment to flexibility that the Secretary of State made in his introductory remarks. I hope that that commitment extends to enabling local authorities to arrange the genuine local connection rules so that they suit local circumstances.
  Let me flag up a few of the issues that I intend to raise on behalf of my constituents in future weeks and months. The Isle of Wight is an area of high unemployment where average income is less than three quarters the national average. It suffers from being separated from the mainland by sea and not receiving proper recognition from the Government in terms of funding. The island suffers because of the failure of the recently introduced police control centre at Netley to pass messages on to police stations on the island; I want something done about that.
  88
  I also want more work to be done on the cost for individuals of crossing the Solent and on the use by Wightlink of Wootton Creek. Wightlink is one of the ferry companies; it is the major user of Wootton Creek as well as the harbour authority, which must give rise to a unique conflict of interest. I want clarity about the future of Osborne house: the closure of the King Edward VII convalescent home at Osborne was greatly and deeply regretted on the island. I want there to be clarity about the future use of that wonderful resource. I want the Government to fund the rebuilding of the main road from Ventnor to West Wight through the St. Laurence Undercliff, which slumped seriously following recent rains.
  All those are objectives that I intend to follow up on behalf of my constituents during my time as a Member of Parliament. I am proud to represent Isle of Wight and thank the House for this opportunity to speak.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Dai Havard: I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on making his maiden speech, and all those who have made their maiden speeches this evening. We have shared the trepidation of sitting here, waiting to do them. I have gained some insight into the Isle of Wight: I knew nothing about its garlic fields. However, I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) intends to take his holiday on the island, so perhaps, as one islander to another, he will be able to help with some of the transport difficulties that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight described.
  I am pleased to be called to make my maiden speech during a debate that deals with social housing, on a Bill that will introduce measures to strengthen local democracy, require agencies and stakeholders to work together and reinforce the recognition of the link between housing, health and social exclusion. In Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, about 8,300 households are in council housing, 1,400 in registered social landlord accommodation and 20,000 in private housing. The condition of housing is often worse in Wales than in any other part of the United Kingdom, so housing is one of the most important issues facing our communities as we struggle with the problems of deprivation left to us by years of underfunding and neglect. More recently, we still struggle with the effects of nearly two decades of the near economic war that was waged on our communities. That is something that we do not forget and will not forgive.
  We do not need lessons or crocodile tears from across the Floor about these social issues. However, we are determined to move on and to move our communities on. It is in that spirit of change that I see my election as the first Labour Member of Labour's second century in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
  In taking up that mantle, I am humbled by and pleased to pay tribute to my predecessors. I do so not only to Ted Rowlands, whom I have recently succeeded, but to Keir Hardie, the first Labour Member to be elected in what was then the constituency of Merthyr and Aberdare, and the first leader of the Labour party. I pay tribute also to S. 0. Davies and the other Labour leaders from Wales, on whose shoulders I hope to stand and in whose tradition I hope to follow.
  Like Keir Hardie, I am a socialist and a trade unionist—a trade union official. I recognise the power of the links between organised labour and the party that we have

  89
  helped to form. These are links that some would pervert, some would like to destroy and some to usurp. Keir Hardie stood for a minimum wage, the enfranchisement of women, minorities and oppressed people, reform of the House of Lords and devolved government. He was an internationalist. He was a man with a faith in and a concern for a civilised and humane society. After 100 years we have just begun to realise some of these aspirations. We still have a long way to go, and I am pleased to continue my part in that work.
  In preparing my maiden speech, I was fortunate enough to discuss some of the shared history that I have with Mr. Speaker. I knew that Keir Hardie had two half-brothers. I did not know that both of them later became Labour Members. David Hardie became the Member for Rutherglen; and George, or Georgie, Hardie became the Member to represent Mr. Speaker's constituency of Springbum in Glasgow, later to be followed by his wife, Agnes, another trade union activist, who remained a Member until 1945, an important year for the Labour party.
  It was in 1945 that Keir Hardie is said to have reappeared in Abercynon. It was part of a seance. As well as being a christian socialist and a temperance campaigner, he had been active in spiritualism. He is said to have reappeared in July 1945 to give his benediction to the then new Labour Government. I have no reports of anything similar from Nos. 10 or 11, but it is early days yet.
  The serious message is clear. The work started and continued by the Hardie family informed then, and still does today, the work of the Labour party and of all people of good will. I do not claim to follow Hardie's spiritualism, and I certainly cannot claim to follow his temperance, but my maternal grandfather did.
  Like my predecessors, I am influenced by both the ideas and the organisational responses of Keir Hardie, and he remains a touchstone for us. The Merthyr Pioneer summed up the position when it said on the death of Keir Hardie that
  "the member for humanity had resigned his seat."
  It is that tribute that brings me to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Ted Rowlands. He was a Member first in 1966 for the seat of Cardiff, North. He became the Member for Merthyr in 1972, and remained as the sitting Member when the seat was extended to include Rhymney.
  Ted Rowlands and his wife, Janice, have served our community for nearly 30 years. He also made a significant contribution to the work of this place in that time. As an historian, he has recently written about his view of what was and could be possible by means of educated government intervention. In our local community, we credit him with many acts, not least on a world stage. Contributions that are perhaps not properly recognised are his actions in international affairs and peace, including the avoidance of conflict in the Falklands in the 1970s.
  I suspect that when most local people think of Ted Rowlands there are echoes of those words of the Merthyr Pioneer that were said of Keir Hardie in 1915. They would give a similar but extended tribute to him by recording that their Member for humanity has resigned his seat but continues to work with us for our shared goals.
  I have already set out the traditions that I hope to follow. They are those of socialists of independent thought giving constructive representation. I come from a
  90
  family of miners and steelworkers, and I know the problems of a household affected by industrial disease, disability and caring. I already have my own small contribution in terms of Labour history in my constituency, because I am the first Labour Member elected this century and the first to have been born and brought up in the constituency that I now represent.
  It is a constituency with a history of invention and production that was the crucible of Welsh politics in the past two centuries. Our cultural contribution is known now through sportsmen, musicians, actors, dress designers and writers, who influence others on a world stage. About one fifth of the land mass of the constituency is in the Brecon Beacons national park. We are the gateway to that park and the surrounding country.
  We are starting to change from the industries of the past, and unemployment is falling. We are starting to attract and develop the new industries of biotechnology, computing peripherals and support industries, as well as retaining some modern manufacturing and small-scale production companies, along with food preparation and manufacturing and growing tourism. Some of the benefits of relocation and land reclamation, stimulated by government and European Union funding, are starting to change the years of economic malevolence that I have mentioned.
  We still, however, have some of the most deprived communities in Europe in terms of health and other social considerations. We are making significant strides in relation to crime and we are improving education standards, but it is clear that poverty is the monster that we must slay. That will be done only by increasing and supporting opportunities for work and social investment.
  As a Member elected in a post-devolution environment, I have to comment on how we can make the change that we want. Many of the opportunities that I have outlined require me to work closely with the Welsh Assembly Member who shares my constituency, Huw Lewis, and my neighbouring Labour Members. The opportunities given to us by the massive injection of European funding and matched investment in Wales, together with the other investments controlled at Westminster, give us an opportunity to work together to produce the change that we want.
  We know that the strength of our constituencies is that of our people, which lies in both their ingenuity and their spirit. We know also that they are strong communities because they are made from a collective experience and an international brew. They range from Italians "in the rain" through Spanish steelworkers and Irish and Polish people. The list goes on, but they are all Welsh. It is because we represent such an internationalist tradition that we reject doctrines of narrow nationalism, which offer nothing.
  I thank particularly my agent, Mervyn Ryall, for his work in helping to get me elected, and my local Labour party for selecting me in our centenary year to continue the history of Labour representation in our valleys. Most of all, I thank the people of the Merthyr. Rhymney, Cwm Bargoed and Darren valleys, whom I shall try my best to represent. We have our shared political and cultural history, but also the cholera and typhoid cemeteries that remind us of the need for measures such as social housing, which we are discussing this evening. There is also the need for investment that can help us to break the cycle of ill health and deprivation.

  91
  Diolch yn fawr i chi a diolch yn fawr iawn, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope to catch your eye again.
  8.29 pm
  Hywel Williams: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I congratulate those who have already made theirs, especially the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), who made such an interesting comparison with what I have heard from the Government Front Bench so far during my time in this place.
  I have the honour of having been returned for the Caernarfon constituency, which was previously held by Dafydd Wigley. It is a historic constituency: as Caernarfon Boroughs, it was held by David Lloyd George for 50 years between 1890 and 1945. I can add little to what has already been said about Lloyd George's enduring standing as a statesman of world significance, except to say that my understanding is still developing. He was succeeded by the legal scholar Dewi Seaborn Davies, who was a native of my own home town of Pwllheli and a Member of Parliament for five months only. He was followed by Goronwy Roberts, who won the new post-war Caernarfon seat for Labour in 1945, and went on to serve in the Welsh Office and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In 1974, the seat was won dramatically for Plaid Cymru by a young Dafydd Wigley, who went on to hold it for the next 27 years.
  David Lloyd George was, of course, a Liberal, but at the start of his political career he was leader of Cymru Fydd, a nationalist movement that was a precursor of my own party of Plaid Cymru. Indeed, in that early part of his career, Lloyd George was known in the House as a Welsh nationalist with a small n. Goronwy Roberts was a Labour Member but, early in his career, he was a supporter of the Gwerin movement in Labour, which had both republican and nationalist tendencies—again with a small r and small n. I appreciate that those terms may be foreign to some Government Members.
  Lloyd George was later made Earl of Dwyfor, and Goronwy Roberts was later made Lord Goronwy Roberts. Whatever their views, neither had the opportunity afforded to my immediate predecessor Dafydd Wigley, who is now a democratically elected Member for Caernarfon in our National Assembly in Cardiff. I am happy to tell his many friends in Parliament that Dafydd Wigley is well, retains his voracious appetite for work and is prominent in the proceedings of the Assembly. It is an honour and an enormous challenge to follow in his distinguished footsteps.
  The Caernarfon constituency is a place of supreme natural beauty. Within its bounds are the many mountains of Eryri, within which is Yr Wyddfa, known to some in the House as "Snowdon, the highest mountain in England and Wales"—very much, I suppose, as Mont Blanc is the highest mountain in England and France. My constituency extends from Y Felinheli in the north-east through to the one-time slate quarrying areas of Rhiwlas, Deiniolen, Dinorwig, Llanberis and Dyffryn Nantlle. It stretches from Beddgelert in the mountains to Porthmadog, with its narrow-gauge railway, which is one of the links between
  92
  my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) who, in terms of our debate, is not a neighbour from hell.
  My constituency extends from the historic towns of Cricieth, Pwllheli and Nefyn to Aberdaron at the tip of gwlad Llyn, the western peninsula beyond the mountains, and on to Ynys Enlli, the island which, for centuries, was a place of pilgrimage where 10,000 saints are said to be buried. Returning east through Llithfaen, where the National Language Centre is located at Nant Gwrtheyrn, back past Trefor and Clynnog, we come to Caernarfon itself, where we have the fort of Segontiwm, which was built by some of our early visitors—the Romans—and left by them when they packed their bags in 383. Our castle is a massive and impressive fortress that was built 1,000 years later by some of our other visitors, and is now a world heritage site.
  We have a wealth of architecture—contemporary, Victorian, Georgian and earlier—and a commercial and administrative centre that was once thriving, but, more recently, has been in decline. We hope that it is now on the cusp of a revival. But, more than that, we have the living and self-aware community of Caernarfon people, who are resourceful and open-minded, with a ready and engaging wit and an ability to survive. They are known as the Cofis, or rather, we are known as the Cofis, for I have the joy of being a recent recruit.
  As is obvious from my remarks, my constituency is one of the heartlands of the Welsh language, which is a living language—not a relic of past—spoken by some 85 per cent. of my electors and 95 per of their children. The Welsh language is alive in Caernarfon; it is under pressure, but fighting back. It is not going to disappear; we are determined that it will not.
  As I said, my constituency is an area of astonishing natural beauty; but, as the sayng goes, "You can't eat the scenery." We have suffered the historic decline of our extraction industries of slate and granite, and manufacturing is under pressure. It is a particularly sad fact that we have a long-running dispute at Dynamex Friction in Caernarfon, which, I hope, will be resolved soon. Farming is in crisis, despite the unrivalled excellence of our agricultural products—beef and lamb. The majority of farmers are approaching retirement age and farm incomes are low and uncertain. Ironically, those farmers who ventured out and diversified into tourism have been struck again by the crisis in that industry. Tourism is a hugely important industry in my constituency, although too often unrecognised as such; it has been a struck cruel blow by the foot and mouth crisis.
  Our long-term economic problems have led to a sustained out-migration of our young men and women, bleeding our communities of our most enterprising people. The rural and the urban parts of my constituency are beset by housing problems. Indeed, the worst housing in Wales, as measured by the National Assembly's index of multiple deprivation, is to be found in the communities in my constituency. Three of the 10 wards with the worst housing in Wales—the first, the third and the ninth—are in my constituency.
  Eight per cent. of the Welsh housing stock is unfit—100,000 houses for 250,000 people. We have plenty of houses. We have social housing, but it is the wrong type and in the wrong place. Although we welcome the commitment in the Bill to afford tenants a choice from a

  93
  variety of housing, the ability of local authorities and social landlords to offer that choice has been severely curtailed by years of selling off, and by restrictions on new building and on the power of social landlords to acquire existing houses. As I said, we have plenty of houses in my constituency—good but expensive houses that stand empty, while private tenants endure the worst of bad housing.
  We have homelessness—both homelessness recognised and homelessness masked by out-migration. The young people of my constituency have as much right to live, work and prosper in their home areas as have the young people of any other constituency, and that right is not conditional on language or some imagined racial category. I welcome the duties on local authorities to undertake reviews and to prepare strategies to combat homelessness.
  On the day of my election, I visited all 84 polling stations in my constituency, though I assure hon. Members that I voted only once. When I arrived mid-morning in the mountain village of Rhyd Ddu, the boyhood home of that fine poet, T. H. Parry Williams, I was welcomed with enthusiasm by the polling officers, who said, "Eleven per cent. have already voted—seven people." Now, those seven voters and all the other electors in my constituency have expectations of the Government, but those expectations are more than tinged with scepticism. There is a growing consensus in Wales, and it is becoming an all-party consensus, that a strengthening of the powers of the National Assembly is essential.
  Our aims here as Plaid Cymru Members are—yes—to foster economic development and the prosperity of our constituencies, to improve public services and to press for decent housing for all our people, but also to promote proper powers for our National Assembly, if only for the sake of coherence and efficiency in government. But for us in Plaid Cymru and for the people of Wales, much, much more is at stake. I am proud to commit myself here again today to that aim.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to the important debate on the Homelessness Bill. I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) for a truly first-class maiden speech—we have heard several of them today.
  During the recent election, I, like many other candidates, held public meetings almost every night in my constituency, and I debated with my opposing candidates on four separate occasions. On one of those occasions, at the instigation of Churches Together, the questions that we were asked included whether we would back the immediate re-introduction of the Homes Bill. I am happy to record that all four candidates said that they would welcome the re-introduction of that Bill. I am privileged to be the one candidate of those four who is able to fulfil that undertaking today—no longer the Member of Parliament with the lowest Labour majority, but the Member of Parliament with the 36th highest Labour vote.
  Homelessness is an evil that has no place in modern society, yet like all hon. Members I have seen sights in this country, and especially in this city, that shame all of us. Although there seems to be unanimity among the parties that that is a scourge and a cancer that we must tackle with all the weaponry that we can bring to bear, it was not always thus.
  94
  Although I am now a Member of Parliament for a Northamptonshire seat, I cut my political teeth in inner London. I became a Camden councillor in 1990, at a time when, across the border in Conservative Westminster, certain councillors were talking of being cruel and nasty to the homeless—and homeless there were, many of them.
  I lived at that time in Arlington road, just down the road from Arlington House, which was then and perhaps still is the biggest homeless persons' hostel in Europe. For one year I served on the board of management of that hostel. My council ward was the Brunswick ward, host to the architecturally celebrated Brunswick centre. Above ground at the centre was a shopping centre, a cinema, a club and flats housing several hundred people. Below ground, however, there was a carpark housing dozens of homeless people. After a surgery one Friday evening, representatives of the local residents association took me into that carpark to see for myself that subterranean housing estate. It was a site viewing that lasted only five minutes, made physically unbearable by the stench of urine. Residents had to park their cars there, and the homeless had to sleep there.
  Down the road from my ward was Lincoln's Inn Fields, next door to the Inn of Court where I had dined with Law Lords to be called as a barrister a few years earlier. It was also home to dozens if not hundreds of homeless people. If they were not in Lincoln's Inn, they were underneath the arches of Waterloo, littering every doorway in the Strand or hanging around hopefully outside amusement arcades in Leicester square, hoping just for a punter for their prostitution.
  Some of them were the hardened homeless, on the road for years; some may have even been exercising a freedom of choice to live that way; but many were the victims of the then Tory Government. Some were indirectly caught by the side wind of disastrous economic policies—the booms, the recessions, the mass unemployment, the negative equity, the repossessions and the widening gulf between north and south.
  The then Government's influence on the homelessness of others, especially youngsters, was even more direct. The Tories closed down short-stay accommodation in, for example, Covent Garden, but they never replaced it. They also withdrew benefits from 16 to 18-year-olds except for those in the most exceptional and extremely vulnerable circumstances, so that even youngsters fleeing from abusive homes or abusive parents could find themselves unaided and forced into homelessness by the very Government to whom they should have been looking for protection.
  The result of all of that was that, at the tail end of the Thatcher Administration, 140,000 people were homeless―140,000 scars on the modern history of this nation. The homelessness figure peaked in 1990, since when there have been steady decreases, but the decreases have been nowhere near fast enough. Moreover, the decreases seem only very rarely to have been due to concerted Government action to tackle homelessness as a key political priority.
  During the Major Administration, when numbers fell to 116,000, the decrease was due to external factors, not to deliberate Government action. Indeed, the principal initiative of the then Government moved in entirely the wrong direction if the objective was to rid the nation of homelessness. With their Housing Act 1996, the Tories

  95
  voted not to limit but to extend the definition of those considered to be intentionally homeless, to whom lesser housing duties were therefore owed. That made it more difficult for them to be rehoused, not easier.
  With the same Act, the Tories legislated to reduce to the giving of mere advice the assistance to which even the unintentionally homeless in priority need were entitled if there was deemed to be suitable accommodation in their area. That, too, made it more difficult for them to be rehoused.
  With the same Act, the Tories legislated to reduce, where it still remained, the duty to secure accommodation to a duty to secure it for just two years. Once again, the Administration made it more difficult, not easier, for the homeless to find the permanent home that they needed. However, even that was not enough. Having already presided over the general withdrawal of benefits from under-18s in the late 1980s, in 1996 the then Government further restricted housing benefit for under-25s to the average rent for shared accommodation, to single-room rent, so that no under-25s were entitled to independent accommodation, however vulnerable their circumstances. All would have to share with strangers.
  So when the Labour Government came to power in 1997, we inherited not only 116,000 or so homeless people but a legislative regime and a benefits system that were designed to make things tough for the homeless. It is that regime which the Homelessness Bill—and, before the general election, the Homes Bill—is attempting to address. The Bill is a belated but welcome response to that regime.
  The Bill is a belated response. Although it has been introduced early in this Parliament, it was introduced so late in the previous one that, despite the size of our majority, we could not pass it. That delay was unfortunate because the scale of the homelessness problem was huge when we assumed power and remained huge throughout the entirety of our first term. The number of households accepted as homeless and in priority need still stands at about 110,000.
  The problem is particularly acute in London. I described earlier the manifestations of homelessness as of the 1990s, but little has changed. The same manifestations are here now; the beggars and the bedraggled are still with us, on the streets, in shop doorways and in London Underground access tunnels. It is not just the rough sleepers who are still with us, or those without a roof over their head, but those whose roof is not their own, but a friend's; those whose roof is not of a flat or house, but of a car; those whose roof may be of a house or flat, but one that is substandard, overcrowded or unfit for occupation.
  In one outer-London borough of which I have some knowledge, the supply of affordable housing to meet housing demand is so inadequate that even if no one else applied for housing in that borough for the foreseeable future, it would take three years to make one offer of housing to every registered homeless family in temporary accommodation and four years to make one offer of housing to every tenant in housing need—and that is if nobody new came on to the housing register. That borough receives 300 homelessness applications every month and nearly 200 more applications a month to join
  96
  the housing register. As matters stand, many of those applicants have no realistic prospect of ever receiving an offer of a suitable home.
  Although the problem is clearly focused on London and the other cities, it exists elsewhere. In my constituency—leafy, middle England, and a rural area with 17 villages and 70 farms—I frequently see at my surgery those who present themselves as homeless: the lorry driver from Rushden whose relationship collapsed and who was sleeping in the cab of his lorry and had been doing so for months; the youngster on a programme for the Prince's Trust who was looking forward to his stay at the residential home for the disabled where he was to be a helper because it meant that he, too, had a bed to sleep in; the family who had been forced to waste their last pennies on hotel rooms as different local authorities passed them on, one to the other, until they had no money left; and several couples with children, evicted because of arrears, who could not then obtain either a reference or a deposit to live somewhere else.
  That amounts to a reservoir of housing need in this city and throughout the country with which we now must deal. We are doing so, but later than we should. The Bill is a belated response; it could have come earlier, but it is none the less welcome. It is welcome because it deals with some of the obvious errors of the past decade and, in particular, the Housing Act 1996.
  I particularly welcome four features of the Bill. First, it requires authorities to take a strategic multi-agency approach to the prevention of homelessness and the rehousing of homeless households. That is clearly right. Secondly, the Bill abolishes the current two-year period during which authorities are subject to the main homelessness duty. Again, that must be right. Thirdly, the Bill gives authorities a new power to secure accommodation for homeless applicants who are not in priority need, especially single people. That, too, must be right. Fourthly, I welcome the proposals to improve the right of appeal for housing applicants. Far too many have in the past been faced with the awful decision either to accept a property that they consider wholly unsuitable to meet their needs or to refuse that offer and lose the prospect of being housed altogether.
  All those measures are welcome, and are welcomed not only by me but by all the major political parties, the local government associations and the charities. However, our enthusiasm, although real, must still be muted by our understanding that this Bill is a start, but not a solution. Much, much more needs to be done if we are truly to address a problem on the scale that I have described. That is why the Bill calls for the drawing up by local authorities of homelessness reviews and strategies. It is through such bigger, broader multi-agency strategies that most will be done.
  Legislation alone can never be enough. We do not house the homeless by passing a Bill and making it an Act. We do so by bringing into being more supported temporary accommodation and by building more permanent homes. When we have those beds and those homes, we need not pious words and statutes but practical solutions on the ground if we are better to enable access to them by those currently excluded, whether through poverty, mental problems, addiction or any of the myriad problems that can make one homeless. All that requires proper co-ordination between different Government Departments and local government; between

  97
  the public, the private and the voluntary sectors; between those with responsibility not just for housing, but for planning, health, social services, social security and social exclusion.
  How better to bring back into use the 760,000 homes that currently stand empty than by listening to the Empty Homes Agency, whether on VAT or council tax? How better to convert into sustainable homes the spaces that the institutions own above the shops in our high streets than by listening to those who have devised legal instruments that meet their concerns about being landlords?
  How better to ensure that when new homes are built they are built for the poor as well as the rich than by revising policy planning guidance 3? Yes, the Labour Government revised PPG3—they were right to do so—and sought to extract from all appropriate private housing developments an element of affordable housing. That was a step in the right direction; but developers still argue, and all too often successfully, that their site is not an appropriate one, that it is too small to accommodate different types of tenure, that the economics of provision do not stack up, and that compliance would mean that the development was not a successful one, even if it was viable. PPG3 must be revised again, and soon, if the targets for affordable homes throughout the country are to be met.
  How better to sustain in their homes those who are unused to managing themselves, let alone their budgets, than by providing social and health care and, above all, benefits to meet their needs? Let us tackle the single-room rent now, and signal our intent to do better by youngsters, not worse.
  The Bill is a belated and partial response to a desperate problem. It is a very welcome start, but it is a start down a very tricky road. I urge Ministers to keep going on that journey, and I wish them very well on it.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Adrian Flook: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous), for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on their maiden speeches, and I thank the hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) and for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) for continuing my Cook's tour of the country.
  I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Mrs. Jackie Ballard, the first woman to represent Taunton and a conscientious and hard-working Member of Parliament who quickly established an enviable reputation both within and without the constituency. I also want to mention David Nicholson, her predecessor. He never shouted loudly about all the hard work that he did, and I pay tribute to the full 10 years that he served in the House.
  Taunton really is a beautiful constituency, encompassing the fertile Vale of Taunton, overlooked by the Blackdowns, the Brendons and the Quantocks, as well as half of Exmoor. Its mainstay in those parts is agriculture, and especially dairy and livestock—for those who do not know, it rains quite a lot there.
  98
  The past few months have been torturous for the farming and hill communities and all those in the rural villages. Foot and mouth disease has plagued us, although infection has played a relatively small part. We have all been affected. Wiveliscombe and Dulverton, two of the smaller towns, have both struggled. There has been a great impact on tourism, and especially sporting pursuits tourism, because Taunton has eight hunts, as my predecessor used constantly to say. The voluntary cessation of hunting in February added to the destruction of tourism in the constituency. That is especially bad news for all the farm businesses that had taken the Government's advice and diversified.
  There are other rural businesses alongside farming, many of them situated in villages with wonderful names such as Hatch Beauchamp, Stoke St. Gregory, Stoke St. Mary, Bishops Lydeard and Sampford Arundel. Then we have Ashbrittle and Appley to the west of Wellington, and Huish Champflower and Brompton Regis up on the Brendons.
  Agriculture has been affected recently, but in his maiden speech, no less, Sir Edward du Cann said that
  "for all the support which the farming industry is receiving at the moment from the taxpayer, small farmers and hill farmers particularly eke out a not very satisfactory living."—[Official Report, 23 April 1956; Vol. 551, c. 1486.]
  It is regrettable that, in the 45 years since he made that speech, we do not seem to have travelled very far.
  If I have one long-term aim as a Member of Parliament it is to help the rural and urban elements of my constituency to understand that they rely heavily on each other. There is no better example of that than the livestock market in the centre of Taunton, which Mrs. Ballard described in 1997 as "thriving". I have to say that it is not thriving at all at the moment; it, too, has been closed because of foot and mouth disease.
  There is no better testimony to the importance of agriculture than the mutual dependence that exists between the countryside and the towns: local shops have less money spent in them because the farmers do not make their twice-weekly visits to the livestock market. Farming and tourism do bring lots of money to the area—but not at the moment.
  Another town, Wellington, has also been affected, but less so, because it is seven miles to the east of Taunton, and has been helped by the growth in the markets that the firms Relyon and Swallowfield both supply.
  Nobody—even those with an urban disposition, such as Labour Members—wants to see our agriculture collapse, as farming has created and moulded our beautiful landscape, and that provides the backdrop to this country's tourism.
  The Taunton constituency centres on the county town of the same name, which sits astride the river Tone. The Tone has taken to flooding at various points in the past couple of years, and we need to think seriously about how to combat flooding in the whole of Somerset in the next few years.
  Taunton is the home of the county council and of Taunton Deane borough council. More importantly, in my opinion, it is also home to Somerset county cricket club; it is regrettable that we lost by eight runs to Gloucestershire yesterday. Taunton Town football club, which, sadly, until

  99
  this year had a habit of coming second in cup finals—19 times in a row—has managed to reverse that trend, and we are now the proud holders of the FA vase. The rugby club can also hold its head high, having won promotion.
  My constituency is not just pretty names and stunning church towers, although we do have one church tower that has been described as the noblest parish tower in all England. The St. Mary Magdalene charitable fund needs £500,000 at the moment to restore the historic organ, the tower and the fabric of that church.
  Some, especially those who wish to go there, may perceive Somerset as a bucolic idyll luxuriating in milk and honey. None the less, there are more than a handful of homeless people in Taunton and the rest of Somerset, and the problem is getting worse as agriculture declines, both in terms of the number of people employed and in terms of wealth.
  There are pockets of rural poverty, and the people who live in them will look towards Taunton, which has only 2 per cent. unemployment, to provide them with work. They will therefore travel there and look for bedsits, but there are now fewer of those, as our landlords have been forced to upgrade the accommodation without any corresponding increase in rent. The heavy hand of the local authority and of Government legislation has frightened them off. It is worrying that the Government now say that they will publish a consultation document later this year. That will only add to one of the major problems in dealing with homelessness—that there are already too many laws that have frightened away private landlords.
  We know how many people are officially homeless in Taunton, but we do not know how many there are unofficially. The Taunton Association for the Homeless says that it turned 90 people away last month, so it wants to build more rooms—yet the first the residents of nearby Alfred street heard of that was when the proposal went out to planning consultation.
  That is regrettable. If we want those facilities to be able to cater for the number of people who are homeless, and to be accepted in local areas, we need to ensure that they can nurture the locality and that residents' fears are understood.
  Taunton Association for the Homeless is a fine, well-runassociation, and its work is complemented by Open Door, which is run by Taunton Christians Together. As its mission statement says, Open Door tries
  "to relieve the need, hardship and distress of the homeless within Taunton and the surrounding countryside."
  However, Open Door has a problem that is not purely financial. Apparently, it can operate for only three days a week at present. It gets funding from the local councils partly because the county council will not operate on a Sunday.
  If we are to be successful in combating the problems of homelessness, we need participation from the voluntary sector. I worry, because at every voluntary and charitable event that I attend I am too often the youngest by a whole decade—and I am not that far off 40. If people in my age group do not get involved in voluntary work and in supporting, financially and through their own actions, those charities that help the homeless, it is a potential
  100
  worry because the authorities will not always be able to fill in the gaps. That makes the contribution of the voluntary sector very important.
  I am sure that the Bill is well meaning, but I fear that it will not reduce the regulation overload that is seriously hampering attempts to reduce homelessness. That is a problem that we must all resolve.
  9 pm
  Margaret Moran: I congratulate my hon. Friends who have made their maiden speeches today, and I also congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), whom we have just heard. We have had the privilege of hearing several spirited maiden speeches and have seen the emergence of strong parliamentarians who will be excellent representatives of their constituents.
  Many of us will celebrate when the Bill finally reaches the statute book after many false starts, especially those of us on the Government Benches who have been trying to extend the rights of the homeless since the 1970s. Homelessness was my formative political experience, because my first job as a young woman was working in Battersea social services. I shall not say how many years ago that was, but it pre-dated the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. When homeless families came into the social services offices with their children, often with their worldly goods wrapped up in string, my job was to offer them a ticket back to whatever floor they had recently been sleeping on—perhaps belonging to friends or relatives—or to offer to take their children into care. Those were the only options available to homeless families, and that is why I worked in a voluntary capacity to help to ensure the introduction of the 1977 Act—of which we can still be proud—in the days of "Cathy Come Home". In a professional and voluntary capacity since then, I have worked to try to enhance the rights of the homeless and those in housing need.
  It is significant that this Bill will be the first to receive a Second Reading after the election. I am proud that it is the Labour party that has always sought to protect the rights of the homeless and to tackle housing need. The new-found enthusiasm for the homeless on the Opposition Benches should be tempered with the reminder that it was during their 18 years in government that we saw devastating cuts in housing investment, over and above those in any other public service; 1 million people becoming homeless as a result of repossession; a doubling of homelessness; and, worst of all, in the dying days of the Tory Government, the Housing Act 1996.
  Sections 6 and 7 of the 1996 Act further curtailed the rights of the homeless and reduced the duty on local authorities to rehouse homeless families permanently. Instead, the Act introduced a two-year duty, requiring local authorities to provide only hostel or other temporary accommodation. That was a disgraceful move and was universally condemned by homelessness charities and all of those working in the housing and homelessness sector. Inevitably, those measures led to an increase in the numbers of the homeless and the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We are still reaping the whirlwind of that legacy of the previous Tory Government.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the hon. Lady realise that had those provisions not been made, almost

  101
  all the available social housing would have continued to go to those on the homelessness list, while those who had waited for years had no chance at all in many boroughs?
  Margaret Moran: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates that he does not have an understanding of the link between homelessness and housing need more generally. The representations made by charities and housing organisations showed a clear link between homelessness and wider housing need, which the hon. Gentleman appears not to understand.
  We have seen an increase in the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and in the number of homelessness admissions. That is regrettable, but it is to do with the legacy of the previous Government's housing and finance policies. The supply of affordable housing is falling, as are the numbers of local authority and housing association re-lets. That inevitably pushes up the number of homeless families. Families who are already in overcrowded or unsatisfactory accommodation may eventually find themselves homeless simply because the pressure on them is too great. Young couples who are forced to live with mum and dad find their circumstances becoming so difficult that they cannot cope with the overcrowding and are forced into temporary accommodation and homelessness.
  We need to tackle the roots and the preventive aspects of homelessness. In line with the Bill, we also need a parallel strategy to tackle the need for an increased supply of affordable rented accommodation and for increased housing investment. We welcome the Government's additional investment. The increase to £2.5 billion in resources for local authorities and the doubling of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme will go a significant way towards increasing the supply of affordable housing, but much more still needs to be done.
  I wish to make a couple of remarks on some issues that were discussed in relation to the Homes Bill. There has been a general welcome for the Homelessness Bill's extension of the measures to tackle the problems of families and individuals at risk of violence. I particularly welcome the measures to assist survivors of domestic violence who have for too long been forced to make the unpalatable choice of moving from their homes to secure their safety and that of their family.
  I hope that a distinction is made in the guidance between the needs of survivors of domestic violence and the problems of antisocial behaviour. Domestic violence is a crime, and needs to be taken seriously. It is essential that when guidance is issued, the needs of the survivors are made much clearer than they have been, and that local authorities take their duties more seriously than they have done in many instances in the past.
  If we are to give effect to the provisions that seek to provide greater safeguards for survivors of domestic violence, we need to think in a more joined-up way about other parts of our policy. Our "supporting people" policy, for example, is welcome in a general sense. However, there are grave concerns that by giving local discretion, there is a risk of survivors seeking refuge in women's aid hostels finding that hostels are not available because local authorities have chosen to fund other types of accommodation. We urgently need a national network of hostels and refuges for survivors of domestic violence. I urge Ministers to consider whether central funding is more appropriate if the protection afforded in the Bill is to have real effect.
  102
  When the Homes Bill was considered, there was debate about the uneven quality of housing advice services around the country. It was suggested that there should be minimum standards of housing advice available to all. I strongly endorse such a view, particularly in respect of survivors of domestic violence, because although we advocate a multi-agency approach, its effectiveness in terms of advice given and support offered is often patchy across the country. We need to introduce minimum standards for all agencies tackling domestic violence, so as to end the current location lottery. All survivors, wherever they live, should be assured of a refuge place if they need one and of the correct advice and support whenever they need it.
  There has been much discussion of, and a welcome for, the introduction in the Bill of a homelessness strategy. During debate on the Homes Bill, it was pointed out that such a strategy should form part of an overall housing strategy that had statutory effect. That was resisted by Ministers on the grounds that more time was needed for consultation. Time has passed since then—although not time intended for such consultation—and I urge Ministers to reconsider such a requirement under the Bill. It fits completely into our partnership agenda and will provide a much-needed focus on more joined-up government—linking education, health, planning and so on. That is long overdue. Those sectors must be meshed together if we are effectively to tackle housing needs.
  Mr. Don Foster: That is not merely the hon. Lady's view. Local authorities are desperately keen for a single requirement on them to provide an over-arching homes policy.
  Margaret Moran: The hon. Gentleman is right. Strong representations have been made from that quarter. I have been appalled by some local authorities that, having undertaken stock transfer, say, "We don't do housing any more. We have got shot of housing". We do not advocate that approach to housing either in the Bill or more generally. We need a more strategic approach on a statutory basis, extending the statutory housing powers of local authorities to enable them to carry out their full range of duties in all aspects of housing provision in their area. That requires the strengthening of the obligations on registered social landlords and other housing providers to assist local authorities in meeting their housing needs.
  Furthermore, if we are to reduce homelessness, we must make more effective use of the private rented sector. In Luton, for each of the 4,000 families in desperate housing need, there are seven empty properties in the private rented sector. That is nonsense. Without the resources or the statutory ability to tackle the problem of empty properties, that disgrace will continue. We must address the need for additional resources to deal with private sector rented properties that are in disrepair. We also need to provide greater resources for poor owner-occupiers who need assistance to maintain their homes to a decent standard, before they reach the state of dereliction of some properties in my constituency.
  We need to improve quality and security for tenants in the private rented sector without driving up prices. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

  103
  mentioned that he is considering a consultation document on that sector and on houses in multiple occupation. Legislation on those sectors is long overdue.
  We should extend the powers of local authorities to introduce discretionary licensing to all forms of private rented sector provision. It should not be restricted solely to low-demand areas. The current housing benefit system should be adjusted to give financial incentives, under licensing schemes, to private landlords who provide good-quality, affordable housing for households in need.
  As my right hon. Friend said in his introduction, the Bill is but one element in the range of measures necessary to prevent homelessness and tackle housing need. We also need to set targets during the next 10 years for overcoming the backlog in affordable housing, to parallel our target for ensuring that existing housing meets decent standards. The Government should set out a programme for achieving those new targets, which will inevitably require a significant increase in housing investment. Local authorities should be required to show in their housing strategies how the target will be met in their areas. That would mesh with the Government's target to reduce the number of homeless households placed in bed-and-breakfast and other forms of temporary accommodation. We need an emergency programme for achieving that target.
  As we have heard, homelessness involves not only a financial cost to the Treasury and the public purse but a human and political cost. The problem is acute in London and is growing worse in the south-east. It is certainly reaching acute levels in areas, such as my constituency, around the M25 belt. Therefore, our need to increase the number of affordable social housing units is more acute, and we need to find new financial mechanisms to increase the availability of affordable housing in those areas.
  We should tackle the low demand that exists in some parts of the country, but not at the expense of responding to unmet needs in areas of high demand. In that context, I have grave concerns about the review of the general needs index and the housing needs index. Under the current proposals, it seems that the areas of highest housing need could be penalised by indicators that address areas of low demand. I certainly ask Ministers to consider very carefully the impact of those proposals because we could financially penalise the very areas that need most support to accommodate homeless people and provide affordable housing.
  We must also think about our wider housing strategy. If we are to tackle homelessness and housing need, we must stop treating arm's-length company initiatives as the only game in town. There are other methods of financing social housing, and we need to be inventive in considering them. For more than a decade, many tenants and housing professionals have said that a level playing field needs to be introduced in housing finance and investment.
  I am not a purist in such issues. As the Government have said, what matters is what works. No need is more acute than that in housing. We must look beyond large-scale voluntary transfers as our main way of tackling housing need. We must consider a wider range of ways in which to increase housing investment.
  I welcome the additional resources that have been invested, but in no way will they provide more affordable homes, which we urgently need, in the time scale
  104
  necessary to tackle the problem. I have a suggestion to make to the Ministers who will discuss the forthcoming spending round with the Chancellor: we can consider increasing investment within the existing financial rules. The Chancellor has rightly introduced the golden rule and, at present, we are comfortably within that limit. Net public debt is set to fall steadily to below 40 per cent. of gross domestic product.
  In 2001–02, the Chancellor could have increased public sector net debt to invest in housing by about £50 billion while still remaining within the golden rule. Housing investment has the additional benefit that it need not appear in one year's accounts; it can be spread over several years to meet need and demand. We are fortunate in that we have a Chancellor and Government who have set great store by healthy public finances, and we should use the healthy state of public finances to allow greater investment in housing. There is room for a significant increase in housing investment, by about 1 to 2 per cent. of GDP.
  I hope that, in approaching the forthcoming spending round, Ministers will recognise that the Bill tackles the most urgent needs of homeless people, but that those needs should be dealt with in parallel with the need for greater investment in our housing stock and for increasing the amount of affordable housing. I hope that Ministers will put those arguments to the Chancellor, thank him for his financial prudence and say that he has room within his golden rule to allow greater housing investment—greater even than that which we have seen in the past three years.
  The cost of homelessness is great. It is great to the public purse and to those who are personally affected, their families and their friends. It has a political cost, too. I welcome the measures in the Bill, but I hope that Ministers will move further and introduce other legislation, particularly for homes in multiple occupation in the private rented sector. I hope that they will take this historic opportunity to argue for greater housing investment and so end the torment of homelessness that so many of our constituents experience.
  9.20 pm
  Matthew Green: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech.
  It is an honour to represent the constituency of Ludlow and the county of my birth. It is a particular honour as I am the first Liberal Democrat Member ever to represent Ludlow and, I believe, the first Liberal to do so since 1886,
  I welcome the Bill. Homelessness is not just an urban problem, as several hon. Members made clear. The homelessness problem in rural areas such as mine, where house prices are going through the roof and yet we suffer from low wages, is that young people are being driven out. The problem is not so much that they are sleeping rough, but that they are not sleeping in the constituency of Ludlow.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned Stephen Ross, whose Bill in 1977 put much homelessness legislation into practice. Many Members will not know this, but he moved to Ludlow after he had finished his time in the House and was president of our constituency party until he died.
  I also pay tribute to my predecessor, Christopher Gill, who retired at the general election after 14 years in the House. There is much local respect for him, because he

  105
  stuck to his principles through thick and thin. I suspect that Conservative Whips had less respect for his determination.
  Christopher Gill could also be a doughty fighter for local people. At the outset, he was a lone voice in fighting for Kidderminster hospital. Despite the political differences between us, I suspect that he will be rather pleased that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) and I will continue his fight for services at that hospital.
  Many Members have said—I am sure that everyone does in a maiden speech—that their constituency is one of the most beautiful in the country. All I say is that people should come to Ludlow and draw their own conclusions. Not only will they find it very beautiful, they will find that the people are very relaxed, friendly and welcoming.
  The Shropshire hills have been given a boost by the Secret Hills Discovery Centre in Craven Arms, which is a must for all visitors. My constituency is also full of historic castles and buildings. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) referred to Caernarfon castle, but he may not know that, for some time, Ludlow castle was the seat of government for this country and, for a much longer period, ruled Wales. Ludlow now boasts more Michelin star restaurants than any other constituency and it has many fine pubs and hotels. Indeed, it has the largest number of micro-breweries. The figure of six is more than anywhere else and they produce top-quality real ales.
  I do not, however, want to gloss over the problems that my constituency faces. It is one of the most rural constituencies in England. Nearly 12 per cent. of the working population work directly in agriculture and the jobs of many others are dependent on the agriculture sector. That sector has been in decline in the past five years and foot and mouth very nearly finished it off. It is the bedrock of the local economy and I hope that the new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will turn the rural economy round and not earn the reputation of its predecessor, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Kidderminster hospital is primarily known because of its connection with Wyre Forest. However, a third of my electorate—20,000 people—used it because it was their nearest hospital. For them, the loss of the accident and emergency department might be life-threatening. They were used to the 45 minutes that it took from making a 999 call to being taken to an accident and emergency hospital. Many now face a wait of an hour and a half from the time that they make the call to when they arrive.
  Shropshire and my constituency are affected by the poor state of local government finance, which is a familiar problem in rural areas. Schools are desperately underfunded but, none the less, produce excellent results. The roads improve whenever one leaves Shropshire. That is no surprise: every surrounding county is better funded. Social services have experienced severe cutbacks. I heard that a local government finance reform Bill was going to be announced in the Queen's Speech and was deeply disappointed when that did not happen.
  The election in Ludlow was not entirely about party politics. Its electorate are relaxed, friendly and not easily stirred. Indeed, they probably have not been stirred for 115 years in political terms. However, there is a growing
  106
  feeling that central Government are ignoring the constituency and that our problems are not being heard. The electorate have been roused and they have asked me to put their problems to the House. I hope that I will succeed in doing that.
  9.27 pm
  Tim Loughton: We have had a fascinating debate, but it should not be taking place. The Homes Bill could have been an Act by now had the Government taken our advice and not insisted on linking it with the highly controversial compulsory seller's pack. It is a vindication of the Conservative opposition to that rushed and ill-thought-out measure that it was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. That goes to underline the pitfalls of abusing our powers of scrutiny by using programming measures to rush badly drafted legislation through the House. How many measures that succeeded courtesy of the Government's programming sledgehammer will we have to revisit in this Parliament simply because they legislated in haste? In their unseemly rush to flex their political muscle, legislation was not subject to the full rigour of scrutiny inside and outside this place. The Secretary of State, who is not present, had a cheek to present the Homelessness Bill as if it were the first month of the first Labour Government.
  Let us look on the bright side. Without today's debate, the House would have been deprived of a string of excellent maiden speeches, of which a surprising number touched on homelessness. Interspersed with those were many contributions by old lags—the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster), for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). Indeed, I think that the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) spoke for even longer than she did in her maiden speech four years ago. However, that was not before the annual tirade—the short, sharp speech—by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). For those of us who joined the House four years ago, it is familiar to hear all the ills of the world put down to 18 years of Conservative government. There was no mention of the appalling housing record of Labour-controlled London boroughs. Perhaps she will put us on notice of when she will take some responsibility for the deterioration in housing under four years of Labour government, including her short, sharp tenure at the now defunct Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. When will she be prepared to be judged on her record as the Mayor's special adviser?
  Returning to the maiden speeches, we started with an excellent contribution by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). It is good advice to mention one's agent in one's opening speech. The hon. Gentleman's tones are not, perhaps, the mellifluous Welsh ones of his predecessor, but his understanding of the problems of his constituency and his portrayal of it as very different from the seat that his predecessor inherited 31 years ago show that he is in touch with his constituents. His point about stable communities being at the heart of a solution to housing problems was very relevant.
  We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous), who also made an excellent contribution, as we would expect from someone

  107
  who cut his teeth in Conservative politics in Wandsworth, as I did. He managed to mention teacher numbers, police numbers, clinics, bypasses, banks, railways, flight paths and waste disposal—the entire panoply of public services—in one 12-minute speech. He will bring great experience to the House, not least from his work with homelessness charities, which he mentioned.
  We had another excellent maiden contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). Not many of us can talk about two highly distinguished predecessors with busts in the Palace of Westminster. I hope that my hon. Friend will not repeat the performance of the earlier of those predecessors, Oliver Cromwell, who snatched the Mace, made one contribution in his first year as a Member of Parliament and suffered a lingering death from malaria. My hon. Friend is very welcome here in the defence of the privileges of this House as its powers, including the power of scrutiny, come under attack not now from the divine right of kings, but from an arrogance of power exercised by an Executive in Downing street.
  We then heard an excellent maiden contribution from the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), following in the tradition of difficult-to-pronounce Scottish constituencies. His approach was a refreshing alternative to blaming everything on those wicked Tories between 1979 and 1997. His commitment to homelessness projects in his constituency resulted in the expertise with which he contributed on the subject.
  I am afraid that I missed the maiden contribution of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), although I gather that he gave us some insight into the highly underhand tactics used by Liberal Democrat candidates, including the fact that he identified a former Conservative Member of Parliament as not living in the constituency, even though he was his landlord.
  We then heard a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). It is excellent to see the Isle of Wight back in Conservative hands, as well it should be. He brings to the House great expertise in education. He made very bold claims: he said that it never rains in the Isle of Wight. He gave us a different view on the promotion of tourism by advertising the prisons available on the island and the attractions of garlic ice cream, garlic beer and garlic honey—which is ironic given the fact that in "Dod's", he gives one of his recreations as avoiding gardening.
  We then moved on to the Welsh tradition of unpronounceable constituencies, with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), whose maiden speech was a refreshing jerk back to the tradition of Labour Members blaming everything on the wicked Tories. By my count, he mentioned Keir Hardie at least seven times. His strong, passionate speech was reminiscent of Keir Hardie's contributions, and then he started mentioning socialism and trade unionists—subjects that do not, these days, raise too many cheers from his ministerial colleagues. The crucible of Welsh politics that produced Keir Hardie in the last century is, I fear, rather different today.
  We then heard from another Welsh Member, albeit from a different party. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) follows in the distinguished footsteps of Dafydd Wigley and tried to outdo the Member who
  108
  spoke before him by talking about Lloyd George rather than Keir Hardie. He certainly wasted no time in asserting his constituency's independence from that terrible place, England. He spoke with expertise on housing and with personal experience of wards that feature in the ten worst in Wales for housing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) spoke about his most beautiful constituency, but, with refreshing honesty, admitted that it does indeed rain a lot there, in contrast, apparently, to the Isle of Wight. He took the wise step of mentioning just about all the villages in his constituency, which always helps, and spoke intelligently about the stark mutual dependence of rural and urban areas and the problems of homelessness and poverty, which exist just as much in the country as in the towns. I am sure that the people of Taunton will be well served by their new Member. I would expect no less from someone who, like me, cut his political teeth in Wandsworth politics, and is also godfather to one of my daughters.
  We completed our Cook's tour with the contribution of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). He followed the tradition of mentioning the beauty of his constituency, as well as the restaurants and breweries in which he takes pride. He was not quite shameless enough to mention them all by name to acquire free dining facilities, but his was an interesting contribution all the same. He also concentrated on the many problems of poverty and homelessness in a largely rural constituency.
  I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), on her promotion to the Front Bench. She and I have done battle on many occasions, largely on financial Bills, although she was temporarily hushed during her tenure as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the now Chief Whip; we welcome her back and, no doubt, she will be more vociferous.
  I greatly sympathise with the Under-Secretary, for her portfolio includes a number of poisoned chalices. It includes urban regeneration, on which the Government have singularly failed to deliver. They have produced a plethora of initiatives that are all about setting up structures rather than delivering, and there was no mention in the Queen's Speech of an urban White Paper or Bill.
  The Under-Secretary is also responsible for planning—another area where the Government have singularly failed to overhaul the chaotic system under which we suffer—and housing, which was one of the previous Government's biggest failures. The Minister for Local Government has just arrived to give her a crumb of comfort for the Government's most appalling record.
  Just five years ago, on 5 March 1996, the Prime Minister said:
  "Labour will do everything in our power to end the scandal of homelessness, to tackle the spectacle of people sleeping rough on the streets, and to end the waste of families sleeping in bed and breakfast accommodation."
  Five years on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, the homelessness figures from the Department for Transport, Local Government

  109
  and the Regions are truly appalling. Ministers may quibble over the odd thousand, but we know as they know that the figure has been getting worse.
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): It was the same when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power.
  Tim Loughton: Is not that an indictment of the past four years? This Government have promised everything. We have had warm words and Green Papers and speeches from Labour Members, yet the figure is the same as when the Conservatives were in government—yet, as we are constantly hearing, the economy is stronger than ever. What an indictment of four years under this Government.
  The figure on bed-and-breakfast accommodation is two and a half times worse than in 1997. There is the scandal of empty housing, with more than 750,000 empty homes. The north-south divide has worsened and the gap between rich and poor has vastly widened, yet the Government promised the reverse. What has been their response?
  The response has been a dramatic slashing of the number of social houses that have been built over the past four years to a record low. A Green Paper published in April 2000 was long on words but left the future status of council housing in doubt and suggested confused gimmicks for dealing with the major problem of the shortage of affordable housing for key workers, especially in London and the south-east.
  Despite promises, there has been nothing on houses in multiple occupancy, and there has been continuing crisis over inefficiency and abuse in the housing benefit system, which has been made more complicated by the Government changing the regulations almost weekly. There has been nothing to help young people to get their feet on the first rung of the housing ladder, and nothing to promote do-it-yourself shared ownership schemes, which we pioneered. There have been increases in stamp duty but they still fail to define exemptions from it in areas of urban regeneration, as promised last year. This Government have slashed the right to buy and abolished mortgage interest relief at source.
  That is the legacy of the previous Labour Government. Housing is an area in which they have single-handedly failed to deliver. They need urgently to reverse their appalling record if they are to justify the second chance granted by the British people at the general election. I sympathise greatly with the Minister. She will be a high-profile fall-girl if her new team continues the culture of failing to deliver.
  The problem continues to worsen and it is not limited to major metropolitan boroughs. In my constituency on the south coast, local people are suffering. Worthing and Adur councils are failing to find people places in short-term accommodation, largely because of the actions of large cities such as Brighton and Hove and of the London boroughs, which have the power to take block bookings in resorts along the south coast, leaving those of us who live in the area short of the accommodation that we desperately need.
  In addition, the quality of accommodation has been worsening. People with disabilities are being offered upper-floor flats and children with asthma are being put in damp ones. In one shocking case, a woman who had twice attempted suicide was placed in a fourth-floor flat
  110
  with a balcony from which, tragically, she threw herself last week. Many hon. Members will know of similarly desperate cases.
  The Under-Secretary's job is an urgent one. We will help as much as we can by not opposing the Bill, programme motion or no programme motion. However, all her warm words and good intentions will count for nothing unless talk of new provisions for homeless people and directions to local authorities and other providers to implement homelessness strategies are backed up by appropriate resources directed toward the problem from central Government.
  We support many of the Bill's provisions, as we did many of the measures in part II of the Homes Bill. We support homelessness strategies and, in particular, special measures aimed at those who are fleeing domestic and racial violence—in fact, we tabled amendments to strengthen such provisions in the Homes Bill. We recognise the special requirements of people with physical and mental health disabilities and we shall support measures to help them.
  We welcome clauses that deal with the suitability of homeless applicants based on their behaviour, but we shall explore in Committee whether that includes previous behaviour. Dealing with neighbours from hell means dealing with people who have a bad track record in previous tenancies, but the Bill is not clear on that point. We also want to ask questions about whether the new regime now prevailing between the new Secretary of State and local authorities will include provisions for homelessness now that he has threatened to send in private companies to wrest control over local services from local authorities, and whether that will include failing housing departments.
  We broadly support the Bill, although we have many questions that we shall put to the Minister and her colleagues in Committee. The Government still have a long way to go to honour their pledge to tackle homelessness. Those suffering the appalling waste of homelessness will not forgive the Government if they fail to deliver a second time.
  9.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): It has been an excellent debate featuring some outstanding maiden speeches as well as contributions displaying the experience that Members of Parliament—especially Labour Members—have in housing matters. It is appropriate that the first Bill of the Parliament—a Parliament that will focus on public services—should deal with the most basic service of all: the need for a roof over one's head.
  The Bill supports the rights of homeless people. Those rights were first recognised in a Bill that was introduced by a Liberal Member of Parliament under a Labour Government, but they were shamefully eroded by the Conservatives' Housing Act 1996. I wonder whether it was lingering shame about the 1996 Act, the results of the general election, or Wandsworth council's track record on dealing with homelessness that made the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) so uncharacteristically sour. [Laughter.] I give him some credit. I look forward to our discussions about the Bill and the issues on which I shall make a contribution to government.

  111
  The Bill will be a landmark for homeless people and will form a key part of the comprehensive housing strategy that the Government have established to address the housing needs and aspirations of the nation. First, the Bill embodies the drive to prevent homelessness by placing a duty on local authorities to review housing needs and develop strategies to deal with them.
  Secondly, we will extend the rights of homeless people and increase the powers of local authorities to help them. Anyone with an ounce of compassion would recognise that 16 and 17-year-olds who are out alone on the streets of our cities are in desperate need of safe housing. Under the Conservative Government, the rights of that most vulnerable group were not recognised. The Bill and the order on priority needs, which will be introduced shortly, will end the scandal of housing in some of the most affluent towns and cities in the western world being denied to young homeless people. That is one of the differences that the Bill will make, which is what the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was asking about.
  Thirdly, there is no point in recognising the needs of the homeless without providing more housing. That is why we are more than doubling the level of capital investment that we inherited, including £153 million over three years for supporting the most vulnerable people.
  Fourthly, our proposals will put choice at the heart of letting. That will help us to achieve our objective of secure, safe and sustainable neighbourhoods. People who choose to move to an area are more likely to have a commitment to that community than those who are merely allocated a property at the convenience of the local housing authority. The Bill will deal also with housing aspirations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), in his outstanding maiden speech, spoke of the importance of meeting the aspirations of the community. The Bill will be important in meeting the community's housing needs. My hon. Friend paid a sincere tribute to his predecessor, who is well remembered and fondly regarded by all Labour Members. My hon. Friend's predecessor raised constituency issues frequently and forcefully. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue in that tradition.
  In his maiden speech, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous) paid a well-made, well-deserved and heartfelt tribute to his predecessor. He referred clearly to issues of concern to his constituents. I do not know all of those issues, but I share one with the hon. Gentleman—the Silverlink service. I wish him well in the campaign. I hope that he succeeds.
  The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) made a polished speech and paid glowing tribute to his immediate predecessor. He raised the issue of empty properties and asked whether people could not simply be put into them. The Bill enforces the importance of choice and the need to ensure that people live in properties in a part of the country where they want to reside and in a type of property in which they want to live. He also raised the important issue of creating stable communities, and that is one of the aims that lies behind the Bill and supporting policies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) was right to highlight the role of housing and social exclusion. He talked of the need for
  112
  more advice to help young people to avoid homelessness. Again, that is one of the aims that lies behind the Bill and the policies that will be introduced to support it.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) referred to the important issue of homelessness in rural areas, as did several other Members. They were right to do so. There are a number of policies to ensure that the interests of people in rural areas are protected. For example, the Housing Corporation has a rural programme for settlements, especially for fewer than 3,000 people.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) talked about his passion for local services—a passion that many of us on the Government Benches share. He spoke about the role of his Liberal predecessor who introduced the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, which is clearly important in the context of the debate. He was right to focus on allocations policies, which are often overlooked but which are an important feature of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) paid tribute to his distinguished predecessors and to the policies of one in particular, Keir Hardie. Far from being anathema to the Government, we have fulfilled several of the policies that Keir Hardie drew up all those years ago. I am sure that my hon. Friend will play an important role in advancing those policies.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) paid a fulsome tribute to his constituency, its traditions and especially its language. He drew attention to the hardship resulting from the decline of traditional industries and the loss of younger economically active people. He will probably go down in history as the Member who managed to visit, I think, 84 polling stations in his constituency on polling day.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) spoke movingly about agriculture and the importance of tourism in his constituency. He spoke about the need to deal with the particular pressures of housing in his constituency; I draw his attention to the importance that the Bill attaches to homelessness strategies, which should be drawn up by local authorities and should involve both the statutory and private sectors. I hope that that will help to resolve some of the issues that he raised.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) drew attention to the problem of homelessness in rural areas. The Government will ensure that funding for the new starter homes initiative is available for rural areas; I hope that that will help to keep some younger people in those areas.
  I welcome the support that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) expressed for the Bill, although I suspect that he will also have a number of reservations. The seller's pack, about which he asked, was a manifesto commitment; measures dealing with it will be introduced when parliamentary time allows. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the rough sleepers unit. We shall look at the lessons that can be drawn from it before deciding how to develop important policies for keeping people off the streets of our towns and cities.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) spoke forcefully about the problems of homeless people in London, which are of great concern, especially the number of those who are currently homeless or in bed and breakfast. My hon.

  113
  Friends may be interested to know that the London housing statement will be issued next month; it is a working document for London local authorities and housing associations and should go some way towards dealing with some of the problems of housing and homelessness in the capital city.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) spoke knowledgeably about the Bill. Obviously, he played a substantial role in it reaching the House in its present form and I welcome his contribution. I shall certainly make sure that the consultation document is placed in the Library. He asked when the priority needs order would be introduced. It will be submitted for parliamentary approval at the start of the next Session; it will be an affirmative order, so it will have to be debated. It should therefore come in to effect by the end of next year. The hon. Gentleman also asked about registered social landlords and their obligation to work with local authorities. They already have a statutory obligation to do that; guidance is coming out and further guidance will be issued for consultation in August. I certainly undertake to look again at the timetable because, clearly, August is not a key time for people to debate consultation documents.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a couple of practical issues, including priorities and whether people should be told automatically about any change in the priority order. I urge him to think carefully about the impact that that would have on local authorities in terms of sheer bureaucracy and red tape. If he thinks the matter through carefully, he will realise that that proposal would be impractical for most local authorities.
  The same is true of time limits. For some people, 24 hours is too long to respond to a housing offer. For some people, three days is too short. I had to deal with a case in which a woman received a housing offer while she was in hospital having a baby. Under such circumstances, it is important for the local authority to be able to use its discretion.
  The hon. Member for Banbury asked what was the point of the Bill and what difference it would make. I have given him one answer, and there are others. One is that it would end the uncertainty of the two-year limit; the other involves choice in lettings. If he cannot think what the Bill would achieve, he lacks imagination or he does not understand the reality of homelessness in Britain today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North made a number of serious points, especially about homelessness in London. On overcrowding, I agree that the present standards are incompatible with what should be expected. On the possibility of two strategies—one for the north and one for the south—I believe that housing strategies should be driven by local needs. That is the thrust of the Bill. It is therefore important that local communities and local authorities draw up the housing strategies that best meet
  114
  those needs. That will result in not just one or two, but a number of different policies to suit the people who live in those areas.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) showed her long experience and expertise in housing matters, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who was involved in piloting choice-based lettings. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) highlighted the need for policies to help particularly vulnerable people. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), my close neighbour in Northamptonshire, gave a forceful speech reminding us of the appalling sights that we used to see during the Tory years, and reminded us that although much will be done under the Bill much remains to do.
  Those at the sharp end of helping the homeless—charities such as Shelter and Crisis—have welcomed the Bill and its provision to extend the rights of homeless people. It is clear from speeches made this evening that the Bill's provisions and the programme to combat homelessness, the biggest extension of rights for the homeless for a quarter of a century, the recognition of the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society, the protection for those at risk of violence and the measures to keep the young off the streets and to take responsibility for ensuring that those most at risk have a roof over their heads resonate with many hon. Members.
  Our aim is not just to make sure that homeless people can get a roof over their heads; it is also to make sure that they have a choice of a decent home and the support that they need to become a valued part of our society. Homelessness, or the threat of homelessness, is one of the most frightening prospects for most people, and it is why so many people tolerate the intolerable—domestic violence, racial harassment, extremes of poverty, overcrowding or abuse—rather than end up without a home.
  Together with the priority needs order and increased spending, the Bill will increase protection for the most vulnerable people in our society and will form an important plank in achieving our vision of a more inclusive and a more just society. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  HOMELESSNESS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Homelessness Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Caplin.]

  Business of the House
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate Question—[28 June].
  Question again proposed,
  That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October. 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January, 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: As I was saying when I was genteelly interrupted the other day, the issues raised by the motion are quite wide and complex. Not least among them is the fact that, looking at the dates that we contemplate for private Members' Bills, particularly when we do not have the opportunity of knowing the substance of the Bills, it is extraordinary—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 102 (Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business)), in respect of its meeting on Tuesday 3rd July, the Welsh Grand Committee shall consist of all Members representing Welsh constituencies, together with Mr. Nigel Evans and Mr. Robert Walter.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Ordered,
  That Andrew Bennett, Mr. Harold Best, Mr. Jonathan Djanogly. Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. Ivan Henderson, Mr. David Tredinnick and Brian White be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; and that the said Committee do meet with the Committee appointed by the Lords on Thursday 5th July at half-past Ten o'clock in Committee Room 7.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  Teaching Vacancies (Advertising)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell]
  10 pm
  Mr. Eric Joyce: A couple of months ago, I read in bold print on the front page of The Times Educational Supplement that more—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not walk in front of an hon. Gentleman who is addressing the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Joyce: More than 9,000 teaching jobs were advertised in that edition of the newspaper. The figure was intended to catch the eye of teachers looking for new jobs. What struck me, however, was the amount of advertising revenue that the newspaper must have been receiving, mainly from the state education budget. Although the advertising rates varied depending on the size of advertisement taken out by schools and local authorities, it seemed reasonable, comparing rates with the size of the advertisements in the newspaper, to assume that the average advertisement cost more than £200. If so, by my reckoning, that single edition of the TES could have generated about £2 million in advertising revenue just from the teaching vacancy advertisements.
  That certainly was a bumper edition of the TES, and teaching vacancies have seasonal peaks and troughs. It would be misleading, therefore, to extrapolate a year's revenue from a single edition. Instead, I asked the previous Minister for School Standards, now the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, how many teaching jobs were estimated to become available each year in England and Wales. I was given a figure of about 55,000, although that did not cover quite a large number of jobs of which the Department might not be notified.
  If we therefore assume that the vacancies were filled at the first advertisement and that the average cost was only £200, that would be an annual revenue from teaching vacancy advertising in England and Wales alone of well over £10 million. However, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the true figure is rather higher. There is good reason to suppose that state expenditure on such advertising could be closer to, or even more than, £20 million, perhaps considerably more. As that is a great deal of money, it is worth expanding on both the demand and the supply side of the teaching recruitment market.
  On the demand side, schools need to advertise in response to staff turnover and school expansion. In the past, when the numbers of teachers chasing jobs were great, it might have been possible to have 50 or more applications for just one job. Currently, however, that is usually not the case. In some parts of the country, advertisements for a maths post, for example, are likely to elicit only three to four applicants even before any short-listing process. In such circumstances it is quite usual for jobs to be advertised more than once.
  Staff turnover rates vary across the country, but turnover in high-demand subjects can be very high indeed, as can turnover in schools in metropolitan areas. No school wants to be left with a gap at the start of the year, so in those circumstances advertising becomes very aggressive. Particularly in shortage subjects, each school

  117
  is aware that it is chasing the same few applicants as other schools in the area. Schools might use various tactics to attract staff, and an important one is the advertisement itself. It is not purely a matter of stating that a job is available; the advertisement needs to grab the attention of potential applicants and persuade them that that is the job and school that they want, rather than the 15 or 20 others that could be on offer.
  How do schools achieve that? They do not do it by placing a dinky little advertisement. It is certainly a case in which size does matter. When teachers looking for new jobs are faced with four or five pages of adverts on their subject area, eyes tend to be drawn to the larger box adverts. These can cost between £300 and £500 each, which leads to an inflation of the costs borne by schools.
  One school that I know of—one without significant staffing difficulties that no doubt spends rather less than others—has still spent more than £12,000 this year on advertising, 95 per cent. of which is through the TES. However, another has spent more than £40,000 in one financial year. While this must look like a small element of a school budget of well over £2 million—or, in Scotland, of a local authority budget that is many times that—the fact is that labour costs and other fixed costs dominate the budgets of all schools. The cost of advertising looms quite large with regard to that truly flexible part of a school's budget.
  This year, some schools have received very welcome additional funding for recruitment and retention. For a school of more than 1,000 students, this could be as much as £25,000 to £30,000, depending on how the local authority wants to slice up the cake. Schools would like to spend this on funding imaginative ways of limiting staff turnover, by enhancing opportunities within the schools, for example, or by offering support for new staff, particularly in areas where the cost of living is high. But to some extent, scope for imaginative uses of this extra money is limited by the high cost of advertising. That is why driving down that high cost is so very important.
  Schools and local authorities represent the main driver on the demand side in the teacher advertising market. When it comes to staff recruitment, schools and local authorities basically want three things: first, a cost-effective means of reaching a wide audience; secondly, scope for a quick response time as regards requests for information and the processing of applications; thirdly, in a broader sense, promoting the attractions of the school. At present, the plain fact is that the market is not delivering what schools and local authorities want.
  Simply put, advertising is unnecessarily expensive and leads to unnecessarily long response and administration times. The main supplier of teacher vacancy advertising is The Times Educational Supplement, or TES. The overwhelming majority of expenditure by schools and many colleges is spent there. It is true that some rivals nibble at the margins, but there is no doubting the fact that the TES dominates that market. The market operates in a way not dissimilar to a monopoly.
  During my own extremely modest business education, I was taught that a market environment consisted essentially of five elements: buyers, suppliers, competitors, threats of new entrants and threats of new products replacing the need for one's own. It is instructive to apply this elementary template to the case in point.
  118
  Buyers in this case are, on the one hand, schools and local authorities who pay for the adverts and, on the other hand, teachers who pay through the cover price to look for jobs. Since revenues from the former hugely outstrip the latter, it is the purchasing power of the former—the schools, essentially, and local authorities—that acts as the driver. If a sufficiently large critical mass of schools and colleges chose other mediums, the teachers would follow. However, they do not, because there is only really one prime supplier: the TES.
  As I have mentioned, there are other niche suppliers, such as The Guardian, The Scotsman and the regional press, which focuses on higher education, part-time vacancies and so on. However, they lack the wherewithal and the habit of readership to compete head on with the TES. Indeed, even these rivals at the margins can manage to compete in the modest way that they do only because they are already in the business of producing and delivering newspapers in high volumes. That very fact restricts any new entrants to the market since, by general consent, it would not be viable to publish a competitor to the TES without the supply chain and economy of scale benefits afforded to that publication.
  It is clear that there exists no effective competition in the market as it is currently structured. Teachers buy or borrow the TES because that is where the jobs are, and schools advertise there because it is where all the teachers are looking for jobs. The net effect of this on pricing is predictable, and it is exacerbated by competition between schools, particularly in shortage subjects.
  There remains one component of the simple market environment that I have not yet touched on: the threat of new products entering the market that replace the need for one's own. This Labour Government created the position of Minister for E-commerce and are emphasising educational technology because it is plain that the internet has exciting potential radically to restructure certain markets, to the benefit of both consumers and the companies that seek to operate within those markets.
  The market that we are discussing tonight is a classic case in point. I believe that, at present, there is a form of market failure in advertising for teaching vacancies caused not by any questionable practices—indeed, the TES is an excellent newspaper—but simply by an overwhelming dominance of a single supplier, combined with high barriers to entering the market.
  The situation could be transformed overnight by using the internet. Many dotcom companies have failed recently, but that is primarily because of the speculative element of their business, with the supposed demand for novel products as well as methods of delivery. In the case of teaching vacancy advertising, we know that there is a predictable demand. Should the market make the leap from a heavy newspaper to the web pages, the other benefits of an internet business would apply, minus the risks faced by dotcom companies in other markets.
  Some farsighted companies have seen this already. For example, Schoolsnet offers unlimited recruiting advertisement for schools for the princely sum of £300 a year, which is something of an improvement on the £12,000 to £40,000 that I mentioned earlier. Of course, that low price reflects the current relatively low demand, since without the critical mass of subscribers, very few teachers use the service; but it also reflects the low set-up

  119
  costs of the medium, and points the way, ultimately, to much lower costs for the buyers of the advertising service delivered.
  I am not convinced that the structure of the market would necessarily change all that much, and I suspect that one or two suppliers would still dominate, because of the convenience for teachers of having most jobs advertised in the same place; but I believe that the threat of new entrants will be made far more meaningful with web-based advertising, and that will inevitably lower the costs for schools and local education authorities and remove the modest costs faced by teachers altogether.
  It is difficult to miss the fact that the best internet site advertising teaching jobs is none other than that of the TES, which includes all the jobs advertised in the newspaper. A switch of the main medium would still leave the TES with a striking advantage over organisations such as Schoolsnet, gained from a critical mass of advertisers, and hence readers—or perhaps, in future, loggers on. Indeed, the site is so good and so complete that I suspect that News International already has that contingency well planned for—I commend it for that—but the fact remains that the internet provides meaningful scope for a critical mass of advertisers to switch together to a new competitor, which gives more power to their elbow. The switch could begin on a geographical or a subject basis or, more likely and more meaningfully, it could be agreed en masse among schools and LEAs to switch, or threaten to switch, at the same time.
  I have spoken to a number of teachers and local authority administrators on the subject in the past few weeks, and it is abundantly clear to me that the conditions now exist such that a determined effort by budget holders to work together to secure a better deal would very likely meet with success. Schools would continue to compete keenly for the best staff, but with hyperlinks patching the main advertising sites with the schools' own, the cost of such competition would be much lower than at present, and perhaps restricted to in-house web design costs. Moreover, the dissemination of information about schools and jobs would take place instantaneously and applications would be progressed far more quickly, and without the expense of surface mail.
  The time has come when, if the TES will not provide website advertising with direct links to schools' own sites at a cost much lower than that of advertising in the newspaper, someone else will. The Department for Education and Skills must now galvanise schools by urging them to seek the best deal and to work together to maximise their bargaining power with the present prime supplier—the TES—or potential future suppliers; and the time has come for the Scottish Executive to watch developments carefully, so that it can learn from practices down here, just as we learn from practices there.
  Up to now, the DFES and the Scottish Executive have rightly left the decision on where to place advertising to budget holders at school and local authority levels. I would not want to see a departure from the principle that it is up to those budget holders to decide where to spend their money, but many of them would welcome advice from the DFES on the best way of securing partnership across the country and driving down the cost of advertising.
  120
  It is one of the notable successes of the Labour Government that all secondary schools and the great majority of primary schools are now on the internet. It is a fact of professional teaching today that teachers are comfortable with that medium. Teachers would welcome a change of format that would make the task of applying for a new job more user friendly and perhaps even enjoyable.
  I end by reiterating the fact that I believe that the TES is an excellent newspaper that provides a broadly sound service, and I suspect that it is up to the challenge that lies ahead. There is undoubtedly scope substantially to lower the costs that I have spoken about, and it is now time for the DFES to encourage schools and local authorities to press that case with vigour.
  10.15 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) for raising an issue of great topical interest in staffrooms and at school governors' meetings throughout the country. I know that, as a former teacher himself, he is well informed about such matters, and I congratulate him on bringing them before the House so early in this Session.
  I shall address my hon. Friend's specific concerns about the problems of advertising for teacher vacancies, but I also want to underline the high degree of energy and investment now being directed at teacher supply, which will ensure that, over time, the problems of which the current advertising pressures are a symptom are resolved.
  I do not, of course, speak for Scotland, but I hope that my remarks can convince my hon. Friend of the seriousness with which the Government view the issues that he has raised, and that our policies will help to avoid those difficulties, at least in the medium and longer term.
  I acknowledge that the problem of filling teacher vacancies, and the associated costs, are real difficulties that concern the Government, but those difficulties are symptoms of a wider need that we are acting to address. Let me make it clear that the picture for teacher recruitment is by no means all doom and gloom. There are more teachers in post today than at any time since 1984, and 11,000 more than there were in 1997. In January this year there were 5,650 more than in January 2000—the biggest increase in a single year since 1976. There are also more than 44.000 extra education support staff compared with the number in 1997.
  However, what I have said is not to be taken as an expression of complacency, or a suggestion that we intend to rest on our laurels. In the manifesto on which my hon. Friend and I fought the election, we committed ourselves to securing at least an extra 10,000 teachers over the next five years. Those increases will themselves, over time, reduce the demand for advertising, because many vacancies will be filled more quickly than at present. My hon. Friend was right to say that at the moment a large proportion of vacancies are advertised more than once.
  Despite that massive improvement in teacher numbers, there are still more vacancies in the school system today. Schools are rightly using some of their increased funding—some £540 a pupil since 1997—to employ more teachers. There are 7,700 more posts in the system than last year. The number of teachers moving from post to post between academic years is what generates

  121
  advertising; there is a lot of "churn" in the system, with teachers moving from one post to another. However, our latest survey shows some 2,070 more real vacancies—using the definition that we have used for a number of years—in January 2001 than in January 2000.
  It is also clear that there are particular points of pressure. Vacancy rates for most main subjects remain below 2 per cent., but the rate for maths, for example, is 2.1 per cent., and in information technology it is 2.8 per cent. It is in such shortage subjects that much of the expenditure on repeated vacancy advertising is being incurred.
  We have taken further measures to address the problem. I have mentioned the pledge that there will be 10,000 more teachers by 2006. In the meantime, pay for all teachers has been raised by more than inflation for the third year running. New teachers now start on salaries of £17,000 a year outside London, and £20,000 in inner London. There are more teacher training places this year than at any time in the 1990s, and more than 6,000 more than there were 10 years ago. We have introduced £6,000 training bursaries and £4,000 golden hellos for shortage subjects to encourage more graduates into teaching. The number of school-based training places for mature career-changers on the graduate teacher programme has also been trebled—a massive increase—to 2,250. Each place attracts funding of up to £17,000 a year.
  We are now funding more than 1,300 refresher courses a year for returners to teaching, and we are consulting this month on the proposed welcome back bonus of between £2,000 and £4,000 for teachers who return to the profession and take up posts in the maintained sector between Easter and Christmas this year.
  The maximum time that an overseas-trained teacher can work in this country without gaining qualified teacher status has been increased from two to four years. A fast-track route to QTS is also available for experienced overseas-trained teachers who want to develop longer-term careers here. The recruitment and retention fund is providing £35 million this year to allow heads in high-cost or challenging areas to put together priority packages to help recruit and retain staff.
  Those are just some of the ambitious measures that we are taking to invest in a larger, high-quality teaching force, and to bring about the long-term solution to the problems to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention. I am sure he will agree that the difficulties he mentioned, and the costs involved, reflect difficulties in teacher recruitment. In another move, we also proposed in the Green Paper in February that we should offer to pay off over 10 years the student loans of newly qualified teachers in the five shortage subjects, and we proposed options for extra help for BEd students in their fourth years. A wide range of initiatives is in hand to seek to address the underlying problem, of which the matter we are debating this evening is a symptom.
  I accept that that range of activity has not, as yet, taken away the burdens on head teachers who are trying to fill vacancies now. The Times Educational Supplement did indeed come in at record weight recently. Some 6,000 vacancies were advertised on 1 June, but it was down to half that number a week later. The TES is clearly fulfilling a need but it is not, it goes without saying, doing so with any Government recommendation to schools that they pursue that particular avenue alone. As my hon. Friend said, there are other avenues for advertising.
  122
  My hon. Friend rightly paid much attention to online advertising in his remarks, and it should certainly be cheaper and more flexible than paper-based systems. The number of websites dedicated to online recruitment is growing rapidly. The Government are leading the way in a number of areas, not least through the Employment Service, with its telephone and web-based services.
  There are also a number of dedicated education suppliers in the market. My hon. Friend mentioned some and I shall not attempt to mention them all; I am not in the business of endorsing any particular product over and above any other. My hon. Friend mentioned Schoolsnet, and the TES has its own website. The Stationery Office has recently launched an online recruitment facility through its site at schoolmanager.net, which provides for a range of school procurement and recruitment needs. Earlier today, some 100 teacher vacancies were being advertised on the site across a range of authorities and in all types of school.
  A range of other firms offers dedicated web-based facilities. Eteach was indicating some 4,700 vacancies on its site earlier today and StepJobs.com was offering more than 1,700. Reed is an example of a high street recruitment agency branching into education on its website. Indeed, Reed wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently to draw her attention to the attractions of the service that it provides in that area.
  Local education authorities often co-ordinate vacancy trawls in their areas, providing schools with a free vacancy circulation. Some are backing that up with internet options as well. When we checked earlier this afternoon, kent-teach.com, for example, had more than 150 teacher vacancies from across Kent. Another local initiative is Timeplan's Teachers4London website, which places vacancies from across London online. About half the London boroughs are making use of that service.
  An increasing number of private agencies are offering a full recruitment service to schools. That includes several who have more typically been providing supply teachers to schools requiring cover, an area of the market in which the online opportunities have grown significantly recently, making the task a good deal easier and more flexible for schools.
  Closer to my Department, the Teacher Training Agency has recruitment strategy managers working in 97 local education authorities to help to provide a co-ordinated local approach to vacancy filling. Three are dedicated to helping schools in challenging circumstances.
  My Department does not have any figures to draw on to estimate the current cost to schools of advertising teacher vacancies, nor to make comparisons with previous years. The figure that my hon. Friend gave is probably as good as any, and his assessment is a helpful contribution to the discussion.
  Many of the options that have been referred to will make charges and not necessarily reduce costs for schools, but some are available free. My hon. Friend mentioned Schoolsnet, which has more than 250 vacancies advertised today, and makes a very modest charge. That demonstrates again the flexibility offered by the new medium, in linking visitors to information about the school posting the vacancy and generally providing the chance to access much more information than would be available from a typical newspaper advertisement. It is not surprising that the online alternative is proving increasingly attractive to many schools.

  123
  There is a significant number of players already in the field, some with services that are either free or cheaper than the most popular current avenues. Although The Times Educational Supplement remains popular for very good reasons—because of its stature, its widespread readership and coverage and its quality—many schools have found that it is not the only potential partner that is valuable in filling vacancies.
  My hon. Friend suggested that there could be a role for the Government. We need to be clear that the Government do not recruit teachers. Decisions on what positions need filling and who to appoint are, for very good reasons, the preserve of head teachers and governors. There is a market operating in this area and, in our view, our role is to increase supply to that market. We are taking the steps that I outlined to achieve that.
  Before intervening directly in the mechanics of the market, I should want to be sure that any Government-backed intervention would not simply provide another
  124
  website in an increasingly crowded market and that we assisted, rather than undermined, the prospects of existing providers, some of whose work I have mentioned.
  My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to a significant problem. We are taking a range of actions to address the supply side. As teacher supply increases, particularly in shortage subjects, I expect the difficulties in recruitment, and thus the costs, to decline over time.
  In terms of the symptom of increased teacher vacancies that is the increased cost of advertising, I am prepared to consider any constructive suggestions for helping schools to fill vacancies and reduce this additional call on their budget. That includes considering whether guidance to schools from the Department, along the lines of my observations tonight, would be helpful, and looking seriously at any arguments for a still more direct role.
  It is in that spirit that I thank my hon. Friend for raising these important issues. He has helpfully highlighted the scale of the problem and some of the costs involved.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Fahri Bici and Avni Dudi
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General what conclusions she has reached concerning the three paratroopers alleged to have shot Fahri Bici and Avni Dudi. [1079]

  The Solicitor-General
  Fahri Bici and Avni Dudi were killed in Pristina in Kosovo on 2 July 1999. Three British servicemen who were part of the KFOR peacekeeping operation fired the shots that killed them. Fahri Bici had been sitting on the roof of a moving car firing a Kalashnikov automatic rifle into the air. The servicemen said Fahri Bici pointed the rifle at them after being told to drop the weapon. They said they shot at him as they feared their lives were in danger. Avni Dudi was a passenger in the car and was killed by bullets aimed at Fahri Bici. Two other passengers in the car were severely injured.

  The Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police carried out an investigation. Following consultation with the former Attorney-General, Lord Williams, the Army Prosecuting Authority sought the advice of Treasury Counsel. Treasury Counsel advised the Army Prosecuting Authority that there was no realistic prospect of conviction of the three servicemen of any criminal offences. Lord Williams accepted the view of the Army Prosecuting Authority that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mercenaries
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to monitor and regulate companies recruiting and selling the services of mercenaries; and when he will publish a consultative paper on options for future regulation. [979]

  Peter Hain
  The aim of the Green Paper, recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee in its Report on Sierra Leone published in February 1999, is to set out options for the regulation of mercenaries and private military companies. Work on the Green Paper is continuing; the issues are complex. I am unable at present to give a specific date for publication of the paper.

  Meanwhile, guidance has been issued to British embassies requiring them to report any contact with companies which may be judged to fall within this sector.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit(a) Kuwait, (b) Libya, (c) the West Bank, (d) Jerusalem, (e) Albania, (f) Ukraine, (g) Denmark, (h) Chechnya, (i) Syria, (j) Egypt and (k) Jordan. [1122]

  Mr. Straw
  I am currently considering proposals for visits to a number of countries. The House will be informed when decisions have been made.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he next plans to visit(a) Bangladesh, (b) Nepal, (c) Hong Kong, (d) North Korea, (e) South Korea, (f) Malaysia, (g) the Moluccas Islands, (h) Rwanda, (i) the Democratic Republic of the Congo, (j) the Central African Republic, (k) Mozambique, (l) Nigeria, (m) Brazil, (n) Bolivia, (o) Mexico, (p) Guatamala and (q) Peru; [1819]

  (2) when he next plans to visit (a) Anguilla, (b) the British Antarctic Territory, (c) the British Indian Ocean Territory, (d) the British Virgin Islands, (e) the Cayman Islands, (f) Montserrat, (g) Pitcairn, (h) St. Helena and the St. Helena dependencies, (i) South Georgia, (j) Gibraltar and (k) the South Sandwich Islands; [1817]

  (3) when he next plans to visit (a) the Caribbean, (b) Bermuda, (c) the Falkland Islands, (d) the Turks and Caicos Islands, (e) Canada, (f) Australia, (g) New Zealand, (h) Indonesia, (i) Turkey, (j) Saudi Arabia, (k) South Africa, (l) Chile, (m) Argentina, (n) Sudan, (o) Taiwan, (p) the UAE, (q) Iran and (r) Cuba. [1818]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 June 2001,Official Report, column 78W.

  Settlement Application
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision will be made on the settlement application under Islamabad reference 496527. [1646]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The application for a settlement visa was refused by the Entry Clearance Officer at Islamabad on 17 May. Notice of appeal against the refusal was received on 12 June. It is not possible to predict when the appeal will be heard by the Immigration and Appellate Authority, nor the eventual determination.

DEFENCE

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel took part in experiments at the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down in 2000. [1004]

  Dr. Moonie
  During 2000 a total of 19 service volunteers participated in studies conducted at CBD Porton Down. A further 25 RAF service volunteers participated in a CBD study conducted at RAF Honington in 2000.

  Thirty five civilian volunteers also took part in the human volunteer programme at Porton Down during 2000.
  3W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of the titles and dates of films held by the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down, which record the establishment's trials with biological warfare simulants in public places since 1971. [997]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down has been unable to identify any films recording trials with biological warfare simulants in public places since 1971.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will instruct the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, to conduct research to determine the long-term effects of a single dose of the oripavine derivative TL 2636 on the health of humans. [989]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. The current evidence suggests that following single, acute doses of the oripavine derivative TL 2636 there are no long-term effects on health. The conduct of a study is, therefore, not warranted.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the comprehensive survey of the service volunteer programme at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, announced on 1 May will examine allegations that service personnel were misled into taking part in experiments at Porton Down. [1003]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1 May 2001,Official Report, columns 550–51W.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will transfer films from the archives of the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, to the Imperial War Museum. [998]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 May 2001,Official Report, column 196W.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of technical reports compiled by the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down, to record the results of trials carried out between 29 September 1975 and 21 October 1975 in which two simulants were disseminated from the Fleet Tender Cockchafer in Lyme and Weymouth bays. [996]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am withholding copies of the technical reports under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the protocol drawn up by the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, to carry out the experiment in 1989 in which service personnel were exposed to sarin nerve gas. [987]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many papers in the MRD report series of technical papers produced by the biological defence establishment at Porton Down are unclassified; when this series of papers(a) started and (b) finished; how many
  4W
  papers in this series were produced in total; and if he will place in the Library a list of the titles and dates of each of the papers in this series. [991]

  Dr. Moonie
  The MRD series of reports started in 1950 and finished in 1956. Of a total of 20 papers produced during this period, five were originally unclassified. However, Defence Records are now in the process of re-reviewing all 20 reports to establish whether the original classifications still stand. If declassification is possible, reports will be transferred to the PRO. I will arrange for a list detailing these reports to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests he has received from Wiltshire police to assist the Operation Antler team to locate official notices which are alleged to state that volunteers were needed to take part in common cold research at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down. [1734]

  Dr. Moonie
  My officials were asked to undertake a full search of all service instructions and notices dealing with the Porton Down Service Volunteer Programme. In addition, we have provided research support to the Wiltshire police in examining service unit records, as well as initiating a full trawl by service units and establishments for any relevant records or historical papers.

  Lynx Helicopter Accident
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he will publish the accident report on the Lynx helicopter which crashed near Tilton on the Hill, Leicestershire on 17 May 1999; [1082]

  (2) if he will publish the preliminary findings of an investigation into the causes of the crash of a Lynx helicopter near Tilton on the Hill, Leicestershire on 17 May 1999. [1083]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Military Aircraft Accident Summary—a report that summarises the accident report and the findings of the subsequent investigation—will be published shortly and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Board of Inquiry proceedings were issued to the families of those killed in the accident earlier this year.

  Navigation Marks
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what responsibility his Department has for the maintenance of navigation marks, with special reference to moorings and lighthouses; and what plans he has to review those responsibilities. [1263]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service (RMAS), part of the Warship Support Agency (WSA), is responsible for the maintenance of some 224 navigational buoys, 148 moorings and 12 targets around the coast of the British Isles. The Chief Salvage and Mooring Officer (CSALMO), also part of the WSA, is the tri-Service manager and design authority for Ministry of Defence moorings and is responsible for the oversight of all maintenance work in the UK and of a further 54 moorings
  5W
  and navigational buoys overseas. Responsibility for lighthouses rests with the three General Lighthouse Authorities (GLAs) administered by the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR). The GLAs are ultimately responsible through legislation for all navigational marks including those owned by the MOD.

  The Government's Better Quality Services (BQS) policy encourages a robust review of services and the opportunity has therefore been taken to explore the obvious synergy between the GLAs and the RMAS.

  Exploratory meetings with the GLAs have led to Trinity House, acting on behalf of the three GLAs and with the authority of the DTLR, making an offer for the absorption and maintenance of all MOD navigational buoys in UK waters. The MOD is now assessing the GLAs' offer and an initial meeting took place on 27 June 2001. Further work is required and the MOD and the GLAs have agreed to jointly examine their operations without commitment.

  It is unlikely that any firm recommendations will be made before the end of 2001 and implementation will be subject to full consultation with staff and their representatives, as well as requiring ministerial approval in both Departments.

  Aberporth
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of his Department's apprenticeships at Aberporth. [843]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 June 2001]: The apprentice school at Aberporth is run by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), and is staffed by DERA personnel. On completion of their apprenticeship the great majority of apprentices are employed by DERA. As a result, the school forms part of the undertaking that is planned to become QinetiQ plc, as part of the DERA Public-Private Partnership. DERA receives a contribution from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for various aspects of the apprentice training at the school. The MOD will continue to contribute funding for the apprentices who are attending the school at the date of vesting of assets in QinetiQ plc. Discussions on the funding of future intakes of apprentices will take place during the summer between MOD, QinetiQ plc and trade union representatives, and Are scheduled to conclude in September 2001.

  Stun Grenades
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many stun grenades have been issued to the Army in the last 12 months; how many have been used in Northern Ireland in the past 12 months; what level of authorisation is required for use of this weapon; and what(a) rules and (b) guidance applies to its use; [1232]

  (2) who has authorised the use of stun grenades in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months. [1121]

  Mr. Ingram
  The use of stun grenades must be reasonable, proportionate and no more than absolutely necessary in the circumstances. The service personnel 6W
  concerned are fully trained in how to use them. I am withholding details of numbers, use, level of authorisation and rules of engagement under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent agreement between his Department and the Horizon consortium to market spare training capacity in the RAF/Training Group Defence Agency. [1594]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RAF has identified some unavoidable surplus training capacity, particularly in the area of engineering training. Although the RAF has had some success in selling this capacity, it was recognised that it does not have the necessary skills to market, promote and sell opportunities presented by the spare capacity. To maximise both the potential use of the capacity and income generation, the RAF has sought a commercial partner to provide the expertise required.

  The Agreement for the Marketing Partnering Arrangement between the RAF and the Horizon consortium, consisting of BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Westland Augusta, PERA and Bournemouth and Poole College, was signed on 30 May 2001. The agreement is for seven years.

  In addition to increasing the income received from selling training capacity, the partnership will help to meet the increasing aerospace industry demand for technician training.

  East Timor
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British forces are operating in and around the East Timor theatre; and what their role is within the United Nations contingent. [1181]

  Mr. Ingram
  Four British observers are currently deployed in support of the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). Their roles typically include observation, monitoring and reporting; registration and negotiation between belligerent factions and other agencies. In addition, an Army legal officer has recently been seconded to the Office for Defence Force Development (ODFD) to assist with the development of the new East Timorese Defence Force (ETDF).

  Two British servicemen currently serving on exchange programmes with the Australian and New Zealand Defence Forces are also deployed to East Timor with their host units.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  New Deal
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Coventry are in the New Deal programme; and how many had been placed in employment up to June. [1178]
  7W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.

  Numbers currently on new deal and jobs gained in Coventry

  Numbers currently on as at end March 2001

  Jobs gained to March 2001

  New Deal for Young People

  505

  1,836

  New Deal for Long Term Unemployed aged 25+

  138

  87

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  632

  559

  New Deal 50plus: Employment Credit

  202

  282

  New Deal for Musicians

  11

  3

  New Deal for Partners

  8

  1

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to Coventry 'Unit of Delivery'.

  2. Latest figures relate to the period ending March 2001 which were reported in the May Statistical First Release for New Deal for Young People/25 plus and June First Release for New Deal for Lone parents.

  3. New Deal 50 plus figures relate to clients claiming the Employment Credit only. Figures relating to the numbers on the ND50 plus caseload are not available.

  4. Jobs gained includes those who gain a job while accessing New Deal or as an immediate destination on leaving the programme.

  5. New Deal for Disabled People is being piloted in various districts. Coventry is not included in the pilot scheme.

  Source:

  The New Deal Evaluation Database; except for figures on New Deal for Partners which is collated from management information.

  Pensioners (Preserved Rights)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners with preserved rights who are ineligible for local authority support. [1320]

  Mr. McCartney
  Estimates of the numbers of pensioners with preserved rights who are ineligible for local authority support are not available.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the way in which the Pension Credit will operate for claimants whose entitlement to the basic state pension is below 100 per cent. [1461]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pension Credit forms a key part of the Government's overall strategy for tackling pensioner poverty.

  We are completing the design of the Credit and will publish details of our proposals when the Bill is introduced.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library(a) a summary and (b) full copies of the replies he has received to his consultation paper on the Pension Credit. [1266]

  Mr. McCartney
  We will be announcing our response to the Pension Credit consultation in due course.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he plans to publish the Pension Credit Bill. [920]

  Mr. McCartney
  As indicated in the Gracious Speech, we intend to introduce legislation in this Session of Parliament.
  8W
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of people eligible for Pension Credit. [929]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to "The Pension Credit: A consultation paper" (November 2000. Cm 4900).

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the results of and submissions to the Pension Credit consultation process will be placed in the Library. [366]

  Mr. McCartney
  We will be announcing our response to the Pension Credit consultation in due course.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to extend the provision to permit benefit claimants to undertake therapeutic work. [20]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), said on 22 March 2001,Official Report, column 346W, from April 2002 we propose to introduce new rules for people who receive Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Income Support based on incapacity who want to undertake some form of paid work which may ease their way back into full-time employment. We are aware of concerns that the current therapeutic work rules may be of limited use where it is difficult to demonstrate that a particular job would be beneficial to a person's medical condition. The current rules also do not help someone who wants to work on a limited basis in order to have social contact if they do not satisfy the therapeutic requirement. This is why we have reviewed the current position and are introducing some improvements.

  Under the proposed changes, the therapeutic work rules will cease to exist. Instead we intend to introduce rules which will allow any person receiving incapacity benefits to:

  (a) work for less than 16 hours a week and up to £60.50 for up to six months; with a six month extension for those working with a Personal Adviser, Job Broker or Disability Employment Adviser;

  (b) work for maximum earnings of £20 a week with no time limit and no hours limit.

  Claimants who undertake sheltered work or are undergoing a hospital treatment programme which includes work, will, as now, be able to earn up to £60.50 a week (April 2001 rates) with no limit on the number of hours they work.

  We believe that these rules are much fairer than those that currently exist. Because we are opening up the rules to anyone on incapacity benefits we are giving more people the opportunity of trying paid work. This, together with our other measures to help people find suitable work, will enable people to move off benefits and into work. Also by allowing all claimants to do some paid work without time limit, we will be encouraging those who are otherwise excluded to take part in activities which will help them feel part of, and play a more active role in, their local community. Additionally, of course, there are the rules

  9W
  which we already have in place to allow claimants to try full-time work or training and return to benefit at the same rate if they have to give up that work or training.

  These changes do not affect the position whereby people receiving Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance may do unpaid voluntary work for an unlimited period.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which House of Commons Minister in his Department will have responsibility for matters relating to(a) the Child Support Agency, (b) the integrated child credit, (c) child care, (d) maternity/paternity pay and (e) the Appeals Service. [1465]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Departmental ministerial responsibility for these areas in the House of Commons is divided as follows: I am responsible for the Child Support Agency and the Integrated Child Credit; the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), is responsible for Maternity/Paternity pay and the Appeals Service. The Department for Employment and Skills has policy responsibility for child care.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase take-up of the Minimum Income Guarantee. [377]

  Mr. McCartney
  Our recent national take-up campaign on the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) was a success resulting in 110,286 successful claims to MIG. The average additional income awarded is £20 per week.

  We have also increased the lower and upper capital limits to £6,000 and £12,000 respectively. These increases will result in more people becoming newly entitled to MIG and will increase the number of people who will become entitled to the full amount of the MIG.

  Additionally, we will continue to work in partnership with the voluntary sector and local authorities to find ways of identifying and encouraging those who are likely to benefit from MIG to claim.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the total amount of compensation (1) that he expects to be paid as a result of the problems with the NIRS2 computer system; [360]

  (2) that has so far been paid as a result of the problems with the NIRS2 computer system. [359]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The delay in the implementation of NIRS2 caused arrears of work in both the Inland Revenue and the then DSS. These arrears are being managed through a recovery plan that has been developed by both Departments and continue to be cleared as quickly as possible. Compensation is being paid as a result of the delays.

  Compensation payments to 31 March 2001 total £65.1 million. The estimated compensation costs for 2001ȓ02 cannot yet be quantified.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Walton Group
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide a breakdown of the companies and others to whom the claimed qualifying expenditure of £23,705,511 made by Walton Commercial Group Ltd. now Walton Group plc, was made, indicating the reasons for payment and the amount paid to each. [400]

  Ms Keeble
  The claimed qualifying expenditure was paid to Todd and Benn (Contractors) Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Walton Group plc, against invoices for work claimed to be done on the Exchange Flags building, Liverpool.

  Pollution
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has conducted into changes in pollution following the implementation of congestion taxes. [810]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department will be working with local authorities when they develop and implement schemes, to carry out before and after studies to assess schemes' impacts, including changes in levels of air pollution. Modelling work for the Government's 10-Year Plan for Transport published in July 2000 forecasts significant reductions in particulate and oxide of nitrogen emissions by 2010 from a range of measures in the plan, including the introduction of urban congestion charging in a number of towns and cities.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if Railtrack has applied to the Rail Regulator for an interim review of its access charges. [1009]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack has not made any application to the Rail Regulator for an interim review.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of delays to train services during the most recent month for which figures are available are attributable to temporary speed restrictions associated with gauge corner cracking. [1011]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack's Network Performance Report for the four-week period to 26 May 2001 shows that 6 per cent. of delays were attributable to gauge corner cracking. This includes both passenger and freight services.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many temporary speed restrictions remain in place on the national railway network in connection with gauge corner cracking. [1010]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack reports that, as of 25 June, 118 temporary speed restrictions were in place on the national rail network in connection with gauge corner cracking.
  11W
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made in the appointment of a public interest director to the board of Railtrack. [1020]

  Mr. Spellar
  As part of the Statement of Principles agreed between the Government and Railtrack, the company announced on 2 April the decision to appoint, in consultation with Government, a non-executive director to its main board with the background and credentials to provide a powerful public and consumer interest voice around the boardroom table. The appointment of such a director is currently under review by the nominations committee of the Railtrack Board.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money has been granted to Railtrack from public funds over the past year; and what contractual safeguards exist to ensure that the money is used for its intended purposes. [1023]

  Mr. Spellar
  In 2000–01, train operating companies (TOCs) were paid £847 million in Support for Passenger Services (SPRS) by the Franchising Director and the Strategic Rail Authority and £185 million in grants by Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs). Since some 85 per cent. of Railtrack's income is paid to the company by TOCs in access charges, Railtrack's revenue is contingent on that indirect subsidy.

  In future, Railtrack will also receive considerable sums in direct grants for track renewals. As part of the Statement of Principles agreed on 2 April between the Government and Railtrack, the Government agreed to bring forward the timing of £1.5 billion of payments due to the company under the Periodic Review. In doing so, the Government have attached strict conditions of increased public accountability and Railtrack has undertaken to spend the Government revenues strictly on improving the railway. A copy of the Statement of Principles has been placed in the Library. None of this new funding has yet been paid.

  The main safeguard in respect of all subsidy to Railtrack is the Network Licence and the conditions attached to it by the Rail Regulator. The Regulator's reformed regulatory structure is nearing completion. It comprises the Periodic Review; a strengthened network licence; and new model clauses for clearer and simplified track access agreements with Railtrack's customers, the passenger and freight train operators. The Transport Act 2000 has also strengthened the regulation and accountability of Railtrack. The Regulator now has the powers and resources to ensure that Railtrack delivers on its public service commitments.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the financial position of Railtrack. [1019]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack is a public limited company. Its latest financial position is set out in its 2000–01 Annual Report and Accounts published on 20 June.

  Commission for Integrated Transport
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future role of the Commission for Integrated Transport. [1032]
  12W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) was established in July 1999 to provide independent advice on the implementation of integrated transport policy. Its remit was set out in the Integrated Transport White Paper.

  CfIT has been asked to monitor progress on the implementation of the 10-Year Plan for Transport, and to identify any further policy measures that might be needed to achieve 10-Year Plan objectives.

  At the CfIT Plenary on 22 March 2001 it was decided that the three priority areas for CfIT were to be:
  Monitoring, Delivery and Review of the 10-Year Plan
  Work on securing best value for public subsidy in the bus industry
  European best practice.

  Rail Freight
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps are being taken by his Department to promote the greater use of the railways for freight. [1028]

  Mr. Spellar
  Our policy is to help establish an integrated, sustainable freight distribution system to support economic growth and to bring social and environmental benefits. We set out our long-term strategy in the 10-Year Transport Plan in July last year. We have established the Strategic Rail Authority with a duty to promote rail freight. The SRA set out its Strategic Agenda, including its plans for freight, earlier this year and is now consulting the industry on its detailed Freight Strategy.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made in the contract negotiations for the National Air Traffic Services public-private partnership. [1035]

  Mr. Spellar
  The PPP remains subject to certain conditions. We are working with the Airline Group to ensure that those conditions are satisfied at the earliest opportunity.

  SPADs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Uff-Cullen inquiry into technical solutions to the problem of railway signals passed at danger. [1017]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government welcomed the publication on 29 March of the Joint Inquiry Report by Lord Cullen and Professor Uff into train protection systems and reaffirmed the Deputy Prime Minister's undertaking to Parliament on 20 July 2000,Official Report, columns 549–52, that the measures arising from the report will be brought within the 10-Year Plan for Transport.

  The report endorsed the Government's existing policy to install the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) across the network by the end of 2003, and set out a programme for the new European Train Control System (ETCS) on high-speed and other main lines.
  13W
  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) will be advising the Government on regulations to take ETCS forward and will publish a progress report in September.

  Railway Industry
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the state of industrial relations in the railway industry. [1022]

  Mr. Spellar
  Industrial disputes are properly matters for the employers and the trade unions to resolve.

  Successful negotiation between the train operators and the trade unions avoided strike action in all but one of the 25 train operating companies on 25 June. We would greatly regret any possible further industrial action on the railway which would cause yet more inconvenience to passengers.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects the Strategic Rail Authority to(a) begin the next stage of the competition for the new Wales and Borders franchise and (b) recommence the competition for the Central Trains franchise. [1027]

  Mr. Spellar
  Further announcements will be made by the Strategic Rail Authority in due course.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many additional employees have been recruited by the Strategic Rail Authority during the past year. [1014]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 1 June 2000, 261 people were working at the shadow Strategic Rail Authority (sSRA), which comprised the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and British Railways Board staff.

  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) was set up on 1 February 2001 under the provisions of the Transport Act 2000, with 330 staff. This included 259 from the sSRA and, to cover additional functions transferred on that date, 70 from the Office of the Rail Regulator (including those working for Rail Passengers Committees) and one from the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The SRA also took responsibility for the 2,297 British Transport Police.

  On 1 June 2001, 362 people were working at the SRA.

  Second Channel Tunnel
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made on the feasibility study for a second channel Tunnel. [1031]

  Mr. Spellar
  At the end of 1999 Eurotunnel sent to the Governments of France and the UK, through the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission, a package relating to two tunnel projects, one road the other rail. Eurotunnel submitted that package in order to discharge an undertaking in the Concession Agreement to submit, before 2000, a proposal for a drive through link.
  14W
  Eurotunnel described these as proposals which are likely to evolve in the light of technical and economic developments. There is no cause for the Government to take a decision for several years.

  Multi-modal Studies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the multi-modal studies. [1033]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Multi-Modal Studies are looking for solutions to some of the most severe and urgent problems on our transport network. They exemplify our integrated approach to transport and will be central to the delivery of the 10-Year-Plan.

  We are moving the studies forward as quickly as possible, bearing in mind their complex nature and the need for full and proper consultation.

  Midlands-Manchester Multimodal Study
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will ensure that the conclusions of the multi-modal study into the transport corridor between the midlands and Manchester are published in time to be taken into account in the formulation of the new regional planning guidance for the west midlands. [1330]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The final study report and the Steering Group recommendations will be formally submitted to the West Midlands Regional Planning Body and the North West Regional Assembly in autumn 2001. Interim outputs from the study will be available this August to inform the development of the draft West Midlands Regional Planning Guidance due for publication in autumn 2001.

  Ladbroke Grove Rail Disaster
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will respond to the recommendations of Lord Cullen's inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove rail disaster. [1016]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend responded to Part One of Lord Cullen's report in a statement issued on 19 June, the day of its publication. The statement reads:"I am grateful to Lord Cullen for today's report into the causes of the Ladbroke Grove rail crash. On such a day our thoughts turn to the survivors and bereaved of that tragic accident. We cannot begin to imagine the pain and suffering felt by these people and it is important that we bear their experiences in mind as we act to improve rail safety in this country.
  Safety is paramount and at the very heart of our policies on revitalising the railways. Our railways are safe, but we must never be complacent. Safety is a matter of continual improvement and I have asked the HSC to ensure that the recommendations are acted upon, and to report to me within six months.
  I now await the final part of Lord Cullen's report into the culture, management and regulation of safety on the railways. This will be a particularly valuable document which will enable us to take the further necessary measures to enhance rail safety."

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his
  15W
  Department is taking to encourage bus companies in the south-east of England to offer commuter services to London; and if he will make a statement. [1068]

  Ms Keeble
  The 10-Year Transport Plan recognises that coach services have a valuable role in expanding transport options including for commuting journeys into major cities. Coach services will benefit from increased investment in the strategic road network, including measures to tackle bottlenecks and improve network management.

  The public consultation draft of the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy said that additional commuter and scheduled express coach services on particular routes could fulfil a valuable role in supplementing rail capacity. It said that Transport for London would work with coach operators to review opportunities for extending the role of commuter coaches, taking account of traffic and parking issues. I understand that the Mayor will publish his final Transport Strategy shortly.

  Housing
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his definition is of decent in the context of housing standards. [1128]

  Ms Keeble
  A decent home must be above the current statutory minimum standard for housing (the fitness standard); be in a reasonable state of repair; have modern facilities and services; and provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.

  Guidance has been issued providing more detail for social landlords on how the elements of the definition should be interpreted. A copy has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the target outputs for SRB-funded housing units between 1997 and 2001. [1741]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 June 2001,Official Report, column 56W.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to encourage housing associations to improve the energy efficiency of their(a) existing properties and (b) new build schemes; what plans he has to support district heating schemes; and what plans he has to encourage housing associations to use solar energy in new build social housing. [1112]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department, together with the Housing Corporation, is taking a number of measures to improve the energy efficiency of registered social landlords' (RSLs) properties.

  For existing properties, the Housing Corporation's Performance Standards require RSLs to assess the energy efficiency of their housing stock and, through planned improvement work, to help local authorities to meet their obligations under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995.
  16W
  The Housing Corporation is also promoting the adoption of sustainable development action plans in the RSL sector. These will require RSLs to adopt environmental good practice across a range of activities including refurbishment, management and maintenance of their existing stock. An environmental management system specifically designed for RSLs is being developed and will be launched later this year. In addition, the Housing Corporation's Innovation and Good Practice (IGP) programme will continue to fund projects that raise awareness of environmental considerations. A number of good practice guides and tools to help RSLs address energy management for affordable warmth and energy services has already been developed.

  For new build schemes and the rehabilitation of existing dwellings, the Housing Corporation's Scheme Development Standards specify a minimum Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) energy rating which must be achieved. In its guidance the Corporation strongly encourages the achievement of SAP ratings above the minimum level.

  In addition, from l April this year, RSLs have been required to use a recently developed system of Housing Quality Indicators (HQIs) in planning new schemes. HQIs provide a basis for assessing the quality of schemes against 10 key aspects of design, including energy efficiency and sustainability.

  The Housing Corporation is investigating the potential for RSLs to use Combined Heat and Power (CHP) schemes as part of its wider promotion of energy efficiency. Most CHP schemes are on a scale which is not generally suitable for RSL properties, but the Corporation is currently participating in an EU-wide project to scope the potential for micro-CHP systems. We will consider the scope for greater use of CHP in relation to RSL properties in the light of the fundings in this report.

  The Housing Corporation is actively encouraging RSLs to consider the use of Photovoltaic (PV) roofs and solar water heating. A number of RSLs now use these systems and a network of RSLs with an interest in PV roofs is being established to address areas of concern and to develop good practice guidance on the use of PV roof and solar water heating systems within the sector. However, at present the costs are high with conventional systems.

  Housing (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what further changes he is intending to make to regional planning guidance for Yorkshire and the Humber about the distribution of housebuilding in west Yorkshire. [2073]

  Ms Keeble
  Over 800 comments have been received in response to the proposed changes to draft Regional Planning Guidance for Yorkshire and the Humber which were published in March 2001. Many of the consultation responses welcome the proposed changes as they improve RPG and provide a clear strategy for sustainable development in the region. An issue has been raised about the distribution of housing in west Yorkshire which we consider needs to be resolved by publishing further changes to RPG for public consultation.
  17W
  The level of housing provision in west Yorkshire published for consultation in March 2001 was 6,175 dwellings per year, some 800 more than originally proposed in the Regional Assembly's draft RPG. However, where these additional 800 houses per year should be located within west Yorkshire was not specified. Instead, it was proposed that it be established in the next review of RPG in a few years' time. The Regional Assembly and the local authorities have not objected to the proposed increase. Environmental groups have objected, while developers have expressed support or argued that provision should be further increased. There were also significant arguments put forward that the distribution of the additional housing within west Yorkshire should be determined now rather than left to the next review of RPG. In the light of all comments received, we are proposing that there should be no further change to the overall amount of housing in west Yorkshire, but that its distribution between local authorities should be set out now. This will provide greater certainty in the planning system, and will assist urban renaissance by helping to reduce the need to travel by providing homes near to jobs. The following annual rates of housebuilding are proposed:

  Number

  Bradford

  1,540

  Calderdale

  450

  Kirklees

  1,310

  Leeds

  1,930

  Wakefield

  950

  Comments on these revised figures are being invited over a six week period. These will be considered, along with all the representations already received, before RPG is finalised later in the year.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to publish PPG8 on mobile phone masts. [1239]

  Ms Keeble
  On 16 March 2001, my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction announced a series of important improvements to the planning arrangements for telecommunications development. We shall introduce the rules and publish the revised Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG8) on Telecommunications Development to implement the changes at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received calling for health risks to be considered as part of the planning consideration for mobile phone masts. [1238]

  Ms Keeble
  The Department has received centrally in the last year 363 letters from Members of Parliament and 541 letters from members of the public and local planning authorities about the amenity or health aspects related to mobile phone masts. These are in addition to responses to last year's consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to the planning laws relating to telecommunications masts and associated guidance (365 in total).

  House Sales (Seller's Packs)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation requiring persons selling a house to provide a pack of information to prospective purchasers. [1317]

  Ms Keeble
  We remain committed to seller's packs, as set out in our manifesto. Legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, we are pressing ahead, in consultation with consumer representatives and the professional bodies, with developing the detailed contents of the seller's pack to prepare the ground for a smooth introduction across England and Wales.

  Railways
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for how many years the Railway Development Fund will run. [1440]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 10-Year Plan for Transport provides for spending on the Rail Modernisation Fund over the years of the plan, that is to 2010–11.

  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to equalise the age of qualification for the national concessionary bus fares scheme. [1419]

  Ms Keeble
  We are making good progress with this issue and have already introduced the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill[H.L.] which will equalise at 60 the age at which both men and women become eligible for travel concessions.

  Aviation
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to commission a strategic study on the environmental impacts of aviation in the UK to match the strategic study of the economic impacts of aviation included in the Developing Aviation White Paper process. [1587]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In December last year we published a consultation document, "The Future of Aviation". This examined the main issues underpinning air transport policy, including the need to tackle the environmental effects of aviation. We are giving careful consideration to the responses to the consultation document and propose to publish a summary of them later this summer. Alongside the consultation document, we published a paper, "Valuing the External Costs of Aviation", which reviews some of the literature about the valuation of noise, air quality and climate change impacts and considers the implications of aviation meeting its estimated external costs.

  The study of regional airports and regional air services announced in the 1998 Transport White Paper, covering the north of England, the midlands, the south-west of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland was completed last year. The findings are currently being reviewed as part of a UK-wide Regional Co-ordination

  19W
  study. A key component of this process has been the commissioning of studies on the impact of air transport (including associated surface transport) on local air qualify and noise at 23 regional airports. This work will provide an important input to a comprehensive appraisal of options for development of capacity at regional airports under a range of potential national policy scenarios.

  We are also studying issues in the south-east and east of England. The South East and East of England Regional Air Service Study (SERAS) is examining all options for future development of airports in the south-east and east of England. The appraisal process includes an examination of environmental impacts, including noise and local air quality, climate change, urbanisation, land-take, biodiversity, landscape, heritage and designated areas. We propose to issue individual regional consultation documents for all these regions around the turn of the year.

  All of these strands of work will feed into the new air transport White Paper, which we hope to publish next year.

  Ice Falls
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the information leaflets available to report ice falls from aeroplanes; and what plans he has to make them more widely available. [1301]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has produced a comprehensive leaflet entitled "Icefalls", which provides detailed information on how icefalls occur, how incidents can be reported and how these reports are investigated.

  Members of the public wishing to seek more information on the subject or to report an icefall incident most commonly contact either the CAA directly or the local police or council. Copies of the leaflet have therefore been supplied to the Police Service and the Local Government Association as well as to the British Airports Authority. The information in the leaflet is also available on the CAA's website for those with internet access. There are currently no further plans to make the leaflet more widely available.

  Transport Safety
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what statistics he collates about the safety of different forms of transportation and the costs in each case of undertaking further measures to improve safety. [1472]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The DTLR collects and publishes statistics on accidents in all main forms of transport. These can be found in a variety of publications and in the compendium volume "Transport Statistics Great Britain 2000 edition". There is also a comparative table (Table 51) in "Road Accidents Great Britain: 1999" which shows casualty rates by mode of transport since 1990 and 20W
  also provides a 1990–99 average casualty rate for each mode. Both of these publications are available in the Libraries of the House. Costs depend on the measures adopted and on local circumstances.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the operating results of Ordnance Survey were in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [1325]

  Ms Keeble
  As disclosed in Ordnance Survey's annual published accounts, the operating surplus/deficit for each year since 1997 is as follows:

  £000

  1996–97

  1(5,115)

  1997–98

  1(2,197)

  1998–99

  1(8,862)

  1999–2000

  212,590

  1 Deficit

  2 Surplus

  Regional Planning
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Government plan to publish (1) a draft regional planning guidance for(a) the Nort-West and Merseyside, (b) the North-East and (c) the East Midlands; [1277]

  (2) a definitive version of regional planning guidance for (a) the South-West and (b) Yorkshire and Humberside. [1278]

  Mr. Keeble
  We plan to issue final regional planning guidance (RPG) for the South-West later this summer and final RPG for Yorkshire and the Humber in the autumn. The Proposed Changes to draft PRG for the East Midlands were published in April and we plan to issue the final version in the autumn. The Proposed Changes to draft PRG for the North-East were published in april and we plan to issue the final version by the end of the year. We intend to publish the Proposed Changes to draft (RPG) for the North-West in spring 2002, assuming that the Panel report is received shortly.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the use and conduct of postal voting during the general and local elections in June. [1282]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Electoral Commission, which was established by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, will publish a report on various aspects of the administration of the general election, in accordance with section 5 of the Act.

  Local Government
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what reasons underlay the decision to publish the Local
  21W
  Authorities (Executive and Alternative Arrangements) (Modification of Enactments and Further Provisions) (England) Order 2001 on 18 June, revoke it on 19 June and publish the Local Authorities (Executive and Alternative Arrangements) (Modification of Enactments and Other Provisions) (England) Order 2001 on 19 June. [1477]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Authorities (Executive and Alternative Arrangements) (Modification of Enactments and Further Provisions) (England) Order 2001 was laid before Parliament on 19 June 2001 and expressed to come into force on 20 June 2001, thus breaking the convention that negative resolution statutory instruments come into force at least 21 days after being laid before Parliament.

  Unfortunately, it had not been the Government's intention to break the convention. Accordingly, the Order was revoked and replaced with an Order in similar terms—the Local Authorities (Executive and Alternative Arrangements) (Modification of Enactments and Other Provisions) (England) Order 2001—with a date of coming into force of 11 July, which is 21 days after it was laid. This means that all the necessary legislation is now in place to allow councils to implement the leader and cabinet form of executive arrangement.

  Departmental Responsibility
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the areas of responsibility that have(a) been transferred from his Department to other Departments and (b) been transferred to his Department from other Departments since 8 June. [1439]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) came into existence on 9 June 2001. It will carry out all the functions for which its predecessor Department, the Department of the Environment. Transport and the Regions (DETR) was responsible except:Sustainable development, environmental protection and the protection and enhancement of the landscape, countryside and wildlife, together with related sponsorship responsibilities, transferred to the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs.
  The Regional Co-ordination Unit and Government Offices for the Regions, bodies with cross-departmental responsibilities for which DETR had management responsibility, transferred to the Cabinet Office.
  Sponsorship of the construction industry transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Sponsorship of the Regional Development Agencies transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Electoral law and local byelaws, including sponsorship responsibilities, transferred to DTLR from the Home Office.
  The Fire Service, including its sponsorship responsibilities, transferred to DTLR from the Home Office.

  Fire Authorities
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's current responsibilities in respect of funding for fire authorities. [630]
  22W
  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department has the same responsibilities as were formerly held by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the revenue support grant system and as the Home Office for the issue of fire service credit approvals.

  Positive Discrimination
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent advice he has taken from other European countries which allow positive discrimination in the selection of candidates for elected office. [644]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Government officials recently attended a seminar aiming to examine what can be learned from legal frameworks in other European countries in regard to changing the law to improve women's representation in politics.

  The Government will be preparing legislation to allow political parties to make positive moves to increase the representation of women in public life.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to allow residents to elect to pay their council tax by 12 payments rather than 10. [2167]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The statutory instalment scheme gives council tax payers the right to pay their council in 10 monthly instalments. However, local authorities can agree to a different payment regime, such as 12 monthly payments or 52 weekly payments. I believe it is right that local authorities should be able to make such decisions in response to individual or local circumstances because they are ultimately answerable to local people for the service they provide.

HEALTH

  Waiting Times
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) longest and (b) shortest waiting times were for (i) heart operations, (ii) hip replacements and (iii) cancer treatment (A) in North Yorkshire and (B) nationally in (1) 1997, (2) 1998, (3) 1999, (4) 2000 and (5) 2001. [6]

  Mr. Hutton
  The tables show waiting times for waiting list and booked admissions to National Health Service hospitals in England and the Northern and Yorkshire region for the years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 for hip replacements, heart operations, and cancer treatment. Data have been given on the distribution of waiting times to give a more informative picture than the two most extreme results. Data for 2000–01 are not yet available.
  23W

  Waiting list and booked admissions by waiting time for primary hip replacement operations only or revisions, by health authority area of residence—NHS hospitals, England 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  North Yorkshire HA

  England

  North Yorkshire HA

  England

  North Yorkshire

  England

  Episodes with a valid waiting time

  430

  29,979

  3,973

  33,563

  567

  33,526

  Waiting time

  Up to six weeks

  84

  3,617

  584

  3,825

  82

  3,865

  Six weeks to three months

  78

  4,164

  552

  4,239

  89

  4,375

  Three to six months

  102

  7,062

  840

  7,227

  110

  7,106

  Six to nine months

  68

  5,478

  641

  5,930

  89

  5,820

  Nine months to one year

  34

  4,434

  702

  5,116

  87

  4,681

  Over one year

  64

  5,224

  654

  7,226

  110

  7,679

  Not known

  23

  1,105

  325

  1,052

  152

  1,150

  Notes:

  An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  The main operation is the first of four operation fields in the HES data set, and is usually the most resource intensive procedure performed during the episode.

  Operation (OPCS4R) and diagnosis (ICD10) codes used are as follows:

  Primary hip replacement operations—operation codes W37–39 and W46–48, excluding emergency admissions, and those with primary diagnosis S72 (fractured neck of femur). Revision operations—W37.3, W38.3, W39.3, W46.3, W47.3, W48.3, excluding emergency admissions and those with a primary diagnosis of S72 (fractured neck of femur).

  Waiting time statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and waiting times for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  Data in this table are not adjusted for shortfalls.

  Patients whose waiting time is 'not known' are from a waiting list or booked admission where the date of decision to admit was invalid, therefore a duration of elective wait cannot be calculated.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Waiting list and booked admissions for heart operations by waiting time and health authority area of residence—NHS hospitals, England 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  North Yorkshire HA

  England

  North Yorkshire HA

  England

  North Yorkshire HA

  England

  Episodes with a valid waiting time

  577

  93,599

  797

  107,741

  958

  107,868

  Waiting time

  Up to six weeks

  267

  38,106

  356

  42,314

  398

  43,216

  Six weeks to three months

  83

  20,718

  116

  23,755

  152

  25,376

  Three to six months

  93

  16,557

  129

  20,348

  181

  20,346

  Six to nine months

  55

  7,914

  65

  8,860

  72

  8,509

  Nine months to one year

  38

  6,157

  73

  7,231

  77

  5,539

  Over one year

  41

  4,147

  58

  5,233

  78

  4,882

  Not known

  226

  9,908

  674

  8,340

  617

  9,656

  Notes:

  An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  The main operation is the first of four operation fields in the HES data set and is usually the most resource intensive procedure performed during the episode.

  Operation (OPCS4R) codes used are as follows K01–K71.

  Waiting time statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and waiting times for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  Patients whose waiting time is 'not known' are from a waiting list or booked admission where the date of decision to admit was invalid, therefore a duration of elective wait cannot be calculated.

  Data in this table are not adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.
  24W 25W

  Waiting list and booked admissions for cancer patients by waiting time, main diagnosis/operation and health authority area of residence—NHS hospitals, England 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  Episodes with a valid waiting time

  Up to six weeks

  Six weeks to three months

  Three to six months

  Six to nine months

  Nine months to one year

  Over one year

  Not known

  1997–98

  North Yorkshire HA

  Cancer (1)

  4,275

  3,541

  437

  178

  52

  48

  19

  1,052

  Cancer (2)

  3,640

  2,958

  401

  163

  51

  48

  19

  847

  England

  Cancer (1)

  378,013

  333,352

  28,614

  10,766

  2,950

  1,234

  1,097

  88,667

  Cancer (2)

  293,533

  252,988

  25,674

  9,961

  2,756

  1,155

  999

  66,058

  1998–99

  North Yorkshire HA

  Cancer (1)

  5,364

  4,625

  329

  200

  71

  89

  50

  2,215

  Cancer (2)

  4,875

  4,162

  312

  197

  69

  88

  47

  2,070

  England

  Cancer (1)

  344,548

  298,459

  30,401

  10,861

  2,593

  1,147

  1,087

  90,569

  Cancer (2)

  303,471

  260,301

  28,094

  10,428

  2,499

  1,113

  1,036

  69,455

  1999–2000

  North Yorkshire HA

  Cancer (1)

  6,763

  5,895

  478

  236

  75

  50

  29

  2,146

  Cancer (2)

  6,057

  5,230

  446

  232

  73

  49

  27

  1,964

  England

  Cancer (1)

  333,806

  289,163

  30,903

  9,921

  2,240

  770

  809

  89,699

  Cancer (2)

  294,935

  253,251

  28,498

  9,523

  2,159

  734

  770

  67,106

  Notes:

  An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  The main operation is the first of four operation fields in the HES data set and is usually the most resource intensive procedure performed during the episode.

  The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital. Operation (OPCS4R) and diagnosis (ICD10) codes used are as follows:

  Cancer (1)—Diagnosis 'COO-C97 Malignant/Neoplasms'

  Cancer (2)—Diagnosis 'COO-C97 Malignant/Neoplasms' with any surgical operation or procedure.

  Waiting time statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and waiting times for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  Data in this table are not adjusted for shortfalls.

  Patients whose waiting time is 'not known' are from a waiting list or booked admission where the date of decision to admit was invalid, therefore a duration of elective wait cannot be calculated.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Health Services (London)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action the Government are taking to recruit more(a) nurses, (b) physiotherapists, (c) occupational therapists and (d) GPs in London; and if he will make a statement; [412]

  (2) what action the Government are taking to recruit (a) more community psychiatric nurses and (b) more approved social workers in London; [416]

  (3) what action the Government are taking to recruit more psychiatrists in London. [414]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are implementing a range of measures to improve recruitment and retention in the National Health Service for all staff, including London. Examples include investing in fair pay, encouraging the NHS to become a better employer, increasing training commissions for all professional groups, attracting former staff back to the NHS, encouraging flexible retirement, and supporting more effective, collaborative international 26W
  recruitment where appropriate. We are also funding a recruitment campaign to raise the profile of social work and improve recruitment rates into social work.

  In places where recruitment is most difficult, we are also looking at accommodation issues. For example, a NHS housing co-ordinator has been appointed in London to improve the recruitment and retention of key workers. The NHS Plan aims to provide 2000 residential units in London by 2004.

  From March 2000 until May 2001, 661 nurses and midwives returned to practice in London.

  By 2004 we will increase the number of general practitioners, nationally, by at least 2000 and increase the number of GP training places by 550. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also announced a package of measures aimed at improving recruitment and retention of GPs on 13 March 2001. Other measures such as personal medical service pilots will attract GPs into deprived areas. In London we already have 265 GP registrars in training

  27W
  and are looking to increase training capacity to increase local supply. We are also seeing if we can increase the number of feeder senior house officer posts to increase the flow into the GP registrar grade. Increasing numbers of newly qualified pre-registration house officers are now getting exposure to general practice as part of their year's training.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about additional funding being given to London health authorities in recognition of the additional costs incurred by the health service in London; and if he will make a statement. [417]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have received one representation in the last three months about additional funding being given to London health authorities in recognition of the additional costs incurred by the health services in London.

  Following the planning round an additional £155 million for 2001–02 has been made available to the National Health Service, partly in recognition of additional financial pressures. London received £25.4 million of this.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how primary care trusts will be accountable for their use of public resources. [1129]

  Mr. Hutton
  The chief executive of the primary care trust (PCT), as accountable officer, is responsible for ensuring that the PCT carries out its functions in such a way as to ensure proper stewardship of public resources.

  PCTs will continue to be accountable to their health authority by means of an annual accountability agreement which sets out agreed aims and targets for improving health, health services and value for money.

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, hospital medical staff and consultants at Northwick Park NHS Trust, Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust and North West London Hospitals NHS Trust as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  All hospital medical staff

  Consultants

  Total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, of which:

  Qualified staff

  Unqualified staff

  1996

  410

  130

  1,320

  1,160

  160

  Northwick Park

  250

  80

  820

  730

  90

  Central Middlesex hospital

  160

  50

  500

  430

  70

  1997

  430

  140

  1,210

  1,130

  80

  Northwick Park

  270

  80

  770

  730

  50

  Central Middlesex hospital

  160

  60

  440

  410

  30

  1998

  430

  150

  1,250

  1,150

  100

  Northwick Park

  280

  90

  770

  740

  30

  Central Middlesex hospital

  150

  60

  480

  410

  60

  1999

  NW London Hospitals

  460

  150

  1,210

  1,120

  90

  2000

  NW London Hospitals

  470

  160

  1,250

  1,140

  110

  NHS Recruitment
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications there were to train as a(a) general practitioner, (b) social worker, (c) physiotherapist and (d) special therapist in (i) London and (ii) England and Wales in each year since 1996. [1113]

  Mr. Hutton
  Consistent data for the number of applicants to train as a general practitioner in England have been collected only this year.

  In 2001 the number of applications from GP registrars to begin training in August was 2,239. There were 539 applications to the North and South Thames deaneries which cover London.

  Data for the number of social workers are not collected centrally.

  Data for the number of physiotherapists are collected by the University and Colleges Admissions Service for the whole of the United Kingdom. Data for London are not available separately.

  Year

  Number of applications

  1997

  28,534

  1998

  27,985

  1999

  26,316

  2000

  25,025

  Specialist therapists are not a recognised staff group.

  Northwick Park Hospital
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hospital medical staff, (b) consultants and (c) nursing and midwifery staff were employed at Northwick Park hospital in each year since 1996. [1110]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not collected in the format requested. Information by National Health Service trust is provided in the table.
  29W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, hospital medical staff and consultants at Northwick Park NHS Trust, Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust and North West London Hospitals NHS Trust as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  All hospital medical staff

  Consultants

  Total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, of which:

  Qualified staff

  Unqualified staff

  1996

  500

  170

  1,610

  1,350

  260

  Northwick Park

  290

  90

  1,040

  860

  170

  Central Middlesex hospital

  210

  80

  570

  480

  90

  1997

  500

  170

  1,530

  1,360

  170

  Northwick Park

  300

  90

  1,030

  900

  140

  Central Middlesex hospital

  200

  80

  490

  460

  40

  1998

  510

  180

  1,560

  1,370

  180

  Northwick Park

  320

  100

  1,000

  910

  90

  Central Middlesex hospital

  190

  80

  550

  460

  90

  1999

  NW London Hospitals

  530

  170

  1,560

  1,340

  210

  2000

  NW London Hospitals

  540

  180

  1,700

  1,430

  280

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  2. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  3. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  4. In 1999 Northwick Park NHS Trust merged with Central Middlesex Hospitals NHS Trust to form North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  NHS Consultants (Income Disclosure)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what disclosure he requires from consultants employed by the National Health Service of those consultants' income from private medical practice. [1422]

  Mr. Hutton
  At the end of each financial year, whole-time consultants are asked to submit a return to their National Health Service employer, indicating that their annual gross income from private practice has not exceeded 10 per cent. of their gross NHS salary. An employer may require fully audited accounts if they consider that they have grounds for seeking more information. Consultants on other types of contract are not required to disclose their private practice earnings to their NHS employer.

  NHS Staff Numbers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses left service in the NHS in the last two years. [1609]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define the role and terms of reference of the Commission for Health Improvement. [1410]
  30W
  Mr. Hutton
  The role of the Commission is set out in section 20 of the Health Act 1999 and further defined in the Commission for Health Improvement (Functions) Regulations 2000. The main functions are:to provide advice or information to the National Health Service on clinical governance (clinical governance is a framework through which NHS organisations arc accountable for continuously improving the quality of clinical services and safeguarding high standards of care);
  to review and report on local clinical governance arrangements;
  to investigate and report on the management, provision or quality of healthcare for which NHS bodies have responsibility:
  to carry out national service reviews of particular types of healthcare.

  Alzheimer's
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures(a) have been and (b) will be introduced to help carers who look after those with Alzheimer's disease and dementia. [1179]

  Jacqui Smith
  We fully recognise the vital role played by carers and are doing much to improve the support and services available to help them in their caring role.

  Our approach to support carers is outlined in "Caring About Carers", the report of the National Carers Strategy which highlighted the need for better information for carers, better support for carers and better care for carers. Two of the objectives of the strategy were to ensure more breaks are available to carers and to provide services direct to carers and to support them in their caring role through the carers grants.
  31W
  We will increase the amount of money put aside specifically to support carers in England through the carers grant from £50 million last year to £70 million this year, £85 million in 2002–03 and £100 million in 2003–04; this will be an important step towards ensuring that up to 75,000 more carers receive a break from their caring duties.

  In addition to this, The National Service Framework for Older People was published on 27 March 2001. The NSF builds the needs and appropriate support of carers into all the standards it sets.

  Standard 7 of the NSF relates to mental health and will ensure that older people with dementia and depression have access to integrated health services to ensure effective diagnosis, treatment and support for them and their carers.

  Importantly, this standard will also ensure that carers receive the information, advice and practical help such as counselling services or short-term breaks to support them in caring for the older person.

  Junior Doctors
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he estimates that junior doctors will be required to work a maximum of 56 hours a week. [R] [1483]

  Mr. Hutton
  Monitoring carried out at the end of March 2001 indicated that only some 21 per cent. of junior doctors were still working more than 56 hours a week.

  From 1 August this year, pre-registration house officers will by contract be limited to an average 56 hours a week maximum, and all other junior doctors, Senior House Officers and Specialist Registrars, will be similarly protected from August 2003.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out, for each Department where responsibilities have been changed since 8 June, the areas of responsibility that have been transferred(a) from and (b) to each Department from other Departments; and what new responsibilities have been assigned. [1156]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 June 2001]: The information is contained in press notices which I have placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Cabinet Champions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Cabinet champions he has appointed to date. [1155]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 June 2001]: I have appointed the Cabinet. From time to time I invite Ministers to take on additional roles. For example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) continues to be a champion for older people.

  European Affairs
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Ministers in each Government Department with responsibility for European affairs. [855]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 June 2001]: The Minister for Europe in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain). Practice on the allocation of responsibility for European matters in other Departments varies. Some designate a single Minister to deal with all European matters, but most divide responsibilities between several Ministers, including the ministerial head of the Department, as appropriate.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the items discussed and the conclusions reached during his meeting with the President of the European Commission on 25 June. [1148]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 June 2001]: I had a productive working breakfast with the President of the European Commission on 25 June. We discussed a range of EU issues, including enlargement, the ongoing debate on the future of the Union and the EU economy. On the latter subject, we briefly discussed the progress of the euro, on which I emphasised that the Government's policy remained unchanged. I also reiterated the Government's strong commitment to an economic reform agenda capable of realising the objective set at the Lisbon Council last year for the EU to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to establish a Cabinet sub-committee on foreign affairs which would include non-Government members. [1740]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Public Services
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will define the phrase "world class" in the context of his recent speech relating to public services. [1649]

  The Prime Minister
  Our agenda on public service reform is clear. We want to improve our public services through a combination of investment and reform. First, we will set high minimum standards in every public service. Secondly, we will build public services around the consumer. And thirdly, we will put the front-line of public service provision first.

  International Law
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on advising(a) Parliament and (b) Her Majesty the Queen about violations of sovereignty and international law in the UK. [1953]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policy is to keep Her Majesty The Queen and Parliament informed of significant developments in our international relations.

  Poverty
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to mitigate poverty in the United Kingdom. [1755]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's objectives for tackling poverty are set out in their Second Annual Report on tackling poverty and social exclusion "Opportunity for all: one year on—making a difference" (Cm 4865—September 2000).

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Students
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students were in higher education on(a) 1 May 2000 and (b) 1 May 2001; and what is the projected figure for 1 May 2002. [24]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information is given in the following table:

  Higher education students1 in England—as at 1 December

  Thousand

  Number

  1999–20002

  1,610

  2000–013

  1,652

  2001–024

  1,710

  1Full-time and part-time, postgraduate and undergraduate, home and overseas, including the Open University

  2Actual

  3Provisional

  4Projected

  Teachers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) female and (b) male (1) primary and (2) secondary school teachers are aged (i) 20 to 24, (ii) 25 to 29, (iii) 30 to 34, (iv) 35 to 39, (v) 40 to 44, (vi) 45 to 49, (vii) 50 to 54, (viii) 55 to 59, (ix) 60 to 65. (x) 65 to 70 and (xi) 70 years plus. [388]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Full-time teachers by age in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary school sector in England at March 1999 (the latest date available), as published in the DfEE publication "Statistics of Education: Teachers: England and Wales: 2000 edition" were as follows:

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Age of teacher

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Under 25

  900

  9,000

  9,800

  1,900

  4,300

  6,200

  25 to 29

  3,100

  23,200

  26,300

  8,800

  15,700

  24,600

  30 to 34

  3,300

  16,100

  19,400

  8,900

  11,200

  20,000

  35 to 39

  3,000

  11,600

  14,600

  9,400

  10,000

  19,400

  40 to 44

  3,900

  20,100

  24,000

  13,300

  15,300

  28,600

  45 to 49

  6.600

  30,800

  37,400

  20,200

  19,400

  39,700

  50 to 54

  5,200

  22,100

  27,200

  14,900

  13,200

  28,100

  55 to 59

  1,500

  7,500

  9,000

  4,300

  4,600

  8,900

  60 to 64

  200

  1,000

  1,200

  800

  800

  1,500

  65 and over

  1—

  100

  100

  1—

  1—

  100

  All ages

  27,770

  141,400

  169,100

  82,500

  94,500

  177,100

  1 Less than 50 teachers

  Note:

  Totals may not be the sum of the component parts because of rounding

  School Meals (Stockton, South)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Stockton, South have school meals provided by the local authority. [1094]

  Mr. Timms
  The latest information available is shown in the following table.

  School meal arrangements—January 2000

  Stockton, South

  England

  Primary schools

  Number of pupils eligible for a free school meal

  1,538

  816,994

  Percentage of pupils eligible for a free school meal1

  15.4

  18.4

  Number of pupils who took a free school meal

  1,333

  671,486

  Percentage of pupils who took a free school meal1

  13.4

  15.0

  Secondary schools

  Number of pupils eligible for a free school meal

  1,524

  523,630

  Percentage of pupils eligible for a free school meal1

  18.6

  16.5

  Number of pupils who took a free school meal

  984

  368,303

  Percentage of pupils who took a free school meal1

  12.0

  11.6

  1Number of pupils eligible for a free school meal and taking a free school meal expressed as a percentage of all day pupils

  Comprehensive School System
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her Department's aims for a comprehensive school system are. [1130]

  Mr. Timms
  Our aims for a comprehensive school system are to give all young people the opportunity to acquire the skills, attitudes and formal qualifications necessary for their personal development, lifelong learning, work and citizenship. This means that all schools must deliver a broad and balanced curriculum including literacy, numeracy and information and communication technology. At secondary level they must also provide high-quality pathways able to meet the needs of individuals, be they academic or vocational. In order to better achieve these aims, we want to increase diversity by enabling each school to develop a distinct mission, ethos and character and, provided it demonstrates success, have the autonomy to manage its own affairs.

  School Places (Bromley)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils in the London borough of Bromley have not had an offer of a secondary school place for September. [1268]

  Mr. Timms
  As of 25 June, 152 children in Bromley were still to be made an offer of a secondary school place for September. However, appeals are still taking place, and some parents may also be holding offers of places in neighbouring boroughs. As in previous years, the LEA will be negotiating with their schools to take on additional pupils. They also have powers to direct the admission of pupils for whom no school place can otherwise be found.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to review the effects of the Greenwich Judgment, particularly with regard to the number of out-of-borough pupils in schools in the London borough of Bromley. [1270]
  35W
  Mr. Timms
  We have listened carefully to representations that we should seek to reverse the effect of the Greenwich Judgment. However, when we consulted on the Bill that became the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 there was no evidence of a groundswell of opinion nationally for doing so, and we have no reason to alter that view. The judgment was a sensible recognition of cross-LEA patterns of travel to schools. It prevented LEAs from refusing applications for schools simply on the basis that a child might not live in their specific administrative area.

  Parents can apply for any school, regardless of where they live. If a school is oversubscribed, admission criteria are applied to decide which applicants should be allocated the available places. The Code of Practice on School Admissions encourages admission authorities to operate admission arrangements which reflect the reality of pupil admission patterns, especially where there tends to be a high level of cross-border movement.

  Typical criteria used give priority where there is a sibling already at the school, to those who attend a named feeder school, who have a medical condition, live in a defined catchment area or who live closest to the school. Admission authorities for schools must review and consult on their admission arrangements each year, and this gives an opportunity to introduce any changes they consider to be in the best interests of local parents and children.

  In many cases, a child's nearest school may be in another authority area. This is one reason why there is so much cross-border travel. Cross-LEA travel to school is a well-established practice in London, and pre-dates the Greenwich judgment. It is one of many factors that LEAs must take into account when planning and organising the provision of school places in their area.

  Supply and demand of places is finely balanced at present in Bromley with significant growth predicted. A new secondary school will open in September 2003.

  LEA Councillors (Disqualifications)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will have discussions with other relevant Ministers about introducing legislation to make agency teaching staff subject to the same disqualifications from serving as councillors on their local education authority as teaching staff directly employed by the schools or local education authority. [1335]

  Mr. Timms
  Agency teachers are already subject to the same legislation.

  Teaching Assistants (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new posts of teaching assistant she plans to fund during the current financial year; how such funding will be distributed; and what Staffordshire's share will be. [1337]

  Mr. Timms
  The appointment and deployment of teaching assistants are matters for individual schools and local education authorities to consider in the light of local needs and circumstances, so I cannot say how many posts will be created this financial year. But the numbers of 36W
  full-time equivalent teaching assistants rose by over 25,000 between 1999 and 2001. During the period April 1999 to March 2004, we are making available around £750 million to local education authorities in England to meet the cost of recruiting, maintaining and training this level of new teaching assistants. The Department has allocated funds this year to LEAs on the basis of 80 per cent. to primary and nursery schools and 20 per cent. to secondary and special schools and Pupil Referral Units. Staffordshire's share for 2001–02 is £3,174,241.

  Modern Languages
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers are qualified to teach(a) Urdu, (b) Bengali, (c) Gujerati, (d) Hindi, (e) Mandarin, (f) Cantonese and (g) modern languages; how many teacher training places are available for the teaching of such languages; and if she will make a statement on her policy on the teaching of such languages in schools. [1396]

  Mr. Timms
  Data on the number of teachers qualified to teach these languages are not collected centrally.

  The total number of teacher training places available for all modern languages is set annually by the Government and allocated to providers by the Teacher Training Agency. In 2001–02, 2,050 places on courses of initial teacher training in modern languages will be available. That figure does not include the employment-based training places for modern languages available though the Graduate and Registered Teacher Programmes. Providers themselves determine the languages in which they will offer training courses.

  The National Curriculum requires schools to offer at least one of the working languages of the European Union, but schools are free to offer additional languages, including those spoken in the local community. The development of specialist Language Colleges is intended further to widen the language-learning possibilities on offer. The Colleges now offer over 20 different languages, including Urdu, Bengali, Gujerati, Hindi and Chinese.

  Teacher Shortages
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of teacher shortages in Castle Point(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools; and what action she will take to remove those shortages. [1485]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not collect data on anticipated vacancies in schools. Information on the number of teacher vacancies is collected once a year in January as part of the annual census of teachers and vacancies. However, information is not available at individual constituency level.

  University Staff
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many academic staff at universities in the UK resigned their posts in the first three months of this year who would otherwise have been employed on 31 March and included in the RAE submissions either as research active or as not research active; how many of them were re-engaged(a) to teach

  37W
  and (b) to continue research broken down by university and unit of assessment; and if she will make a statement. [1494]

  Margaret Hodge
  This information is not available.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the Special Advisers in her Department together with their date of appointment and their responsibilities; which of them are authorised to speak to the media; and if she will make a statement. [1497]

  Estelle Morris
  Special Advisers have not yet been appointed.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the pupil to teacher ratio was in secondary schools(a) in 1997 and (b) in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [1611]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  The ratio has improved for the first time in 10 years, following the increases in funding we have made for schools: funding per pupil since 1997–98 has increased by an average of £540 in real terms.

  Pupil:teacher ratio in maintained secondary schools

  Position in January each year

  Pupil:teacher ratio

  20011

  17.1

  2000

  17.2

  1999

  17.0

  1998

  16.9

  1997

  16.7

  1Provisional

  Maths Teachers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacancies there are for mathematics teachers in English secondary schools. [1614]

  Transferred to

  Areas of responsibility

  Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

  Employment policy

  Civil rights for disabled people

  Policy on age (with the exception of the Article 13 Employment Directive)

  Employment Service

  Sponsorship of the Disability Rights Commission

  Home Office

  Work Permits (UK)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Implementation of Article 13 Employment Directive with respect to age, religion and sexual orientation

  Race equality in employment including Race Relations Employment Advisory Service

  Equality Direct

  Work-life balance policy

  Women and Equality Unit (in the Cabinet Office)

  Gender legislation and policy

  Sponsorship of the Equal Opportunities Commission

  Kingsmill Review of Women's Employment and Pay

  Sexual orientation issues (other than Article 13)

  38W
  Mr. Timms
  At 18 January 2001 there were 410 full-time vacancies, which represents approximately 2.1 per cent. of mathematics teachers.

  AS-Levels
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will set out the(a) remit and (b) timetable of the review of AS-levels and details of the process of reporting the results of the review. [1618]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The review will concentrate on the examination and assessment requirements of the new advanced level qualifications. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked for a first report in July on those issues and a further report in December in the light of the summer results.

  The outcome of the QCA review will be made public together with the Government's response.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many pupils have sat the new AS levels in the current year; what the average number of subjects studied was; and what the cost of the new AS level exams has been for schools; [1626]

  (2) how many students in further education colleges have undertaken AS levels in the current year; and what the cost of the exams has been to further education colleges. [1627]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information is not available, but an announcement on Advanced level results will be made on 16 August.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the areas of responsibility that have(a) been transferred from her Department to other Departments and (b) been transferred to her Department from other Departments since 8 June. [1619]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department for Education and Skills came into being on 9 June, with responsibility for the education, skills and lifelong learning responsibilities of the former Department for Education and Employment. Information on the distribution of the remaining responsibilities of the former DfEE is set out in the following table.
  39W
  International policy is being handled in a joint unit located in the DWP, reporting to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. No responsibilities have been transferred from other Departments to the Department for Education and Skills.

  Secondary Schools
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received regarding admission policies for secondary schools. [1620]

  Mr. Timms
  As part of the consultation exercise on the Green Paper "Schools—Building on Success", we received 421 responses from a number of organisations, LEAs, teachers, governors and parents which commented on secondary schools, some of which addressed admissions directly. Common themes have been the need for maximum access to good local schools, and for admission authorities to adopt a more co-ordinated approach to the admission process.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on admissions to secondary schools. [1624]

  Mr. Timms
  We introduced a new admissions framework for all schools in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Its aim was to promote parental choice and make the admissions system fairer and easier for parents. A new statutory requirement was imposed on admission authorities requiring them to consult each other annually, before determining their admission arrangements. Where local agreement cannot be reached, admission authorities can object to an independent Schools Adjudicator or, where appropriate, to the Secretary of State.

  School admission arrangements are decided locally and admission authorities are free to choose what arrangements to use, although they must be clear, fair and objective and operated in a reasonable manner in line with guidance contained in the Code of Practice on School Admissions.

  Parents have the right to appeal to an independent appeal panel if refused a place at their preferred school.

  Graduation Award
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what consultation has taken place with teachers on the introduction of the new over-arching graduation award for 19-year-olds.[1621]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in December 1999 to consult on the "graduation certificate" proposal which was set out in the Social Exclusion Unit's report "Bridging the Gap: New Opportunities for 16–18 year olds not in Education, Employment or Training". The idea behind the certificate was to encourage all young people to stay in learning until 19.

  The extensive consultation during 1999 and early 2000 covered a range of interested parties including teachers. We will consider what further consultation will be needed in taking forward the most recent proposal by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  40W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions were held with the Learning and Skills Council on the introduction of the new graduation award for 19-year-olds. [1625]

  Mr. Timms
  The Further Education Funding Council was involved in exploring the proposal for a graduation certificate included in the Social Exclusion Unit's report "Bridging the Gap: New Opportunities for 16–18 year olds not in Education, Employment or Training". The Learning and Skills Council have an on-going role in the current work being done by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority on that proposal, and they will be involved in the development of any new award.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the new graduation award for 19-year-olds will be available to those studying at the further education colleges post-16; and if further education colleges will be expected to hold graduation ceremonies. [1628]

  Mr. Timms
  The award would be for all young people to attain by 19 years of age, and would be available to young people learning in a variety of settings including further education colleges. We will need to consider what the appropriate form and content of any ceremonies to recognise and celebrate young people's achievement of the award should be.

  Teacher Training
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will set out the targets for recruitment into teacher training for each of the next three years for(a) BEd courses, (b) PGCE courses and (c) GTTP. [1622]

  Mr. Timms
  The target for recruitment to initial teacher training courses at institutions in England for 2001–02 is 29,890. The indicative targets for 2002–03 and 2003–04 respectively are 29,535 and 29,095. The targets are not split between undergraduate and postgraduate provision. Decisions on the allocation of teacher training places, including between undergraduate and postgraduate courses, are made by the Teacher Training Agency.

  My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced on 12 March this year an extra 570 places on the Graduate Teacher Programme that will bring the total, in due course, to 2,250 a year.

  Admission Appeals Panels
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what analysis has been undertaken by her Department of the impact of the introduction of independent admission appeals panels on the number of appeals upheld. [1623]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has commissioned research into the operation of independent appeal panels and a report on its findings is due in January 2002. In 1999–2000 (the latest year for which figures are available), 89,200 admission appeals were lodged by parents, although only 62,700 appeals reached an appeal panel. Of these, 21,500 appeals were decided in the parents favour, representing 34 per cent. of all appeals heard by a panel.
  41W
  The introduction of independent appeal panels has not shown a marked impact on the success rate of appeals; at secondary school level, the percentage of appeals being decided in parents' favour has remained stable at 32 per cent. for the last three years. At primary level, where class size legislation has placed restrictions on appeal panels, there has been a drop in the percentage of successful appeals over the last three years, from 47 per cent. in 1997–98 to 39 per cent. in 1999–2000.

  Education Reform
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she intends to issue the White Paper on education reform. [1572]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government will issue a White Paper on education reform before the summer adjournment.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Paper Recycling
  Ms Walley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on phase one of the House of Commons paper recycling scheme. [1747]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms; I have asked him to write to the hon. Lady.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Belize
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what dates KPMG received letters from Carlisle Holdings during its study commissioned by her Department to review the regulation of offshore financial services in Belize and the effect of tax exemptions on pro-poor programmes; if she will place copies of these letters in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [994]

  Clare Short
  To the Department's knowledge KPMG only received three letters from Carlisle Holdings dated 10 August 2000,18 August 2000 and 9 April 2001. The correspondence is private to the parties concerned.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place in the Library a copy of the report arising from the study commissioned from KPMG by her Department to review the regulation of offshore financial services in Belize and the effect of tax exemptions on pro-poor programmes; and on what date this report was(a) completed and (b) received by her Department. [992]

  Clare Short
  The report is for disclosure only to DFID and the Government of Belize. The final report was issued by KPMG on 24 May 2001 and received by the Department on 25 May 2001.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she plans to hold meetings with the Belize Government to discuss progress on the 42W
  Commonwealth Debt Initiative and the effect of tax exemptions and public investment companies on pro-poor programmes. [995]

  Clare Short
  A team from DFID's Caribbean office will be visiting Belize next month to discuss these and other issues.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what meetings KPMG requested with representatives of the two public investment companies during its study commissioned by her Department to review the regulation of offshore financial services in Belize and the effect of tax exemptions on pro-poor programmes; and if she will make a statement. [993]

  Clare Short
  KPMG requested information on the two public investment companies from the Government of Belize. As far as the Department is aware KPMG did not request meetings with representatives of the two companies.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what date she asked the Permanent Secretary of her Department to investigate a possible conflict of interest by KPMG over a study commissioned by her Department to review the regulation of offshore financial services in Belize and the effect of tax exemptions on pro-poor programmes; on what date her Department met KPMG to discuss the issue of a possible conflict of interest; and if she will make a statement. [1007]

  Clare Short
  International consultants engaged by the DFID typically work for a number of different clients and our standard contract requires them to ensure there is no conflict of interest. Following the submission of a report that failed to fulfil the original terms of reference, my Permanent Secretary was assured of an impartial Final Report from the consultant when he spoke to a senior partner of KPMG on 18 May.

  Lord Ashcroft
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what date her Department received a request for documents under the Data Protection Act 1998 from Lord Ashcroft; and on what dates her Department replied to the request. [1008]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development received a subject access request from Lord Ashcroft's solicitors, under the Data Protection Act 1998, on 12 February 2001. A reply was issued on 23 March 2001, within the 40-day deadline required by the Act.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what date her Department received a letter from Lord Ashcroft and Carlisle Holdings regarding the remarks made at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle in 1999; on what date her Department responded to the letter; if she will place copies of the correspondence in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [1006]

  Clare Short
  We have no record of any such correspondence.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Clean Coal Technology
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has for UK involvement in the recently announced US research project into clean coal technology; and if she will make a statement. [1442]

  Mr. Wilson
  This Government attach importance to developing cleaner coal technologies (CCT) to keep options open for diversity and security of energy supply in the UK and I recently announced a review into the case for support for a CCT demonstration plant. We have close links with the US cleaner coal technologies programme and some technologies developed in the UK are involved in the US demonstration programme. A new Memorandum of Understanding between my Department and the US Department of Energy on Energy R&D, signed in November last year, provides a framework for further co-operation and we expect a number of collaborative projects to emerge.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if progress on the development of clean coal technology will be included in the Energy Review; and if she will make a statement. [1441]

  Mr. Wilson
  Yes. Any review of energy must look at the role of coal. The study that I announced recently on the case for cleaner coal power demonstration plant will be an important part of this discussion, and the results of this study will inform the work of the PIU Energy Review.

  Working Time Regulations
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's plans to consult on amending the Working Time Regulations to remove the qualifying period for paid annual leave. [2077]

  Alan Johnson
  I am pleased to announce that the consultation has been launched. The Government are consulting on proposals to remove the qualifying period and introduce a system of accrual of the entitlement to paid annual leave in the first year.

  I have placed copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies may also be obtained from Room UG139, Department of Trade and Industry, 1 Victoria street, London SW1H OET; by telephone on 020–7215 0445; or via the Department of Trade and Industry website at: www.dti.gov.uk/er/worktimeregs/palconsult.pdf.

  All responses to the consultation must be received by Friday, 27 July 2001.

  Competition Law
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many alleged breaches of the Competition Act 1998 have been reported to the Office of Fair Trading; how many investigations have been conducted into such breaches; and what the outcome was in each case, indicating the level of fines imposed. [748]
  44W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Between the coming into force of the main provisions of the Competition Act 1998 on 1 March 2000 and the end of May 2001, the Office of Fair Trading has received over 5,000 complaints alleging a breach of the Competition Act 1998, or the complex monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. These complaints have resulted in 2,065 preliminary inquiries being opened to consider the allegations. Of these, 68 resulted in investigations of which 34 investigations are on-going.

  The Office of Fair Trading will conduct an investigation when the Director General of Fair Trading is satisfied that he has reasonable grounds to believe that an infringement of the prohibitions contained in the Act has taken place.

  The Director General of Fair Trading has issued one infringement decision and one non-infringement decision resulting from the investigations. He imposed a fine of £3.2 million on Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd. Napp have appealed his decision.

  ERDF
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the EU Regional Development Fund goes towards the city of Coventry; and what is the annual amount. [1182]

  Alan Johnson
  Up to £68 million (based on current exchange rates) has been awarded to projects in the Coventry and Warwickshire area from the Structural Fund Programmes operating during the period 1997–99. These programmes are now closed.

  This resource has had a direct impact on Coventry in two ways: first, offers of grant have been made to support projects operating in Coventry itself; and secondly, grant has been awarded to reclaim sites and support projects in areas adjacent to the Coventry border thus generating a major beneficial economic effect on the citizens of Coventry.

  The 2000–06 Objective 2 and 3 programmes are still in their infancy but to date £12 million grant has been awarded to Coventry from the Objective 3 ESF programme. The West Midlands Objective 3 Regional budget for 2000 and 2001 is £80 million, at current exchange rates, and commitments so far total £45 million across the region. So far no offers have yet been made anywhere in the region under the Objective 2 programme, launched by Ministers in April this year. However, a number of proposals are under consideration from the Coventry Partnership, and it is expected that Coventry will be major beneficiaries of this programme.

  Foot and Mouth (Devon)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of foot and mouth disease on the foreign language school industry in Devon; and if she will make a statement. [4]

  Mr. Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  Various assessments have been made by organisations in the south-west of the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak on businesses, including in Devon, although it might not be possible from these to identify specifically the impact on the foreign language school industry.

  45W
  Government recognise that foot and mouth has had an impact on a wide range of businesses and have put in place a package of measures to help recovery. Advice on the assistance is available through Business Link on telephone number 0845 600 9006. The Government have also allocated to the British Tourist Authority (BTA) an extra £14.2 million to help promote Britain abroad as an attractive tourist destination. The BTA's recovery plan includes targeted activity to encourage overseas students to continue to learn English here.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  City Status
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will make a statement on what the criteria are for determining the award of city status to towns; [1338]

  (2) if he will make the criteria for determining the award of city status more transparent; and if he will make a statement. [1339]

  Mr. Wills
  City status is not a right that can be claimed by the meeting of specific criteria, but an honour granted by the Queen, on ministerial advice, under the Royal Prerogative. A competition for grants of city status to mark Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee will be launched shortly. It is expected that guidance will be provided to local authorities, at that stage, as to the main factors which will be taken into account by Ministers before my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor submits his recommendations to the Queen.

  The Lord Chancellor himself will take responsibility for this matter. Although I, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), will be responsible for answering questions in this House on city status, we shall not be involved in the consideration process because of our constituencies potential interests in the outcome.

  Open Government
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how he will monitor the Government's commitment to openness in Government Departments. [615]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government report to Parliament annually on the operation of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which is the current regime governing access to information held by Government Departments and many non-departmental public bodies.

  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor expects to publish the Monitoring Report on the Code of Practice for the year 2000 shortly. This report includes information about the number of Code requests received, the speed with which they are dealt and the number of refusals made.

  The Government have demonstrated their strong commitment to openness in the public sector through the passing of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The
  46W
  Lord Chancellor is required under the provisions of the Act to report to Parliament on the progress made towards implementation of the Act, before 30 November 2001.

  The Freedom of Information Act applies to a very wide range of bodies, over 50,000 across the public sector, going well beyond the scope of the Code of Practice. The Government are discussing with the Information Commissioner what is the best way of ensuring that the rigorous monitoring of the Code of Practice is retained when the provisions of the Act replace the Code and extending the monitoring to all of the bodies covered by the Act.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when(a) she and (b) Ministers in her Department next intend to meet the French Environment Minister. [819]

  Mr. Meacher
  I understand that the current French Environment Minister, Dominique Voynet, plans to stand down shortly. I intend to meet her successor at the next available opportunity. This may be at the COP 6 bis meeting in Bonn, between 16–27 July. I will also have similar opportunities to meet the French Environment Minister, particularly at the Environment Council in October, if not before.

  Trade Effluent
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what enforcement actions were taken by the Environment Agency against those sites with significant consents to discharge trade effluent to watercourses in England and Wales which breached those consent levels in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000; [945]

  (2) what the level of compliance was with significant consents to discharge trade effluent to watercourses held by industry in England and Wales in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000; [944]

  (3) what percentage of significant consents to discharge trade effluent to watercourses held by industry in England and Wales were monitored by the Environment Agency in (a)1998, (b)1999 and (c)2000; [942]

  (4) what percentage of the significant consents to discharge trade effluent to watercourses in England and Wales were reviewed by the Environment Agency in (a)1998, (b)1999 and (c)2000; [946]

  (5) what percentage of significant consents to discharge trade effluent to watercourses held by industry in England and Wales included permission to discharge red list substances in (a)1998, (b)1999 and (c)2000; [943]

  (6) how many significant consents to discharge trade effluent to watercourses were held by industry in England and Wales in (a)1998, (b)1999 and (c)2000. [941]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information that my hon. Friend has requested is not held centrally. I will therefore let him have this information as soon as it is available.

  Abandoned Cars
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government intend to introduce legislation on abandoned cars. [814]

  Mr. Meacher
  Legislation to tackle abandoned cars is already contained in the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986.

  We will be consulting later this summer on possible changes to the 1986 regulations, following a review carried out into the current legislation covering abandoned vehicles.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to publish a paper on nuclear waste; and if she will make a statement. [809]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department and the devolved Administrations aim to publish the consultation paper very soon.

  Municipal Incinerators
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to introduce tougher controls on emissions from existing municipal incinerators; and if she will make a statement. [816]

  Mr. Meacher
  The recently adopted Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC sets minimum standards for a variety of plants that burn waste, including municipal solid waste incinerators (MSWIs). The UK Government are committed to transposing the EU Waste Incineration Directive, and the provisions therein, into UK law by 28 December 2002. This will apply to all new incinerators by this date, and to existing plant by 28 December 2005. This directive tightens dioxin limits to 0.1ng/m3. These standards will be a minimum requirement for MSWIs. The Environment Agency intends to review the performance of existing plant before the Directive applies.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to introduce a moratorium on new municipal incinerators; and if she will make a statement. [815]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have no plans to introduce a moratorium on new municipal incinerators. The choice of waste facilities in an area is for local authorities to make in consultation with their local communities, taking into account the waste hierarchy, which places recycling and composting above incineration with energy recovery, and the need to achieve the best practicable environmental option.

  Environmental Protection Act
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the average spend was by local authorities for meeting their duties 48W
  under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in 2000–01; and what the average planned spend is in 2001–02; [938]

  (2) what average funding was allocated to local authorities for meeting their duties under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in 2000–01 and in 2001–02. [940]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review, £12 million per year was added to the totals for Standard Spending Assessments (SSA) for English local authorities to reflect the revenue implications of the implementation of the Contaminated Land Regime in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 This funding has been allocated to individual local authorities under the normal system for SSA calculations, and is supported by Revenue Support Grant payments.

  Capital expenditure by local authorities on the investigation and remediation of contaminated land for which they are responsible has been supported by the Contaminated Land Supplementary Credit Approval Programme (SCAs). A total of £21 million was available in 2000–01 for projects submitted by local authorities or the Environment Agency, with the same amount being available in 2001–02.

  Expenditure outturn figures for the SCA programme in 2001–02 are not yet available, as expenditure returns by individual local authorities are not required until mid-July.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of local authorities have met their duty under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to produce a written strategy by the end of June on inspecting their areas for the purpose of identifying contaminated land. [939]

  Mr. Meacher
  This information is currently being gathered by the Environmental Agency. I will write with the information that my hon. Friend requires as soon as possible.

  Pollution
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has conducted into changes in pollution following the introduction of congestion taxes. [811]

  Mr. Meacher
  A number of local authorities are developing proposals to introduce charging schemes to tackle congestion problems in their area, but implementation of schemes will generally take a number of years and none has yet started. I understand that the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions will be working with authorities introducing any such schemes to assess their overall impacts, including any changes in levels of air pollution.

  Anti-dumping Tariffs
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the European Commission's proposal to introduce anti-dumping tariffs on urea fertiliser originating from non-EU countries. [1591]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.
  49W
  The Government did not believe the information available was sufficient for them to adopt a formal position on the European Commission's proposal. We have therefore asked for further work to be carried out in the likelihood that provisional measures will be imposed while the Commission continues its investigation. We will consult interested parties before taking a final view on definitive measures.

  Environment Council (Luxembourg)
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Environment Council held in Luxembourg on 7 June. [1798]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am writing to report the outcome of the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 7 June. As the Council fell on the same day as the General Election, there were no Environment Ministers available to attend, and the UK was represented by Bill Stow. Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU. The Council reached a political agreement on six common positions, two of which allowed agreement to be reached with the European Parliament at first reading. The UK abstained on the vote on a proposed Directive on low-temperature emissions from motor vehicles, and voted in favour of the other common positions. The Council also adopted five sets of conclusions.

  Political agreement was reached on a Decision of the Commission and European Parliament on the Sixth Environment Action Programme. This will set out the EU's environmental priorities for the next 10 years, focusing on climate change, nature and biodiversity, environment and health, and sustainable management of natural resources and waste. The UK achieved its objectives of a commitment to improve the policy process, a clearer priority for climate change action, and of a commitment to further analysis before the development and adoption of detailed targets. Political agreement was also reached on a proposal to amend Directive 90/313, giving the public enhanced rights of access to environmental information in line with the more demanding requirements of the Aarhus Convention.

  In reaching Political Agreement on a Directive seeking to reduce the quantity of waste from electrical and electronic equipment and increase recycling, the UK achieved its objectives. The Directive delivers environmental benefits, and is in line with the Government's objectives on waste, and Council has avoided changes which would have made it more inflexible and less workable. In particular, the UK secured additional flexibility for small manufacturers and on the arrangements for retailer takeback. Member states agreed that collection systems will have to be set up within 30 months of the Directive coming into force, with distributors having to take back used equipment free of charge on a like-for-like basis either in-store or through third parties. Producers were made responsible for reaching recovery and recycling targets within 46 months. A target of recycling 4 kg waste per person per year by 36 months following entry into force of the Directive was also agreed. Agreement was also reached on a related Directive restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, protecting the environment from potential damage arising form the disposal of this equipment, and
  50W
  facilitating recycling. The Council agreed a date of 2007 for the phasing out of specific hazardous substances, including lead and mercury.

  The Council was able to approve all of the European Parliament's amendments on a Decision establishing a list of priority substances under the Water Framework Directive, allowing it to be adopted at first reading. The list contains 33 Priority Substances, 11 of which are classified as Priority Hazardous Substances. The Commission will be responsible for bringing forward proposals for measures aimed at the progressive reduction and, for Priority Hazardous Substances, at the cessation or phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses. A first reading agreement was also reached on a Directive regulating emissions from motor vehicles starting in cold conditions. The UK abstained on the basis that the costs of implementing the proposal were disproportionate to the limited environmental benefits it would bring about, and recorded its position in a statement for the Council minutes.

  The Council's conclusions on climate change reaffirmed the EU's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and its willingness to negotiate constructively at the resumed COP6 in July. Ministers reiterated the target of ratification and entry into force of Kyoto by 2002. The Council also held an informal discussion on climate change over dinner.

  In response to the Commission's White Paper on EU chemicals policy Council conclusions were agreed. Ministers offered broad support for the proposal that existing and new substances would in future be subject to the same authorisation process ("REACH"—Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals) while stressing the need for realistic deadlines. The conclusions recommend an objective of phasing out uses of chemicals that lead to a significant negative impact on the environment by 2020, while maintaining the competitiveness of the chemicals industry. The Conclusions also call for a minimum of animal testing and increased public access to information about chemicals. Separately, in response to a suggestion by the Netherlands, the Council agreed conclusions calling on the Commission to clarify the legal situation and possible consequences of the phase-out of mercury in the chlor-alkali industry, and report back to Council.

  In preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+10) in Johannesburg in 2002, Council conclusions were agreed setting out a broad EU approach with suggestions for themes for consideration at the Summit. These include protection of natural resources, integrating environment and poverty eradication and making globalisation work for sustainable development. Council also agreed conclusions on a strategy for an integrated product policy, the overall aim of which is to reduce the environmental impact of products across their whole life cycle.

  The Commission briefly updated the Council on work on a number of forthcoming proposals, including its planned proposals on the labelling and traceability of GMOs, emphasising the difficult technical and legal implications of the proposals, which are still under consideration within the Commission. Commissioner Wallstrom also reported on developments in environmental relations with Russia.
  51W
  The Presidency informed the Council it would consider what progress could be made on the Directives on Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making, Recreational Craft, Non-Road Mobile Machinery and the Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, before Belgium took over the EU Presidency in July.

  Over lunch, the Council discussed the Commission's Communication on an EU Sustainable Development Strategy, and a Presidency report on the integration of environmental considerations into other policy areas, in preparation for the Gothenburg European Council on 15–16 June.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Chief Inspector of Prisons
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the chief inspector of prisons. [627]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have accepted an invitation from Sir David and will meet him and his team in the near future.

  I have also arranged to see Anne Owers, Sir David's successor, early in August, when she takes up her appointment.

  Police Recruitment (Hertfordshire)
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase recruitment in the Hertfordshire constabulary. [628]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruitment initiative, Hertfordshire constabulary has been allocated a total of 107 additional officers, over and above the force's previous recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003.

  I know that the force has been experiencing difficulty in attracting recruits and was not able to recruit any of its CFF allocation in 2000–01. In recognition of these difficulties, the force has been allowed to defer its allocation from 2000–01 into 2001–02. The force will now be able to recruit up to 70 officers through the CFF in 2001–02.

  On 12 March my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary announced that he had agreed to the Police Negotiating Board's recommendation for new allowances for certain officers serving in a number of forces in the south-east. The affected officers are those appointed since 1 September 1994 and not in receipt of Housing Allowance. For such officers in Hertfordshire the new allowance is £2,000 per annum. It has been payable since 1 April 2001.

  All police forces, including Hertfordshire, also benefit from the national recruitment advertising campaign, which was launched in August 2000.

  Police Numbers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average number of police officers is per 10,000 population in(a) England and (b) Devon and Cornwall. [629]
  52W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In 2000–01 there were 23.4 police officers per 10,000 population in England, and 18.7 officers per 10,000 population in Devon and Cornwall.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police numbers. [646]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the most recent police numbers on 28 June. On 31 March 2001, police numbers in England and Wales were 125,519. This is an increase of 1,349 over 31 March last year. It is a clear indication that the Crime Fighting Fund which is intended to deliver an additional 9,000 recruits over three years is taking effect.

  We expect that within the lifetime of this Parliament police strength will reach 130,000 officers.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report on police numbers in North Yorkshire. [649]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Secretary announced the most recent police numbers on 28 June. At 31 March 2001, police numbers in North Yorkshire were 1,305. This is an increase of 22 over March 2000.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers and civilian staff were employed in each year since 1996 in Harrow. [1111]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been provided by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and is set out in the table.

  I am told by the Commissioner that he has increased the Budgeted Workforce Total for police officers in Harrow from 295 officers in 2000–01 to 311 for the current financial year.

  Metropolitan police—Harrow division

  Year1

  Police officers2

  Civilian staff2

  December 1996

  283

  76

  December 1997

  289

  71

  December 1998

  281

  68

  December 1999

  291

  69

  December 2000

  292

  68

  May 2001

  307

  72

  1 Information for 1996 to 2000 is available only by calendar year

  2 Figures are for full-time equivalent staff

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of police(a) sergeants and (b) inspectors in England and Wales. [1250]

  Mr. Denham
  The powers of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to decide on the number of police officers in each rank for each force were removed under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. It is for Chief Officers of Police to determine staffing levels for sergeants, inspectors and other ranks within the overall resources available.

  Youth Crime
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for dealing with youth crime and disorder. [631]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We have a wide agenda across Government concerned with tackling youth crime and disorder. We have introduced programmes which focus on the family; tackle deprivation; address truancy and school exclusion; deal with alcohol-related crime and disorder and under-age drinking; and address drug misuse among young people.

  We have also made improvements to the youth justice system. Tackling delays to speed up justice; expanding the powers available to the police and the courts, establishing new youth justice structures and intervention programmes. And we are continuing to bring in new measures and programmes to tackle youth offending.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the levels of juvenile crime. [635]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government have put in place a major programme of reforms to tackle youth offending. We have overhauled youth justice and introduced a wide range of prevention policies to stop young people becoming involved in crime.

  Double Jeopardy
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to abolish the double jeopardy rule. [632]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government's manifesto included a commitment to reform the double jeopardy rule in cases involving murder, and the Government will do so when parliamentary time allows.

  Prisons (Rehabilitation)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to improve the record of prisons as institutions of effective rehabilitation. [633]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to ensuring the effective execution of the sentences of the courts so as to reduce reoffending and protect the public. The Prison Service, in conjunction with other criminal justice agencies, has a target of reducing the rate of reconvictions of all offenders punished by imprisonment or by community supervision by 5 per cent. by April 2004 compared to the predicted rate. The Service is investing an additional £31 million in the period 2001–02, £30 million in 2002–03 and £71 million in 2003–04, from the Spending Review 2000 on work on basic skills, drugs, offending behaviour programmes and resettlement to help achieve this objective.

  Crime Prevention Partnerships
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of crime prevention partnerships. [634]
  54W
  Mr. Denham
  The local crime and disorder reduction partnerships, established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, ensure that the resources and commitment of local authorities and a wide range of other local organisations are harnessed to support the police in the fight against crime. This joint effort has helped secure the 10 per cent. reduction in crime measured by the British Crime Survey 2000.

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support is being given to crime and disorder partnerships to tackle drug-related crime. [640]

  Mr. Denham
  Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships are being provided with additional investment and guidance to disrupt local drugs markets, and tackle drug-related crime.

  Partnerships have been allocated a total of £50 million this year to tackle drugs problems, under the Communities Against Drugs initiative, and this will rise to £70 million in 2002–03 and £100 million in 2003–04. The Communities Against Drugs toolkit is available on the Crime Reduction website (www.crimereduction.gov.uk) and further written guidance is under preparation. Advice to partnerships is being provided by the Crime Reduction Directors and by the Drugs Prevention Advisory Service (DPAS) in the regions in England, and in Wales by the Crime Reduction Director and the Substance Misuse Intervention Branch.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that asylum seekers are able to work while awaiting determinations by the Home Office. [636]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the terms of the employment concession, adult asylum seekers can apply for permission to work if their application has been outstanding for longer than six months without a decision being made on it. There are no immediate plans to alter the way the concession operates.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of applications for asylum have been refused since July 2000; and what percentage of those refused have(a) been deported and (b) otherwise left the country. [637]

  Angela Eagle
  80 per cent. of initial decisions made since July 2000 were to refuse asylum and exceptional leave to remain.

  There were over 8,900 asylum removals in the 12 months ending March 2001. It is not possible to identify how many of those removals related to initial decisions since July 2000, nor how many former asylum seekers leave the country without notifying the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND).

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the outcome of the review of the voucher scheme for asylum seekers. [639]

  Angela Eagle
  We are considering the evidence and will announce our conclusions in due course.

  Visible Policing
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will visit a police station in Castle Point to discuss visible policing. [638]

  Mr. Denham
  I am keen to visit as many police forces as I can to hear the views of the police service and to see the work being done to reduce crime and to provide public reassurance. Although I do not currently have plans to visit Essex, I am always interested in discussing ways of making police officers more visible and accessible to the communities they serve.

  Young Offenders (Secure Accommodation)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on plans for the provision of secure accommodation for young offenders in Wales. [641]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales commissions and purchases secure accommodation for remanded and sentenced young people. The Board aims to increase secure accommodation for male and female juvenile offenders in Wales, as part of its wider strategy to provide 400 more secure training centre places for England and Wales as a whole. A number of Welsh sites have been looked at but none has yet been selected for development.

  County Police Forces
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on maintaining the identity of county police forces. [642]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no present plans to change the procedures in the Police Act 1996 for the alteration of police areas.

  We will consider on their merits any proposals from police authorities for amalgamations which might lead to more effective policing.

  We will continue to encourage Chief Officers and police authorities to take advantage of opportunities for collaboration between forces where this will help deliver best value.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the level of police recruitment. [643]

  Mr. Denham
  Following the introduction of the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) in April 2000, there has already been a significant rise in police recruitment. Forces recruited 7,415 officers during the year to 31 March 2001, 64 per cent. more than the previous year.

  About 2,800 recruits were funded by the CFF in 2000–01. Forces will be able to recruit about 3,200 CFF officers this year and a further 3,000 in 2002–03.

  Given forces' recruitment plans and projections of wastage, we expect police strength to reach at least 128,000 officers by March 2002 and record numbers by March 2003.
  56W
  To help forces meet their recruitment targets the first National Recruitment Campaign was launched in August 2000.

  By 1 May 2001, the campaign had generated over 147,000 responses and over 30,000 expressions of interest had been forwarded to police forces. A further phase of the campaign is planned for the end of the summer.

  Bids covering a number of police force areas have proceeded to Stage Two of the bidding round of the Government's Starter Home Initiative under which £250 million will be made available over the next three years to help key workers purchase homes.

  We are reviewing entry requirements for the Police Service to ensure consistency across forces and a good supply of quality candidates.

  Police Morale
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to improve police morale. [645]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no established direct method of measuring the level of morale in the police service.

  As part of the process of police reform the Government are determined to tackle those elements of police officers' working lives that can create frustration and detract from their ability to do their jobs in the way that they would wish.

  We are determined to reduce the burden of unnecessary bureaucracy.

  We are investing in technological support to help increase the effectiveness of the police in fighting crime and to ensure that officers are able to spend as much of their time as possible on the front line.

  An ambitious programme of work in police training has begun to raise professional standards for officers and support staff, and to achieve greater consistency nationally.

  We have turned a round the decline in police numbers that started under the last Government. Substantial Government investment in the police service is now delivering the positive results that we promised when the Crime Fighting Fund was launched in September 1999 and commenced in April 2000.

  Police numbers rose in the 12 months to March 2001 by 1,349 officers to 125,519—an increase of 1.1 per cent. This is the largest single annual increase in police numbers since 1988–89.

  We expect that within the lifetime of this Parliament police strength will reach 130,000 officers.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the level of police morale in England and Wales. [152]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: There is no established direct method of measuring the level of morale in the police service.

  As part of the process of police reform the Government are determined to tackle those elements of police officers' working lives that can create frustration and detract from their ability to do their jobs in the way that they would wish.
  57W
  We are determined to reduce the burden of unnecessary bureaucracy.

  We are investing in technological support to help increase the effectiveness of the police in fighting crime and to ensure that officers are able to spend as much of their time as possible on the front line.

  An ambitious programme of work in police training has begun to raise professional standards for officers and support staff, and to achieve greater consistency nationally.

  We have turned around the decline in police numbers that started under the last Government. Substantial Government investment in the police service is now delivering the positive results that we promised when the Crime Fighting Fund was launched in September 1999 and commenced in April 2000.

  Police numbers rose in the 12 months to March 2001 by 1,349 officers to 125,519—an increase of 1.1 per cent. This is the largest single annual increase in police numbers since 1988–89.

  We intend that police numbers overall should continue to rise. We expect that within the lifetime of this Parliament police strength will reach 130,000 officers.

  Police Complaints System
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the police complaints system. [647]

  Mr. Denham
  We will bring forward legislation in this Session, which will include provisions to establish a new police complaints system to replace the current system. The new system will mean a new body, the independent Police Complaints Commission, will replace the Police Complaints Authority. The Government published their plans for a new system in a framework document on 18 December last year, copies of which can be found in the Library.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to begin the registration of private security industry staff as outlined in the Private Security Act 2001. [618]

  Mr. Denham
  The Private Security Industry Act 2001 provides for the establishment of a Security Industry Authority which will have responsibility for licensing individuals employed in designated sectors of the security industry; and approving companies.

  We aim to establish the authority as soon as possible. Once established, the authority will draw up its licensing criteria and institute a rolling programme of licensing. The relevant provisions of the Act will come into force by means of commencement orders when the authority is ready to begin its licensing operations.

  Mobile Police Stations
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report on the rural mobile police station initiative proposed for north Yorkshire. [621]
  58W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I welcome the introduction of a mobile police office in north Yorkshire, which was launched on 29 May this year. It will give a high-visibility police presence in rural areas. The cost of the police office will be covered by a £186,000 grant from the Government's Targeted Policing Initiative.

  Police Areas
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement about his proposals to ensure the police co-operate more effectively across force boundaries; [1258]

  (2) what plans the Government have to amalgamate police forces in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [1256]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no present plans to change the procedures in the Police Act 1996 for the alteration of police areas.

  We will consider on their merits any proposals from Police Authorities for amalgamations which might lead to more effective policing.

  We will continue to encourage Police Authorities and Chief Officers to take advantage of opportunities for collaboration between forces where this will help achieve best value.

  We are already promoting the use of common equipment and methods through, for example, the support given to the countrywide adoption of Airwave and the roll-out of the National Intelligence Model. Work in hand as part of the police reform process will consider what more can be done to ensure cross-border working.

  Travellers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government are taking to tackle antisocial behaviour by travellers; and if he will make a statement. [1243]

  Mr. Denham
  As I said in response to a question from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) answered on 27 June 2001,Official Report, column 97W, the police and local authorities have powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to direct travellers or other trespassers to leave land when the appropriate statutory requirements are met. We have no plans to amend this legislation at present, although its effectiveness is kept under review. But the reduction of antisocial behaviour, by whoever it may be committed, is a prime objective of the Government, and our strategy for tackling it is set out in the Report of Policy Action Team 8 on AntiSocial Behaviour.

  Unauthorised Traveller Encampments
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he offers to the police and local authorities on the removal of unauthorised traveller encampments, with special reference to nuisance to the general public; and if he will make inquiries into the persistence of a rave beginning on 22 June at Borough Hill, Daventry. [1447]
  59W
  Mr. Denham
  Both the police and local authorities have powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to direct travellers or other trespassers to leave land when the appropriate statutory requirements are met. These are discretionary powers and it is the operational responsibility of the chief officer of the force concerned to decide when and how to enforce these powers.

  The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire police informs me that about 1,000 people attended the illegal rave at Borough Hill, which began on Saturday 23 June and lasted until the afternoon of Monday 25 June. I understand that it was not considered practicable in the circumstances to bring the event to a conclusion before Monday. Police have since met with council officials to discuss the problems caused by this event and the strategies needed to be put in place to prevent any recurrence and have held a public meeting with residents to discuss the issues arising from the incident and to reassure them should anything similar happen in the future.

  Victim Personal Statements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implications for the administrative workload of the police of the introduction of victim personal statements. [1248]

  Mr. Denham
  The police, and other criminal justice services, were closely involved in the design of the victim personal statement scheme, and every effort was made to keep the procedures as simple and straightforward as possible for victims and police alike. It is difficult to assess what additional administrative effort may be needed to run the scheme, since factors such as the level of take-up by victims and the nature and content of the statements made will clearly play a part. However, both the introduction of the scheme in October and its subsequent operation will be carefully monitored and evaluated.

  Police Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his proposals for a more professional and effective police service. [1257]

  Mr. Denham
  The police reform programme aims to deliver a modern police service providing the highest standards of detective capability, public reassurance, scientific and technical support, leadership, and modern working practices to secure reductions in crime and in the fear of crime. Discussions are continuing with representative police organisations to determine the best ways of delivering these goals.

  Police effectiveness will be supported by the continuation of the Best Value regime and by the new Standards Unit, for which I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on 25 June 2001, Official Report, column 48W.

  Immigration and Asylum Act
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 will be brought into effect. [1105]
  60W
  Angela Eagle
  The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 does not specify a date by which Part III has to be implemented. While it was not proposed to implement Part III before October 2001, the actual implementation date is currently under review and a final decision has yet to be taken.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Orders have been issued under section 8(4)(d) of the immigration and Asylum Act 1999. [1647]

  Angela Eagle
  The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Part V Exemption: Educational Institutions and Health Sector Bodies) Order (SI 2001 No. 1403) and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Part V Exemption: Eligible Voluntary Bodies and Relevant Employers) Order (SI 2001 No. 1393) have been made under section 84(4)(d) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Both Orders were laid before Parliament on 9 April 2001 and came into force on 30 April 2001.

  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners serving life sentences have a whole life tariff. [1086]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are currently 23 people in custody in England and Wales serving life sentences who have a whole life tariff.

  Hertsmere Borough Council
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to write to the hon. Member for Hertsmere following the meeting on 3 April between the hon. Member for Hertsmere, members of Hertsmere borough council and the former Minister of State for the Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). [3]

  Mr. Denham
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 22 June.

  Coroner System
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to involve representatives of specialist non-governmental organisations in the review of the coroner system; and how he will ensure the participation of NGOs from Northern Ireland in the review. [977]

  Beverley Hughes
  The review will need to take evidence from a wide range of relevant experts and representative bodies. To help with this, it is intended that the review should work with a reference group of appropriate organisations, including non-governmental organisations in Northern Ireland. These are matters which I propose to discuss with the review chair following the appointment which I hope to announce shortly.

  Mr. Cemal Han
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a decision on the citizenship application of Mr. Cemal Han of Keverne Close, Aspley, Nottingham. [1448]
  61W
  Angela Eagle
  I am pleased to say that our inquiries into Mr. Han's citizenship application have been completed and a decision reached. He has been advised of the outcome.

  Re-offenders
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to ensure persistent re-offenders are processed quickly through the penal system. [1180]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government have introduced procedural reforms which were implemented in November 1999, which require that any person (with or without previous convictions) who is charged with an offence must be brought before a magistrates court without delay. As a result the average time from charge to first listing has fallen from 20 days in June 1999 to six days in March 2001. Further action is under way to speed up the progress of cases from their first appearance until completion.

  Under s.51 of the Crime and Disorder Act, which was brought into effect nationally on 15 January 2001, cases involving adults charged with indictable-only offences are no longer subject to committal proceedings but must be sent straight to the Crown court from a first appearance before the magistrates. Although no data are yet available, it is hoped that these serious cases will as a result be brought to trial more quickly.

  In addition, good progress has been made towards halving the time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders: the national average fell from 142 days in 1996 to 83 days in March 2001.

  Football (Disorder) Act
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will report on the operation to date of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [1496]

  Mr. Denham
  A report on the working of the Act in the period 28 August 2000 to 11 June 2001 was laid before Parliament on Wednesday 20 June.

  Sentencing
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the review of sentencing; and if he will make a statement. [1495]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I will publish the report of a review of the sentencing framework for England and Wales shortly.

  Community Policing
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on community policing in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [624]

  Mr. Denham
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) on 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 697. Effective policing depends on the community working together in
  62W
  partnership with the police to fight crime. Community beat officers can provide a vital link between the police and the local community.

  Visitor Visas
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what publicity was given to the implementation of section 1 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, with particular reference to the changes in the administration of visitor visas. [1648]

  Angela Eagle
  At the time of the implementation of section 1 of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act, our diplomatic posts abroad were instructed to seek local publicity to advertise changes to the way entry clearance, which includes visit visas, was to be issued. Detailed guidance was also provided to all our diplomatic posts in the form of leaflets and posters which were to be displayed prominently in all visa sections. Leaflets were also produced for insertion into the passports of those applying for entry clearance.

  Police Response Times
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) guidance and (b) targets he gives to police authorities for the time taken to respond to (i) 999 calls and (ii) other calls. [1651]

  Mr. Denham
  Police authorities are not issued with national guidance or targets for responding to calls for assistance. Under best value, they should set local targets for answering 999 calls and for attending incidents requiring an immediate response. Police authorities report their performance against these targets at the end of each financial year in their annual policing/best value performance plans.

  Special Advisers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the special advisers in his Department together with their date of appointment and their responsibilities; which of them are authorised to speak to the media; and if he will make a statement. [247]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The number of special advisers working for me has been increased by 0.5 of a full-time post compared with the number working for me in the pre-election period. This, as with the arrangements between 1997 and 2001, reflects the particular circumstances of my position and also the extent of written work associated with my present post. Nick Pearce, Katharine Raymond and Sophie Linden (part-time) took up their appointments as special advisers on 8 June. I am also appointing Huw Evans, who will join the Department shortly. As part of their duties they will brief the media as appropriate.

  With the transfer of the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit from the Cabinet Office, Keith Hellawell will be joining the Home Office on special adviser terms.

  Drugs (Stafford)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for the evaluation of the drug treatment and testing pilot project at Stafford. [14]
  63W
  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office is at an advanced stage of negotiation with a research consultancy company to undertake the evaluation of the new drug-testing provisions in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The evaluation will cover Stafford and the other two pilot sites of Nottingham and Hackney.

  Investigatory Powers Tribunal
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for the appointment of members of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal under section 65 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [1965]

  Mr. Blunkett
  On 4 June 2001 Her Majesty appointed Sir John Pringle to serve as a Member of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal for a period of five years.

TREASURY

  NIRS2
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the problems with the NIRS2 computer system to be resolved. [363]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him and the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 409W.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the total cost of the work that will be needed fully to rectify the problems with the NIRS2 computer system; [362]

  (2) if he will estimate the total cost of the work that has so far been carried out to rectify the problems with the NIRS2 computer system. [361]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The delay in the implementation of NIRS2 caused arrears of work in both the Inland Revenue and the then Department of Social Security. These arrears are being managed through a recovery plan that has been developed by both Departments and continue to be cleared as quickly as possible.

  Estimated additional operational costs up to March 2001 are £40.4 million. It is not possible accurately to estimate the future costs until the backlog of cases has been cleared.

  Child Care
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate his Department has made of the number of families with children up to(a) three years old and (b) five years old who are eligible to receive the childcare tax credit; [937]

  (2) how many families with children up to (a) three years old and (b) five years old (i) receive child benefit and (ii) are in receipt of the childcare tax credit; and what was the annual cost in the last year for which figures are available. [936]
  64W
  Dawn Primarolo
  At November 2000, 50,000 families with a child up to three years old were receiving the childcare tax credit within Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit. The total extra payment to these families due to the childcare tax credit was £2.2 million per week. 85,000 families with a child up to five years old were receiving the childcare tax credit. The total extra payment to these families was £3.5 million per week.

  I understand from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development that, at November 2000, 2.0 million families with a child up to three years old were receiving child benefit totalling £30.8 million per week, and 2.7 million families with a child up to five years old were receiving £45.6 million per week.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further action he is taking to establish a central support organisation for credit unions; and if he will make a statement. [930]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 14 March 2001,Official Report, column 654W.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people of pensionable age lived in(a) England and Wales, (b) the county of Essex and (c) the boroughs of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea in each year from 1995 to 2000 inclusive. [1067]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Alan Hurst, dated 2 July 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the number of people of pensionable age living in England and Wales, the County of Essex, and the Boroughs of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea in each year from 1995 to 2000 (inclusive). (1067)
  Attached is a table showing the information requested from mid-1995 to mid-1999, which is the most recent year for which a population estimate is available. The population estimate for mid-2000 will be available on the National Statistics website on 23 August 2001.

  Mid-year estimate of people of pensionable age in selected areas, mid-1995 to mid-1999

  Thousand

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  England and Wales

  9,490.7

  9,504.8

  9,521.8

  9,553.7

  9,574.5

  County of Essex1

  238.6

  240.9

  243.4

  246.5

  248.6

  Southend-on-Sea

  37.1

  36.6

  36.5

  36.2

  36.2

  Thurrock

  19.9

  19.8

  19.8

  19.8

  20.0

  1 Data for County of Essex are on a consistent basis for all years and do not include Southend and Thurrock. This reflects the local government reorganisation which took effect from 1 April 1998

  Note:

  Pensionable age is 60 years and over for women, 65 years and over for men

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Crown Copyright 2000

  Hospices
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received from the hospice movement about the taxation it pays; and if he will make a statement; [1040]

  (2) what changes would need to be made to the constitutional framework of hospices for them not to qualify for the payment of VAT. [1043]

  Mr. Boateng
  The care services of a hospice are not chargeable with VAT. Charitable hospices benefit from a number of specific VAT reliefs on purchases which they make but, in accordance with the basic principles of VAT, they cannot recover VAT paid on purchases relating to the their VAT exempt or "non-business" activity. This issue was considered in response to representations from hospices and other charities during the recent Review of Charity Taxation.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the liability of hospices for VAT; and if he will make a statement. [1345]

  Mr. Boateng
  Representations were received from hospices at the time of the review of charity taxation. The care services of a hospice are not chargeable with VAT. Charitable hospices benefit from a number of specific VAT reliefs on purchases they make but, in accordance with the basic principles of VAT, they cannot recover VAT paid on purchases relating to their VAT exempt or "non-business" activity.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much, and what proportion, of the income of hospices in each of the past 10 years is derived from(a) charitable giving and (b) Government sources; [1042]

  (2) how much income he received in VAT receipts from hospices in each of the past 10 years; [1039]

  (3) what calculation he has made of the amount of money that the hospice movement saves the National Health Service because of its fund-raising efforts. [1041]

  Mr. Boateng
  Government Departments have no centrally gathered information available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the total cost of tax relief on employers' contributions to pensions was in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 1999–2000; [1138]

  (2) what was the cost of employers' tax relief on (a) defined benefit pension schemes in the public sector, (b) defined benefit occupational pension schemes in the private sector, (c) defined contribution schemes in the private sector and (d) group personal pension schemes, where made; [1139]

  (3) what was the total cost of tax relief on employee contributions in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 to (a) defined benefit occupational pension schemes in the public sector, (b) defined benefit occupational pension schemes in the private sector, (c) defined contribution occupational pension schemes, (d) group personal pension plans,
  66W
  (e) additional voluntary contributions and (f) free-standing additional voluntary contributions at (i) the standard rate and (ii) the higher rate of tax; [1140]

  (4) what the total cost of tax reliefs on pension contributions was in (a)2000–01 and (b)1999–2000. [1137]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information that is available and can be supplied without disproportionate cost is given in the table.

  £ million

  Cost of tax relief for:

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total contributions to approved schemes

  14,100

  15,400

  Employers' contributions to occupational pension schemes

  7,500

  8,100

  Employers' contributions to personal pensions

  450

  460

  VAT Theft
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue is estimated to be lost to the Treasury every year because of VAT theft. [1267]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are no estimates relating specifically to the revenue lost every year because of VAT theft.

  Climate Change Levy
  David Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much VAT revenue he forecasts will be raised in the current financial year as a result of the introduction of the climate change levy and consequent application of VAT. [1168]

  Mr. Boateng
  Business will be able to reclaim the majority of VAT paid on the Climate Change Levy (CCL). We estimate therefore that the introduction of the CCL might lead to additional VAT receipts of around £30 million, significantly below the £1 billion expected to be raised by the levy in the first year. All revenues from the CCL will be recycled back to business through a 0.3 percentage point cut in employers' national insurance contributions and additional support for energy-efficient measures and energy-saving technologies.

  Aggregates Tax
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government plan to make separate provision for(a) Scotland, (b) Wales, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) England in respect of the application of the aggregates tax. [864]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government currently have no such plans, although they will continue to assess the implications of the application of the aggregates levy.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the British Aggregates Association in connection with the impact of the aggregates tax. [862]

  Mr. Boateng
  The British Aggregates Association has made a number of representations on the aggregates levy.
  67W
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the aggregates tax upon each local authority in the United Kingdom in respect of the cost of purchasing aggregates for construction and maintenance work; [860]

  (2) what impact the aggregates tax will have on actual costs to the end user; [861]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of the imposition of the aggregates tax from April 2002 on (a) the importation of aggregates, (b) the number of small quarries and (c) the use of road transport for transportation of aggregates. [863]

  Mr. Boateng
  Budget 2000 announced that the Government had decided to introduce an aggregates levy with effect from April 2002. It will be charged at £1.60 per tonne on the commercial exploitation of primary aggregates in the UK, including those imported from abroad. Aggregates exported from the UK will be exempt.

  A full Regulatory Impact Assessment was published at the time of Budget 2000.

  A higher price of primary aggregate will provide an incentive to all users, including the public sector, to make more efficient use of aggregates and better use of recycled aggregates as an alternative. The impact on the actual costs to the end user will be dependent on the commercial decisions of aggregates suppliers.

  Euro
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the latest date is by which his Department will complete its assessment of the five economic tests for UK membership of the euro; and if he will make a statement. [1346]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will complete another assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the technical work which is necessary before an assessment of the five economic tests for British entry into the euro is started; who will carry out this preliminary technical work in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [1347]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will complete another assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  Before any such assessment is started, the Treasury must continue to do the necessary preliminary work for the analysis—technical work that is necessary to allow the Treasury to undertake the assessment within two years as promised.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the policy of his Department is on the reforms of the European Central Bank that would be needed before the UK could join the euro; and if he will make a statement. [1348]

  Ruth Kelly
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2001,Official Report, column 59W, on the Financial Services Authority, for what reason it is inappropriate to comment during the investigation into the Independent Insurance Co. [1446]

  Ruth Kelly
  Any comment made on an investigation prior to its conclusion may well prejudice the investigation.

  It is not usual to comment on the conduct of an investigation until a decision has been made on whether to institute proceedings or not. This is both to protect the investigation and those who are the subject of it.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Corporal Anthony Green
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the outcome was of the investigation into the shooting of Corporal Anthony Green on 25 January. [1134]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) has retained jurisdiction over the investigation into the death of Corporal Anthony Green in Northern Ireland. The case was referred to the Director of Public Prosecution for Northern Ireland (the DPP) in May 2001 for direction on the possibility of any charges being made in relation to the incident.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Funding (West Midlands)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much support the Arts Council provided for projects within each west midlands local authority in each of the last three years. [354]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Arts Council of England provides both grant in aid and Lottery funds to West Midlands Arts Board to act as the arts development and funding agency in the west midlands region. The table shows the allocation of grant in aid funding for arts organisations and individual artists within County, Metropolitan, Shire County and unitary authorities over the last three years (1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01). Figures for 2000–01 are a draft subject to final audited accounts to be published by West Midlands Arts in October 2001.

  West Midlands Arts funding to arts organisations and individual artists in west midlands local authorities

  £

  1998–99

  West midlands metropolitan area

  Birmingham

  1,861,451

  Coventry

  679,750

  Dudley

  13,085

  Sandwell

  124,790

  Solihull

  9,000

  69W

  West Midlands Arts funding to arts organisations and individual artists in west midlands local authorities

  £

  Walsall

  39,200

  Wolverhampton

  96,170

  Total metropolitan area

  2,823,446

  Shropshire county

  Bridgnorth

  10,000

  Oswestry

  3,070

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  54,180

  South Shropshire

  150,455

  Telford and Wrekin

  4,800

  Total

  222,505

  Hereford and Worcestershire county

  Bromsgrove

  4,500

  Hereford

  113,749

  Malvern Hills

  68,401

  Worcester

  236,045

  Wychavon

  12,000

  Wyre Forest

  3,300

  Total

  437,995

  Staffordshire

  Cannock Chase

  7,000

  East Staffordshire

  36,500

  Lichfield

  18,800

  Newcastle under Lyme

  519,688

  Stafford

  42,875

  Stoke on Trent

  44,310

  Tamworth

  5,500

  Total

  674,673

  Warwickshire

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  700

  Stratford upon Avon

  4,731

  County

  100,685

  Total

  106,116

  Out of region

  300

  Total shire counties

  1,441,289

  Total metropolitan

  2,823,446

  Regional

  1,349,210

  Total grant aid

  5,614,245

  1999–2000

  West midlands metropolitan area

  Metropolitan

  76,480

  Birmingham

  2,263,657

  Coventry

  807,375

  Dudley

  28,835

  Sandwell

  122,960

  Solihull

  20,655

  Walsall

  199,418

  Wolverhampton

  84,185

  Total metropolitan area

  3,603,565

  Shropshire county

  Shropshire county

  93,103

  Bridgnorth

  11,225

  Oswestry

  3,240

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  49,993

  South Shropshire

  51,434

  Total

  208,995

  Telford and Wrekin

  Telford and Wrekin

  23,060

  Total

  23,060

  70W

  West Midlands Arts funding to arts organisations and individual artists in west midlands local authorities

  £

  Herefordshire

  Herefordshire

  129,875

  Total

  129,875

  Worcestershire county

  Worcestershire county

  198,000

  Bromsgrove

  10,850

  Malvern Hills

  19,150

  Worcester City

  34,950

  Wychavon

  9,202

  Wyre Forest

  16,500

  Total

  288,652

  Staffordshire

  Staffordshire

  312,250

  Cannock Chase

  4,655

  East Staffordshire

  35,694

  Lichfield

  16,285

  Newcastle under Lyme

  15,605

  Stafford

  3,950

  Tamworth

  11,595

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  16,400

  South Staffordshire

  4,850

  North Staffordshire

  2,850

  Total

  424,134

  Stoke on Trent

  Stoke on Trent

  307,540

  Total

  307,540

  Warwickshire

  Warwickshire

  52,500

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  11,240

  Stratford upon Avon

  16,445

  Warwick

  41,596

  Rugby

  14,840

  North Warwickshire

  3,000

  139,621

  Total non metropolitan

  1,521,877

  Total metropolitan

  3,603,565

  Regional

  1,419,603

  Total grant aid

  6,545,045

  2000–01

  West midlands metropolitan area

  Metropolitan

  —

  Birmingham

  5,223,600

  Coventry

  874,287

  Dudley

  42,477

  Sandwell

  196,972

  Solihull

  45,736

  Walsall

  544,909

  Wolverhampton

  134,071

  Total metropolitan area

  7,062,052

  Shropshire county

  Shropshire county

  81,115

  Bridgnorth

  10,950

  Oswestry

  160

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  35,213

  South Shropshire

  155,581

  Total

  283,019

  71W

  West Midlands Arts funding to arts organisations and individual artists in west midlands local authorities

  £

  Telford and Wrekin

  Telford and Wrekin

  57,145

  Total

  57,145

  Herefordshire

  Herefordshire

  267,067

  Total

  267,067

  Worcestershire county

  Worcestershire county

  230,279

  Bromsgrove

  7,858

  Malvem Hills

  3,860

  Worcester City

  39,413

  Wychavon

  12,550

  Wyre Forest

  4,000

  Total

  297,960

  Staffordshire

  Staffordshire

  38,869

  Cannock Chase

  11,000

  East Staffordshire

  57,724

  Lichfield

  21,365

  Newcastle under Lyme

  31,335

  Stafford

  12,170

  Tamworth

  15,100

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  23,122

  South Staffordshire

  9,500

  North Staffordshire

  —

  Total

  220,185

  Stoke on Trent

  Stoke on Trent

  578,070

  Total

  578,070

  Warwickshire

  Warwickshire

  100,482

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  25,165

  Stratford upon Avon

  24,095

  Warwick

  19,230

  Rugby

  16,750

  North Warwickshire

  6,001

  Total

  191,723

  Total non metropolitan

  1,895,168

  Total metropolitan

  7,062,052

  Regional

  934,838

  Total grant aid

  9,892,058

  Notes:

  Grant-in-aid has been allocated, wherever possible, to the local authority benefiting from the grant; where a grant benefits more than one local authority the amount has been apportioned. Grants benefiting more than one local authority but which cannot be apportioned exactly between authorities are classified as County, Metropolitan Regional, or Shire County areas, or Regional grants as appropriate.

  Allocation by local authority has a wider benefit as audiences and participants are often drawn from several counties, both within and outside the west midlands region.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the future of Wembley Stadium. [107]
  72W
  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 June 2001, Official Report, column 37W, to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall).

  Lottery Funding (Films)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list those films which have received National Lottery funding to date indicating(a) how much National Lottery funding they received, (b) their total budgets and (c) their box office takings. [731]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Details of box office receipts are not kept separately as they are only one form of income for film, and change as films are released in new territories and re-released. I have today placed the information requested in respect of Lottery awards made in England and Wales in the Library of the House. I will write to the hon. Member in due course about awards made in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Archaeological Sites and Monuments
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to place a statutory duty on local authorities to maintain records of archaeological sites and monuments. [101]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: I have no such plans. The Government are, however, giving constructive consideration to the recommendation made by English Heritage in its report "Power of Place" that Historic Environment Record Centres should be established, and that electronic access to such records should be made widely available.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to introduce legislation to permit English Heritage to undertake overseas assignments. [92]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The Government remain fully committed to enabling English Heritage to undertake overseas assignments. There are always great demands on parliamentary time, but we will seek to implement appropriate measures at the earliest opportunity.

  Live Entertainment Licences
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to reform the law governing the licensing of live entertainment. [82]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Our proposals for reforming the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws were published in the White Paper "Time for Reform" (Cm 4696) in April last year. In May this year, following a public consultation, the Government confirmed their intention to legislate to introduce these proposed reforms, with one change concerning the procedure for appealing against adverse licensing decisions. We remain fully committed to bringing forward legislation to reform the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Analogue Television
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the timetable for the proposed switch-off of analogue television. [86]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The Government will maintain analogue terrestrial broadcasts until everyone who can currently receive the main public service broadcasting channels in analogue form can receive them on digital systems, switching to digital is an affordable option for the vast majority of people, and, as a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers have access to digital equipment. We are committed to develop a strategic plan which will lead the UK to meet these criteria on affordability, availability and accessibility within the period 2006 and 2010.

  School Sports Co-ordinators
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list those schools which have to date benefited from the work of school sports coordinators. [122]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The schools which have school sports co-ordinators are:

  Phase 1

  Stockwell Park School

  Archbishop Tennison's CE School

  Charles Edward Brooke CE School

  London Nautical School

  Ashton on Mersey School

  Stretford High School

  Lostock High School

  Broadoak High School

  Moorside High School

  All Hallows R.C. High School

  Boston Spa Comprehensive School

  Wetherby High School

  John Smeaton Community High School

  Agnes Stewart C. of E. High School

  Lawnswood High School

  West Oaks Special School

  St. Johns School for the Deaf

  Falmouth Community School

  Camborne School and Community College

  Humphry Davy School

  Mounts Bay School

  Cape Cornwall School

  Pool School and Community College

  Redntth Community School

  Bodmin Community College

  Treviglas Community College

  The Roseland Community School

  Newquay Tretherras School

  Liskeard School and Community College

  Launceston College

  Looe Community School

  Sir James Smith's Community School

  St. Joseph's R.C. High School and Sports College

  Withins School

  Thornleigh Salesian College

  74W

  Firwood SLD

  St. Brendans R.C. Primary School

  Brookfield High School

  Halewood Community School

  St. Edmunds of Canterbury

  Prescot School

  All Saints High School

  Manor School and Sports College

  Holgate Comprehensive

  Meded Comprehensive

  Dukeries Community College

  Tuxford Comprehensive School

  Rawmarsh Sports College

  Wath Comprehensive

  Swinton Comprehensive

  Pope Pius Comprehensive

  Wingfield Comprehensive

  Lancaster School

  Moat Community College

  Fullhurst Community College

  Riverside Community College

  Ellesmere College

  Wright Robinson Sports College

  St. Peters R.C. High School

  Varna Street Primary School

  Cedar Mount School

  William Parker School

  Fisham Valley

  Grove

  Helenswood

  William Parker

  Hillcrest

  Saxon Mount

  King James Community School

  Wolsingham Comprehensive

  Parkside Comprehensive

  Bishop Barrington Comprehensive

  St. Johns R.C. Comprehensive

  Benfield School

  Denton Park Middle School

  Chevyside Middle School

  Chapel Park Middle School

  Firfield/West Denton Amalgamation School

  West Gate Community College

  Archbishop Beck Catholic High School

  Childwall CC School

  Shorefields CC School

  Bellerive R.C. High School

  Langdon School

  St. Angela's R.C. School

  St. Bonaventure's R.C. School

  Forest Community School

  Brampton Manor School

  St. Marys Catholic Comprehensive School

  Green Meadows Special School

  Guiseley School

  Horsforth School

  Prince Henry's Grammar School

  Birmingham Education Services

  75W

  Waverley

  Hodge Hill Mixed

  St. Albans

  Saltley

  James Brindley

  Yardley

  Hodge Hill Girls

  Bordsley Green Girls

  St. Paul's Community

  Aston Manor

  St. Pauls Girls

  Handsworth Girls School

  King Edwards Handsworth Girls

  Mayfield Special School

  Holte School

  Holyhead School

  St. John Wall

  Southfields Community College

  Ernest Bevin College

  Elliot School

  Graveney School

  Burntwood School

  Battersea Technology College

  ADT

  Manor High School

  Woodensborough High School

  Menzies High School

  Stuart Bathurst R.C. High School

  St. Michaels High School

  Tividale High School

  Abraham Guest Sports College

  Bedford High School

  West Leigh High School

  Mornington High School

  Rose Bridge High School

  Northfield School

  Abbey Hill School

  Bishopgarth School

  Blakeston School

  The Norton School

  Alfred Barrow

  Park View

  St. Bernard's R.C.

  Thorncliffe

  Walney

  Dowdales

  Millom

  Wyndham

  Ehenside

  Whitehaven, St. Benedicts

  Southfield Technology College

  St. Joseph's R.C. High

  Stainburn

  Netherhall

  Solway Community

  Beacon Hill

  Biddick Sports College

  Hylton Red House Comprehensive

  Pennywell

  Felstead Special Educational Needs School

  76W

  Moreton Community School

  The Northicote

  Our Lady and St. Chad R.C.

  Pendeford High School

  Penn Hall Special School

  Phase 2

  Alumwell School

  Brownhills School

  Blue Coat Church of England

  Sneyd Community School

  The Coseley School

  The Pensnett School of Technology

  Hillcrest School and Community College

  Redhill School

  Peters Hill Primary School

  Whickham Sports College

  Hookergate School

  Joseph Swan School

  Ryton Comprehensive School

  St. Edmund Campion R.C School

  The Cedars School

  St. Wilfrids Catholic High School

  Savio Catholic High School

  Bootle High School

  Manor High School

  Chesterfield High School

  Laurence Jackson School

  Freebrough College from merger of De Brus, Rosecroft, Warsett

  Huntcliff School

  Kilton Thorpe School

  Wyvern Community School

  Broadoak Community School

  Priory Community School

  Worle Community School

  Churchill Community School

  Gordano Community School

  Failsworth School

  Breezehill

  Grange

  The Hathershaw Technology College

  Kaskenmoor School

  Radclyffe School

  St. Benedict's Catholic College

  Cheltenham Bournside School

  Balcarras School

  Cheltenham Kingsmead School

  Pittville School

  Pates Grammer School

  Bettridge

  Belmont School

  King Edward VII School

  The Park High School

  Spring wood High School

  St. Clements High School

  Marshland High School

  Angley School-a sports college

  The Astor of Hever School

  Cranbrook School

  Homewood School

  Tunbridge Wells High School

  77W

  Sacred Heart School

  St. Saviours and St. Olaves School

  Aylwin Girls School

  Brookway High School and Sports College

  Parklands School

  St. Pauls R.C. High School

  Newall Green School

  Piper Hill School

  Tong School

  Yorkshire Martyrs

  The Grange School

  Bradford Cathedral Community College

  Buttershaw High School

  Dorothy Stringer High School

  Patcham High School

  Portslade Community College

  Falmer School.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many school sports co-ordinators have been appointed; and if she will make a statement. [121]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Under Phases 1 and 2 of the scheme, 195 co-ordinators in 48 partnerships of schools are currently in place. When Phase 3 starts in September this year there will be 345 co-ordinators in 78 partnerships in place.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the annual budget of the schools sports co-ordinator programme; and what has been the expenditure to date. [123]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: There is no set annual budget for the programme. Sport England has allocated £30 million and the New Opportunities Fund £25.5 million of National Lottery money to the scheme. Sport England's grant in aid allocation for the years 2001–02 to 2003–04 includes a total of £60 million of additional funding earmarked specifically for the scheme in order to ensure that there are 1,000 co-ordinators in place by 2004. So far Sport England has committed a total of £13.60 million of Lottery funding to Phases 1 and 2.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the UK Sports Institute. [124]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Good progress is being made in the establishment of facilities and delivery of services to our top athletes. Centres in Scotland and Wales are now operational; the English Institute is developing apace and work on the Northern Ireland Institute will begin soon.

  The UKSI is beginning to provide our best sportsmen and women with world-class facilities and a higher standard of co-ordinated support services than the UK has ever had before. This will complement the support already being provided through World Class funding.

  The Government remain committed to the development of the United Kingdom Sports Institute (UKSI), which should be fully operational by the end of 2002.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to ensure platform diversity for the delivery of digital television services. [87]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The Government have set out in their White Paper "A New Future for Communications" their proposals for the sector, including how to ensure a competitive environment for the delivery of digital television services across platforms and the availability of public service channels on all main platforms.

  Ealing Studios
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the future of Ealing Studios. [118]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: The Ealing Film Studios are privately owned and future ownership is therefore a commercial matter. Nonetheless, the Government welcome the fact that the studios, which are an important part of our film heritage, are to undergo a £50 million refit.

  Licensing Laws
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to introduce legislation to reform the liquor licensing laws.[648]

  Dr. Howells
  We remain fully committed to bringing forward legislation to reform the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will place in the Library copies of the correspondence received by her Department from Sport England about the funding of the Commonwealth Games in Manchester 2002. [1343]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department regularly discusses issues of sports policy with Sport England and these discussions—including exchanges of correspondence—are carried out on the understanding that they are in confidence and will not be divulged.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what advice she has received about the proposed funding of the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester; [1341]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the adequacy of funding arrangements for the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester; [1340]

  (3) what representations she has received from Manchester 2002 Ltd. and Manchester City Council about the funding of the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester. [1342]

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement about the 2002 Commonwealth Games. [2198]
  79W
  Tessa Jowell
  The Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002 will be the biggest multi-sport event ever held in the United Kingdom. They will leave a lasting sporting, economic and social legacy.

  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office explained, in evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on 20 March 2001, that Manchester City Council, with the Government, had arranged a review of the finances and organisation of the Commonwealth Games in Manchester next year as a build up to the Games moves from the planning to the implementation phase.

  Following the review, conscious of the benefits the Games will bring to the nation as a whole, the Government have agreed to provide from existing resources up to £30 million to support the Games. Sport England has agreed to provide up to £30 million to support the Games' costs in addition to its existing contribution to capital facilities, and Manchester City Council will make available a further £35 million. £25 million of these funds will be held jointly by the three parties as a contingency fund. This support is additional to the £10.5 million which the Government have already made available towards the costs of the opening and closing ceremonies for the Commonwealth Games, and marks the full extent of the financial support that the Government are prepared to make available.

  The Government consider that this package should give the Games' organisation sufficient certainty to deliver the Games. Manchester City Council continues to retain ultimate financial responsibility for the Games.

  Discussions continue about the make up and timing of the package of financial support. The Government, Manchester City Council and Sport England will working with the Games' organisers so strengthen the management arrangements for the control of expenditure.

  Athletics Stadium
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects Sport England to make a further announcement about the feasibility of a new national athletics stadium at Picketts Lock. [1753]

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the plans for staging the World Athletics Championships in 2005. [2083]

  Tessa Jowell
  Sport England have concluded that they are not able yet to provide lottery funding to develop the Lee Valley National Athletics Centre and have asked 80W
  Patrick Carter, who is conducting the review of the national stadium project, to carry out a separate review of the project with the following terms of reference:
  "In the light of the Government's manifesto commitment to ensure that a first-class athletics stadium is available for the World Athletics Championships in 2005, to assess whether the Lee Valley National Athletics Centre project can be funded and managed in its current format and if not, what alternatives might be feasible. The review should report its findings within seven weeks."

  Picketts Lock
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects the athletics facility at Picketts Lock to be completed; and if she will make a statement. [102]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: Sport England have concluded that they are not able yet to provide lottery funding to develop the Lee Valley National Athletics Centre and have asked Patrick Carter, who is conducting the review of the national stadium project, to carry out a separate review of the project with the following terms of reference:
  "In the light of the Government's manifesto commitment to ensure that a first-class athletics stadium is available for the World Athletics Championships in 2005, to assess whether the Lee Valley National Athletics Centre project can be funded and managed in its current format and if not, what alternatives might be feasible. The review should report its findings within seven weeks."

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regional Government
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to publish a White Paper on regional governance. [2197]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Our manifesto committed us to making provision for directly elected regional government in regions where people decide in a referendum to support it and where predominantly unitary local government is established. The Prime Minister has asked me to be responsible for a White Paper on Regional Governance, in close liaison with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and in co-operation with other Cabinet colleagues. I will present the White Paper to Parliament as soon as it is ready.

  Lord Ashcroft
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what date his Department received a request for documents under the Data Protection Act 1998 from Lord Ashcroft; and on what date his Department replied to the request. [1001]

  Mr. Leslie
  Under the non-disclosure provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 it is not appropriate to disclose personal data except to the individual concerned.

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

Lord Chan
Michael Chew Koon Chan, Esquire, MBE, having been created Baron Chan, of Oxton in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Dholakia and the Lord Parekh.

Lord Clark of Windermere
The Right Honourable David George Clark, having been created Baron Clark of Windermere, of Windermere in the County of Cumbria, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Carter and the Lord Hardy of Wath.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Football World Cup: Television Coverage
2.50 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblaneasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to ensure that the football matches of the World Cup finals are available to viewers on a free to air basis on terrestrial television.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the whole of the World Cup finals tournament is a listed event under Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996. Under that legislation the Independent Television Commission will ensure that a non-free to air broadcaster—or a free to air broadcaster which covers less than 95 per cent of the population—can show any part of the tournament live only if a free to air broadcaster with at least 95 per cent coverage had either acquired similar rights or been given the opportunity to do so on fair and reasonable terms.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She is, of course, aware that for the first time the rights for the World Cup have been won not by the EBU but by a private organisation which has indicated recently that it intends to hold an auction of those rights in the UK. That organisation, Kirch, has further indicated that it is taking the UK Government to the European Court of First Instance because it regards the listing of all 64 matches as unreasonable. In those circumstances is the Minister confident that we have sufficient statutory backing for the ITC to enforce government policy in this matter?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I reassure my noble friend that the Government are confident that they do have sufficient legal backing. His comments contained one inaccuracy. Kirch, the media organisation that purchased the rights from FIFA, is not taking the UK Government but rather the Commission to the European Court. However, we and the ITC have made Kirch and potential UK broadcasters fully aware of the extent of our legislation and the ITC's code on listed events. That should be sufficient to guarantee that the legislation is adhered to.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if neither England nor Scotland qualify for the finals of the World Cup in 2002, under the arrangements that exist at present with the German organisation Kirch it is likely that terrestrial viewers in Britain will see no more than four matches out or all those played? Will the noble Baroness make clear that the ITC is able to insist that the rights for free-to-view broadcasting will be retained with regard to the United Kingdom even if not elsewhere in the European Union?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, what my noble friend says is not entirely accurate. I understand that the BBC and ITV have bid jointly for the rights to broadcast the whole of the World Cup series and not just the final and semi-final.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, will the Minster agree that great sports are no longer able to be seen on terrestrial television? For example, the British Lions matches and Test matches are not available to the British public as they once were. Does the noble Baroness agree that that is not a good thing?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as a sports fan I am all in favour of as many of these events as possible being shown on terrestrial television and available to as many people as possible. However, as my noble friend is aware, a number of the major events are listed. Perhaps my noble friend is a rugby fan and wishes to watch the British Lions. In 1998 the previous government extended for the first time to Rugby Union football, although not the British Lions, listed coverage. It is now possible to see, for example, the Rugby Union World Cup. It is on list B.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is it not a fact that those who administer those sports would rather take the fast buck of pay-to-view television than make the sports a national, shared experience? However, they will be the long-term losers. Will the noble Baroness clarify the point about the rights being on fair terms? Who defines the fair terms? If the terms are not fair, will the British Government block pay-to-view television in this country? It would be unacceptable for terrestrial television to pay through the nose, distorting their finances. Although it would be a shame, but not a national disaster, not to get the World Cup rights, it would be a national disaster to pay through the nose.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's tenor. I understand that the BBC and ITV have

621
put in a renewed bid. They wish to negotiate with Kirch, the media company which holds the rights. They have offered somewhat more. However, I understand that they do not intend to increase their bid any further. They wait to hear from Kirch. It is possible that Kirch will want to proceed to an auction. I understand that it is very unlikely that any non-terrestrial company will want to bid in that auction.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I understand that in 1996 Kirch bought the rights for the 2002 and 2006 World Cup matches. Since 1998 negotiations have taken place between it and the BBC and ITV. Is the Minister aware of any progress on similar negotiations with other members of the EU? Surely we could get together and try not to be bullied into what has been suggested.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I confirm that Kirch purchased these rights from FIFA a few years ago; I am not sure whether the precise date was 1996. The noble Lord makes a good point about the possibility of getting in touch with other terrestrial broadcasting organisations in other European Union countries. I shall see what the position is on that.

NHS: Private Sector Involvement
2.58 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What evaluation of past, and expected future, benefits of private sector involvement in the National Health Service they intend to conduct.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government's policy is that where evaluations demonstrate value for money for the NHS and the taxpayer, the private sector will be involved through, first, the provision of facilities and certain support services to the NHS through the private finance initiative and other forms of public/private partnerships; and, secondly, the concordat with the voluntary and independent sectors under which NHS patients will receive clinical treatment free of charge, where appropriate in terms of cost and quality.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. What evaluation is taking place? What services are proposed? The general secretary of the TGWU recently described the Government's policies as a cocktail of policy confusion. The IPPR has cast considerable doubt on the value of PFI for the NHS. The Minister is responsible for performance and quality in the NHS. Clinical doctors are required to evaluate their actions in terms of evidence-based medicine. If the Government do not have a proper system of evaluation, are there not double standards?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course we have a proper system of evaluation. Every PFI scheme has to demonstrate that it is providing value for money. That is underpinned by the work of the National Audit Office.
On the general issue, it is clear that core clinical services will be provided and will be mainstream NHS services. However, in some instances the expertise of private partners can help the NHS to deliver expanded and improved services. That is the context in which we are taking the policy forward.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that public/private partnerships remove some of the more ridiculous examples of restrictive practices in the NHS? Spanish nurses, who are sometimes employed in this country, have different skills from English nurses—and in some cases greater skills; for example, their Spanish qualification allows them to administer intravenous drips, but that is not the case in England. Furthermore, when English nurses in English hospitals qualify to do that locally, they have to get approval from London, even though they have been given approval by the local doctor in the hospital concerned.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, foreign nurses would be employed directly by the National Health Service, because they would be part of the core services that we offer. The recruitment of nurses from Spain and other countries has been very successful and has gone down very well with patients. The protocols under which those nurses operate must be agreed by the National Health Service as a whole, underpinned by clinical governance within every NHS organisation. I certainly accept that we need to do all that we can to encourage nurses to take on a greater clinical responsibility if they have been trained to do so.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the right honourable Neil Kinnock is reported today as saying that the Government are moving dangerously towards a privatised National Health Service? Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on Mr Kinnock's suggestion that we should consider ring-fencing certain taxation for the National Health Service.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I reiterate that the NHS will continue to be a core service that is publicly financed and in which the core clinical services will be provided by directly employed NHS doctors and nurses. There is no suggestion that we are going down the route of which my noble friend is fearful. We are seeking to use the expertise of the private sector when appropriate, but at no risk to the core values of our beloved National Health Service.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what is the position of dentistry, which the Minister does not mention as a core service? Why is there no core National Health Service treatment available to patients in London and in most of the high-cost cities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that the Government published a strategy on dentistry 12 months ago, which is designed as a foundation for ensuring that NHS patients who require NHS dentistry receive it. At the moment, many dentists provide NHS services and private dental care. We are seeking to encourage greater provision of NHS services. We are in fruitful discussions with the British Dental Association. I am sure that the opening up of dental access centres and commitment payments to "incentivise" dentists will enable us to provide those services to the public when they require them.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend return to the issue of core values and value for money? Is the involvement of the private sector a short-term policy? If there were a comparison in the longer term with the ability of the public sector to provide those services, would it still be considered value for money?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we clearly need to take a long-term view when comparing a publicly financed NHS project and a private finance project. The history of the NHS developing its own capital programme is full of stop/start projects because of the vagaries of public finance, with the second and third phases of many hospitals never being built. Where a private finance initiative scheme is shown to be value for money, we can ensure that it will be completed on time and that there will not be the traditional delays. I am satisfied that we are promoting effective public/private partnerships in which the patient gains.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the issue is not purely financial and that to leave it entirely to the National Audit Office to advise on the evaluation of such projects is not satisfactory, because there is a political dimension? Will the Government involve wide sections of public opinion outside the National Health Service in the evaluation, including the trade unions?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are in the process of developing the largest capital building programme that this country has ever known, with 100 new hospitals. Private finance is one of the ways in which we are going to deliver that. Of course we want dialogue with the public and the staff. We constantly have such dialogue and we shall continue to do so. However, I think that the public would sign up to the proposals if they realised that they could deliver 100 new hospitals.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is highly necessary in the national interest that the Government's intentions on the issue should be as detailed as possible and available to the public as quickly as possible? There should be a full debate in Parliament about exactly what is involved in the generalities of definition that the Government have so far given.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall be happy to debate the issues with my noble friend if he cares to table an Unstarred Question at some stage. The Government's intent is clear. We have said that the NHS will continue to provide core services. We shall use the private sector where it has expertise to enable us to develop and expand services more quickly than we can at present.

Security Services Group
3.7 p.m.
Lord Burnhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will provide further information about the Security Services Group and why it is proposed that responsibility for that group should be moved from the Cabinet Office to the Ministry of Defence.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the Security Services Group is an organisation of about 120 staff who design, install and maintain security systems for the Government, the public sector and private sector customers. It is part of a former executive agency of the Cabinet Office, but it no longer has significant links with any other Cabinet Office activity. The Prime Minister concluded that it made good management sense to transfer the group out of the Cabinet Office to the Ministry of Defence, which is the biggest user of its services and is better able to support its activities. The transfer of responsibility took effect on 8th June 2001.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that factual reply. What plans are there to integrate the security services with the Ministry of Defence Police? When shall we hear a little more about legislation regarding the Ministry of Defence Police?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the SSG employs 120 staff, which is a small number in comparison with the ministry's Defence Estates Agency, into which it will be incorporated and which has 1,400 staff. We believe that it will combine well with the work of that agency, which has responsibility for the cost-effective management of the defence estate. I am not aware of the answer to the noble Lord's other question, but I shall write to him when I know.
Lord Elton: My Lords, are the members of the SSG security vetted? Is the security equipment around this House their responsibility or that of people who are not security vetted?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, members of the Security Services Group are vetted to a high level. Most of their work is done for the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but they are also responsible for royal palaces, including the Palace of Westminster.

NHS Action Plan on Racial Discrimination
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Whitakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to take forward the National Health Service action plan on racial discrimination.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, much work has been done through the Tackling Racial Harassment programme to develop and disseminate practical tools to tackle harassment. We shall shortly publish guidance based on that. We are now initiating a new phase of action to ensure that tackling harassment is performance-managed as a mainstream human resources priority.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that positive Answer. However, can he say whether, and, if so, when, he will publish the research on racism in the NHS that was carried out with the participation of more than 500 NHS staff by Lemos and Crane and completed last autumn?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the report of the analysis of staff attitudes to racial harassment will be published when it has been peer reviewed, as is normal practice for research commissioned by the department. As I said, we shall also publish guidance as soon as possible.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister invite the Commission for Racial Equality to mount a formal investigation, as has occurred in a number of other government departments—in particular, in the Prison Service—to examine the extent of racial discrimination? Once the extent of racial discrimination has been proved, and bearing in mind that a substantial part of NHS services is provided by people from ethnic minorities, will he say whether such an investigation could be backed up by statutory obligation through the issue of a non-discrimination notice that can be monitored regularly?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that I am able to give that commitment. But I shall certainly commit the department to discussions with the Commission for Racial Equality, whose advice we often seek and greatly value. The noble Lord makes an important point in relation to the NHS workforce; for example, approximately 33 per cent of hospital medical staff come from black and minority ethnic groups. I believe that we must do everything that we can to ensure that the NHS has, and supports, an environment in which racial discrimination is not tolerated.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, from the recent report of the King's Fund, Racism in Medicine, it is clear that in many cases the problem starts in medical
626
schools. Can the Minister say what action he, together with his colleagues in the DES, has taken to ensure that the problem is tackled at that point?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point which I suggest applies as much to nursing courses at universities as it does to medical schools. He will understand that it is primarily a matter for universities. We are committed to a policy of diversity and equality of opportunity in the health service. Clearly we work in collaboration with our university colleagues. We welcome the fact that the Council of the Heads of Medical Schools is addressing those issues via their statement of guiding principles for the admission of medical students. However, it is certainly a matter which the Department of Health will continue to discuss with the relevant government departments and individual medical schools.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell the House approximately when the new positive obligations that will be imposed on the health service and on universities, including medical schools, under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act will be brought into force?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not able to give the noble Lord a specific answer to that question. However, clearly it is most important that the amendment to the Race Relations Act, which will have such an important role to play in the provision of public services in the future, is taken seriously. It is also important that a full implementation programme is put in place to ensure that the provisions of the Act are seen to be as sensitive as possible to racial diversity in relation to the experience of people who work under and use those services.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, if the Government do not propose to use the CRE, will the Minister tell the House how they will monitor and evaluate what happens during the modernisation programme? We are concerned about how the decision-makers will take into account what the professionals and patients say in relation to the delivery of the service.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have set national targets for NHS employers to take effective action to tackle harassment. We shall also require local employers to publish information on progress in their annual equality statements. As part of the zero tolerance campaign, we are planning guidance and publicity materials on how to deal with NHS service users and members of the public who harass, bully or demonstrate violence towards NHS staff. We are also committed to issuing guidance on the withdrawal of treatment in the last resort from abusive and violent patients and members of the public, including from those who demonstrate racial abuse towards staff. I expect clear guidance to the NHS about how it is to take forward these issues to form part of our overall performance management system in the health service.

627
We are determined that the NHS will prove to be a model employer and provider of services in such circumstances.
Lord A.vebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem of violence against staff has been in existence for a long time? What advice has been given to hospitals about the growing menace of racially motivated attacks on ethnic minority staff in accident and emergency departments? Is that not an urgent problem which needs to be addressed before any guidance is issued?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. I believe that violence towards NHS staff is reprehensible under any circumstances; how much more so when there are racist elements to it. Often the circumstances in which the attacks, either verbal or physical, take place are those in which staff are trying to do their best for people. As an employer, we have a major responsibility to ensure that staff are supported in all ways possible. Part of the work that we are carrying out in relation to the no-tolerance policy, which I commend to the House, involves offering specific guidance in those areas. Good practice is to be seen in many parts of the NHS. Clearly one of our aims is to ensure that that is shared across the service as a whole.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before we become over-excited, my daughter, who works in the accident and emergency service, says that harassment and bloody-mindedness in accident and emergency departments is normally related to drink and has nothing to do with racism. It is a matter of yobbish behaviour by everyone, and it does not matter whether the nurse is white, black, pink or khaki. It is the yobbish behaviour that is important. Let us not become too hung up about the racial element, which distorts our judgment in these matters.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree with that. Of course, examples of yobbish and hooligan behaviour are to be seen in people from all backgrounds. It is something that we deplore and must take action against. However, there is sufficient evidence from any number of studies that some NHS staff from black and minority ethnic backgrounds have been subject to particularly scurrilous and disturbing attacks, whether physical or oral. As employers and citizens, we must do everything that we can to stamp that out, and it is why we must have a policy of no tolerance. It is simply not acceptable that staff should have to put up with some of the behaviour that they experience at present.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that there is a higher incidence of diabetes—both types 1 and 2—among the black and Asian community? Is it possible that some indirect racial discrimination is occurring in terms of the provision of resources?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right to identify particular aspects of illness among different groups in this country. We are developing a national service framework in relation to diabetes which I hope will tackle the issues that he has raised. In ensuring that we provide services to the whole of our community, it is important that we get right our employment policies and the issue of entry to medical and nursing schools. I believe that if we sort out matters relating to employment and the way in which staff are dealt with, that will have a major impact on service provision.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is this not far too important a matter for the Government to try to micro-manage at the centre? One million people work in the National Health Service. How can the Government manage that? If the law is up to date, why do they not leave it to local t rusts to ensure that the law is enforced?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we do not micromanage the health service. We have a performance management system that focuses on the core targets that we expect local NHS bodies to deliver. We have to back that up with guidance and ensure that it is achieved. On the issue that the noble Baroness raised, action will of course be taken at the local level. We depend on leadership at that level to ensure that our aim is achieved. Our job at the centre is to provide helpful guidance and advice and to back that up with robust performance management in those areas in which it is absolutely vital to deliver a service throughout the country.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most prominent form of discrimination in the health service involves postcode prescribing? Have the Government got new initiatives to deal with that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. Our initiative involves the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which is designed to remove the postcode prescribing that we inherited. It helps to ensure that there is robust advice throughout the NHS about which treatments, drugs and clinical pathways of care work best. That is having and will continue to have an enormous effect in ensuring consistency of approach throughout the country.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, immediately after our debate on the Motion on the Code of Conduct for Members of the House, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on political developments in Northern Ireland.

Chinook ZD 576: Select Committee
3.21 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, for allowing his name to go forward as chairman of the committee. I am sure that the House feels that this difficult problem is in good hands.
Moved, pursuant to the Motion agreed to by the House on 30th April in the last Parliament, That a Select Committee of five members be appointed to consider the justification for the finding of those reviewing the conclusions of the RAF Board of Inquiry that both pilots of the Chinook helicopter ZD 576 which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994 were negligent;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Bowness,

L. Brennan,

L. Hooson,

L. Jauncey of Tullichettle (Chairman),

L. Tombs;

That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee shall report by 31st January 2002.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
  Personal Bills: Select Committee

    Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
    The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
    Moved,
    Hybrid Instruments Committee—That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

    L. Campbell of Alloway,

    E. Courtown,

    V. Craigavon,

    L. King of West Bromwich,

    L. Luke,

    B. Thomas of Walliswood,

    B. Wilkins.

    Personal Bills Committee—That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Personal Bills and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

    L. Faulkner of Worcester,

    B. Knight of Collingtree,

    L. Sandberg,

    L. Templeman,

    L. Wilberforce.

    Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee—That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

    L. Brett,

    L. Brougham and Vaux,

    B. Gould of Potternewton,

    L. Greaves,

    E. Liverpool,

    L. Luke,

    E. Sandwich.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

    On Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Conduct
3.23 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Code of Conduct for Members of this House.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This approach had been thought to be the most convenient procedure for your Lordships' House. It allows us to have a more flexible debate than if there had been a speakers' list in the usual way. Perhaps it would be helpful if I indicated the intended procedure and order of discussion. The intention is that we take the Motion and each amendment in their natural place. I shall move my Motion and speak to it; then the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will move his amendment and make his speech; then we will have a general debate in which all who wish to intervene may take part, including, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has tabled his own separate amendment.
This is of course a matter for the House and we on this side approach it on the basis that it will be a free vote. My advice is and will remain that if noble Lords want it, we should agree to the amendment standing in my name not simply because it is in my name but,

631
significantly, because it is, among other reasons, the majority recommendation of the group to which I shall refer in a moment.
Baroness Blatch: The noble and learned Lord tabled a Motion. not an amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Baroness is as always quite right. I moved a Motion, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, moved an amendment.
I shall place this subject in an historical context, although, unusually, the relevant developments occurred quite recently. In November 2000, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is usually called the Neill committee after its distinguished chairman, published its report on standards of conduct in the House of Lords.
In January this year, my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington asked me to chair a small group on implementation. The group was assisted substantially by the staff of this House. I am sure that all those who served on that committee are extremely grateful for the assistance that we were given. We tried to secure a reasonably representative group. The noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, who has enormous experience in public service and subsequently outside, was nominated, and I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for doing that. Also on the committee was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who, after all, is a former Law Officer and an extremely senior and respected Member of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, proposed the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Kingsland, and I was very pleased to have their contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, brought substantial experience in the parliamentary and local government contexts. The latter should not be overlood as a reservoir of possible assistance.
We were told to report in three months and we did so in two-and-a-half. We had hoped to be unanimous but we failed to be. We produced a text that four committee members supported; the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Kingsland, dissented, but only in part.
To help noble Lords, I point out that the most useful documents are today's Order Paper and the cross-referenced paper that has been available in the Printed Paper Office. The cross references are most helpfully—I am grateful to the administrative staff for doing this—set out in three different colours. The original text is in black; when the original text is affected by the "Kingsland amendment", if I may refer to it in that way, that text has been emboldened in red and the proposed replacements appear in blue. That is a useful cross reference for those noble Lords who might want to see the difference between what was originally produced in the red bound volume by the committee that I chaired and the effect of the Kingsland amendment. I hope that that is of assistance.
One of the matters to which we put our mind and which I invite noble Lords to consider is: what should an adopted code hope to achieve? I suggest that it is a
632
significant protection for individual Members of this House if we all know, in some degree of precision, the standards that we are obliged to maintain. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, it is my deep belief that as this House develops—we have had short debates on the development of our composition and on the possible changes in working practice—we should look to securing wider public support for what is done and said in this House. I believe that a published, demonstrable code of conduct is very useful in relation to that second purpose.
In a code we want something that is clear, coherent, easy to understand and fair and simple to give effect to. I believe that the draft code realises each of those aims. I suggest that any code that we adopt should chime with the spirit of our times and the Neill committee recommendations and that it should command wider public support outside the narrow gates of Parliament.
I know that noble Lords have had an opportunity to examine the documents so I turn immediately to the essential recommendations. First, paragraph 1 sets out—I hope that it does so clearly—the, "Purpose of the Code". There is no dissent on this matter, so far as I am aware. That purpose is,
"to provide guidance for Members of the House of Lords on the standards of conduct expected of them in the discharge of their parliamentary and public duties".
The latter duty is important; the provision is not limited simply to parliamentary duties.
The second purpose in numbered paragraph 1 is,
"to provide the openness and accountability necessary to reinforce public confidence in the way in which Members of the House of Lords perform their parliamentary and public duties'.
Those Members of the Committee who have the cross-referenced, differently coloured paper will see that there is no dissent from those dual purposes.
The original proposal in the Motion, which I commend to the House, was that,
"Members of the House:

- must comply with the Code of Conduct;

- should act always on their personal honour;

- must never accept any financial inducement…

- must not vote on any Bill or Motion…in return for payment or any other material benefit (the 'no paid advocacy' rule)"

When we produced our code—I am always open to be corrected—and sent it to my predecessor, all the terms of paragraph 4 were agreed to. We spent a good deal of time looking at a number of different aspects and nuances of these matters. Paragraph 5 sets out the seven general principles of conduct and I do not trouble the Committee with those.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Waddington: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord and ask:who is the holder of a public office? There is no definition in the Motion. I am led to believe that we are all holders of public office. If that is correct, it is not a natural meaning of the term. It may be better to have the term defined in the Motion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think not. In fact, all seven principles come from the Committee on

633
Standards in Public Life. We simply adopted them. That is why I refer to them rather than consider the definitions. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, that he will be offering his contribution to the Committee this afternoon.
Lord Waddington: But who is the holder of a public office?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: All those who are in public life who are remunerated one way or another by the public or, if not remunerated, are in a position where they affect significantly public life in this country; for example, judges. I do not believe that the noble Lord will be able to find a totally comprehensive definition. The committee said that these are the principles which should inform those in public life. I doubt that we shall ever obtain a satisfactory comprehensive definition. That was not a point at issue between any of the members of the committee, although that does not bind this Chamber.
We go specifically now to deal with the question implied by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and he may find his answer in the terms of his specific context in paragraph 6, which states:
"In the conduct of their parliamentary duties, Members of the House shall resolve any conflict between their personal interest and the public interest in favour of the public interest".
Paragraph 7 is another paragraph which was agreed to by the committee. It began, I suggest correctly, with the activity of registration and states that,
"Members of the House must:…register in the Register of Lords' Interests all relevant interests of their own or of their spouse, in order to make clear those interests that might reasonably be thought to influence their actions."
The committee's report then referred to declarations (when speaking in the House or communicating with Ministers, government departments and executive agencies) of any interest which is a relevant interest in the context of the debate or the matter under discussion. Your Lordships can see that I am omitting some words, not to be deceptive, but to be economical.
What happens in the context of the Kingsland amendment is that the declaration is put first, in different words, and registration is put second, again in different words.
Baroness Boothroyd: I am sure that Members of the Committee understand that, when making a speech, it is better to declare at the beginning of that speech any financial interest there may be in the subject. Will the Leader of the House make it clear to the Chamber what is intended with regard to tabling a Parliamentary Question and asking a supplementary question? It is sometimes difficult to make a declaration at those times. Perhaps that point should be made clear at this stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Baroness makes an extremely important point and one on which I have remarked in my own experience. Seven minutes for a Question is extremely short. Sometimes Members
634
of the House say, "I declare my interest". But many of us remain baffled as to what that interest is. I agree with the noble Baroness that that is the virtue of registration. If there is ambiguity, one can go to the registration and clear that ambiguity out of the way. I am grateful for the intervention and agree with the thoughts behind it. That is why I was suggesting earlier, I hope acceptably to the Committee, that registration may well be a significant protection for someone who simply does not have the time to explain the interest when asking the supplementary question.
The question that develops naturally from that helpful intervention is: what is a relevant interest? Paragraph 8, which was agreed to unanimously, deals with that and states:
"The test of relevant interest is whether the interest might reasonably be thought by the public to affect the way in which a Member of the House of Lords discharges his or her parliamentary duties.
The test of relevant interest is therefore not whether a Member's actions in Parliament will be influenced by the interest, but whether others might reasonably think that this might be the case".
"Relevant interests" include both financial and non-financial interests. Members of the Committee will see that amendments have been made, but I repeat—I hope not at tedious length—that those were matters agreed by the whole committee.
The fundamental dissent in the letter from the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Elton, related to paragraphs 11 and 12. Originally paragraph 11 read in the way that is set out. Again it does not help for me to read everything out. There is an addition to deal with visits paid for from public funds. It was thought inappropriate to require registration in that regard.
We then come to paragraph 12, which states,
"The list in paragraph 11 above is not exhaustive. For example, relevant financial interests may also include (depending on their significance)"—
and a list follows.
The Earl of Onslow: In relation to declaration of interests, I am on the Armed Forces parliamentary committee. Our air fares are paid for, I believe, by sponsorship. Does that sort of sponsorship count as public funds—I have nothing to do with it—or is it something which should be looked at?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If it is commercial sponsorship, it is plainly not public funds. Perhaps I can help the noble Earl. There are bound to be questions of that sort which strike any of us, "Have I done the right thing? Where is the line drawn? Where does it fall?". The noble Earl will find the answer in paragraph 17. I accept that this comes later but I deal with his question as it arises.
Questions of that sort are bound to arise. The committee said that,
"The Registrar is available to advise Members of the House. A Member who acts on the advice of the Registrar in determining what is a relevant interest satisfies fully the requirements of the Code of Conduct".

635
I shall develop that point later, but it is useful to mention it at this stage. There are bound to be some difficult areas where honourable people will honourably take different views. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that we were looking for a light touch. I did not want to introduce the spirit of Savonarola into our affairs. If one looks at the situation free of all prejudice or preconception, as Members of the Committee always do on these occasions, and asks the Onslow question: "Which side of the line: am I on? I should not wish to be the object of criticism. Equally, I should not like to be overly fastidious", we find the answer is in paragraph 17, "Go and see the registrar". It is an important question and that is why we use a light touch. Even if the registrar is wrong, no transgression follows. That is important.
I turn to paragraph 12:
"The list in paragraph 11 above is not exhaustive. For example, relevant financial interests may also include (depending on their significance):

—shareholdings not amounting to a controlling interest;

—landholdings (excluding Members' homes);

—the financial interests of a spouse or relative or friend".

Lord Renton: That is extraordinary.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As I said earlier, it is not extraordinary when one examines the possible mischief. Perhaps I may explain that and then it will not seem extraordinary. No one has yet had the great facility of listening to the argument. Perhaps I might be allowed to develop it. Paragraph 12 continues:
"—hospitality or gifts given to a Member which could reasonably be regarded as an incentive to support a particular cause or interest".
Members of the Committee will see that all of those have been struck out in consequence of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. With regard to:
"—shareholdings not amounting to a controlling interest",
I give an illustration which I stress is entirely hypothetical. I am not in the happy position of being a 1 per cent holder of a shareholding in BP, but if I were, two consequences would follow. First, I probably would not be doing this job and, secondly, I would be an extremely happy bunny. A 1 per cent shareholding in BP is not a controlling shareholding and cannot be under any definition of company law or City practice that I have encountered. However, it is a significant interest.
Lord Marsh: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. This is one of the matters which concerns me and one which is based on a total misunderstanding. The situation is inconceivable. First, in that particular case the noble and learned Lord would have to be a billionaire because BP is a multi-billion pound company. Secondly, it is inconceivable that anything that we debated here could have that direct effect upon any company, certainly not a multi-national.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There are two points I should like to mention. First, I wish that the noble
636
Lord had not been quite so incredulous about the prospect of my becoming a billionaire at some stage. Secondly, the noble Lord has excavated his own elephant trap and leapt willingly into it. It is not a question of "whether or not anything which could be done here could affect" but one of public perception, among other things. This Chamber may lack legislative power but it is extremely influential. Members have debates which lead to no legislation. I refer, for instance, to the stem cell debate. I do not believe that a debate of such high intellectual and moral quality could have been found in any legislature in the world. Members sometimes address public meetings. On occasions they write articles, give lectures and so forth. A good deal of the attention paid to noble Lords is because they are Members of this place, which is why I sought to stress earlier that we are not talking simply of parliamentary duties; we are also talking of public duties.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may deal completely with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I would not like it to hang evanescently in the air. The perfect answer to it is in the caveat to paragraph 12:
"The list in paragraph 11 above is not exhaustive. For example, relevant financial interests may also include",
and then the further caveat,
"(depending on their significance)".
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his illustration. If one considers this matter, it is a light touch. It is supposed to be subtle and sophisticated enough to deal with a variety of different circumstances. Perhaps I may finish this matter before giving way to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
"—Landholdings (excluding Members' homes);
—the financial interests of a spouse or relative or friend".
My old friend and companion in arms, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that that was extraordinary; it is not. The question to be asked is whether there is a close enough relationship to give the impression to those outside who might come to a conclusion that we had not voted wholly impartially.
Some people have a large circle of friends; some have only one or two. It may be that some people are closer to their closest friends than to many of their relatives. I certainly know many in those circumstances. I am told that it may well be these days that people have friendly relations even with those who are not their spouses. That may not be true, but I heard it in the Bishops' Bar, so it is likely to be true.
The point here is not that every friend's modest shareholding or small amount of Treasury notes under the bed in North Wales has to be declared. The overarch here in paragraph 12 is:
"relevant financial interests may include (depending on their significance)",
those following matters.

637
Again, if there is any difficulty or doubt, what does the puzzled or troubled person do? He or she goes to the registrar to see what is the conclusion.
I shall round off this part and then give way. Could hospitality or gifts reasonably be regarded as an incentive to support a particular cause or interest? There is nothing difficult about these matters if we recognise the enormous influence of this House.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may take the noble and learned Lord back to the point about public perception, which is important. For some years the House of Commons has maintained a much tougher register than this House. Is it the view of the noble and learned Lord that that enhances the reputation of another place? Complaints are often made vexaciously and for political reasons. For example, we need only look at the recent examples of the Prime Minister's nanny, William Hague's use of a gym and John Major's lecture trips to the United States. Is it the view of the noble Lord that the House of Commons has a higher reputation in the conscience of the public than this House which has a far lesser regulatory regime but one which has worked extremely well since it was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, in 1995?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord has made a number of points which are obviously important. Before the notorious scandals at the other end of the Palace, if anyone had said to me that Members of Parliament were in the habit of taking £2,000 for asking parliamentary questions I should simply have refused to believe it. But I was living in a naive world of my own.
The House of Commons has a different regime to the one proposed here. That is why I believe it is legitimate to say—I shall repeat it, waiting for the hollow laughter—that we have adopted a much lighter touch. I am not sure that it is proper for me to criticise what the Commons committee did or the preliminary conclusions arrived at by Miss Filkin. However, I understand that a number of the examples given by the noble Lord may well have found a degree of favour in thinking that there was a disproportion. We deliberately tried not to get out of kilter or be disproportionate. We do not have the elaborate regime which is in place at the Commons.
The noble Lord was good enough to mention the Griffiths resolution of 1995, which includes "friends". It is not we who have introduced "friends". I think that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will have to agree that it is not entirely extraordinary. It is already in the declaratory rules on which we voted in November 1995. However, I shall continue.
Lord Marlesford: The noble and learned Lord chose to give us an example of a 1 per cent shareholding in BP. It is valuable to have such guidance. However, the example chosen was remarkable and perhaps does not apply to anybody in this place. Let us suppose that it
638
was 0.1 per cent, 0.01 per cent or 0.001 per cent, all of which might pass his test as being seen by some as significant. As he chose to give us guidance in the case of shares of BP, would he not go further and give us a little more guidance? Frankly, the example he gave was not helpful.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I was not giving guidance, I was providing a rationale for the rule. It may be that a small component shareholding in a large international company may be of significance, but I shall repeat what I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. Paragraph 12 specifically states that the list is not exhaustive and that
"relevant financial interests" may also include (depending on their significance)".
Their significance depends on the issue on which we might be voting. Some issues on which we might be voting might have a marginal tangential relationship to BP, for instance. On the other hand, we might be voting on a matter of great importance relating to the construction of a pipeline. In those circumstances, a significant large holding in BP might well fall to be registered.
If one wants a completely dictatorial Holy Writ approach, which I do not, one would have to have an enormous document—the New Testament, the Old Testament and the Apocrypha—in order to deal with all these questions. I hope that the more we develop the dialogue the more your Lordships will come to see that we have produced a light touch, flexible, subtle tool. All of these questions can be answered if one simply looks at what has been set out.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I am disturbed by the phrase "public perception". First, are we talking about decent ordinary people or are we talking about the media? Secondly, I find the mention of "friend" difficult. I have an enormous range of friends but I do not have the slightest notion whether they have shares in BP or anything else. It has nothing to do with my friendship and I do not know it. I could easily stand and argue a case, wholly unaware that I was in the happy position of having the friendship of someone who owned the entire company. I do not know that kind of information about my friends and I do not ask them. I believe that most people feel the same.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, drew the distinction between ordinary decent people and the media. I do not accept that distinction.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Your Lordships will be kind enough to allow me to explain why. In the past four years, during which there has been a significant Government majority in the House of Commons, a significant even though irritating role has been played by the media in holding up government and executive to account. Some would say that that was a duty discharged by the media—although not every part and

639
aspect from comics to broadsheets. A significant part of print and broadcast media work is to challenge, possibly even to raise questions which may seem to be unfair or cynical. Therefore, I do not draw the same distinction. I believe that in a civil democracy one needs a press to ask questions, even when they are disagreeable.
As regards the question relating to friends, having know the noble Baroness a long time I know that she has a vast circle of friends. If she does not know that they have any interests, the question does not arise. It could be of no significance because if one of her former students—and I know that she is in regular correspondence with students from far-flung areas of the globe—had an interest about which she knew nothing, it would never become relevant. I repeat that we have worked on the friends concept since Griffiths.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I know that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, rose first.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the Minister. My point was exactly the same as that raised by my noble friend Lady Park.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Is the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House aware that the longer the cross-examination of him from the Conservative Benches continues the more some of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches become convinced of the need for the code, and for the general principles, as it seems that the principles are not well enough understood as they stand?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, "Give him a job", but apparently they have all been given. I am happy to answer these questions because if there are anxieties, even if they are not well based, I ought to try to deal with them.
Lord Renton: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I was not going to sit down for a moment or two but I shall do so. I was simply giving the reference to the resolution of this House, which stated:
"Such interests may be indirect or non-pecuniary, for instance, the interest of a relation or friend".
Therefore, the provision is no new thing but I shall happily give way.
Lord Renton: I do not believe that we have left paragraph 12, the controversial paragraph. Will the noble and learned Lord be so good as to give a definition of "friend", bearing in mind that all of us have many friends in your Lordships' House? Indeed, I like to think that the noble and learned Lord is a friend.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course and I happily reciprocate. However, in all our many conversations
640
about life, history and the civilisation of the western world neither of us has ever inquired what financial or real property interests the other has. Therefore the question would not arise.
I would not be able this side of Armageddon to produce a definition of "friend" which would satisfy all noble Lords, let alone a minority. I say simply that we have worked on this basis in a friendly way since the Griffiths resolution was adopted in 1995. If one approaches the matter in a sensible, light touch way, it is not difficult.
The Earl of Listowel: This is a serious point, whatever the precedents may be. There is an ill-natured element within the press and one can imagine it possibly abusing this particular aspect. Would it not be wisest to leave out mention of "friend" in order to prevent vexatious use? As regards my family, I can think of times when the press has not treated us particularly fairly and I am sure that noble Lords can quickly think of examples where some aspects within the media have taken advantage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Your Lordships will vote on this matter because it is part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I do not believe that there have been such disastrous consequences since 7th November 1995 when the Griffiths resolution was adopted:
"Such interests may be indirect or non-pecuniary, for example the interest of a relation-or friend … and they may include past and future interests".
Therefore the provision is quite wide.
Lord Ackner: Is not the problem this? In opening, my noble and learned friend said that he had tried to chime with the spirit of our time. If that is the proper approach, the word "spouse" ought always to be followed by the word "partner". "Partner" is an accepted term and I heard it referred to in a debate in your Lordships' House last week. If one is seeking to avoid that, I understand that "relative" or "friend" is meant to be a euphemism for "partner". I suggest to my noble and learned friend that he must include "partner" after "spouse" or he will not chime with the spirit of our time.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: When I was at the Bar and appeared in front of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, he always urged me to get my references correct. I said that we must chime with the spirit of Neill. In any event, the spirit of our time, to take the phrase used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is one where automatic response to those in authority is no longer the norm and there are serious questions about propriety.
I would be confident that in the overwhelming majority of cases in this Chamber the suspicion would be wrongly based. The way to deal with suspicion is to let in the clear air. I do not use "friend" as another word to describe a person who lives with another of the same or different sex without having been married. It is the nature of the relationship. A noble Lord might

641
have such a close friend that if he knows of a significant interest, to take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, he might feel that he had discharged his duty more properly by saying, "I have to say that a close friend of mine is a very large landowner", or whatever, "and this will affect him". It is as simple as that.
If one has a friend whose interests one is wholly unaware of the question does not arise. One does not have to send a round robin catechising all one's friends about what they own and whether they have any money in the bank. One must be realistic about these matters.
I return to the central point that there was no one on the committee who was against the principle of registration and declaration. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The issue is set out in the letter of dissent which was bound into the red book. I hope that the Committee will not take it harshly if I say that if these principles are not accepted we shall do ourselves a very serious, critical disservice and harm the public interest, which is not always coincident with our own.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: The noble and learned Lord has been very generous with his time. As the document is now drafted, may we not be in danger of doing a great disservice, to use the noble and learned Lord's most recent phrase, to friends of one or other of us who legitimately wish to keep private their own interests? The whole point is that under Griffiths it is declaratory and voluntary, but under the noble and learned Lord's proposals it is a "must". Therefore, as a friend with an interest which I may wish to keep private—I have none as far as I know, but I might—I have no means of controlling whether it is or is not to be blazoned across a public document and examined by the media, which the noble and learned Lord has so eloquently defended.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is not so if the hypothesis is that the noble and learned Lord has a friend with a private interest of which the noble and learned Lord is unaware. If I have misunderstood the point and the significant interest is known, by definition it should be disclosed. When one comes into this Chamber one has an enormous raft of advantage which does not come without a degree of discipline. The Griffiths resolution said that noble Lords with a direct financial interest should declare it, and they should also declare any non-financial interest. It goes on to say that such interests may include the interest of a relation or friend.
If the Committee is of the view that all is well in this world I must seriously dissent. I repeat that not one member of the committee, which sat a long time ago and spent a good deal of time on the matter, concluded that registration and declaration were not required.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said that I had been generous with my time, which may mean that it is time I sat down and let the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, speak. I have tried to respond to
642
everything I possibly can. There are one or two matters of further detail. I ask your Lordships to look at old paragraph 15 and new paragraph 18. Since we are in non-controversial areas I may as well deal with the point. In case any noble Lord does not have the cross-comparator I shall refer to it. Our majority proposal was that,
"The list in paragraph 14 above is not exhaustive. For example, relevant non-financial interests may also include (depending on their significance):
—other trusteeships".
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is "(excepting family trusts)". We have a plain disagreement. One example, not guidance, is that at one time I declared my trusteeship of the NSPCC. That post was not remunerated, nor did I claim or receive any expenses. I had to register and declare that, quite rightly. If the Kingsland amendment is agreed and family trusts are excluded, despite the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I may be a trustee of a family trust that controls hundreds of millions or perhaps even a billion pounds. I do not see the sense of having to disclose my unpaid trusteeship of the NSPCC but not being obliged to disclose a vast family trust.
If one wants to be cynical about the media, in any event many of these matters can be discovered one way or another. If one wants to research Companies House and shareholdings one way or another one can find them out. It takes a good deal of effort. When it is done after a good deal of effort normally it brings about the comment in some parts of the media that it was all hidden away and it has had to be squirreled out. I believe that we are all much better off being open about it. If one has nothing to hide, why seek to hide it?
Lord Strathclyde: What the noble and learned Lord proposes completely misunderstands my reading of the amendment to be moved by my noble friend Lord Kingsland. Family trusts are not excluded from the requirement to disclose. Let nobody in this Chamber believe that an interest in a family trust can be excluded, if that is what is being debated. Those are the existing rules and nothing is being changed. The impression given by the Leader of the House was that in some way my noble friends Lord Kingsland and Lord Elton sought to protect all noble Lords with an interest in family trusts from ever having to declare them. This has been a good opportunity for me to put the record straight.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If that is right I am very pleased, but I remain in some doubt, which will obviously be the subject of explanation by the noble Lord, as to why there is an exception for family trusts. If the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is correct in his guidance I am happy to bow to it and accept it gratefully.
The Committee will forgive me if I have overlooked anything which needs to be dealt with, because I shall return to it in winding up. The final matter of detail is the question of commencement. Originally, my Motion proposed the commencement date of January

643
2002. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, took the view that it should be 31st March 2002, and I believe that the Liberal Democrat Benches came to the same conclusion. Having reflected upon it, that seems a reasonable compromise. I do not know whether I can assist further at this stage. I shall reply to any questions in due time.
Moved to resolve, That this House adopts a Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords as follows:
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
Purpose of the Code
1. The purpose of this Code of Conduct is:
—to provide guidance for Members of the House of Lords on the standards of conduct expected of them in the discharge of their parliamentary and public duties;
— to provide the openness and accountability necessary to reinforce public confidence in the way in which Members of the House of Lords perform their parliamentary and public duties.
2. This Code applies to all Members of the House of Lords who have not taken leave of absence.
Public duty
3. By virtue of their oath, or affirmation, of allegiance, Members of the House have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law.
Personal conduct
4. Members of the House:
— must comply with the Code of Conduct;
—should act always on their personal honour;
— must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence;
—must not vote on any Bill or Motion, or ask any question in the House or a committee, or promote any matter, in return for payment or any other material benefit (the "no paid advocacy" rule).
5. Members of the House should observe the seven general principles of conduct identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The seven principles are:
Selflessness: Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
Integrity: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Openness: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
Primacy of the public interest
6. In the conduct of their parliamentary duties, Members of the House shall resolve any conflict between their personal interest and the public interest in favour of the public interest.
Registration and Declaration of Relevant Interests
7. Members of the House must:
—register in the Register of Lords' Interests all relevant interests, in order to make clear what are the interests that might reasonably be thought to influence their actions;
— declare when speaking in the House, or communicating with Ministers, government departments or executive agencies, any interest which is a relevant interest in the context of the debate or the matter under discussion. This is necessary in order that their audience may form a balanced judgment of their arguments. In cases where Members of the House vote in a division where they have a relevant interest that they have not been able to declare, they should register that interest within 24 hours of the division.
What is a relevant interest?
8. The test of relevant interest is whether the interest might reasonably be thought by the public to affect the way in which a Member of the House of Lords discharges his or her parliamentary duties.
9. The test of relevant interest is therefore not whether a Member's actions in Parliament will be influenced by the interest, but whether the public might reasonably think that this might be the case.
10. Relevant interests include both financial and non-financial interests.
Relevant financial interests
11 The following financial interests are always relevant and therefore must be registered:
—any consultancy agreement under which Members of the House provide parliamentary advice or services;
A copy of any such agreement, and the remuneration received by Members for advice in relation to parliamentary matters, must be deposited with the Registrar of Lords' Interests, so that details are available for public inspection.
—employment or any other financial interest in businesses involved in parliamentary lobbying on behalf of clients, including public relations and law firms, but Members of the House involved with organisations that offer commercial lobbying services are not obliged to refrain from participating in parliamentary business in connection with all clients of that organisation but only their personal clients;
—any remunerated service which Members of the House provide by virtue of their position as members of Parliament, and the clients of any such service;
—employment as a non-parliamentary consultant;
—remunerated directorships;
—regular remunerated employment (excluding occasional income from speeches, lecturing, broadcasting and journalism);
—shareholdings amounting to a controlling interest;
—provision by an outside body of secretarial and research assistance;
—.visits with costs paid in the United Kingdom and overseas, made as a member of Parliament, except any visits paid for from public funds.
12. The list in paragraph 11 above is not exhaustive. For example, relevant financial interests may also include (depending on their significance):
—shareholdings not amounting to a controlling interest;
— landholdings (excluding Members' homes);
—the financial interests of a spouse or relative or friend;
—hospitality or gifts given to a Member which could reasonably be regarded as an incentive to support a particular cause or interest.
13. Except for remuneration received by Members for advice in relation to parliamentary matters, Members of the House are not required to disclose how much they earn from the financial interests set out in paragraphs 11 and 12, but they may do so if they wish.
Relevant non-financial interests
14. The following non-financial interests are always relevant and therefore must be registered:
—membership of public bodies such as hospital trusts, the governing bodies of universities, colleges and schools, and local authorities;
—trusteeships of museums, galleries or similar bodies;
—acting as an office-holder or trustee in pressure groups or trade unions;
— acting as an office-holder or trustee in voluntary or not-for-profit organisations.
15. The list in paragraph 14 above is not exhaustive. For example, relevant non-financial interests may also include (depending on their significance):
— other trusteeships;
— unpaid membership of voluntary organisations.
16. Members of the House are not obliged to register membership of Churches, religious bodies and quasi-religious organisations. But it may be necessary to declare such interests (see paragraph 7).
Advice
17. The Registrar is available to advise Members of the House. A Member who acts on the advice of the Registrar in determining what is a relevant interest satisfies fully the requirements of the Code of Conduct.
Enforcement of the Code of Conduct
18. Allegations of non-compliance with this Code are dealt with as follows:

1. Any allegation should normally be raised first with the Member complained against. However, there may be circumstances when it is more appropriate to raise the matter with a party Leader or Chief Whip, or the Convenor of the Cross Bench Peers.

2. If the complainant chooses to pursue the matter, he or she should refer the allegation directly to the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests, through its chairman.

3. The Sub-Committee will then examine the allegation and may decide to investigate it further or to dismiss it.

4. In the investigation and adjudication of complaints against them, Members of the House have the right to safeguards as rigorous as those applied in the courts and professional disciplinary bodies.

5. If after investigation the Sub-Committee finds the allegation proved, the Member complained against has a right of appeal to the Committee for Privileges.

6. The conclusions of the Sub-Committee and of the Committee for Privileges are reported to the House.

19. The adoption of this Code shall have effect from 31st March 2002.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Kingsland: I beg to move my amendment to the Motion moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. I understand that, if my amendment succeeds, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would fall away. I hope that that is also his understanding.
I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord for his conduct of the proceedings of the committee. With his (dare I say) characteristic blend of good humour and single-minded determination, not only were the proceedings of the committee brisk but the conclusions were reached very early. As chairman of the committee, the noble and learned Lord now finds himself reporting to himself. The Lord Privy Seal

647
speaks to the Committee this afternoon both as chairman and Leader of the House. I am very relieved to discover that as Leader of the House he agrees with the conclusions of the chairman.
My initial instincts at the first sitting of the committee, which I believe were shared by my noble friend Lord Elton, were to stick with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, whose code has been a remarkable success story for your Lordships' House. Since it was initiated in 1995, to the best of my knowledge there has not been a single hint of any one of your Lordships having contravened any part of it.
That is a remarkable record if one compares it with events in another place. Were it not for events in another place, which are casting an ever darkening shadow on the possession of any outside interests at all, much to the detriment of its deliberations, and for what the noble Lord, Lord Neill, said in his report, my instinct would have been to stand before the Committee and stick with the code of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths. However, I do not think that that is any longer possible.
In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Neill, has changed the test which noble Lords have to meet in relation to outside interests. The test has now shifted from being essentially a subjective test—was an interest in noble Lords' opinion likely to affect their conduct in the Chamber?—to an objective test. That objective test was read out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, and appears in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the multi-coloured text. I refer particularly to paragraph 9:
"The test of relevant interest is therefore not whether a Member's actions in Parliament will be influenced by the interest, but whether the public might reasonably think that this might be the case".
That is the most significant contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to the debate. I believe that it should change noble Lords' approach to the question of the relationship between your Lordships' political work in the Chamber and your Lordships' outside interests.
Having said that, and having accepted the principles set out by the noble and learned Lord this afternoon. I, and I believe that my noble friend Lord Elton will endorse this later on when he speaks, have some reservations about some of the details in the recommended code.
Why should the code in the Chamber be different from the code in another place? I believe that there are a number of quite obvious reasons why that should be so. First, so far your Lordships' House has an unblemished record under the previous code. Secondly, noble Lords' primary work in life is not in the Chamber, save for those who are Ministers, but outside. What noble Lords do in the Chamber is something that they do when not doing other things elsewhere; the main focus of your Lordships' lives are your outside interests. What noble Lords do in the Chamber is in addition to that. That is a quite different perspective from another place. That, in my judgment, should make a difference to the degree of intrusiveness that the code imposes on Members of the Committee.
648
In my view, some of the detail in the code proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, and the majority of the Committee is excessively intrusive. It is disproportionate to the objective it seeks to achieve.
Perhaps I may mention the main headings under which my noble friend Lord Elton and I have reached that conclusion. But, before I deal with the detail, I would like to repeat that we of course entirely endorse the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and the majority of the committee to the promotion of the code as a matter of principle.
As far as concerns the principal areas of difference, first, in relation to any advisory work for money that any noble Lords might do in relation to the affairs of the House, my noble friend, Lord Elton, and myself believe that it is unnecessary to require noble Lords to declare sums of money received from giving such advice. We reach that conclusion because noble Lords who give such advice are automatically prohibited from either speaking in the debate or voting on the matter. In other words, in relation to the matter upon which noble Lords give parliamentary advice, they have no political life in the Chamber. If noble Lords have no political life in the Chamber, what possible relevance can any money that is earned from giving advice have in relation to noble Lords' integrity? That is our first difference.
Our second difference is in relation to the question of "spouse or relative or friend". We accept entirely that "spouse" should be included, so that is not a matter of disagreement between us. As to "relative" and "friend" we have a number of reservations. The first difficulty is the question of definition; how distant or remote should the relative be in order to be disqualified? What kind of friend are we talking about; in what circumstance, and how long, should we have known that friend?
The second difficulty is one to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, has partly referred. That is the question of knowledge. We will not necessarily know what interests our friends or relatives have. Thirdly, even if we do know, our friends and relatives might not want us to say anything about them in public because they are confidential to them. If we seek to say something about them in public, we ourselves may be subject to judicial proceedings on the basis of breach of confidence.
Therefore, enormous complications flow from including relatives and friends for very small return.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can the noble Lord explain why he accepts that a spouse should be included but a cohabitee who is not a spouse, whether or not the same sex, should not be included? What is the difference if the relationship is very close and if the interest in the facts of the case is relevant?
Lord Kingsland: I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, said that a cohabitee was not

649
someone the noble and learned Lord had particularly in mind when the word "friend" was introduced into the debate.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is true, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is asking why should they be excluded.
Lord Kingsland: The nature of the relationship between a husband and wife in financial terms is very specifically laid down in law. That is not true of the relationship between two people who are cohabitees.
Lord Marsh: Perhaps I may ask a question of the noble Lord because the problem of lawyers in this area is that they try to block every conceivable outlay. At any given time a great many spouses—wives or husbands—are in the process of getting divorced or have parted. They are actually paying money to find out what the other one earns. A wife who loses her pass to the Palace cannot get a replacement because the husband has to go to get a new one. As one of the attendants said to me when he refused my wife a pass, "There are many Members of your Lordships' House who do not want their wives to have passes".
Lord Kingsland: On reflection, perhaps I should not have included spouses. It might have made life much simpler.
The third category is shareholdings. We have included no shareholdings in the mandatory category, whether of controlling or significant interests in companies. The relevance of shareholdings will depend entirely upon the circumstances of the particular debate in question. Where a particular holding might affect a large number of deliberations across the Chamber, there may be a case for entering that interest in a register. Otherwise, our recommendation in the context of a particular debate would be that if noble Lords feel that owning shares in a particular company might be perceived as having an influence on their conduct during that debate, we would advise declaring that interest, or, if noble Lords fail to declare the interest in the debate, then registering it within 24 hours of the debate having concluded.
The fourth area of difference concerns family trusts. It has already been the subject of an exchange between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. The noble and learned Lord's understanding of the outcome of that exchange is exactly my understanding and so I do not intend to say anything further about that.
The suggestion in the amendment that, whatever the outcome of today's deliberations, the new regime should not come into force before 31st March 2002 and in any event not before a resolution is connected with the imminent retirement of the proposed registrar is suggested for entirely technical reasons and not for any other reasons.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understood it to be a little more general; namely, that a certain amount of
650
questioning will need to be done and a certain amount of advice will need to be taken. I took the point that some noble Lords might in any event want to rearrange their financial affairs. When the proposal came from both Benches that March was more reasonable and flexible than January, it seemed to be quite fair to accept it.
The Earl of Onslow: In other words, we want to rearrange our financial affairs so that they appear differently on the register. That sounds to me dead dodgy if nothing else does.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Dead dodginess must be in the eye of the beholder. It is a fact that some noble Lords might wish to alter their financial affairs. If they want to do so and therefore not be obliged to register, it occurred to me that a cut-off point in January might be too tight and that the suggestion of March seemed reasonable. As I always want to be reasonable, I accepted it.
Lord Kingsland: My final point is in relation to the reporting to the appropriate committee of any suspected breach of the rules. I feel quite strongly that the act of reporting, and the act of seizing the responsible committee with authority to investigate a matter, should be done entirely in private. It is quite understood that if the committee decides to embark on an investigation, the investigation will have to be, at least in part, in public; but the initial reporting of an alleged contravention of the rules should be in private.
Those are the only differences between my amendment and the Motion proposed by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. They are differences of detail and not of principle. They seek, in my submission rightly, to create a more proportionate relationship between the public lives of noble Lords and their private lives, which in many circumstances ought justifiably to be kept private in exactly the same way as happens with other citizens of the United Kingdom.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may question the assertion made at the beginning of his most persuasive speech that paragraph 9 provides an objective test. I submit that the word "reasonable" can never be wholly objective. If one asks 1,000 different people, one will get 1,000 different interpretations of exactly what is reasonable and unreasonable in terms of exactly where the line should be drawn.
Lord Kingsland: Many judges sitting in civil cases without the assistance of juries have had to confront that difficult problem and deal with it as best they can. At the end of the day, a committee of your Lordships' House sitting in judgment on a noble Lord who is alleged to have breached the code will be faced with exactly the same problem. The committee's view of reasonableness will be the majority view of that committee and is ultimately based on subjective perceptions. I accept that.

651
But all propositions that are based on the concept of reasonableness have to confront and overcome that problem. What cannot be controverted is that the noble Lord, Lord Neill, has introduced a new test and that the House, for better or for worse, has to adjust with the times. That is why, in principle, my noble friend Lord Elton and I agree with the general approach of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, line 1, leave out all the words after "CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS" and insert:
"Purpose of the Code of Conduct
1. The purpose of this Code of Conduct is:

(i) to provide guidance for Members of the House of Lords on the standards of conduct expected of them in the discharge of their parliamentary and public duties;

(ii) to provide the openness and accountability necessary to reinforce public confidence in the way in which Members of the House of Lords perform their parliamentary and public duties.

2. This Code applies to all Members of the House of Lords who have not taken leave of absence.
Public duty
3. By virtue of their oath, or affirmation, of allegiance, Members of the House of Lords have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law.
Personal conduct
4. Members of the House:

(i) should act always on their personal honour;

(ii) must comply with the Code of Conduct;

(iii) must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence;

(iv) must not vote on any Bill or Motion, or ask any question in the House or a Committee, or promote any matter, in return for payment or any other material benefit (the "no paid advocacy" rule).

5. Members of the House should observe the seven general principles of conduct identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The seven principles are:
Selflessness: Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
Integrity: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Openness: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
Primacy of the public interest
6. In the conduct of their parliamentary duties, Members of the House shall resolve any conflict between their personal interest and the public interest in favour of the public interest.
Registration and Declaration of Relevant Interests
7. Members of the House must:

(i) declare any relevant interest of their own or of their spouse, which is pertinent to a debate, when speaking in the House and otherwise pertinent when communicating with Ministers, government departments and executive agencies. This is necessary in order that their audience may form a balanced judgment of their arguments.

(ii) register in the Register of Lords' Interests all relevant interests of their own or of their spouse, in order to make clear those interests that might reasonably be thought to influence their actions.

What is a relevant interest?
8. The test of relevant interest is whether the interest might reasonably be thought by the public to affect the way in which a Member of the House of Lords discharges his or her parliamentary duties.
9. The test of relevant interest is therefore not whether a Member's actions in Parliament will be influenced by the interest, but whether others might reasonably think that this might be the case.
10. Relevant interests are capable of including both financial and non-financial interests.
Relevant financial interests
11. Relevant financial interests connected with the provision of Parliamentary services include:

(i) Parliamentary consultancies;

(ii) Receiving payment for advice in relation to parliamentary matters;

653

(iii) Employment or other financial interests in businesses involved in parliamentary lobbying on behalf of clients, including public relations, accountancy and law firms.

12. Members are obliged to refrain from speaking or voting on any matter connected with the provision of parliamentary services. However, Members of the House involved with organisations that offer commercial lobbying services are not obliged to refrain from participating in parliamentary business in connection with all clients of that organisation, but only their personal clients.
13. All Members of the House must:

(i) Register in the Register of Lords' Interests any consultancy agreement under which they provide parliamentary advice or services;

(ii) Deposit a copy of any such consultancy agreement, excluding levels of remuneration, with the Registrar of Lords' Interests so that it is available for public inspection;

(iii) Register any financial interest in a parliamentary lobbying business.

14. Other relevant financial interests are:

(i) Remunerated directorships and partnerships;

(ii) Remunerated employment (excluding occasional income from speeches, lecturing, broadcasting, journalism and writing);

(iii) Provision by an outside body of secretarial and research assistance;

(iv) Any remunerated service which Members of the House may provide by virtue of their position as Members.

15. In addition, relevant financial interests may also include:

(i) Significant shareholdings;

(ii) Significant landholdings (other than Members' homes);

(iii) Any other financial interest or inducement, which might reasonably be thought to influence a Member of the House.

16. Members of the House are not required to disclose how much they earn from the financial interests set out in paragraphs 11 to 15.
Relevant non-financial interests
17. The following non-financial interests are always relevant and therefore must be registered:

(i) membership of public bodies, such as hospital trusts, the governing bodies of universities, colleges and schools, and local authorities;

(ii) trusteeships of museums, galleries or similar bodies;

(iii) acting as an office-holder or trustee in a voluntary or not-for-profit organisation, pressure group or trade union.

18. Relevant non-financial interests may also include (depending on their significance):

(i) other trusteeships (excepting family trusts);

(ii) unpaid membership of voluntary organisations.

19. Members of the House are under no obligation to register unpaid membership of organisations or membership of Churches, religious bodies and quasi-religious organisations. But it may be necessary to declare such interests. (See paragraph 20).
Interests relevant in specific contexts only
20. Some financial and non-financial interests may not be relevant generally, because they could not reasonably be regarded by the public as affecting the way in which a Member of the House discharges his or her parliamentary duties. But such interests may be thought to have such an effect in the context of a particular debate, division or correspondence. Such interests should therefore be declared as pertinent to that debate, division or correspondence. In cases where a Member of the House votes in a division where he has a pertinent interest that he has not been able to declare, he should register that interest within 24 hours of the division.
Advice
21. The meaning of "relevant interest" may depend on circumstances. The Registrar is available to advise Members. A peer who acts on advice of the Registrar in determining what is a relevant interest satisfies fully the requirements of the Code of Conduct.
Enforcement of the Code of Conduct
22. Allegations of non-compliance with this Code are to be dealt with as follows:

(i) Any allegation should, as a normal courtesy, be raised first with the Member complained against. However, there may also be circumstances when it is more appropriate to raise the matter with a party Leader or Chief Whip, or the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers.

(ii) If, after the above steps have been taken, the complainant chooses to pursue the matter, he or she should refer the allegation directly, and in private, to the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests through its chairman.

(iii) The Sub-Committee will then examine the allegation and may decide to investigate it further or to dismiss it.

(iv) In investigation and adjudication of complaints against them, Members of the House have the right to safeguards as rigorous as those applied in the courts and professional disciplinary bodies.

(v) If, after investigation, the Sub-Committee finds the allegation proved, the Member complained against has a right of appeal to the Committee for Privileges.

655

(vi) The conclusions of the Sub-Committee and of the Committee for Privileges will be reported to the House."

23. The adoption of this Code shall have effect from a date to be determined by a Resolution of the House, which shall not be before 31st March 2002.—(Lord Kingsland.)
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I welcome the opportunity to confirm to a sadly sometimes sceptical world the propriety of this House. What is proposed in the code will meet public concerns without overreacting. I entirely take the point about the difficult circumstances that we have sometimes seen at the other end of the building. That was very much in the minds of the members of the group in its work. The code will not constrain how Members of the House go about their business but will affirm the House's wish to be regarded as open and accountable and to ensure that others do so regard us. At a time when too often we hear from citizens and voters and not just from the media that, "You politicians are all the same; you're only in it for what you can get out of it", I believe that the code as proposed by the Leader of the House is "fit for purpose".
Like the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his chairing of the group. He steered it with a light touch, which is reflected in the code, and with huge sensitivity. He was very patient with those of us who occasionally wished to revisit issues which he thought we had closed. Like other members of the group, I spoke in the group for myself—we shall of course have a free vote later today—but I hope that I reflected the concerns of my colleagues. I believe that the code as proposed is welcomed and supported by the majority of those on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
I shall not go through each section of the code because, as has been said, most of it has not attracted amendment, save to say to those who feel we should not have a code at all that, sadly, public life and politics in the 21st century require that we do. If rejected, the message would be that Members of this House think themselves above scrutiny and that they are not prepared to account for themselves.
Perhaps I may deal with the points of contention. I understand why, when introducing his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, reversed the references to the code and personal honour. There is much to be said for that. But I do not think that it was an issue in the group. A number of the noble Lord's proposals are primarily matters of drafting. I recognise, because I do it myself, the temptation for a lawyer to redraft and redraft almost to infinity in the continuing search for the most elegant phrasing. That should not be the basis of a vote today.
Many of the substantive points are answered by the provision, to which attention has been drawn so often, for advice from the registrar. In our debates in the group we kept coming back to that. We may have wanted to create a code without room for question but
656
by their very nature these are issues of degree and judgment. Accepting that that is the context, what we have produced is a cogent and comprehensible code. It is not always easy to assess for oneself the term "might reasonably be thought by the public to affect the way in which a member discharges his parliamentary duties". It is not easy because Members do act on their honour and do not necessarily realise that the most innocent act may not appear to be wholly so.
The disclosure of remuneration for parliamentary consultancies should be a requirement. We are entitled to privacy in our private lives, but we must accept that where the private meets the public we are not private citizens. That is part of the price that we have to pay for accepting the position of public office that we hold by virtue of our membership of the House. The option to disclose other remuneration and the use of the register can nip in the bud any suggestion of improper influence. Furthermore, in a world which increasingly is moving towards complete transparency, where a great deal of information can be gleaned from other sources—the companies registry has been referred to and I would add to that HM Land Registry—it would be odd not to include this option.
I turn now to family trusts. I am one of those who took the view that the position of a trustee could be significant. It comes close to a personal financial interest. Many situations could arise where holding the trusteeship for a family trust would affect the judgment of a trustee. For instance, a trustee may have to consider his own grandchildren, who quite often can be the beneficiaries of such a trust.
Shareholdings which do not amount to a controlling interest may be significant. If a large shareholding forms only a small proportion of a company's shares, the shareholder could not affect the decisions reached by that company. However, if the test is how the shareholder regards himself and could reasonably be regarded as regarding himself, then dealing with regulations or legislation which come before the House or speaking on any public occasion could substantially affect the value of a shareholding, however small the proportion of that holding.
Perhaps I may turn now to hospitality. Again, I am not sure that any time has been spent on this matter so far, but I know that it is an issue which concerns noble Lords. I may not be alone in wishing that we were offered rather less hospitality than is the case. I do not believe that attending receptions in order to meet representatives of an organisation amounts to anything more than a matter of duty. Certainly one does not attend them in order to drink those glasses of lukewarm white wine and eat the greasy canapés—of course I do not refer to our own Refreshment Department here.
Nevertheless, some noble Lords are concerned that this requirement could mean that every cup of tea or lunch should be registered. However, I do not believe that every lunch attended to listen to matters of public concern in a particular sector constitutes hospitality that needs to be registered. The purpose of such hospitality is the passing of information; the

657
hospitality is not being used to influence the Member. If it could be regarded to be that—perhaps because it is not only lunch, but a week's holiday in the Bahamas (not that I have ever been offered anything of that kind)—then of course it should be registered. But often one meets for lunch to listen to information simply because lunch offers the only time available to do so.
I turn to the matter of whose interests should be taken into account. I have to say that, for myself, I think that I would be influenced if, for example, the financial interests of my closest and oldest woman friend—I do not refer here to a synonym for a constant companion—were to be significantly affected, because, if I knew about them, they would be relevant. The test is whether the interest would be significant to me personally. I do not believe that, under this provision, I would be required to question everyone on my Christmas card list. But if I felt that I would be affected, I would take advice as to whether I needed to register for myself and whether I needed to register the identity of the friend. That would depend on many different circumstances. I do not believe that the detail of such a proposal can be legislated in advance.
Ironically, it has already been pointed out that the term was used in the guidance resulting from the Griffiths report, under which noble Lords have been operating since 1995. I take the view that to omit this provision would be a backward step and perhaps would convey a message that we have something to hide which we should have been disclosing over the past six years.
I turn finally to the question of procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, proposed that a matter must be raised first with the Member concerned, the leader or Whip of his party or the Convenor. I believe that the requirement to do so "normally", the term used in the proposed code, is correct. Very rarely there may be circumstances in which a Member would not raise a matter at all unless he could approach directly the chair of the committee, but I do not think that that would amount to putting the matter into the public arena. But in my view it would not be right to set up a procedure unless that procedure could also facilitate the pressing of a complaint and its pursuit in the measured way proposed.
As regards the date, I do not believe that my noble friend the Chief Whip felt it necessary to go to March 2002. I should say that it is not a matter on which we feel strongly.
Taking part in the work of the group made me review for myself how easily I might dismiss as insignificant what could be viewed quite differently by others. Even though I have a local government background—the noble Lord the Leader of the House referred to that—which applies stringent rules requiring Members to leave the Chamber when certain matters are under discussion, taking part in the work of the group has made me think seriously about how we may appear to those outside.
I welcome the code and I believe that it is a fitting step to take at the start of the first full Parliament of the 21st century. It is important that today we reaffirm
658
the awareness of this House and how conscious are noble Lords of the need to uphold the highest standards and to be entirely open—indeed, to be ambitious to tell the world that we do so.
Lord Neill of Bladen: I speak as a former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—I demitted office at the end of February this year. The report that led to the Williams report was produced during my term in office. Perhaps I may say that I very much welcome the debate taking place today. I welcome, too, the code being put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, and the bound red volume of the report, to which reference has already been made. It is true that, to a substantial extent, that report did adopt recommendations made in the report from my committee.
We were in the privileged position of hearing extensive evidence from Members of this House. Written submissions were made by 71 Members of the House and oral evidence was submitted by some 39 Members. That put the committee in a strong position to understand what were the views. It would be true to say that the great preponderance of opinion—although it was not unanimous—was that a code is now required to be put in place, because the House of Lords stands out as an exception to what has become more or less a universal rule for any public body, be it the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the administration in Northern Ireland and, of course, local government as well as public services and business.
A code will gather together the scattered strands to be found in various places, such as in the 1995 resolution as well as the tremendously important principle of honour by which all noble Lords are bound (although it proved rather elusive because it was taken out of one edition of the excellent books on guidance) and will be stated plainly.
First, I shall sketch briefly the work of the committee and where I stand in the debate. The committee put forward a recommendation for a code. Secondly, we stated that the time had come to end the voluntary nature of the current Part 3 of the code; it should now be put on a compulsory basis. Thus, noble Lords' interests should be declared by prescription.
The code should cover financial and non-financial interests, as is set out in the proposal put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams. Furthermore, we produced a new test of what would make something registrable. Perhaps I may refer to paragraph 8, which uses our language, and states in regard to the test of relevant interest,
"whether the interest might reasonably be thought by the public to affect the way in which a Member of the House of Lords discharges his or her parliamentary duties".
We need to be conscious of the public perception of this House. It stands enormously high. No allegations, charges or suspicions were brought before the standards committee. However, to me that is not a

659
reason for inaction, but rather a reason for moving ahead and putting in place a code containing suitable provisions.
We then left it to your Lordships' House to compose the fine print. Noble Lords may consider that that was cowardly, but I did not think that it was appropriate for an outside committee to define for noble Lords what should or should not be included as regards financial interests and other matters. We offered a few hints in paragraph 5.55, but we did not write the rules. Today's debate concerns essentially two different versions of the way in which financial and other interests ought to be defined. All the detailed points about friends and colleagues and so forth can then be included in the consideration of what would be the desirable way forward.
One thing we were clear about was that it was not necessary to declare quantum—that is, what people earn from the various interests they declare—with the exception of earnings from parliamentary consultancies. If people are being paid to do that job, we believe—we may be wrong, but it is our view—that that is something the public are entitled to know.
As regards enforcement, we thought that there should be just and fair procedures, accompanied by the maximum of simplicity. We saw no need for any standing office and the hiring of new public servants. That would be completely unnecessary in this House. There has been no trouble ever, as far as I can tell, and nothing like that is necessary.
If a case should ever come to light, it would be tried and dealt with by the sub-committee on Lords' interests. We recommended that there should be a right of appeal, which is now standard in virtually every kind of disciplinary or professional body. The Williams group accepted that recommendation, and we suggested that the Select Committee for Privileges should be the appropriate appeal body.
The question of penalties has recently been looked at by the noble Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, and his committee dealing with the issue of contempt. Our view broadly coincided with his that there is no need to take any further action on penalties, that they are quite adequate. Your Lordships have already the most deadly remedy at your disposal—that is, naming and shaming. In our view—which is subject to correction by your Lordships—that is the most effective way of bringing someone to book if ever such a case should arise, which it has not.
To sum up, we were looking for simplicity, proportionality—avoid the overkill; nothing in excess—and courtesy. For example, if there were to be a complaint where someone said to a Member that he had left out from the register something he surely should have put in, the first the Member would hear about it would be a phone call or a letter; he would not read about it in the News of the World on a Sunday. What has gone wrong is that that kind of mechanism can be used for political purpose, the only result of which is to do enormous damage to the people who sit in the other House, if I may speak of another place, I hope not in disrespectful terms. When the noble Lord,
660
Lord Sheldon, appeared before the Committee, he advised us that we should avoid this game of tit for tat; that it has been a disgrace.
Lord Elton: Does the noble Lord therefore see reason in the wording which has been included in the amendment tabled by my noble friend and myself but not included in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that references to the sub-committee should always be made in private so that they cannot get to the press until they have been resolved?
Lord Neill of Bladen: Although I cannot speak for the committee, it would be my view that a matter should be dealt with in private, unless there is a hearing where the defendant may want the advantage of publicity. My own personal opinion is that matters should be dealt with in private.
Many points of detail cannot be dealt with today. However, perhaps I may deal with one point that is not covered by what is before us today but is covered in the Williams report, and that is the question of who is to be the investigator. If a case arises which has to be investigated, the proposal is that that should be done by a group or a panel, possibly of retired Law Lords. It is an excellent proposal but it is not difficult t o imagine circumstances—this is hypothetical but, based on experience, one does not have to look very far to find examples—where a case may arise which is inappropriate to the investigatory skills of a Law Lord and where it might be necessary for the investigator to have other skills. The Law Lords have judicial skills, but their terrier and hunting skills may not be so strong.
I hope that your Lordships will be able to agree a code today and that we will move forward into a new era.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for what he said about the proposed code of conduct, and to the Neill committee for highlighting the seven principles of public life, which the Minister mentioned, though briefly. I believe, however, that he had no intention of diminishing their importance. Selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership are values close to the heart of the Christian faith, as they are to other faiths.
Personally, I should like to have seen spelt out the element of servanthood, which must always exist within leadership—not least for us because we are here to serve the nation. I believe that noble Lords will agree that that should always be in our minds, particularly so in this debate.
I have sympathy with the reservations which have been eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I accept, for example, that it could be deemed superfluous and a breach of confidentiality to identify the extent of financial relationships where the rules of the House already prevent a noble Lord from

661
exercising any influence on behalf of those relationships. That is right. However, I do not believe that it is enough in this situation merely to do what is right. At a time when all institutions are under the utmost scrutiny, we must be seen to be doing right; to be, as the Bible puts it, whiter than snow, in so far as that is humanly possible.
We all agree that there is a need to restore public confidence in Parliament and parliamentarians, and to submit to greater openness and accountability. I hope that some of the detailed concerns which have been properly expressed in the debate will not deflect us from supporting the Motion before us.
Lord Wright of Richmond: In the light of earlier exchanges, I should start by declaring an interest: I have very recently retired as a non-executive director of BP. My friends will know that I do not have to declare either a controlling or a significant interest in BP shares. As the only Cross-Bencher on the group, I need hardly say that I represented the views of no one else on these Benches other than myself.
I join in the tributes which have been paid to the Leader of the House for the way in which he chaired our group, and I join in his tribute to the administrative staff, particularly to our clerk, Mr Brendan Keith.
I understand very well the reservations underlying the amendments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Ezra, some of which I shared at an earlier stage of the group's deliberations. But I have concluded, with one reservation, to which I shall return in a moment, that the Motion proposed by the Lord Privy Seal is on the right lines and that I shall support it if it comes to a Division today.
My one reservation, which I have already brought to the attention of the Lord Privy Seal—and which has been echoed in the debate—is whether it is wise or necessary to include in paragraph 12 of the Motion a reference to "friends" in the context of financial interests. This seems to raise insoluble definitional problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested, and even the faintly ludicrous prospect of noble Lords having to decide or defend the distinction between whether a mere acquaintance should or should not be regarded as a friend. I would have much preferred the reference to "friends" to be omitted altogether.
However, in view of the permissive—or, in Latin grammar, subjunctive—nature of the wording of the introduction to paragraph 12 and the possibility that, in rare circumstances, the interests of a close friend might be perceived as genuinely significant, I do not wish to press my reservation.
The Earl of Onslow: When I read this report I thought to myself that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, is the most honest man I know. It does not cross my mind that he does anything other than selflessly, with integrity, with objectivity and accountability, so why do we have to say it? The
662
moment we have to say it, it is like someone saying "Oh no, guy. I promise you I'm honest". The moment we have to stand up and state that we are honest, we smell a rat and count our change.
It has been said time and again that this is an honest House. I genuinely believe that to be the case. Only once in all the time that I have been here has anything to the contrary happened. Someone asked me to introduce a private Bill—which I did not do. He said to me, "Of course, you can have what expenses you like". If that was not a bribe, I do not know what was. Of course it was a bribe. I have never been so angry. I believe that I am here on my honour. That may be old-fashioned, but the proposal amounts to a barrack-room lawyer's charter.
To be possibly a little unkind, would the interests of Gaynor, then Mr Cook's girlfriend, have had to be registered before her existence could be publicised by Mr Alastair Campbell? If that had not happened, would Mr Cook have been hauled up in front of whomsoever one is hauled up in front of? I am sorry, but I do not believe that to be in the interests of anyone. On the matter of this "friend" caper, I do not, for example, know what shares my wife owns because I am too idle to ask her and I am not sufficiently interested. Should we need to write such matters down?
This proposal suggests that we are not honest. I find it deeply offensive to imply that there is any lack of integrity on the part of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—I say that from the bottom of my heart. The same can be said of the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Shore. I shall leave aside my side, but certainly on the other side of the Chamber I do not believe that there is a scintilla of lack of integrity. So why do we have to proclaim it from the mountain top? That strikes me as saying that we do not have confidence in ourselves.
This is a great House. Yes, there was Lord Kagan; yes, there was the Duke of Norfolk who was executed for treason during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. But those were exceptions. We may want to execute someone—mostly on the Liberal Benches, I hasten to add, but that is another story. But surely we are grown up and honest. If anyone is "iffy", we know as much. This is a lovely, honest House. We do not have the dishonesty of France or Germany. We do not even have that lovely quality of Clive of India who, when accused of helping himself from Surajah Dowla's treasury, said,
"Gentlemen, I stand astonished at my own moderation".
We have grown up since then. This House is basically an honest place. To go around proclaiming it on our breasts makes me think that we are to be a little less honest than we have been hitherto.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: As we are discussing declarations of interest, perhaps like the noble Lord, Lord Wright, I should begin by declaring what might be thought to be two interests. The first is that I had the privilege of being a member of the working group

663
so delightfully chaired by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House—as he then was not. If ever there is an experience of enjoying hard work, it happens when one is a member of a group chaired by my noble and learned friend. The second declaration is that I was privileged also to be a member of the Select Committee for Parliamentary Privileges, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead.
I have inflicted my views on the House more than once on this subject—the previous occasion being some 10 days ago. For that reason, I did not propose to intervene in this debate. However, it was strongly recommended to me this afternoon that silence on my part might be misconstrued as suggesting that there was some difference of view between my noble and learned friend and myself. If there is such a misconception, I can dispel it with a concise declaration: I agree unreservedly with the initial report, and I agree unreservedly with every word spoken by my noble and learned friend in opening the debate—that has not always been the case in the past, but it is the case today.
Perhaps if I were wise I should leave the matter there, but it is a pity to stand up in order to say so little. Therefore, perhaps I may add just one comment on some of the points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said correctly that we reached a wide measure of agreement in the working group. I am bound to say that at the time I thought it to be rather wider than subsequently transpired; however, most of the differences aired this afternoon are, as the noble Lord said, differences of detail.
Certainly, on one vital question we were in total agreement. There has been no deterioration of standards in this House, and—subject to the few historical exceptions mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—we have an unblemished record. The differences that have emerged relate to the corollaries that are to be drawn from that. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, says: in that case, why bother to change anything; why not just leave matters as they are?
The other possible way of looking at the subject is to say that, if there is nothing to conceal, why not make that transparently clear? There is nothing more calculated to give the impression—one that we know to be false—that there is something to hide, some skeleton in the cupboard, than to seem to be trying to conceal something. It was that which greatly troubled my noble and learned friend and some of us on the committee.
The differences that we are discussing are matters of detail, but they give rise to questions of style. If we give the impression that we embrace with enthusiasm the suggestion that there should be a code, that we accept obligations, that we are quite prepared to make these matters known, that gives one impression. If the idea is that we are doing so reluctantly and grudgingly and that on the whole we would rather not be compelled to declare matters, that gives another. If, as I believe, this House has nothing to conceal, I should have thought that our best course would be to draw aside the curtain and let the truth speak for itself.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to the Motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal:

1. In paragraph 12, line 3, leave out "shareholdings not amounting to a controlling interest;".

2. In paragraph 12, line 5, leave out "or friend".

3. In paragraph 12, line 6, after "gifts" insert "of a substantial nature".

The noble Lord said: I feel that it may be opportunist at this stage to refer to the amendments standing in my name. My reason for tabling them was to seek clarification of some of the issues raised in paragraph 12 of the proposed code, on which there has already been some debate. I shall take that into account in my remarks. I was led to table the amendments by a careful reading of the admirable report by the working group chaired by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House.
The report states on page five:
"A code of conduct can help to reduce Members' uncertainty and possible confusion about their obligations to reveal their interests".
When I read paragraph 12, my uncertainty increased somewhat. Therefore, I thought I ought to see whether it could be improved by drawing attention to it.
I was struck also by the statement in paragraph 16:
"The principle of openness requires a balance to be struck between disclosure and personal privacy".
The question of personal privacy arises on the issue of friends and whether we should have an obligation to reveal our friends' personal financial interests. It is for those reasons that I tabled the amendments. Perhaps I may refer to them briefly.
On the question of shareholding, I was in some doubt as to what we should do about that. Clearly, if we hold a controlling interest, it must be declared. If we hold a substantial interest—the term has to be defined; the noble and learned Lord's idea was that a "substantial" interest is 1 per cent of BP. so no doubt that would have to be declared—what if it is a perfectly modest investment in, say, BP, which would bear no relationship to the total capital value of the company but which might benefit at some future date from a particular debate or legislation which we were discussing which could affect such an interest? Would we have to register that modest, say, few thousand pounds worth of shares in the anticipation that there might be a debate at some unknown date in the future that could raise the value of those shares by some indeterminate amount?
I should like to raise the distinction between the words "declaration" and "registration". In the case of modest shareholdings, which most of us hold, can I take it that if the situation were to arise where we became involved in a debate in which that modest shareholding could benefit, we would then declare our interest; but that we would not have to register our interest in advance just because such an eventuality might arise? Quite frankly, I should have found it much simpler if we had been told that we had to

665
register all our shareholdings. That would be perfectly straightforward: one would send in a list and then it would be done with. I suggest that perhaps the idea of declaration in the case of "modest shareholdings" that might be affected at some future date should be brought into place. I put that proposal to the noble and learned Lord.
The use of the word "friend" in the code has been discussed. If I had a friend—let us say, a school friend who, through dedication and hard work, ended up as a chairman of a very large manufacturing company—I must say that I would find it slightly distasteful if I had to declare that I had such a friend. It might be that I meet this person purely on social grounds. We need further clarification in that respect. It also raises the question of the invasion of privacy; not so much ours, but that of our friends. They may have no wish to be associated with a debate in which they took no part; and, indeed, upon which they might even disagree. I also put forward that point.
Finally, I turn to "hospitality" and "gifts", to which my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred. At certain times of the year, we are all subject to receiving many invitations—to receptions, lunches, dinners, and so on. As those are of a "modest" nature, I take it—and hope—that they certainly will not have to be declared. But at what stage do they have to be declared? I hope that the registrar will know the answer to that question. We also receive many gifts from companies of a small nature; for example, calendars, things to put on our desks, and so on. Similarly, I take it that they would not have to be returned; indeed, that would be an insult to the donor. I trust that we are really talking about major gifts, as outlined in the wording of my last amendment.
The whole point of my intervention is that I wish to obtain clarification. However, should the situation arise, it would not be my intention to move my amendments. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will be able to give me some of the answers for which I have asked.
Lord Elton: Perhaps—
Lord Marsh: As a member of—
Lord Elton: In the circumstances, perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, with my contribution.
5 p.m.
Lord Marsh: It is most kind of the noble Lord to give way.
As a former member of the Griffiths committee, it seems to me that this debate has a sense of déjà vu because the speeches today are almost identical to those of that time. The reassuring effect of that is that nothing terrible has happened in the past six years since then. However, that is not to say that something will not happen. The main value of the code, as produced, is that it demonstrates the awful
666
consequences of drafting by committee. In my view, we are making a colossal mountain out of the proverbial molehill.
We should aim for a sense of proportion. I shall be very brief. The only problem that I have with declaring my own shareholdings—I also practise as chairman of an investment company, which has a sizeable amount of shareholdings—is that I would be horrified if more people than necessary knew how the shares had performed over the past two years. Indeed, the sheer shame of it.
I have been in this place for 20 years. Throughout the whole of that time I have been either chairman or chief executive of publicly quoted companies. I hope that I have always declared that interest. There has never been an occasion where my participation in any debate in this Chamber could conceivably have affected any of those companies in any way. That is the real world. There have been several occasions when I have been involved in intensive negotiations and lobbying with government departments about legislation, but they have always been conducted between civil servants and representatives of the industry. It simply is not true to say that if one really wants to help BT, BP or any other company, that the best way of doing so—or the most likely way to achieve that aim—is through the Committee stage of a Bill going through this Chamber. One might make some speeches, but, in my experience, such companies have direct access with a specific official who is responsible for that particular industry, and who is well known by that industry. Therefore, I do not see the problem as being a big one in that respect.
I also have a strong objection to both the inclusion of friends' and spouses' interests. For reasons that I gave recently, there are practical problems about including spouses. Quite seriously, not everyone's marriage is as happy as mine. Indeed, because it was convenient so to do in other ways, we have even gone to the extent of having power of attorney over each other. That is not normally the position. In most cases, it is just not real to think that one spouse knows what the other one has, or that he or she should have such information in a modern world. I have not the faintest intention of announcing to this Chamber at any time the private affairs of any friend I happen to have. In fact, if I were that worried, I would end the friendship before I did so. Again, I do not believe that that proposition is practical.
Having said that, in the current climate of public opinion I believe that a code of the type proposed has to be accepted purely because of the picture that it would provide the public, who are sold a very different view of this Chamber than is the real position. Therefore, as far as that is concerned, I shall vote for the Motion. However, I give one warning: the more that one tries to define the loopholes—this always happens with committees that are dominated by lawyers—the more loopholes one finds. Judging by my experience, it seems to me that people know when they

667
are doing the wrong thing. Indeed, in my experience of both places, colleagues around them know it at the same time—
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps the noble Lord could clarify a point for me before he sits down. He just said that he would not declare any interests of his friends, but I believe he then went on to say that he would support the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams. Therefore, if the Motion is passed, does that mean to say that he will not stick to its provisions?
Lord Marsh: As I understand it, this is a voluntary procedure and one does so if one wishes so to do.
Lord Strathclyde: It is binding.
Lord Marsh: I believe that that applies, whether or not it is binding.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord is quite right. The position is that "relevant financial interests", including those of a "friend", may include—depending on their significance—the financial interests of a spouse, relative or friend. That is the formulation in Griffiths.
Lord Marsh: In those circumstances, whatever is in the code of conduct, I should make it clear that I would not declare it because I believe it to be wrong and immoral. I repeat: I would end the friendship before I would do so.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord would not have the freedom of action that he supposes. The word "may" applies to the quantum; but if the noble Lord had a "substantial interest" he would then be under an obligation to declare it. Therefore, from what he has said, we may expect him in the not too distant future to take leave of absence because only thus could he escape the requirement. Indeed, we should be the poorer for that consequence.
I am the last of the members of the group who combined to write this report, and the dissenting report, to rise to his feet to contribute to the debate. I do want to be different from the others by not starting my speech by saying what a perfectly splendid chairman we had. I do not lay at his feet the blame for the fact that his air-conditioning, books, or something, infected me with violent hay fever for most of our meetings, I just wish that he would move a little further from the natural place of his office; namely, the other end of the corridor towards this Chamber.
I have two interests to declare. I have a small—at least I think your Lordships would consider it small—family trust which I may or may not declare in the future depending on how noble Lords vote later today. My own advice does not depend on that interest. My other interest is the same as your Lordships; namely, the welfare of this House and the welfare of the country. The two are bound together but they take different points of view. The House is convinced of its
668
probity; the public, under the goading of a gutter press, are eager to discover wickedness in every cranny and lobby.
I suppose I should say that my noble friend the leader of my party invited rather than instructed me to join the group we are discussing. He will testify that I was extremely reluctant to do so. But, having done so, I put my shoulder to the wheel. It seemed to me that our task was, first, to recognise as a fact of political and historical life that the House had given the go-ahead to the Neill inquiry and that it had made it clear that it wanted some kind of a code to result from it. I was not of that view when I joined the group but I soon came round to it. Therefore, I support my noble friend's amendment. I shall not support any who try to overthrow the whole system.
Secondly, I considered that it was necessary to try to find a code which your Lordships would not throw out unanimously or by a vast majority. The temperature of the debate has shown that there is a real danger of such a code being produced. We tried as a group to arrive at a consensus but eventually the judgment of my noble friend Lord Kingsland and mine diverged from that of the rest of the group as to what was acceptable to the majority of your Lordships. We are here this afternoon simply to determine which of us is right.
There could have been a third course. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has tabled a scattering of amendments but he has said that they are probing only and that he will not press them. Even if he did, he would leave out two very significant changes which we propose to the code. The first of these I alluded to in an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Neill. Only in our version will your Lordships find a requirement that references to the sub-committee on the part of someone who suspects a malfeasance by someone else must be made in private. Where has this sickness in the other place spread from? I refer to people who make references to their adjudicating body and then tell the press about it. For month after month, while some unfortunate and perfectly blameless person is under investigation, the papers are full of the fact that that person is under investigation and is alleged to have done such and such. That kind of mud sticks. We do not want it here. Therefore, if your Lordships want to protect us, they should vote for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Kingsland.
The other significant difference concerns the exclusion of relations. Your Lordships have concentrated their remarks on friends. Rabbit's friends and relations were all of a kind. In your Lordships' better regulated affairs, friends and relations are different. However, some noble Lords have many relations. The term is not defined. Is it restricted to cousin, first, second or third cousin, child or grandchild? Without definition the proposal is dangerously vague.
My noble friend suggested that a relevant date has now been agreed between the supporters of the Government and the supporters of the Liberal Democrat Benches. The only difference between us is that we have provided for a resolution of the House

669
before implementation of the measure. I think that that is prudent as circumstances change rapidly in this field. It may well be that what we have now which we consider perfect may be proved to be highly imperfect, and dangerously so, on the eve of implementation. A debate would then be appropriate.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said that it is important that we should be seen enthusiastically to embrace a code. In so far as that is feasible, I shall enthusiastically embrace the Kingsland code. I believe that your Lordships should do the same and should be a little cold towards that of the Leader of the House.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: I wish to pursue the matter a little further. I declare an interest as I served on the committee under my noble friend Lord Neill. I wholly endorse his contribution. I have been struck by the comments made by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer on the extraordinary extent of agreement that exists. I do not think that anyone who has read the committee's report and the red-covered report of the working group under my noble friend's chairmanship and then considers the two resolutions before us can fail to be struck by the enormous area of common ground and agreement that exists. I wish to say a few words about the differences that exist, but let us for a moment rejoice in the agreement that exists.
I like the emphasis—which covers such a wide area—on the importance of agreement. I refer to paragraph 4 of the code entitled "personal conduct" which states:
"Members of the House … should act always on their personal honour".
I am sure that the noble Earl will feel that that is a correct statement to make. I do not dismiss it. The only problem with acting on one's personal honour these days is that its different nuances are a little ill defined. However, I am sure that the phrase I have mentioned is as meaningful to me as it is to the great majority of my fellow citizens. Every boy scout is brought up to "do his best on his honour". The phrase is meaningful but it requires greater definition.
We have drawn up a code of conduct in general terms. However, absolutely at the centre of our commitment is the fact—as stated in paragraph 4—that we,
"must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence".
There is not a person in this House who disagrees with that and who would not think it shameful if someone acted contrary to that pronouncement.
What a sanction there is in this House—I was not aware of it—which does not exist in the Commons. Paragraph 4 states that Members of the House,
"must not vote on any bill or motion, or ask any question in the House or a committee, or promote any matter, in return for payment or any other material benefit".
That is an extremely powerful prohibition, including the voting, which I do not remember was a prohibition similarly attached to the "no paid advocacy" rule in the Commons. As I say, that is a powerful prohibition.
670
I and, I am sure, many of my fellow committee members were struck by the Griffiths rules and the previous report. There was no sense of our coming from the outside and pretending to know better in laying down the law for Members of this House. That did not enter our thoughts for a moment. We had a great area of agreement. What, then, of the points of difference? I have tried to note them down. Perhaps I am a little easily swayed by the arguments put forward both by my noble friend and to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. However, I give a personal view on the various points of difference, tiny as I consider them to be and therefore not matters of great concern to this House. The matter of sums received for paid advocacy ought to be included in the code of conduct. That is something the public have a right to know. I might even concede that they could be included within bands of width, for example, sums under £5,000, £5,000 to £10,000, if that was considered more acceptable.
I wholly agree with the common-sense point put by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, with regard to friends. It is an absurdity to ask us even to know about, let alone report on, the interests of our friends. The difficulty is that the provision is already in the rules. I hesitate to say that we should take it out, but I would never have put it in.
I agree with the dissent of my noble friend. I do not believe that relatives should be included. Spouses, yes—or spouses and partners if that is what people want—but the term "relatives" is too wide. We cannot possibly bring them in; and it does not matter anyway.
I agree entirely that we should not go public at the initial stages of complaint. It has been poisonous in the Commons and done great damage to the procedures set up there. If my noble and learned friend can take account of that in his response and in the code, we should all be very grateful.
Finally, with regard to enforcement and ensuring compliance, the procedures of this Chamber are admirable. The great advantage of having Law Lords in this House is an asset of which we should take full advantage, particularly on investigation of a difficult complaint.
Lord Renton: I venture to suggest—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Lord Nolan.
Lord Carter: Perhaps we may hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg.
Lord Nolan: I shall be brief and, I hope, uncontroversial. I speak as the proposed chairman of the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests, a subcommittee which noble Lords will note now has much heavier responsibilities under paragraph 18(2) of the code. I say "proposed" because my nomination has not yet been approved by the House. If I am asked to

671
serve—I am sure the same goes for my colleagues on the committee, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh—I shall do so.
First, whatever form of resolution or amendment is adopted by the House, please let what has to go in the register be as clear as possible. The burden placed on the registrar will be very heavy. Many instances have been raised when, with the best will in the world, it will be difficult to say that something should or should not go in.
Secondly, the registrar is the final arbiter of these matters. I ask your Lordships to consider whether it is fair that such a heavy burden should be placed on an officer of the House without formal provision for recourse to other advice. I have held the post for some years. Naturally, I am pleased to be approached informally by the registrar, as were other members of the sub-committee. I believe that that may be his personal 'view. I hope that it may commend itself to your Lordships' House that there should be a formally recognised limit on his personal responsibilities: that he may refer disputed questions through the chairman to the Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests for advice and can rely on its ruling.
I refer briefly to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. In the first formation of a committee on standards in public life, we were told that Members of Parliament were not thought to hold public office. They came in under the wider words of the definition which included those in public life, a phrase which expressly included Members of Parliament. I raise the matter so that, if necessary, it can be considered and put right.
Lord Renton: It is highly desirable that we should be unanimous in our decisions on this important matter, which affects the constitution and reputation of this Chamber. There is a great deal of unanimity already. As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, pointed out, the amendment by my noble friend goes a long way towards agreement with the government measure moved by the Leader of the House. Unfortunately, however, there have been serious criticisms of paragraph 12, and slightly less serious criticism of paragraph 11.
Rather daringly, I suggest that we do not reach decisions today on the matter. In view of the serious criticism by the noble Lord, Lord Wright, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and other noble Lords, we could not accept paragraph 12. It is also clear that paragraph 11 should be toned down. I hope that I am not being too daring; I seek to help. However, I suggest that the Front Benches should agree an adjournment today. They should get together very soon in order to see whether they can get even closer on the views put forward. Eighty per cent of what has been suggested by my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench is in agreement with what the Government put forward. It would he most unfortunate if we simply reached agreement after Divisions.
Lord Rees-Mogg: I am sorry that I did not speak before the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shore. He assumed that there was total agreement in the Chamber on most of these matters with only minor points of difference. That is not so in my case. I think that this is a bad code. It is too complicated and will cause a great deal of trouble in the future. I have no confidence in the code.
The process by which it has reached this stage has involved too much coming from outside—in particular from the troubles of the other place—and too little from inside this Chamber. That tends to undermine the independence of this House and self-regulation. I shall not press the point. I have made it before, kept the House until after midnight and annoyed almost everyone. That approach is a strong argument against the way in which we have proceeded. The code will lead to confusion and harassment. We shall regret having so many little boxes of information to be filled, many of which will be used to the embarrassment of the Member who filled them in.
The worst aspect is the extraordinary phrase "might reasonably be thought". What meaning can one attach to that phrase? Of the four words, three express ambiguity. "Might" means "might not". "Reasonably" is a matter of pure subjective judgment. I regard my speech as highly reasonable, but a large number of Members of the House will regard it as wholly unreasonable. How are we to determine which opinion is right?
The next problem word is "thought"—not even "stated" or "said". We cannot read the thoughts in other people's minds. We now have to guess what other people might think and what thoughts they might have that might be held to be reasonable. That is a preposterous basis on which to build a code of conduct.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, said, the process will put undue weight on the registrar. The registrar cannot make up my mind for me about whether what I am doing is honourable in the terms of the traditions of this House. It must come back to whether I think that what I am doing is right. I cannot put it on an official of this House, however distinguished and however helpful his advice.
There is a reference to the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. If I fail to declare something that I ought to have declared, I shall be reported to the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, who will be treated for these purposes as though he were the Leader or Chief Whip of the Cross-Bench Peers, which he is not. It is no business of the Convenor of the Cross-Bench. Peers, admirable though he is—and he is a very good Convenor—to intervene if I am criticised for having failed to disclose something that it is held I ought to have disclosed.
Finally, there is the problem of spouses, relations and friends. How should we know about them? The provision is not in the spirit of the times. The spirit of the times, for what it is worth—and it is a pretty ridiculous concept—is that wives and husbands should be free to pursue their own careers with considerable

673
independence from each other. The Prime Minister and his wife are widely regarded in the country as admirable examples of two people who have made a marriage with separate careers. If the current Prime Minister comes to this House—as I hope that he eventually will—will he have to ask his wife to tell him everything that she is doing in her legal profession so that he can be sure that he has declared it in the register of interests? Is that how we believe that married life ought to be pursued at this time in our national history?
This is a pitiful nonsense. I intend to continue to consult my conscience about what is honourable and what is not and to attend to the traditions of this House.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, are welcome. He has been honest about his view and has echoed what a number of noble Lords are probably thinking. I understand why the various committees arrived at their conclusions. That is what happens when committees discuss such issues. They end up with a lot of ideas, all of which seem to have to go into the report, but the end product may not serve the purpose for which it was originally designed. Such a code—even as proposed by my noble friend Lord Kingsland—will probably damage that which the public most value about our House, which is the fact that it is made up of people who know about a lot of aspects of life from their personal involvement and declare their interests when they speak. That is why we have not had any trouble in this House. I believe that we shall continue without such problems.
However, we are being cornered by the Government's procedures into having a code. If we have one, I hope that noble Lords will take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said. His comments seemed to make it difficult for him to support the recommendations of the Leader of the House. I am not sure whether he said that he would support the Motion, but he seemed to put a lot of difficulties in the way. The comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, also made it difficult for him to accept the proposals of the Leader of the House.
I have a question about one detail that may also be in the minds of other noble Lords—unless I am the only one who has misunderstood. We are told that we have to register our relevant financial interests. The report says that such interests may include,
shareholdings not amounting to a controlling interest".
I have not the foggiest idea what my shareholdings are at any given moment and I do not hold the same shares at the beginning of the year as I hold at the end of the year. I do not have large shareholdings, but I leave it to someone else to deal with them. My interest is that the shares should be worth more at the end of the year than they were at the beginning.
Looking around the House at faces opposite me and at the backs of the heads of some of my noble friends, I think that most people here have been fairly
674
successful in their profession or their business and my guess is that they have shares. Unless they think that they understand the stock market better than anybody else, I imagine that most have someone else to invest that money, or they have financial trusts that change their holdings all the time. I know very little about the subject, but in some cases those holdings are very big and in others they are rather little.
I do not know what I would declare. It may be said that it is not relevant, but it might turn out that it was. Some financial trust in which I had a few shares might have a huge interest in an issue. That might make me biased. I suppose that I could look it up before we had a debate or keep quiet. I think that we shall all find the requirement difficult. I am not even sure that people with unit trusts or ISAs know what their investments are at a given moment. The recommendation is not practical.
If I had been on the committee, I would probably have gone along with the suggestion, because it sounds good, but I suspect that it is not. I see the Chief Whip in his place. He has done quite well in his profession and probably has a share or two. He might have a problem. Indeed, there is a further problem for Ministers, because I believe that they hand over the handling of their belongings to somebody else while they are in office. How do they know what they have, and if they do know, should they?
Unless I have got the whole issue wrong, it is somewhat unhelpful. Perhaps the Leader of the House will put me right.
Lord Dubs: Having listened to the debate, I shall obviously have to widen my circle of friends, because I do not think that I have any who are registrable under the declaration of interests.
Seriously, I have listened very hard and I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. What we are doing is right and proper. It is what the public expect and have a right to demand of us. If we protest too much, we will make it look as if we have something to hide from the public. It is our duty and obligation not to do that.
If this were a cosy club, we could say that we all know and trust each other and we do not have to declare. However, we are not a cosy club. Many people in the world outside do not know us as well as we know each other. They surely have the right to know whether we have any interests that affect what we say and how we vote. That is the minimum.
Those of us who have served on a local authority are used to a rigid declaration of interests. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that this was all a bit onerous. Local government has a much more onerous declaration of interests.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may take up the noble Lord on that point. Is it true that local authority members let sometimes substantial contracts to local people about whom the councillors may genuinely have a personal view? That, of course, would be impossible in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord

675
Marsh, said, in his experience nothing that is ever done in this House could possibly be construed as having an effect on any of his interests. That is the difference between local government and the operation of this House.
Lord Dubs: I understand the distinction. However, if one takes the noble Lord's argument too far, we shall be wasting our time in that we shall have no influence on anything. I do not believe that the situation is quite as bad as that. My point is simply that, if people serve as councillors on local authorities, they are used to making detailed declarations of interest. That is all I am saying.
In addition, those of us who have served on public bodies are also used to making declarations of interest. I served on a hospital trust. As a precondition of being allowed to do so, I had to make a declaration that I had no interest in any organisation or business which might have a relationship with a hospital trust. The same applied in relation to the Broadcasting Standards Commission, of which I am currently a member. I seek only to point out that the concept of quite tough declaration is fairly widespread. It is not so novel that we should treat it as an enormous departure from what happens in other aspects of life in this country.
My second point concerns a key phrase—"dependin g on their significance"—which runs throughout the proposal. I do not believe that some of the concerns expressed are relevant because, due to that phrase, they would not have to be declared; they are not sufficiently significant to come within the scope of the issue.
I turn to my third and final point. I listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. Are we imposing so much detail on the registrar that his or her task will be too difficult? I hope not. However, I want to ask my noble and learned friend to answer one question when he replies to the debate. If, with experience, we find that ambiguities or uncertainties arise which the registrar must constantly resolve, and short of another debate such as this, would it be possible for the registrar to issue a code of guidance to Members which would simplify matters for the avoidance of doubt? I ask that because we do not want to have to return to a debate such as this other than after a long period of time. Perhaps the process could be fine-tuned. That would simplify the matter and make the registrar's task easier.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I shall be brief. I believe that the great reason for the Government's Motion, which we on these Benches broadly support, is that the reputation of the House of Lords is its major source of influence. The House of Lords does not have great power in comparison with another place. However, the power that it has with the public arises from the respect that the public has for this place and which it is important that the public maintains. I agree with those who have said that, sadly, times have moved on. There is not the same respect that there once was—perhaps there should not be—for those who "live and work above us", so to speak.
676
Another factor is that, whether we like it or not, we live in a world of increasingly sophisticated criminal activity which has already, in the case of other legislatures, given rise to extremely difficult situations. It is essential that we build for posterity and that we recognise the pressures upon even this place.
My second brief point is that, without any doubt, the great majority of Members in this place uphold, in every possible sense, the honour of the House. However, frankly, one needs only one or two bad apples for the media to go to town on the subject of Peers and then to collectivise that to suggest that the whole House is affected, as I believe it not to be.
Thirdly, I want to ask a question of the Leader of the House. Is it possible that the registrar, in building up case law, could be asked to provide an annual report which would provide additional guidance as cases came up and were resolved as a result of his advice?
Finally, I want to register two concerns which I believe are reflected in the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. They do not go so far that I would at this stage regard them as a basis for supporting the amendments, but I worry a little about the definition of the word "friend". I believe that concerns exist in relation to confidentiality, and I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said about the term "in private"
It would obviously be extremely unfortunate if someone's case were to be reported by an individual to the chairman of the Committee for Privileges and if it were done publicly in such a way that the person was judged by the media before his case was heard. I also want to ask the Leader of the House whether he can give an assurance that nothing will be made public unless and until a hearing takes place, unless it is the wish of the Peer who has been criticised to make it public on his own behalf.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that that is a perfectly reasonable point, and it has been made by a number of noble Lords. It is only right that I say that at that stage I shall do what is required to bring about that conclusion, assuming, of course—I hope that that is not presumptuous—that the Motion in my name is carried.
Lord Williamson of Horton: I shall be brief. There is one other difference between the text presented by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal and that presented in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It has not been referred to at all in the debate thus far. Under the heading of "other relevant financial interests", the amendment presented by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, refers specifically to remunerated directorships and partnerships.
Personally, I consider it to be very wise to include the reference to partnerships, which are a source of substantial revenue for persons in some professions. It is not included in the text presented by the Lord Privy

677
Seal and I should like to have a comment on that point. I believe that we should avoid any ambiguity on revenues derived from partnerships.
Lord Marlesford: My own position is simple. When I came here 10 years ago, following 16 years as a parliamentary journalist, I was surprised that there was no register of interests. I suggested that there should be one and I was glad when it was introduced. I believe that it was a good idea that it should, for a while, be a voluntary register. However, I consider that the time has come for it to be mandatory, and I gave oral evidence in those terms to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Neill.
I believe that one of the most important points has been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan: that the code will be totally unworkable if it is not clear what is required. I believe that, in a sense, the Leader of the House himself made the "unworkable" point when he referred to our declaring friends who have substantial landholdings. I do not know why he chose to give that example, but he did.
There is published annually a list of the rich. I declare an interest at once, not because I am in it—of course, I am not—but because I am an independent national director of Times Newspapers Limited, which publishes it. I suppose that that is relevant. The list is widely published—over a million copies are circulated—and it includes details of the landholdings of a large number of people. Therefore, if the proposal of the Leader of the House were to be introduced, it would be necessary for those of us who have friends in that list to go through it carefully and register their interests. Frankly, I believe that that is absurd.
Secondly, I make one point about another place, where I believe that this whole issue has become a ludicrous obsession. I shall give one example relating to the Prime Minister, for whom I have much respect. Under the heading of "gifts, benefits and hospitality" in the current list of the House of Commons register, Mr Blair has put:
"31st December 1999: tickets for four adults and five children to the Millennium Dome's new year celebrations provided by the New Millennium Experience Company, registered 9th May 2000".
Frankly, if the Prime Minister of this country is required to declare such drivel in the register, it discredits not just the register but the other place itself.
I believe that of the two proposals, the one put forward by my noble friend Lord Kingsland is infinitely more workable. It covers the entire spirit of what we need in order to reassure public opinion. I shall vote for it enthusiastically rather than for the proposal of the Leader of the House.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may make a brief contribution at this stage. I begin by thanking my noble friends Lord Kingsland and Lord Elton for having served on the committee chaired by the Leader of the House. Both my noble friends did so reluctantly but I know that once they started their work they realised its importance. This is an important issue
678
because it affects every Member of this House. It is for every Member to ponder, having listened to and weighed up the arguments and read the documents provided for us.
The House has always been respected for its sense of fairness and proportion. In life, a solution should always be in proportion to the problem. Uncharacteristically, the solution of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has for once lost some of that sense of proportion.
I follow the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shore. This debate involves not what we agree about but what we disagree about, and we disagree about quite a lot. Noble Lords must ask themselves whether a code that could involve prying into every nook and cranny of the life of every Member of this House and into the lives of their families and friends is proportionate to the perceived problem of standards of conduct in your Lordships' House. Noble Lords also have to ask whether such a code—which is potentially irreversible because, under the noble and learned Lord's Motion, there will be no further opportunity for the House to examine the code before it comes into force next March—is likely to enhance this House's standing. Is the code appropriate to a House whose strengths lie in its interests and whose Members are in most cases part-time? Finally, noble Lords have to decide whether it is in the wider interests of this House and its present and future membership for us to adopt today a code that is in many respects more draconian and intrusive than that which was adopted in another place. If the answer to those questions is yes, noble Lords should of course support the noble and learned Lord's Motion, but I emphatically cannot do so. There may be differences of detail between us but they are still very important differences.
I turn briefly to the question of friends and the 1995 resolution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths. Although that resolution made reference to friends, it was a non-mandatory provision. It was up to each Member to decide whether the interests of their friends impinged. To my knowledge—which admittedly is not certain—I have never heard anyone declare the interests of a friend during the past six years.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept that the Griffiths report referred not to the registration but to the declaration of an interest, and does he agree that such a declaration was compulsory?
Lord Strathclyde: As I understand it, whether we agree with the noble and learned Lord or with my noble friend, oral declaration in this House will still be required. I have always believed that oral declaration is far more important than registration because it is made at the time of the relevant debate and it is therefore entirely and at once visible.
Lord Goodhart: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but does he agree that the effect of the "Kingsland amendment" would be to remove any obligation to declare an interest of friendship?
Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend Lord Kingsland will speak in a few moments. My understanding of the matter is that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is wrong. My noble friend's amendment would not remove the obligation to declare an interest orally. However, I am sure that he will return to that point when he winds up.
I turn to the date of implementation. It has been much discussed that the registrar's work between now and that date could be particularly onerous. I also understand—I may be mistaken about this—that the current registrar is due to retire at some date early next year. I therefore believe that it would be more appropriate to have a date that is later rather than earlier. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House agreed that with us and the Liberal Democrats. The date in the Motion is therefore the end of March 2002. My noble friend Lord Kingsland took the matter one stage further in his amendment and suggested that there should be a further resolution of the House before the date of implementation is known but that that date cannot be before the end of March 2002. That proposal allows him to deal with any details that come out of this debate and which may make it more difficult for the registrar to put into effect the resolution that is agreed to.
Many noble Lords know of my strong reservations about the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. I made those reservations clear in the evidence that I gave to his committee. After all, the Griffiths committee in 1995, the Neill committee in 2000 and the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House agree that there were no breaches of the code and no evidence of any wrongdoing.
I, too, have moved. I am not sure whether I have done so because that chimes with the spirit of the times or is the result of the influence of the noble Lord, Lord Neill. However, I have come to accept, in light of the noble Lord's report, that changes should be made to develop the register further. I agree with what the noble Lord said about moving forward now. However, any such action should be taken in due time and it should be in due proportion. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Kingsland advanced an alternative code. Many may not like it and I myself may quibble with its details but his proposal keeps the vital sense of proportion that I feel the Motion lacks.
My noble friend's proposal is the middle way between the status quo, which the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, has probably rendered untenable, and the Motion of the Leader of the House. My noble friend wants to extend the ambit of registration but he strikes a more sensible balance between what is rightfully and legitimately public and what is fairly and legitimately private. He also allows due time for the registrar to consider operational details. My noble friend's amendment is not perfect. It is a compromise. I should like to think that the Leader of the House
680
could agree to it but if he cannot I shall support my noble friend in the Lobby. I hope that many noble Lords on all sides who believe in a more balanced and proportionate response will do the same.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Renton called for unity. He is right. However, he also suggested that we should delay the process for another day. He is wrong about that because we have said just about all that there is to be said on this matter.
A vote for the noble and learned Lord's Motion would support an irreversible and draconian provision. A vote for my noble friend's amendment would lose us absolutely nothing. If it turned out that we were wrong, we could still in due course agree to the Motion's stricter policies. That is why, when noble Lords turn their mind to voting—they will do so soon—I urge them to support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Selsdon: I want to correct my noble friend on one point. He said that we have heard everything that there is to say on this matter. However, some of us would have liked to make a contribution to this debate. I had intended to make a contribution lasting five seconds for each year that I have been in your Lordships' House. However, like all good people, I shall write to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I remind noble Lords of where we have got to. For the past six or so years we have been bound by the Griffiths resolution. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was right to say that that involves the declaration of a financial interest. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who is not currently here, was equally right in her observation that when one is trying to skitter through a declaration, particularly at Question Time, it is virtually of no value to those noble Lords who might be interested. The noble Lord who is asking the supplementary question is not trying to deceive; he simply does not have the time.
It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, that all this came from the outside—I paraphrase. That simply is not correct. I, together with my noble friend Lady Jay, gave evidence to the Neill committee. I took the trouble to read not only the annex of those who had given evidence, but also the evidence given. Whether or not one agrees with the conclusions, one cannot say that it did not take into account a wide range of interests and views from Members of this Chamber. It is not correct therefore to say otherwise.
The present position also is that the Griffiths resolution says that—I quote for the last time today (happy moment)—
"They should also declare any non-financial interest of which their audience should be aware…Such interests may be indirect or non-pecuniary, for example the interest of a relation or friend".
It ought not to be forgotten that the Kingsland amendment also includes the obligation to register as a mandatory obligation in some circumstances the financial interests of the spouse.

681
The real question therefore is not one of fine principle, but whether or not in this world the relationship of husband and wife may be of such close interest as to be equated reasonably to the interest, for instance, between a father and a well-loved child, or a doting grandfather or grandmother and a loved grandchild. Are they not capable in this world of having the same sort of intimate relationship that ought to require disclosure? It is not a question of endless investigation, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was going to say.
I repeat, that was the situation which obtained. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, was a member of the Griffiths committee which produced that very resolution.
Lord Marsh: Perhaps I may comment. I am not relying on the fact that I did not have a friend at that time—I have got some now. I genuinely do not believe that any member of the public can reasonably assume that a Member of this Chamber will behave dishonestly purely on the basis that he has a friend who might benefit. That is one of the reasons I am relatively relaxed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It may well be that no member of the public could reasonably believe that any Member of your Lordship's Chamber would behave on the basis of self-interest or the interest of a spouse. But that is not the point. The question is: how do we deal with the circumstances that face us? Virtually everyone who has spoken agrees on the necessity—it may be a disagreeable one—for a code. Even the late repenter, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has now seen the light.
The recommendation of the Neill committee is worth looking at. We find it at page 58 of the report:
"The House of Lords should ensure that deposited agreements and details as to the remuneration derived from parliamentary services under category (1) be made available for public inspection".
That is exactly what we recommended. Category (1), of course, relates to consultancies or any similar arrangements whereby Members of the House accept payment or any other incentive or reward for providing parliamentary advice or services. We put that in our proposed code following the submissions, in part but significantly, because we reflected, first, on what was in Griffiths and, secondly, on what was in Neill.
We are living in a changed world. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, is quite right: this Chamber is enormously influential. Members of this place are influential not simply in voting or in debate, but also in conversation in a House which, by and large, is an amicable place; in public speeches on public platforms; and in writing letters to newspapers. Every one of us has the possible influence and advantage of membership of this place when we make public announcements.
682
I dealt with the point in relation to privacy and shall touch on it only briefly. It was well made by a number of speakers. Either my noble friend Lord Shore or the noble Lord, Lord Marsh—forgive me for not remembering exactly—said that it was capable of poisoning relationships. That point was well made and I undertake to take it on board and deal with it.
Lord Elton: How will the Minister deal with it? We have the machinery before us to deal with it. My noble friend's amendment provides that machinery and the Minister's does not. How will the Minister remedy that when the car has rolled off the production line?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, knows quite well that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, does not simply deal with privacy. Both the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Kingsland, will remember that this was not an aspect of controversy when we produced our unanimously agreed report.
I am saying that the caveat of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred, that this could not come into effect without further resolution, enables me to meet what I felt was the will of the Chamber by introducing that single amendment on that occasion of resolution. It would then be a matter for your Lordships to decide. I am trying to deal fairly with a point which has been fairly raised.
Viscount Bledisloe: Before the noble and learned Lord departs from that point, I did not understand his answer. Is he saying that he will accept an amendment that this code should not come into effect until there is a further resolution? If not, he cannot get the words, "in private" on to the face of the code unless he accepts part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. If he merely gives administrative directions that the registrar should keep it private, that will not prevent the complainant going public and doing the damage. How is this to become part of the code that binds us?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It would not be proper for me to try to give administrative directions in those circumstances. But I repeat—I obviously did not make myself clear—that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out, quite rightly, that the amendment of the noble lord, Lord Kingsland, indicates at the bottom that none of it should come into effect until at the earliest the 31st March. I am saying that there will be an opportunity, if the question of privacy exercises and agitates noble Lords, to put it in as a single amendment. I do not resile from my general proposition that the code as put forward by the majority of the committee is infinitely preferable.
The Earl of Onslow: I am obviously being very stupid here. Is the Minister saying that this version can be amended before it comes into force?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If Members of this Chamber wish that to be done, it seems to me that it

683
can be done. But I would not want the noble Earl then to produce a whole raft of other amendments; that would delay matters. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that we must come to a conclusion.
The question was raised in relation to the confidentiality of a friend's affairs. That applies to spouses as well; it always has. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, raised the question of partnerships. Remunerated employment is specified and I would take that to include a partnership.
I turn now to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. He referred to shareholdings not amounting to a controlling shareholding. That is simply the distinction to be found in paragraph 11, which states,
"the following financial interests are always relevant and therefore must be registered".
That is where we find shareholdings amounting to a controlling interest. The possibility of shareholdings not amounting to a controlling interest arises in paragraph 12:
"relevant financial interests may also include".
So it allows for the flexibility which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, seeks.
The noble Lord asked a question in relation to "friend". I hope I dealt with that. One does not need, "gifts of a substantial nature" because it is found within the text itself. It depends on the significance of the gift and that is allowed for.
The question was raised as to whether there would be too much burden on the registrar. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, in approaching eagerly his prospective chairmanship of this sub-committee, said that the registrar might need to take advice from the chairman of the committee. I would commend that sort of scheme to your Lordships, with the single comment that if the registrar had approached the chairman, the chairman might then be disqualified from chairing the committee which heard the complaint. But those are matters of fine detail. This is a matter for the committee and its recommendation on resource, but it seems to me that legal advice should be available. However, one should avoid the presence of lawyers on these occasions if at all possible, other than in the Chair.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked, as did others, about publishing a running history of what has happened to complaints so far. Subject to the views of the committee, that would be an excellent idea because a body of practice, not case law, would be built up.
I have tried to deal reasonably briefly with all the points raised.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I did ask him what one does if one does not know at a given moment what shares one has. How can one register them?
Lord Wiilliams of Mostyn: The answer is that one cannot if one does not know. Nor is one required to look at PEPs or ISA statements every year, if one has those.
684
I thought that there would be more division among Members of the Committee. It seems to be the generally, though not exclusively, held view that we need to have a code, or perhaps it is better to say that we should have a code. The arguments produced by the majority for the code are strong. It is said that this is a report which I have put before Members of the Committee. That is literally true but it is not my report; it is that of a distinguished committee which, by and large, agreed on everything.
I believe that the procedure is now for the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to take his view and for a vote to be taken on his amendment. Should be not succeed in seducing the Committee into error, my Motion will be put.
Lord Kingsland: While respecting the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, who I wish had tabled an amendment in the sense of his speech, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal and myself are in almost total agreement. On the principle of approach there is nothing to divide us. As regards two of the five issues that do divide us, the noble and learned Lord has, in effect, accepted the point of view that I expressed in my amendment on the question of privacy of reporting; and I accept, in turn, his interpretation of the obligation in respect of registration of private trusts.
There remain but three issues between us. The first is whether or not somebody in receipt of money for providing parliamentary advice should declare that amount in circumstances where they are obliged neither to take part in debate nor vote.
The second is the vexed issue of "friend" and "relative". The noble and learned Lord will be relieved to hear that I shall not rehearse the debate. However, in final submission I draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, who pleaded, above all, simplicity in our code. I can think of no area more likely to achieve the opposite than declarations of interests held by either relatives or friends, for all the reasons that have been given by so many Members of the Committee tonight.
Finally, in my submission the arguments for categorising significant shareholdings in the discretionary rather than the mandatory category are overwhelming, especially when there are additional obligations to make a declaration where an interest should clearly be expressed in debate.
The noble and learned Lord looks characteristically adamant, so I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The original question was, That this House adopts a Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords as proposed by the Lord Privy Seal, since when an amendment has been moved to insert an alternative code of conduct in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Therefore, the question that I now have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
6.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (Lord Kingsland's amendment) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Allenby of Megjddo, V.

Hogg, B.

Ampthill, L.

Home, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Attlee, E.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jopling, L.

Bell, L.

Kimball, L.

Biffen, L.

Kingsland, L.

Blaker, L.

Kirkham, L.

Blatch, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Boardman, L.

Lloyd-Webber, L.

Bowness, L.

Lucas, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lyell, L.

Brookeborough, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mar, C.

Byford, B.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Methuen, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Carrington, L.

Montrose, D.

Cavendish of Fumess, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chalfont, L.

Moynihan, L.

Coe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Naseby, L.

Colwyn, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley. L.

Northbrook, L.

Crathorne, L.

Northesk, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cuckney, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Deedes, L.

Onslow, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oxfuird, V

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Palmer, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Peel, E.

Falkland, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Feldman, L.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Ferrers, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Flather, B.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Fookes, B.

Prior, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Pym,L.

Freeman, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Rees, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Glentoran, L.

Renton, L.

Goschen, V.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Saatchi, L.

Hambro, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover,

Hanham, B.

L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Sandwich, E.

Higgins, L.

Seccombe, B.

686

Selborne, E.

Thatcher, B.

Selsdon, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Sharpies, B.

Trumpington, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Vinson, L.

Simon, V.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Waddington, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wilcox, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Amos, B.

Harrison, L.

Andrews, B.

Haskel, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hayman, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bach, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Barker, B.

Hooson, L.

Barnett, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Billingham, B.

Hylton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Boothroyd, B.

Chancellor)

Borrie, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Joffe, L.

Brennan, L.

Judd, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Burns, L.

Levy, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Lipsey, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Lockwood, B.

Chandos, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Christopher, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Crawley, B.

McNally, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Marsh, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Desai, L.

Milner of Leeds. L.

Dholakia, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dixon, L.

Morgan, L.

Dubs, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Eatwell, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Elder, L.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Northover, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Orme, L.

Ezra, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Filkin, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Freyberg, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gale, B.

Razzall, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Redesdale, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rennard, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rooker, L.

Goudie, B.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Greaves, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hamwee, B.

Serota, B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Sewel, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

687

Shore of Stepney, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Walmsley, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Taverne, L.

Weatherill, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Whitaker, B.

Tenby, V.

Whitty, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wilkins, B.

Thornton, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Tope, L.

Privy Seal)

Turnberg, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Winston, L.

Uddin, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Young of Daitington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.26 p.m.
[Lord Ezra's Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 not moved.]
On Question, original Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Committee of the Whole House which has considered a Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords has agreed a code of conduct in the name of the Lord Privy Seal and has directed me to report it to your Lordships.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the report be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That this report be agreed to and that the House adopts a Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords in the form agreed by the Committee of the Whole House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Political Developments in Northern Ireland
6.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on recent developments in Northern Ireland.
"As the House will know, the right honourable Member for Upper Bann resigned as First Minister with effect from yesterday. I regret his resignation and the reasons which brought it about. The right honourable Member has played a courageous part in the process so far and will, I am sure, continue to do so.
688
"Under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which implemented the devolution arrangements in the Good Friday agreement, the honourable Member for Newry and South Armagh automatically ceases to hold office as Deputy First Minister at the same time.
"Both have provided distinguished leadership to the devolved Executive over the past year or more; a year which has seen the four parties in the Executive working together to tackle real problems on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland.
"Under the Act, the Assembly must hold an election to fill the vacant offices of First and Deputy First Minister within six weeks. In the meantime, the functions of both offices can be exercised. But if that period expires without a successful election, I am then obliged to propose a date for fresh Assembly elections.
"We face a serious and sombre situation. But I think it is right to recall the progress we have already made: a new Assembly; devolution of power to a cross-community Executive; new North/South and British/Irish institutions; new protection for human rights and equality of opportunity; and a new policing legislation and the first recruitment exercise for the new Northern Ireland police service on a 50:50 basis already under way.
"This process has already created the conditions of stability and confidence in which economic development is thriving. What we have achieved so far has been the result of efforts by all the parties in Northern Ireland.
"Of course we still face many challenges to ensure the stability and full operation of all the political institutions, the delivery of a police service which attracts and sustains support from the community as a whole and to take further steps towards the normalisation of security arrangements as the threat diminishes.
"But, crucially, the basis for progress in Northern Ireland is the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in full, in all its aspects. That requires that every party be committed, and is seen to be committed, exclusively to democratic, non-violent means. It requires that every party rejects the use of force or the threat of force. It also means that as the institutional, social and legal changes set out in the Good Friday Agreement are implemented they must be accompanied by the putting of illegal weapons completely beyond use. In this of course we all have collective responsibility, but some parties have a particular position of influence with the paramilitaries and, under the Good Friday Agreement, are obliged to use it to achieve decommissioning.
"It is because there remain problems in implementing the Good Friday Agreement in full, as I have described, that I am here today to report further developments to the House. Over the weekend we and the Irish Government also received a further report from the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning chaired by

689
General John de Chastelain. Both Governments have published the report today and a copy has been placed in the Library. The report notes that during the past year the UVF and UFF representatives gave the commission general agreement on methods of decommissioning and supporting issues. It also notes the opening of some IRA arms dumps to inspection by the international inspectors.
"Regrettably, however, the report also notes that, despite previous commitments and assurances being reaffirmed in good faith, and all the paramilitary representatives wanting to continue to engage with the commission, there has been no decommissioning by the IRA, UVF or UFF to date. The commission reports that the IRA representative assured it of the IRA's commitment to put its arms beyond use, completely and verifiably, on the basis that it set out last year. This is welcome. But I am disappointed that the commission has still to receive answers to the other two key questions: how and when arms will be put beyond use.
"The simple fact is that the Good Friday Agreement needs to be implemented in full. The people of Northern Ireland want to see a fair and equal society. But, as they and the Taoiseach have made clear, the people of Ireland, both North and South, insist that illegal arms must also be put completely beyond use as part of the process of transformation. We will succeed only if we all work together to move forward in all these areas.
"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach said after their meetings in Northern Ireland on Thursday, there is now little time left to resolve the difficulties and obstacles that remain. We are determined to live up to our obligations in full under the Good Friday Agreement but others must do so as well. The agreement involves pain for all sides; it will not work if each side implements only those parts with which it is comfortable.
"The overwhelming desire of the people and parties in Northern Ireland is to see Northern Ireland's democratic institutions functioning as intended. They are valued greatly. They want to see them working, not suspended, on the basis of a total commitment by all to democracy and exclusively peaceful methods.
"I expect to be working with the parties, together with the Irish Foreign Minister, this week. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have stated their clear determination to engage intensively to resolve these issues as soon as possible.
"I will not hide from the House the difficulties that we face. We have seen in recent weeks the dangers when politics appears to be stalling. There have been murderous sectarian attacks; people have been intimidated out of their homes; and young children have been used as pawns in sectarian disputes. And, as so often, the police have had to step in with the support of the Army to maintain the
690
peace and uphold the rule of law. In the course of doing their duty, 57 police officers were injured on one day alone at the end of May in Portadown, and a further 39 were injured in North Belfast just on the evening of 21st June. The security forces have come under attack from a range of missiles, including petrol, acid and blast bombs, and shots have been discharged.
"Nevertheless, Saturday's Whiterock parade in Belfast passed off relatively peacefully. I commend the responsible attitude taken by the vast majority of those on both sides in a very tense situation, as we approach further parades and marches over the coming weeks. In the coming weeks all of us must show that it is politics, not violence, which works. After such a long period of division, death and deep pain it is not surprising that we face difficult challenges. But these hurts of the past impel all of us to find a way through to peace and stability for the future that ensures that the bomb and the bullet are put completely beyond use as a way of solving our problems. This is not a matter of victory or defeat for one side or the other; it can only be a victory for us all".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Northern Ireland Secretary in another place earlier this afternoon. We on these Benches very much regret that Mr Trimble has been forced to resign. We believe that he did an excellent job as First Minister, and we hope that some day in the future he will be able to continue it.
Throughout the process Mr Trimble has displayed genuine political courage, integrity and statesmanship. At all times he has sought to promote the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. While we regret Mr Trimble's departure, we fully understand the reasons behind it. Last year he was persuaded to reenter the Northern Ireland Executive on the basis of promises made by Sinn Fein/IRA to put its arms completely and verifiably beyond use. It was finally beginning to honour the commitments that it made over three years ago under the Belfast agreement. Yet, as General de Chastelain's statement this morning makes clear, that process has not yet begun, nor is there any realistic prospect of it happening. Far from putting arms beyond use, the General's statement makes clear that,
"We have been unable to ascertain how the IRA will put its arms beyond use, except for the assurance that it will be complete and verifiable. The IRA has taken note of our need for this information but until we know what method will be used, we cannot judge if it meets our remit".
What further evidence is needed to demonstrate the utter failure of the IRA to keep the promises that it made last year? There are those who argue that the mere fact of the IRA guns being silent, as they put it, is sufficient. It is not. The people of Ireland did not vote in the 1998 referendum for an armed peace: an overwhelming majority voted to take the gun out of

691
Irish politics for good. What is required is a clear demonstration by the paramilitary organisations that they intend to pursue their objectives exclusively by democratic and peaceful means and not violence. That is why decommissioning is important.
We on these Benches have always argued, as did the Taioseach, Mr Ahern, last year, that, for anything but a limited period of time, it is fundamentally wrong that democrats should be expected to sit in government with representatives of terrorist organisations that continue to hold on to their weapons. To do otherwise is to undermine the very basis of democracy in the United Kingdom of which Northern Ireland legitimately, and by the consent of its people, forms a part. That is one reason why we support the action taken by Mr Trimble yesterday. Another reason is that Her Majesty's Government have fatally undermined the confidence of mainstream moderate unionism in the agreement itself, the consequence of which we saw in the recent elections. If noble Lords want proof of it I suggest that they talk to them. I have just spent several days there.
Put bluntly, the Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, have betrayed the pledges that they made to the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum three years ago. Then the Prime Minister pledged, in his own handwriting, that:
"Those who use or threaten violence [are to be] excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland".
and that,
"Prisoners [are to be] kept in unless violence is given up for good".
The Prime Minister said that cease-fires had to be "complete and unequivocal", and there had to be,
"an end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed; an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".
What has happened since those pledges were made? Some 430 terrorists have been released early; terrorist representatives have been allowed into the Government of Northern Ireland; and the morale of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been shattered.
We, in this House, have passed four—I call them "odious"—Acts in favour of Sinn Fein: first, there was the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Act. I will not go into the detail of that; some noble Lords will remember the gruesomeness of it. What came of that? Nothing.
Secondly, there was the Political Parties and Referendums Act which allowed Sinn Fein to continue getting funds from the USA. The first thing it did with that Act was to defeat its own government in a European referendum. Thirdly, there was the Disqualifications Act which allowed Sinn Fein to sit both in Westminster and Dublin. Fourthly, there was the Police (Northern Ireland) Act which has destroyed the morale of the finest force in the country and pleased no one. Sinn Fein still wants more destruction of the RUC and the RUC is unable to do its job properly within the whole community.
692
Yet still the terrorists—loyalist and republican—refuse to give up a single bullet or ounce of Semtex. Still the terrorists maintain their structures and carry out, as we heard the Minister admit when repeating the Statement, beatings, shootings and murders. What a mess.
There can be little doubt that we now face a most serious situation in Northern Ireland with the very future of the Belfast agreement at stake. A process that was supposed to bring people together, and which my party worked on for many years before the present Government, has ended up by polarising them like never before. The centre ground has almost been destroyed.
There will now be a period of negotiation. The institutions might have to be suspended again. Looking to the next few weeks and months, I ask the Minister four questions: first, in the event of continued failure of the terrorists to move on decommissioning, will the Government consider bringing a motion before the Assembly, or introduce legislation into this Parliament, to exclude Sinn Fein Ministers from the executive?
Secondly, will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no further reforms of the police or reductions in security as a trade off for decommissioning, or some further fudging of the issues?
Thirdly, can the Minister assure the House that if it is necessary to reintroduce direct rule, there can be no question of increasing the involvement of the Dublin Government in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland?
Finally, will the Minister ask his colleagues to make it very clear to republicans that they will gain no more, but will risk losing some of what they have already gained if this time they fail to deliver?
We hope that the Government can salvage something from the mess that they have created. We still want the agreement to succeed. But it will only succeed if it is implemented in full and by everyone. The time has come for the paramilitaries to deliver and for the Government to deliver on their promises.
6.43 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it is more than 30 years since, as a young researcher in the Labour Party's research department, I noted the decision of the then Prime Minister, who is now the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, to send troops into Northern Ireland. In various capacities during those 30 years I have heard ministerial Statements of varying optimism about the situation in Northern Ireland. The two words about this Statement that ring true are "serious" and "sombre".
I also pay tribute to both David Trimble and Seamus Mallon. So far as concerns Northern Ireland, they have made great efforts for peace. We must call into question one part of the Statement when it talks about the "overwhelming desire of the people" of Northern Ireland. Sadly, as in 1974, now again at the recent general election, and often in the intervening

693
period, when the people of Northern Ireland have the secrecy of the ballot box to make a choice they do not opt for moderation and conciliation; they opt for the relevant extremes. That is a matter that successive administrations in this country have had to deal with. The eternal British optimism that there is a silent majority for peace is frequently proved wrong by events.
We agree that the Good Friday agreement retains the best hope for peace. However, it must be examined with some sense of realism and with a sense of urgency and leadership by the Government.
The Statement says that the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Irish Foreign Minister plan to meet next week and that the two Prime Ministers—British and Irish—will meet as soon as possible. What kind of timetable of bilateral work between the two governments is planned? Is there a sense of urgency in this six-week period? Would it not be better during that period to set out another British/Irish understanding of the Good Friday agreement? There are, obviously, interpretations and counter-interpretations. We now need some clear objectives which can be kicked off if we are not going to be simply in a fool's paradise. But, first and foremost, do the British Government share Mr Trimble's interpretation of what the Good Friday agreement promised so far as concerns decommissioning? If they do, they need to put some very tough propositions to the IRA in order to make any progress.
With regard to the question of a new appointment or new elections, I do not think that new elections offer any real way forward. The Government probably now have the safest pair of hands in the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, John Reid. It may well be that a period of direct rule under Mr Reid's steady hand would be a better prospect for Northern Ireland than continuing to fool ourselves that the present process with new elections and a continuation of the Assembly takes us anywhere other than into a further political morass.
Will the Minister further tell us whether, either jointly or separately, the British and Irish Governments have talked to the American Government and have made any effort to explain the present situation in the United States? One can be as sure as anything that the IRA will be explaining the situation to the American public.
Surely the Minister must realise, as Mr Simon Hoggart, who often writes in the Guardian from his own experiences of serving in Northern Ireland, said:
"What both sides in Northern Ireland are seeking is not peace, but victory".
Until that quest for unquestioned total victory is removed from the equation we will be listening to such Statements as this which are made with all sincerity and good will by British Ministers.
It is not really the hurts of the past that we are dealing with, but the new hurts that these communities are inflicting on each other with a new generation
694
learning all the old games and all the old bitternesses and hatreds. I am not sure that a pause with a further spell of direct rule, unhappy as that is for the British Government, is not a better way forward than going into a cul-de-sac where the necessary good will for resolution does not really exist.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we share with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, regret that the First Minister has resigned. Like the noble Lord, I pay tribute to Mr Trimble's courage, integrity and statesmanship. He has been a brave contributor to the peace process. As I think the noble Lord knows, Mr Trimble remains committed to trying to see the Good Friday agreement work, as do we on this side of the House and those on the other side of the House as well. We all want to see it work. Despite concessions, the noble Lord pointed out that the Statement referred to violence continuing. That is correct. The peace is imperfect. But we should not lose sight of what has been achieved by the peace process and we should all work together to try to make it work. I said that it is a sombre and serious occasion and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, echoed that. It plainly is. It is a very difficult time. It is plainly critical that we do not make it any worse by what we say here today. It is equally important that all parties commit themselves to trying to make the agreement work.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked whether, in the event of failure of the talks, the Government would move to exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive. It would not be helpful for me to hypothesise on what might happen in the future. We are working to get the agreement implemented in full by everyone; not to see it either suspended or any of the parties excluded. The noble Lord asked for assurances on the policing legislation. In effect he asked for an assurance that we will not move any further in relation to the policing position. We believe that we are faithfully implementing the spirit of Mr Patten's recommendations so as to deliver the new beginning in policing supported by both parts of the community for which the Good Friday agreement called. However, if there are areas where parties feel that Mr Patten's recommendations are not being implemented and that risks undermining the new beginning in policing, we are ready to listen to their views and consider them. This is new and wide-ranging legislation. It would be surprising if we got it all right first time. It may well be sensible at some point to review how it is working in practice. But no one should lose sight of the enormous changes that have already been made in legislation, with the first members of the new police service already under recruitment.
The noble Lord in effect said that if direct rule is introduced there should be no increase in intervention in the affairs of Northern Ireland by the South. Again, I think it wholly unhelpful to talk about what may happen in the light of a number of hypotheses. The right course at this stage is to seek to make the

695
agreement work. The noble Lord also asked for an assurance that the republicans will gain no more than they have already gained—
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I asked the noble and learned Lord to make it clear to the republicans that they would gain no more.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for misphrasing what I said. The right course is to make all the parties to the Good Friday agreement stand by its terms. That is the way forward for Northern Ireland and that is what we should all be seeking to do.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked whether the United Kingdom Government share Mr Trimble's interpretation of what decommissioning means. We are as committed as he is to ensuring that decommissioning takes place because it is a vital part of the Good Friday agreement. The noble Lord said that he did not think that new elections would help in the present situation and asked for my comment in relation to that point. The legal position is that for six weeks a search goes on to try to find a new Executive. It is right that we embark on that course. Let us not speculate about what may happen at the end of it.
The noble Lord asked whether efforts are being made to ensure that in the United States of America our position is being properly put and that the US Government are kept informed. The Government are in close touch both with the US Administration and members of Congress. What is marked is that among many opinion formers in the US, particularly those involved with the Irish American community, there is a good understanding that progress has been made in implementing all parts of the agreement other than decommissioning. Therefore, a dialogue is going on. Both the government and the wider public in the United States are being kept informed and are being kept informed of what our position is.
I hope that I have answered all the questions adequately. It is a serious moment. The best thing to do is to try to see what can be achieved by the negotiations that are starting now.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will we remind everyone that decommissioning actually means either handing over the arms or destroying them in the presence of witnesses? We are still allowing the IRA to talk in a general way about decommissioning when the conditions are right. First, the IRA undoubtedly does not mean that kind of decommissioning. Secondly, the IRA's conditions are the removal of the British Army from Northern Ireland and other demands of that kind.
What is happening about the police legislation? Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams are both saying that we have ratted on them, that we have cheated them and that they have not been given what was promised. In fact, we gave everything that was promised. As far as I remember—I should like to be
696
corrected if I am wrong—Sinn Fein and the SDLP refused to take up their places on the police authority when that was specially created to involve them. They have refused to tell their populations that it is now all right for Catholics to join as they will not suffer for it. I should like to know whether there is any truth in statements being made by some journalists that the IRA is demanding—it regards it as one of the areas we have failed in—the right for convicted terrorists to be recruited into the RUC. I should like the noble and learned Lord's observations on whether that is being said and, if so, what our position is.
I am made very uneasy by the noble and learned Lord's constant reference to the fact that we need to listen to the IRA's concerns and we need to worry about whether it is happy. It is time we started worrying about whether the IRA is keeping its side of the bargain. Someone said on the wireless the other day that the experienced journalists say that the IRA never reacts to deadlines, to which someone with great good sense said, "In that case, what about having a few deadlines which the IRA does not like?" Unfortunately, we could not do that over prisoners. We have given all that away. But surely there are things we can still refuse to be easy about. If the negotiations that are going on behind the scenes are with the sole object of finding something else to please the IRA, I suggest that the Government will lose the support of the majority in Northern Ireland. That matters far more.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the people of Northern Ireland will remain wedded to the Good Friday agreement only if there is a sense that it is being implemented on all sides. That means implemented not just in relation to the institutions of devolution but also, just as importantly, in relation to decommissioning. Support will peel off from the Protestant community if there is not a sense that decommissioning is going on.
As far as concerns the method of decommissioning, under the Good Friday agreement, as the noble Baroness knows, there is an independent decommissioning body chaired by General de Chastelain. It is for him to decide the details of the methodology of decommissioning and whether progress is being made. It is right to leave it to him and his commission to determine what progress has been made and not to get into a debate about precisely what is meant by decommissioning.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. If he looks at the original document setting up the commission he will find that those conditions were set down then.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have to remind the noble Baroness that brief questions and comments should be put. Other noble Lords wish to speak.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, there is no inconsistency

697
between the two. The independent commission is looking at whether decommissioning is taking place in accordance with the terms of the Good Friday agreement.
As regards the policing issues raised by the noble Baroness, she asked specific questions about what progress is being made in this area. Her principal question concerned the police board. The position is that the new police board has not yet been formed. It is a matter on which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State continues to hold discussions with the parties concerned. Our aim is for all the relevant parties to take up their places on the police board. That is because policing to which all the parties in Northern Ireland can commit themselves is obviously a prize well worth fighting for.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am certain that, given this difficult situation, the approach adopted by the Government is right. My noble and learned friend said that he did not want to make too many comments. Again, I understand exactly why that should be the case. It might exacerbate an already difficult situation. On the other hand, in six weeks' time, when the period he referred to will have passed, this Parliament will be in Recess. For that reason, it is hard not to want to make a brief comment at this point.
Perhaps I may put the following to him. If, in September, the Government were to be compelled to call an election for the Northern Ireland Assembly, that would take place at a time which would be of maximum disadvantage both to the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. I hope very much that, despite the limited options open to the Government, they will appreciate that calling an election at a time when the two political parties which most resolutely support the agreement would do badly would not help the peace process.
Finally, my noble and learned friend may have read a leader in this morning's Irish Times which states that:
"The peace process actually requires an Ulster Unionist leader of Mr Trimble's stature".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I did not see the leader in the Irish Times referred to by my noble friend, but I agree entirely with the implication that Mr Trimble is a man of great stature. His courage in relation to the peace process has established that.
Again, with respect, I must refuse to be drawn into speculation as to what may take place. At this stage, the right course is to use the coming six weeks to negotiate to see what progress can be made. It would not be helpful to discuss what the end result might be.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Mr Trimble's signature to the Good Friday agreement was secured by a personal manuscript message sent by the Prime Minister through Mr Trimble to the people of Northern Ireland on that night. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House
698
what is now the status of that personal pledge made by the Prime Minister and what progress has since been made in respect of it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the position is that the process engaged in by the Prime Minister and Mr Trimble led to the Good Friday agreement. Part of that involved the commitment to decommissioning, to which the note referred. All sides in the process should be seeking to ensure that decommissioning takes place. That is the view of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister; that is the view of Mr David Trimble. That remains the position: both wish to see decommissioning.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I have family and friends both in Northern Ireland and in the south. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was right to point out that not everyone wants peace. Some people in that tragic country are making a great deal of money out of perpetuating the strife. However, I believe that this Government have made genuine efforts to bring about peace and I hope that they will continue to do so by furthering the Good Friday agreement on all sides. Indeed, I have supported the Government in votes taken in this House on various aspects of the issue.
I understand from my links in Northern Ireland that there is indeed a good deal of backing and understanding for David Trimble's position. However, those in senior Church leadership, with whom I spoke a few hours ago, stress the urgency of still pressing on Sinn Fein the following plea: if you mean what you say, do please make a move now. At this stage, a simple gesture is all that is required. It is the view of those Church leaders that Sinn Fein may yet produce the hoped-for result. Pray God that that may indeed be so.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his remarks and say that I am grateful for the support that he has demonstrated over the months and years of this process. I thoroughly endorse the sentiments he has expressed, which say in effect: please let us make progress towards decommissioning because that is what the people of Northern Ireland want to see.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. On the final page it refers to the hurts of the past, which I believe are still very real. First, are the Government considering at least the possibility of setting up a truth and reconciliation commission along the lines of the South African model? I suggest that this would be of great assistance to the many victims from the past. Furthermore, it would provide an opportunity for the perpetrators of atrocities to come forward in those many cases of unsolved crimes which remain outstanding.
Secondly, are the Government considering the introduction of methods and techniques of conflict analysis and resolution? I suggest that such aids cannot be provided directly by government because they

699
require clearly neutral third parties. However, they could be helpful to all the parties concerned and eventually could lead to what is known in the jargon as a "win-win outcome"
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I know of the noble Lord's interest in these two matters. He has raised proposals for a truth and reconciliation commission or a conflict analysis process on previous occasions.
At the moment, the right course is to seek to secure the enforcement and implementation of the Good Friday agreement. Other proposals as regards conflict analysis, while interesting, are not at present at the forefront of the political agenda.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I understand that my noble and learned friend does not wish to discuss the details or to speculate about the situation. However, no doubt he is aware that the coming six weeks are going to be extremely difficult. They will coincide with the peak of the marching season; we are having a hot summer and, faced with the uncertainty of still trying to find a solution, the Government may find that their hands are tied. Would it not be better to move to direct rule far more quickly?
I should like to put forward only one further argument in favour of that proposal. At the local authority level, a great deal of practical co-operation takes place between all sides. People who say that they will not sit at the table with those who hold arms and so forth do say the same at the local level. What we need to do to allow more time for local co-operation to deepen and, in the meantime, the Government should choose direct rule. That is because until real movement fakes place on decommissioning, there is no reason why we should go on pretending that it is providing a solution.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we have seen considerable cooperation at the local level. There has been considerable co-operation at the executive and Assembly levels as well. At this stage, we think that the right course is to go through with the provisions as set out in the Act and to start negotiations.
Once again, I shall not be drawn on where that might lead. The right course to pursue is to hold those negotiations.

International Development Bill [H.L.]
7.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In the debate on the gracious Speech last week, a number of noble Lords spoke about the importance of the development agenda. This Government have a proud record on development. Since 1997, spending has increased from just under
700
£2.1 billion to £2.9 billion last year and is expected to rise to £3.6 billion in 2003–04. We are now the fourth largest aid donor and we have refocused the whole of our development effort on the reduction of extreme poverty and achievement of the international development targets.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has worked tirelessly with our international partners to move development up the global agenda and, with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been at the forefront of the changes to the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, which has delivered fast and deeper debt relief. We have argued the case for changes to multilateral institutions such as the UN and the EU, and, most recently, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has restated his personal commitment to development issues, particularly in Africa.
As we debate the Bill today, more than 1 billion people live in abject poverty, without adequate food, water, healthcare or education for their children. This Government believe that we have a moral duty and a direct interest in doing all that we can to reduce and eventually eliminate such poverty. That is why we are re-introducing the International Development Bill.
The 1997 White Paper on international development, Eliminating World Poverty—A Challenge for the 21st Century, set out the strategies and policies which the Government, alongside the international development community, needed to pursue to meet the challenge of world poverty. The 2000 White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor, reaffirmed this focus and considered the challenges and opportunities presented by globalisation. The International Development Bill will establish this poverty elimination focus in law. The reduction of poverty will become the central aim of the United Kingdom's international development assistance.
The genesis of the Bill can be traced back to the 1997 White Paper. This committed the Government to consider the need for a new Act that would reflect the Government's intention to re-focus their international development assistance on the elimination of poverty. The issue was debated in the series of development policy forums which DfID ran between 1998 and 2000. The consensus among the country's development community was that we should have a new Act to better reflect and support the Government's commitment to poverty elimination and the international development targets.
This Bill was introduced into Parliament in the other place in the previous Session. All parties supported the principle behind the Bill, if not all the detail of it. It completed its passage there without amendment and was introduced into this House on 23rd April. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I met with interested Peers to discuss the content and implications of the Bill at that time. Unfortunately, the Bill fell on the prorogation of Parliament. The Bill introduced now is identical to the one which fell then.

701
During the course of the Bill's first passage through Parliament, DfID officials met with representatives of the major UK development NGOs to brief them on the main issues in the Bill. I believe that there is strong support from NGOs for the Bill.
This is a short, straightforward but important Bill. Its purpose, as I say, is to establish the reduction of poverty as the central aim of the United Kingdom's international development effort. The Secretary of State will be able to provide assistance only if she or he is satisfied that such assistance is likely to contribute to the reduction of poverty through furthering sustainable development or improving the welfare of the people. This clear "poverty test" is set down in Clause 1 of the Bill.
There are two exceptions to this test. The first relates to assistance given to the Overseas Territories. The Government recognise the special relationship that the UK has with the Overseas Territories and our continuing obligations to them. These obligations go beyond our moral duty to tackle poverty in other countries. Even though none of the Overseas Territories is among the poorest countries in the world, the Bill will ensure that DfID is able to continue to work with them. It does this by allowing that assistance to the Overseas Territories is not subject to the poverty test set down in Clause 1. Assistance to the Overseas Territories need not be likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty. It must, however, be provided for the purposes of furthering sustainable development or improving the welfare of their populations. This formulation will allow the Secretary of State to continue to provide all kinds of support, including, for example, direct budgetary support and support for the construction of infrastructure to the Overseas Territories.
The second exception relates to assistance provided in response to man-made or natural disasters or emergencies. It is vital that the Secretary of State's ability to react flexibly and speedily in the first vital hours and days after disaster strikes is not constrained by any concern over whether the assistance which is needed is likely to contribute to a reduction of poverty, or to be "development assistance" as defined by the Bill. These requirements are therefore set aside. I know that all noble Lords recognise the importance of speed of response when there is a humanitarian crisis. It is something that we have discussed in this House.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one important implication of the new aim and purposes for assistance set down in the Bill. By establishing the reduction of poverty as the central aim of British development assistance, the Bill will ensure that such assistance can no longer be used to further improper commercial or political ends—the so-called "tied aid". Under the Bill, there is none of the ambiguity which allowed a previous Secretary of State to support the Pergau Dam. There is no basis for the re-establishment of the aid and trade provision, or, indeed, for any improper links between aid and trade. Indeed, the Government announced that all aid would be untied from April this year. So any Government
702
wishing to re-establish the link between aid and trade or aid and political influence would need to return to Parliament and argue their case.
The Bill will provide new powers to achieve this new central aim of poverty reduction. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will be able to support civil society organisations undertaking development awareness and advocacy activities. The Secretary of State will also be able to engage more effectively with the private sector by taking shareholdings in companies and using convertible instruments, options and guarantees. This will ensure that we are able to take full advantage of the massive contribution that civil society and the private sector can make to the reduction of world poverty.
The basis for the provision of most United Kingdom development assistance is the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. This Act provides that a Secretary of State can furnish assistance for the purposes of,
"promoting the development or maintaining the economy of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or the welfare of its people".
These purposes are broadly cast and have not greatly constrained the Government's ability to re-focus this country's development effort on the reduction of poverty. But the Government believe that it is not enough for development legislation merely to allow the implementation of a development programme. We believe that it should reflect the Government's and the international community's shared commitment to reduce and eventually eliminate poverty, and ensure that the United Kingdom can make the most effective contribution possible to this work. The International Development Bill includes provision for the repeal in its entirety of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.
I should at this point clarify the scope of the 1980 Act and of the new Bill, particularly in relation to European Community development programmes. The European Community is, of course, a major development partner, with some 25 per cent of DfID expenditure being channelled through its agencies and programmes. Our contributions to all bar one of the Community's programmes are determined by various European Community treaties. As treaty commitments, these contributions are covered by the European Communities Act 1972 and not by the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. So our contributions to, for example, European Community development programmes in central and eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, Asia and Latin America are, and will continue to be, covered by the European Communities Act 1972. Over the past five years, programmes covered by the 1972 Act have accounted for over 70 per cent of DfID's expenditure on the European Community. This expenditure will not be affected in any way by the Bill.
The one European Community development programme covered by the 1980 Act, and which will be covered by the Bill, is the European Development Fund. The EDF has the clearest poverty focus of all the Community's programmes. It provides

703
development assistance for 77 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, all but one of which are developing countries.
I should like to make one further point on the scope of the Bill. It is primarily concerned with the purposes for which assistance can be provided. It is not concerned with the detailed policies and priorities which should be implemented to achieve these purposes. It does not place any constraint on the types of activities or on the particular organisations or funds that a Secretary of State can support in order to achieve these purposes. The principle behind this approach is an important one. It is that our priorities and the nature and scale of our support should be determined in consultation with the people who are in need of our help. That is a principle that runs through our entire development effort, and one which I am sure your Lordships will endorse.
Nor does the Bill constrain the Secretary of State to support only activities and organisations that tackle poverty directly. Poverty is a complex phenomenon and the measures needed to reduce it will necessarily be varied. Some activities will impact on poverty indirectly and some will impact on poverty only over the medium or long term. The Bill will not constrain a Secretary of State's ability to support such activities. So it will, for example, allow us to continue to support security sector reform where such support is likely to prevent violent conflict and increase stability, thereby decreasing suffering and poverty. It will also allow us to continue to support reforms which increase revenue flow to a government where we are confident that a proper proportion of those additional funds will be used to reduce poverty in the country concerned. It will allow us to continue to commission research, even when we may not know at the outset exactly who will benefit from it.
I turn briefly to the clauses in the Bill. Clause 1 allows a Secretary of State to provide development assistance to countries and territories outside the United Kingdom if she or he is satisfied that such assistance is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty. We anticipate that most assistance will be given under the powers conferred by the clause. This power can, therefore, be said to be the "core power" of the Bill.
Clause 2 sets out a modified form of the core power, to allow a Secretary of State to continue to support the economic and social progress of the United Kingdom Overseas Territories.
Clause 3 enables a Secretary of State to provide humanitarian assistance in response to disasters and other emergencies.
Clause 4 enables a Secretary of State to prepare for and facilitate the use of the powers set out in Clauses 1, 2 and 3. It also enables a Secretary of State to support organisations and funds whose mandates and constitutions may not be strictly or exclusively focused on the reduction of poverty but which nevertheless can, in particular areas or on particular issues, make a valuable contribution to the reduction of poverty. We shall, therefore, be able to continue to contribute to
704
organisations such as UNESCO and funds such as the European Development Fund and the Global Environment Facility.
Clause 4 also enables a Secretary of State to support organisations undertaking development awareness and advocacy activities. Such activities are currently funded under the Appropriation Act.
Clause 6 lays down the financial instruments that would be available to the Secretary of State; namely, grants and loans, securities such as share holdings and convertible instruments, options and guarantees.
Clauses 9 and 10 relate to the interest of the devolved administrations in respect of international development matters. DfID has consulted closely with all the devolved administrations in the drafting of the Bill, and all have confirmed their support for it.
The Bill will confer some limited functions on Scottish Ministers, and under the Sewel convention these provisions require the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament has passed an appropriate Motion confirming that it is content for Westminster to legislate in this area.
In conclusion, the Bill demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to reducing and eventually eliminating poverty. That was the objective set out in the 1997 and 2000 White Papers on international development. It is an objective which, I believe, commands support from all sides of the House and from the wider development community. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Amos.)
7.26 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear and explicit description of the Bill. In opening, I wish to make it clear that we on this side of the House agree with the spirit of the Bill and welcome the fact that it comes before us so early in the Government's legislative programme rather than being rushed through at the end of last Session. It is now possible to have a serious debate on what should be considered a serious subject. I greatly look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who has great knowledge of these matters.
As your Lordships have heard, the International Development Bill is intended to replace the 1980 Act and will provide the legal framework for development assistance. Britain has always had a strong record on aid and development. We on these Benches welcome this opportunity to discuss the framework of international development policy and will use it to outline some of our concerns.
We supported the Bill at every stage during its previous passage through the Commons and sought to improve it. We do not oppose the broad thrust of the Bill. However, there are several issues of concern which we were previously unable to raise and which we shall seek to highlight during the course of our debates.
We, too, seek a more stable world in which every person has access to basic living standards, a basic education and primary healthcare; a place where

705
children are free from involvement in violent conflict. In every country in the developed world responsibility to the developing world is becoming more and more politically mainstream. That is in part a result of the impact of our globalised and interdependent world and in part because more and more people are taking an interest in this vital subject.
We share a common objective with the Government; namely, to seek to alleviate world poverty in any way possible. But we must not forget that charity deals with the symptoms instead of dealing with the causes. I agree with the Secretary of State that international development is becoming a centre-stage concern, and that the system may sometimes lag behind the new realities. It is good to see so many names on the list of speakers for this debate.
British aid and development enjoy a high reputation all over the world. British aid charities often lead the way and the newly branded Department for International Development has built on the impressive achievements of the previous administration. I should like to pay a genuine tribute to my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey for all the work that she has done in this area over the years. Labour Members sometimes give the impression that history began on 1st May 1997 and that they invented overseas aid on that date. Britain has always had a strong record on aid and development—unlike the impression given in the words of Sydney Smith:
"Man is certainly a benevolent animal. A never sees B in distress without thinking C ought to relieve him directly".
For many years under the previous Conservative government, and under this Government, Britain has also led the world in debt relief. Part of our historic and strategic role in the world is to play our full part in relieving global poverty and working for global stability. Under Clause 1 of the International Development Bill, the Secretary of State can provide development assistance,
"if he [or she] is satisfied that the provision of the assistance is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty".
However, the Bill contains no definition of "poverty". It seeks to limit the capacity of the Secretary of State to provide development assistance for economic or political reasons. The nature of assistance will not be altered by the Bill for UK Dependent Territories, now renamed "Overseas Territories".
For the first time, the Bill gives the Government powers to provide humanitarian relief, although a time-scale for humanitarian assistance is not given and there is no requirement for such assistance to contribute to poverty reduction. Provisions will be made for the Secretary of State to issue guarantees and to hold securities in overseas companies. The Bill says that it does not envisage these being widely used. It also gives the Secretary of State the ability to fund development education, currently carried out under the Appropriation Act.
Under the previous Parliament, however, as I mentioned earlier, Labour failed to make sufficient time for a Second Reading debate on the Bill in the
706
House of Lords before dissolution. This meant that a number of Conservative amendments could not be debated. That it was not passed in no way affected the way that our aid is delivered. In no way were the poorest people in the world negatively affected by the failure to pass the legislation.
We were concerned by the way that the Bill was pushed through the House of Commons in less than two months, with inadequate time for debate. We shall call for charities and NGOs to be given a greater role in development. The Government have been severely criticised for ignoring charities in policy making and for being antagonistic towards them. We shall be pressing for the voice of NGOs to be heard under the new Bill. However, I welcome, again, the Government's reviewed policy regarding the financing of NGO activities that involved UK nationals in countries like Afghanistan.
We shall table amendments to make certain that encouraging "good governance" is at the very heart of UK aid programmes. Unfortunately, Labour has failed to do this. Instead it intends to increase aid to countries like China over the next five years, despite a deterioration of human rights and an increase in military spending. We do not want aid to be the sad story that I recently heard,
"of poor people in rich countries only giving to rich people in poor countries".
Labour promised to be tough on corruption. Despite saying on 10th April 2000 in another place that legislation would follow "as soon as possible", Labour has failed to pass legislation to enforce the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Convention on bribery, which makes it a criminal offence for a UK national to bribe a foreign public official.
Labour is now introducing legislation, but has failed to explain why it would not do so during the previous Parliament. Government have sat on their hands while corruption has abounded. Transparency International, a well-known and much-respected body, has said:
"This Government can find time to ban foxhunting, but cannot make time to crack down on international corruption".
Where is the anti-bribery Bill? It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say that she wished another department had introduced it. Where is the joined-up thinking? Ministers promised in April 2000 that it would be introduced as soon as possible, but the Queen's Speech came and went; and Bill came there none.
We support the steps that the Government have taken to reduce the debts of the poorest countries. However, Labour has failed, yet again, to deliver the faster and deeper debt relief that it promised. At the Gilbert Murray Memorial Lecture at Oxford on 11th January 2000, Gordon Brown said:
"By the end of 2000, our target is to have more than 25 countries receiving debt relief".
However, when it came to the end of the year 2000, only 22 countries had qualified. Chad has now qualified, thus bringing the total to 23. The heavily

707
indebted poor countries initiative (HIPC) has fallen short of expectations. The Conservative Party believes that a radical and fundamental revision of the rules governing HIPC is needed with criteria that are foward looking, not prescriptive. We shall insist on a rigorous audit and that money saved from debt repayments should be spent on healthcare and education.
Labour promised that it would react quickly and effectively to international disasters. However, over the past three years there has, yet again, been a failure to deliver "joined-up" government in the British response to humanitarian emergencies. This has led to delays and infighting between government departments. The severe flooding in Mozambique in March 2000 highlighted flaws in the British response to natural disasters, as well as those of the international community. The Select Committee inquiry into the events in Mozambique severely criticised the co-ordination between the MoD and the DfID. The committee's report of 3rd May 2000 stated that,
"there needs to be joined up government".
Labour has failed to tackle the waste and mismanagement of the EU aid budget. With a third of all British aid money channelled through the European Union, there should be more accountability and less bureaucracy. We believe that member states should be able to deliver more aid bilaterally in a more effective way. On 10th January of this year, the European aid watchdog, the Court of Auditors, found the management of EU aid programmes to have serious "weakness" and "shortcomings". It also criticised the Commission for "cumbersome" procedures and "overly centralised" decision making. The backlog of outstanding commitments for certain programmes is equivalent to more than 8.5 years' payments.
I turn, finally, to Aid Direct. As suggested by Mr Gary Streeter in another place, Aid Direct will be dedicated to offering advice on how best the British people can help those in developing countries. It will help to match needs in the developing world with willing helpers in the United Kingdom. Aid Direct will be set up in partnership with the NGO community, with constant input from NGOs and embassies throughout the world. It will empower the British public and small aid charities to make a real difference to communities in the developing world.
Harnessing the enthusiasm of the British people will not only help developing countries, it will also raise the profile of development in the United Kingdom. We shall focus on good governance, do more to back the excellent work of British charities, and sort out European Union aid.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I begin with an apology regarding a fundamental truth: toddlers, baby food and computers do not mix. Therefore, my well-prepared speech is locked in my computer and noble Lords will have to listen to my "scrawls" this evening. Perhaps I may, first, congratulate the noble Baroness,
708
Lady Amos, on her recent promotion. This can be but to the good of the standing of the department that she represents.
It is rare for the House to have an opportunity to return to international development so quickly after the debate on the gracious Speech in which many noble Lords took part, including the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. That debate took place just a few days ago and we were lucky to be included in that marathon nine-hour session, which covered so many topics. I should also like to welcome the maiden speaker in tonight's debate. I very much hope that he will join the small, but happy, band of Peers who regularly visit the subject of international development.
The history of the Bill is well known. I, for one, am extremely pleased that it should return to us as a priority and as one of the first Bills to be considered this Session. On the previous occasion the Bill fell because of the political machinations of the "wash-up" period in the last Session.
While it is tempting to score political points and to attach blame, the Bill will be all the better for having had due time for consideration in your Lordships' House. However, as the Bill has been reintroduced in the same form, will it still have to go through all its stages in the Commons once more? The Commons must be looking forward to that.
The Bill reflects the Government's priorities, as set out in the White Paper. On reading the Bill I was reminded of a meeting which took place a few years ago at the advisory council of the know-how fund. It was one of the first meetings of the know-how fund advisory board after an election. We were given a paper prepared by civil servants littered with phrases such as "poverty reduction" and "aimed at the poorest". It was so unlike many previous papers that I questioned the civil servant who had written the paper about the language. I was told that the language met the requirements of the Secretary of State. I commend that attitude of the Secretary of State. We now take such language for granted. We would question any Bill that was not focused on reducing the poverty of the poorest. Such language is now a feature of every Bill that is presented in Parliament.
The Minister said that Clause 1 is concerned with the poorest people. However, I am interested to note that it does not refer to the poorest states. Is there a distinction between the poorest countries and the poorest people? That is an important point as certain countries such as South Africa have a well developed, first world infrastructure but off the beaten track there are deprived areas without even basic amenities. In some countries certain groups have not benefited from the wealth of the country. I refer to women and minority groups. Therefore, although such countries may be in the middle income bracket, they should still be eligible for funding under the Bill. Is that possible under the terms of Clause 1?
The Bill sticks to the target of reducing poverty by 2015. During the election campaign our leader Charles Kennedy raised the issue of international

709
development. It was also raised in a number of fora. I hope that the Government will promote that issue. As the Bill states, manmade and natural disasters are becoming more frequent. Global warming will also affect us although not, I hope, earthquakes. I hope that the Government will consider increasing funding for groups such as World Aware. I declare an interest as a vice-chairman of World Aware, as is the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I hope that the Government will not cut back funding for groups that promote development education.
An issue which is not included in the Bill and which constitutes a glaring omission is that of tied aid. Having read the relevant debate in another place I understand that the inclusion of tied aid on the face of the Bill might cause major problems as regards some of the smaller companies which seek to secure grants for small projects. However, I very much hope that the Minister will hold a meeting before the next stage of the Bill to consider tied aid. My noble friend Lady Williams is interested in that topic. Although we have a good record in this area and the Government are doing all they can to diminish tied aid, according to an OECD report in 1999 some 13 per cent of our aid was tied. However, our record in that regard is better than that of some of our European partners. I believe that Spain's aid is 100 per cent tied. However, Portugal's aid is not tied at all.
There is great anxiety that some of the consequences of the legislation might be missed if it is not thoroughly examined. I am particularly concerned about the Commonwealth Development Corporation. We had high hopes for its future and hoped that it would continue to invest in the poorest people. However, I was concerned to read in the 16th June edition of The Economist that,
"The CDC offices in Uganda, Malawi, Ghana and maybe Mozambique—some of the countries the department is most concerned about—are to be closed. Of the four regions that the CDC now invests in, Africa, the poorest, comes bottom of the list for any new investments".
That is not the future for the CDC that the Government intended. They wanted it to continue to invest in the poorest countries to help those who do not receive investment from other sources. The article in The Economist suggests that the CDC is becoming a venture capital organisation which seeks the highest rather than the most ethical returns.
It is traditional—this always used to happen in the past—for many speakers to concentrate on the sums devoted to overseas development. The figures are interesting. Although Britain is one of the highest contributors in cash terms, we are low in the league table as regards spending as a percentage of GDP. It would be wrong not to commend the reversal of the reduction in spending on development that the Government have undertaken which we on these Benches support. However, rather than thinking of spending 0.3 per cent of GDP on development—I believe that that is our current spending—we must consider the UN target of 0.7 per cent as the ultimate goal.
710
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, mentioned international debt. We should consider a fundamental reform of the Bretton Woods institutions. I realise that they have been considered untouchable. The very concept of the World Bank or the IMF writing off debt has always been considered unthinkable. However, it is now time to think the unthinkable given the fact that the developed nations are the directors of these institutions and given the aims and objectives of the institutions when they were established after the Second World War.
I have listed many other points. However, I shall not raise them at this hour of the night. Having focused my remarks on Africa, I end by referring to an interesting article that I read recently in an African newspaper, the title of which I cannot remember. The argument that the article proposed sticks in my mind. It suggested that the richer countries face the very real prospect of being labelled genocidal due to their almost indifference to the AIDS pandemic which is now increasingly out of control. Those countries have drugs which can halt the progression of the disease. That, linked with the effects of global warming and the fact that such a large proportion of the population will go hungry tonight, means that international development is an issue to which we shall return.
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we all look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Hannay and I shall not detain the House for long. I welcome the noble Lord to these Benches. We look forward to his contribution to development debates as well as those on foreign affairs. I am sure he will use all his experience on that.
During the debate on the gracious Speech, I welcomed this eminently sensible Bill. I shall not repeat what I said. I am only sorry that the debate comes at the end of a rather long afternoon of what I call over-indulgent and unnecessary self-examination. For the first time we have a statutory basis for providing assistance and a clearly stated intention of reducing poverty through sustainable development. That is a cause for celebration.
My enthusiasm is a little tempered by a concern that the public is unlikely to learn about the debate or its implications. Does that matter to the Government? Knowing the Government's support for development education, I ask the Minister whether the department has made any effort to publicise what might otherwise be thought to be a parochial Westminster affair. It is important that the public are kept up to date with the UK's achievement in international development over the long term. This Bill is a landmark.
In the same context, I am delighted that development education and the promotion of global citizenship have become a priority in the Bill under Clause 4(2)(c) as well as within the DfID budget. It is a particular pleasure for me to say this as I have spoken for several years on the subject of development education. The subject is primarily concerned with awareness of development, but some noble Lords will

711
know that racism awareness is an important aspect of development education. I think that we shall return to that subject many times.
This is also the moment for me to congratulate Mr Hilary Ben n on his appointment which refers specifically to citizenship education and liaison with non-governmental organisations. The many organisations throughout the country in schools, colleges, churches and aid agencies which carry out development education will be delighted with the appointment. Does it also signify a joined-up initiative, a formal link with the DfES? Can the Minister say what Mr Benn's precise connection will be with the Department for Education and Skills?
I suspect that the Government would like the Bill to pass without too much delay. It is tempting at Second Reading to set out a wish list of improvements to the overseas programme. I am tempted by, first, the noble Baroness. Lady Rawlings, on debt relief and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on the quantity of aid, a subject to which we shall certainly return. However, I limit myself to only one suggestion and a final comment.
The Minister has heard me previously on the subject. I suggest that the term "civil society" should be introduced somewhere in Clause 4 to spell out the partnership which donor and recipient governments now enjoy alongside non-governmental organisations, community-based organisations, trade unions and many other voluntary associations, as the noble Baroness emphasised.
I know that NGOs can he irritating to governments, but that is precisely the point. In many countries the NGOs, churches and agencies work very closely with government, even enabling government to carry out their function. Perhaps more than any other sphere of government they are now, in my view, actors in the drive towards good governance. Having listened to the noble Baroness, I know that good governance should be in the Bill. It is a phrase which is hard to interpret. The Minister used a different euphemism, reform; that is another way of talking about governance. Perhaps that is one reason why it has been decided to leave it out of the objectives of the Bill.
However, governments owe an enormous debt to the growing role of civil society, and their partnership with civil society is a distinct element of policy, especially in the poorest countries. There is no reference to that partnership in the Bill. I am sure the noble Baroness will have an answer, but I give notice that I intend to put down an amendment so that the issue can be examined more fully.
While I am all for change taking place in developing countries, I hope that I have no illusions about the potential of civil society to influence government. Representation will always be a problem. There is a huge disparity between the NGOs which can afford advocacy programmes and those which are simply carrying out development—and why not? In a number of countries—Malawi is a good example—groups which are attempting to monitor poverty reduction strategies, the PRSP process, are already finding the going uphill. A new DfID report is, thankfully,
712
monitoring the extent of civil society participation. It is another indication of the Government's very close interest in the subject.
Few governments encourage the growth of civil society organisation. Uganda is one. In the coming years many more will see the advantages of a plural society. Like sustainable development, the development of good governance and civil society is a worthy objective which the UK in particular emphasises. I hope that that justifies the simple statement which I shall propose.
Finally, the issue of tied aid, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was debated in the House of Commons recently. I support the important comment made by Mr Bowen Wells, MP, who has made a major contribution as chair of the International Development Select Committee in another place. In his concluding speech Bowen Wells said that the abolition of tied aid must not deter UK companies, with their extensive experience, from tendering for and winning contracts. I think that the noble Baroness will confirm that that will not happen, but it would be helpful to hear from her. How many other OECD countries are genuinely following suit?
7.57 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I make my maiden speech in this House perhaps a little on the early side—less than a week after my introduction. But I did not wish to lose the opportunity to speak on the Second Reading of the International Development Bill, a measure with whose broad thrust I am very much in sympathy and which covers ground with which I became familiar during my time at the United Nations.
Before mentioning development issues, perhaps I may say a word of thanks to all those Members and staff of the House who have made my arrival in this new world so trouble free and agreeable, and I also thank those who have made kind remarks, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, whose work in the European Parliament I used to admire from afar some years ago. If I commit any solecisms it will be my fault. To the extent that I avoid them, it will be to the credit of those who are helping me along this path.
The importance of delivery is as great in development policy as in more domestic areas, where it gets discussed a good deal at present. I touch briefly on three themes: trade, the United Nations family of agencies and the European Union's development effort, and on each focus on the need for more effective delivery.
One of the most important international decisions to be taken this year will be whether or not to begin a new trade round. The decision will be taken at the World Trade Organisation's ministerial meeting at Doha this autumn. I believe that it is strongly in the interests of this country and of the European Union

713
that the decision be a positive one. But it will only be a positive one if we can convince the developing countries that this time, unlike on previous occasions, we shall actually ensure that they benefit in deed, not just warm words, from the negotiations. Too often in the past we have promised much but in the event have delivered too little. We have been particularly ungenerous in matters such as agriculture and textiles, which are of particular interest to developing countries.
If we are to win the support of developing countries for the new trade round, we shall have to avoid overly explicit linkages with labour and environmental issues, which caused the shipwreck at Seattle and which the developing countries, not entirely wrongly, regard as covert means of retaining protection against their exports.
Secondly, I shall say a little about the United Nations and its sprawling family of development agencies, including the United Nations Development Programme, the World Health Organisation, the World Food Programme and many others. They are at the heart of development policy, but their record for delivery is not always brilliant. The United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan—whose re-election last week for a further term I salute—has done much to restore the UN's battered image during his first term. He has been a firm reformer, but his power to reform the UN agencies on his own is not great. The role of the member states in those intergovernmental organisations is crucial. I hope that our Government will give him their full backing in further efforts at reform of the UN agencies and that if reform is carried out effectively, we will reward it with increased financial commitments. Too often we have cut back our commitments with the laudable aim of achieving reform but then failed to reward reform when it is achieved. Such behaviour breeds cynicism and resistance to reform even when it is urgently needed.
Thirdly, the European Union's development effort, to which other noble Lords have referred, has had a poor reputation in the past. Some of the criticism has certainly been valid. However, that programme will not wither away and it is not in our interests that it should do so because it mobilises the resources of many of the smaller European countries that have no way of supporting a bilateral programme and of some among them who have not traditionally been aid donors. That will be even more the case when the European Union is enlarged. Here, too, the challenge is for the Government to support effective reform and delivery. We need to back the efforts being made by Commissioner Patten which have already begun to improve the quality and delivery of aid to the Balkan countries.
The theme of delivery has run through all my remarks. All the Bills in the world, worthy as they are and worthy as this one is, are to little avail if we cannot achieve the effective delivery of our development policies. On delivery, let us face it, an awful lot remains to be done.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I am sure that I reflect views in all parts of your Lordships' House when I say how privileged we have been to hear the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who served his country with distinction over many years as a member of the diplomatic service. I remember first meeting him about a quarter of a century ago, when I was appointed a junior Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. At that time he had already held a number of important posts, including playing a crucial role from 1970 to 1972 in the negotiations over our membership of the European Community. Over the years, he proceeded onward and upward. The list of his appointments is so extensive that reading it out would probably stretch your Lordships' patience, but after serving as the head of a number of departments in the Foreign Office, he then had possibly the most difficult task that any member of the diplomatic service has to face as our ambassador and permanent representative to the European Union, after which he went on to be our permanent representative and ambassador to the United Nations.
The noble Lord retired a few years ago, but his has been an active retirement, with his appointments by the Prime Minister as a special envoy to Turkey and by the European Union presidency as a special envoy to Cyprus. He has also served with great distinction the cause in which he and I have a common interest—that of higher education in the city of Birmingham. He brings depth and breadth of experience to the House and I am sure that I speak on behalf of all Members of the House when I say that we look forward to hearing from him on many future occasions.
Before I deal with the Bill, I shall indulge myself by addressing a brief remark to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, who claimed, in her interesting speech, that the Conservatives had always had a strong record on development when in government. The empirical example of percentage of gross domestic product devoted to development co-operation, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, shows that from 1979 to 1997, this country's record went consistently in one direction. From that appalling base, we now have a figure that, although going in the right direction, is still regarded as substantially too low by most of us who are concerned about development co-operation. If we had continued the trend that the Conservative Government inherited in 1979, perhaps this country would have had a fighting chance by now of attaining the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent.
I shall deal briefly with the Bill. The core power is necessarily drawn much more tightly and concisely than the current legal basis in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. We can look forward with confidence to the fact that never again will a Secretary of State be so unsure about the scope of their power that they allow themselves to be seduced into another Pergau dam project.
The Bill has a wider range of powers, but it also has a more focused aim. Like many of those who have already spoken in the debate, I believe that we are right

715
to support a Bill with those extra dimensions such as support for organisations supporting civil society, the process of support for development awareness and education and a more effective engagement with the private sector. I was pleased to hear the Minister spell out the detail of that through shareholdings, convertible instruments, options and guarantees. It would be interesting to have it spelled out further in Committee.
The poverty focus must be capable of wider interpretation than just direct aid to the poor. An interesting editorial in the current edition of Choices, the journal of the United Nations Development Programme, looks in some detail at the role of information and communications technology in development. I shall quote two short paragraphs from that editorial. It said:
"Certainly ICT cannot by itself bring an end to world poverty. ICTs are simply tools. And no single set of tools can solve a global problem with such multiple and complex causes.
But while ICTs are not a magic bullet, they do provide powerful ammunition in the fight against poverty. As with all tools, the usefulness of ICTs depends upon how they are employed. And there is now a body of cost-effective, country-differentiated and empowerment-oriented solutions, which use digital opportunities to address basic development goals. New technologies offer potent support to efforts to address the divides in health care, human rights and education".
I hope that my noble friend will confirm that when we talk about poverty-focused aid programmes, we are not talking simply about basic programmes; we are talking about imaginative programmes that will use state-of-the-art technology to produce the very delivery that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, so rightly emphasised.
I turn briefly to two other small points in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, worried me slightly when he expressed concern that there was no reference to tied aid. I had always understood clearly that, when the Government said that they would not allow the use of aid funds for improper political or commercial ends, that was intended to be a direct reference to tied aid. Therefore, I ask my noble friend a specific question in that area. Will she confirm that tied aid is an improper use of development funds and that any government who wish to re-establish the link between aid and trade or aid and political influence will need to return to Parliament to argue their case and obtain parliamentary approval?
I turn briefly to the question of European Community development programmes. In this regard I believe that we see one of the weaknesses of the Bill, although I understand the reason for it. We are seeing a new Bill applying itself to the European development funds. However, it is applying itself to those which are not budgetised or subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the European Parliament through the normal budgetary processes but which exclude from the process 70 per cent of DfID's expenditure. There may be vast concern about increasing proportions of that 70 per cent being directed to strategies which are not poverty focused or poverty related.
716
Therefore, although I understand and welcome the expressions of hope, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that, as we approach the Bill in Committee, it may be important to spell out further how we propose to translate our hopes to improve the effectiveness and poverty focus of EC development programmes into some kind of reality.
My final point in relation to the Bill concerns the question of good governance. I have a predisposition to want to see specific reference in the Bill to good governance. However, I recognise the differences of views and the cogency of some of the arguments behind the differences of views. But I want to make it clear to my noble friend that I shall listen with care to points raised on this issue during further stages of the Bill because I believe that a great deal of persuasion is still to take place if noble Lords are to believe that there should not be explicit reference to good governance in the Bill.
This is a useful Bill. It will not resolve all the problems, especially those concerning EU development aid. However, it takes clear steps forward. It places a better range of powers at the disposal of the Secretary of State, and it provides a basis for a more focused policy. I believe that the poverty focus is in; I hope that tied aid is out. On that basis, I welcome the Bill and look forward to our being able to discuss it in more detail at further stages.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to add a word about the outstanding maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. During my own brief time as a Minister at the Foreign Office, I worked with the noble Lord and came to form a very high regard for his ability and talent. I am sure that those will be put to great use in this House.
I also want to say how good it is to see my noble friend Lady Amos in her dual role on the Front Bench. Perhaps I may be allowed to make one exhortation to her as she takes on her enlarged responsibilities. I hope that she will see her role as carrying the flag of DfID into the Foreign Office and not the other way around.
At the outset of my remarks, I declare an interest because I am deeply involved, voluntarily and professionally, in this sphere of work. Specifically, I mention my role as a member of the Oxfam Association and my trusteeship of Worldaware and the Overseas Development Institute. In my professional work, I deal with the think-tank, Saferworld.
It strikes me that this Bill is an international development assistance Bill. It deals with the authority to spend rather than with the wider policy of cohesion, which is essential to successful international development. That cohesion must be about trade, environment, migration, defence and foreign policy. It must be about multilateral institutions, the UN system, about which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke, about G7 and the OECD, as well as the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation and the

717
IDA. And it should certainly be about the European Union, with its immense potential, whatever its still disturbing shortcomings at present.
The Bill endeavours to spell out purpose. But why is there talk of reduction of poverty? Why should there not be reference to the elimination of poverty? What, in the end, does reduction of poverty amount to? It may be difficult to eliminate world poverty, but if we have that as the objective, we have something against which to measure the progress that we are making in the reduction.
The Bill deliberately does not define "poverty". I believe that that is mistaken. Do the Government have in mind a money-metric measure, a multidimensional measure and empowerment, Professor Sen's ideas of capability and functioning, or the human development approach, as advocated by UNDP? Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will enlighten us in her reply. Similarly, there is a need for more clarification about what exactly is intended by the term "sustainable development".
However, I turn to specifics. There has been mention of untied aid. It is difficult to overstate the relief and gladness with which the Government's decision to untie aid was greeted by those of us who have repeatedly seen the folly, counterproductivity and damage caused by tied aid. It is therefore disappointing that the Government, for whatever internal Whitehall reasons of compromise, have failed to make clear in the Bill that tied aid is finished—banished, indeed. I believe that many of us fear a creeping, sinister rationalisation and the erosion of commitment away from the resolve to untie.
Then there is Clause 5(1). What is really envisaged as,
"assistance in any form or of any nature",
apart from the financial aid, technical assistance and supply of materials to which the clause refers? The clause raises potentially significant issues, but frankly it is rather vague.
In Clause 6(3) is a reference to buying shares. What exactly is all that about? Is it simply another obligatory genuflection to the market which seems to have become required of all legislation in our ideological age, or does it have a thought-through purpose? I look forward to the Minister telling us more. How does the clause relate to the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the International Finance Corporation?
In Clause 9(1) why is there no mention of poverty? I recognise the nature of the statutory bodies identified in the schedule, but should not their role explicitly be part of the general purpose, as spelt out in Clause 1(1)?
I turn now to the subject of humanitarian aid. We all know of the pressures that can be brought to bear to use the allocation of humanitarian aid to promote particular foreign policy objectives. But two questions arise. Is that ethical or, indeed, is it effective? In 1999, in the follow-up to what was called its Principles for a
718
New Humanitarianism, DfID made an explicit link between humanitarian aid and conflict management objectives. Its policy statement said:
"It is essential that the humanitarian response takes into account the wider context. In some circumstances intervention may not help resolve the problem or may even prolong conflict. When considering its humanitarian response, DfID's policy is to look at the conditions that have brought about the conflict and assess what can be done to reduce violence and bring lasting peace".
That proved to be controversial. Some NGOs were unhappy about its implications. They even saw such a policy as potentially jeopardising their work. In contrast, in February last year, at the time of the reorganisation of the conflict and humanitarian aid department, the Secretary of State was unequivocal. She said:
"Whilst humanitarian aid must always take account of the political context in which it is given it should never be used as a lever in an attempt to achieve political aims or manage a conflict".
Nevertheless, not all of the anxieties of those concerned in the UK and abroad have been dispelled. In 1986, the International Court of Justice gave its judgment in a case involving military and paramilitary activities in Nicaragua. It argued that if humanitarian assistance is to escape condemnation as involving political—I stress that—intervention in the internal affairs of a country, its objective and methodology must conform to the standards that are laid down by the Red Cross. Two central imperatives have to be observed: impartiality and humanity. The principle of impartiality is defined by the ICRC as making,
"no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress".
Whatever the misgivings within DfID or the pressures that were put on it by others within government, a more precise definition of humanitarian aid in the Bill would have clear advantages. It would underline in law DfID's determination to uphold international law and humanitarian principles. It would be central to the Government's commitment to a rights-based approach to development. The principles of impartiality and humanity are cornerstones of human rights law and international humanitarian law. It would complement what I hope is a continuing ethical dimension to our foreign policy. It would provide a statutory base for a robust policy by DfID and free it of charges of having soft or sentimental subjective preoccupations. It would meet the public's expectation of what humanitarian assistance should be. For all of those reasons and others, I trust that the Government will look at the matter again and put it right in Committee.
Like others, I am sorry that the Bill missed an opportunity to follow the example of the Netherlands, which legislated that aid will be 0.8 per cent of GNP. That would protect aid from any future opportunistic cuts. We hear a great deal about development targets, especially those for 2015, and about mid-term targets. We also hear a lot about partnerships and the obligations that must be fulfilled by developing countries if they are to receive more aid. But what about our obligations as a developed wealthy country,

719
one of which must involve increased aid? On reflection, is it not unfortunate that the Bill fails to incorporate clear short-term, mid-term and long-term goals for the achievement of the 0.7 per cent figure?
I cannot conclude without commending the Bill on its commitment to the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission. I am a patron of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth. Education is indispensable to development, but it is a two-way benefit. If our own higher education is to meet the challenges of glohalisation, we would be insane not to ensure that it is pursued invariably in communities of scholars that are demonstrably representative of the wider world.
We love our Secretary of State. We admire all her gutsy but intellectually muscular drive. My noble friend the Minister is an invaluable asset to the team and to the cause. However, I must say that uncharacteristically the Bill is a little weary and middle aged. It does not challenge in the way in which it should do or set the pulse racing. We are, after all, fighting for humanity. Worthy the Bill may be, but it is hardly the inspiration for which we are looking if we really are to be a new Britain in a new millennium. Perhaps we can sharpen it up a little in Committee.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, from the Conservative Back Benches, I welcome and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. He will make many distinguished contributions to our debates. He demonstrated in his maiden speech an amazing command of brevity, which was obviously born in reaction to his long experience of United Nations debates.
I support the comments of my noble friend Lady Rawlings on the Bill. It should be supported in its principles, which deal with the alleviation of poverty. It is indeed time to end tied aid. The time for us to move on from that basis of distributing aid has long since passed.
The kind comments of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on my long-time friend, Mr Bowen Wells, who has now left the other place, were much welcomed. He was a distinguished chairman of a Select Committee in the other place on international development.
The powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was based on his long experience of large NGOs such as Oxfam. I want to make a brief contribution on behalf of the smaller NGOs, which have played an important part in the alleviation of poverty, particularly in Africa. I want to talk briefly about Uganda, which was the recipient last year of the largest proportion of aid from DfID. Such aid was very welcome. I also want to discuss the development of new sources of water and the digging of wells to provide clean, convenient and regular supplies of water for some of the poorest parts of the Ugandan countryside. There are 200 NGOs, not all of which are British, active in that field. They have brought a welcome alleviation of poverty over many years.
720
I declare an interest as the unpaid chairman of the trustees of the Busoga Trust, which is active in the Busoga and Luwero provinces north of Kampala. We have dug more than 800 wells over the past 20 years. We are a Christian charity and we were helped in a major way by DfID during the past five years. I pay tribute to the department and thank it for its assistance.
There has been a change of policy in this regard by Her Majesty's Government. I do not seek to criticise them for that, but the Government no longer directly fund many NGOs, particularly the smaller NGOs. Funding in Uganda, for example, goes directly to the Government. Debt relief—following the Cologne Summit in 1999, when the G7 agreed on its importance—and direct aid are no longer paid directly to NGOs; they are paid directly to the Government. The theory is that a government possess greater resources and can place direct contracts with NGOs to alleviate poverty through, for example, the digging of wells. I understand the reason for that change of policy—in the long run it is more sustainable for the relevant countries because governments in Africa must learn through their experience of administering those programmes directly.
The EU still funds NGOs directly and decisions are expected imminently about the next programme, which will commence in the autumn. Many NGOs in Britain have applied under the programme, which has an allocation over the next two or three years of about 1 million euros per application. However, it is heavily oversubscribed and many NGOs that were previously directly funded by DfID are now looking to the EU.
I have three brief points to make to the Minister. She is now no longer a "non-person" but a true Minister in her own right, and I congratulate her on that. Perhaps she would be kind enough, if she cannot cover these points this evening, to write to me. That would be much appreciated.
My three concerns follow on from the Government's change of policy. The first is about the fact that charities have to find working capital in order to undertake poverty alleviation programmes when they bid for contracts from the Government. No longer can a charity rely on using donations or grants that are made up-front. They have to perform the work under contract and get paid at the end. Larger contracts requiring funding of tens of thousands of pounds have to be financed from a charity's own resources, which has proved to be difficult this year. I forecast that it will also prove to be difficult during the next two or three years.
My first question, therefore, is: will the Government contemplate, under the clauses of this Bill, the granting of repayable loans to some of the charities active in fields supported by DfID, enabling them to continue their work as I outlined?
Secondly, whether or not we like it, we are now faced with the difficult problem of commissions. Because governments in Africa operate through local organisations, that problem inevitably presents itself, not only to my charity, but also to many others. It is a

721
difficult ethical issue. One can understand why the distributors of government money seek some sort of participation fee. It is understandable in the circumstances of the poverty that exists in many parts of those countries. But it is an issue on which I hope DfID will provide guidance and encouragement to local governments in Africa and throughout the world, advising very strongly that such payments should not be solicited and that those active in this field should not make them.
Thirdly, and finally, other sources of aid are not referred to directly in the Bill but are referred to in publications of DfID; for example, the Civil Society Challenge Fund, to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred. I look forward to policy decisions about the distribution of what I believe to be the £4 million available this year and ongoing. My specific question in that regard is whether some of that money can be used to help empower local communities in Africa. For example, it is important to educate local communities as to how they can use the newly constructed water sources to ensure that the health of their families and communities is improved.
The lottery, under its community fund, may be able to provide some funds for charitable acts abroad and any comments the noble Baroness can make on that point will be appreciated. Speaking on behalf of some of the small NGOs, we hope that the Government will keep under review the way in which they are supported and the role that they can play in an extremely important mission. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on the production of this Bill.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, we do not often get an International Development Bill so I feel privileged to welcome it and to add my congratulations on my noble friend's well-deserved appointment.
As my noble friend said, this is a simple Bill with one big idea; that is, that the purpose of aid is to reduce poverty. Your Lordships may think that reducing poverty is the obvious purpose of development aid and that it does not need saying. But as my noble friend Lord Tomlinson said, that did not prevent the Pergau Dam misuse of aid, nor will it prevent a different government retying British aid to goods in kind, thus distorting best aid practice as well as fair competition.
I disagree with my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—which hardly ever happens—that it is necessary to specify in the Bill that aid must not be tied. Indeed, it is preferable to rely on the big idea of poverty reduction as the measure of admissible aid since, to define too closely what kinds of aid are illegal, is implicitly to recognise others which may still not be primarily aimed at reducing poverty.
Similarly, to specify how aid should be handled by receiving governments—the good governance stipulation—singles out that criterion as more worthy than others, quite apart from any difficulties of definition. Of course, good governance is essential for
722
the relief of poverty, but as long as the big idea is maintained, good enough governance will be part of the context of development aid.
However, if it would suffer from over-specification of means, the big idea of reducing poverty needs some underpinning. Poverty reduction is achieved most strikingly from a base of national investment in health and education, particularly for girls, a proven stimulus for economic growth. In turn, economic growth assists investment in health and education and is itself a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for general stability and prosperity.
Private sector investment accellerating economic growth is essential for developing countries to make a success of poverty reduction, and so it is important, as noble Lords said, for the Bill to enable the Government to take part in and influence efforts by companies to invest through shares, options, convertible loans, guarantees and so forth. For instance, one of the more successful ways of giving people the wherewithal to improve their earning capacity is micro-credit. But micro-credit organisations cannot easily obtain capital from the capital markets and banks. Commercial banks are often averse to helping organisations which give such small returns. Under the Bill, DfID could guarantee a bank loan to a micro-credit organisation, or take a shareholding, or enable financing in other ways. That is the modern way to enable the private sector to act as a partner in creating economic growth without compromising its modus operandi.
The Bill also clarifies government support for organisations which undertake development awareness and advocacy, which currently needs recourse to the Appropriation Act. In that way, people's understanding of and support for British development aid can be improved, which makes government policy more transparent and easier to access. The Bill, in its simplicity, sends a clear signal to all the partners in development—developing countries themselves, other governments and donors—that the UK is committed to sustainable poverty reduction and that that is the purpose of aid. But we are entitled to ask exactly how the Secretary of State will be able to continue to support activities whose impact on poverty may be long term. My noble friend mentioned conflict prevention. There is also police training and strengthening honest and effective tax-gathering capacity. I should be grateful if my noble friend could clarify that.
Finally, aid is only a start, though it is a lifeline, in eliminating poverty. Poor economies need access to markets without the unfair imposition of tariffs and the unfair competition of subsidised western produce, as touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in his notable maiden speech. To reach economic take-off, countries need direct investment beyond that which the Bill can facilitate. But direct investors will not come when efficiency and effective administration are betrayed by corruption. To make this Bill inaugurate the end of absolute poverty, we also need to put our missing bit of the jigsaw in the OECD anti-corruption regime in place, as promised in the Queen's Speech,

723
through a speedy, separate anti-corruption law. I hope that my noble friend can persuade her colleagues of the importance of that. I warmly support the Bill.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, at the risk of being labelled a nameless crony, I offer my sincere congratulations to my noble friend Lady Amos on her promotion from the Whips' Office to being a full Minister at the Foreign Office with special responsibility for Africa. We are all delighted, not simply because of her own personal qualities. We know that her intelligence and thinking will be an asset to the Foreign Office.
I welcome the Bill, particularly as it emphasises priority on reduction in poverty. I remind noble Lords that that should apply to both the urban and rural poor. There is not just one poor. People can be poor in all sorts of different ways.
The Labour Party manifesto, which for once I did not have to stand and defend during the election, states:
"Labour will continue to focus Britain's development effort on the achievement by 2015 of the International Development Targets—including halving the proportion of the world's population living in extreme poverty, reducing child and infant mortality by two-thirds; primary education for all children and sustainable development plans in every country".
That is a fairly ambitious programme and certainly one which should inspire people to support it. The manifesto continues:
"With Labour, the aid budget will rise to 0.33 per cent of GNP by 2003–04, reaching £3.6 billion—a 45 per cent increase in real terms since 1997 level. We remain committed to the UN target of 0.7 per cent of national income devoted to development and will make further substantial increases over the next Parliament. We remain committed to [that figure]".
If my memory is correct, it is salutary to remind ourselves that a target of 0.7 per cent was set in 1970, well over 30 years ago. It might be another 20 years before that target is reached. We should certainly try to increase that target as much as possible. However, one must add that when it was set in 1970 there was no mention of the huge programme for the reduction and abolition of debt. The picture must be looked at in the round.
I especially welcome the stated intention of Clare Short that DfID should engage more fully in ensuring that DfID is the voice for development and poverty eradication across all areas of the UK Government, not just in terms of aid. The key issues are debt—where Britain's role in pressing for relief is welcome—and trade. However, it is critical that DfID develops a coherent and proactive strategy within government to ensure that poverty is at the heart of HMG's overall policy in areas such as trade rather than being an afterthought after the "real" trade interests are considered.
I agree with DfID's arguments that a full strategy in HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases must be multi-faceted. This is not just about drugs. Britain should have been much stronger and more vocal in support of the South African Government's medicines
724
control Act, which was a model of World Trade Organisation compliant but poverty-focused legislation to increase access to medicines for the poorest, providing a balance to purely commercial-driven policy. South African won the case, but I am sorry that we were not as strong in our criticism of the drug companies as our colleagues in the German and Danish governments.
If we are to be certain that globalisation helps the poor and does not increase inequalities, Britain's development policies, especially for Africa, will have to take precedence, sometimes over vested interests. We must ensure that that is the case.
I also welcome and encourage stronger support by Britain and the rest of the G8 developed countries for the Millennium African Plan (MAP), the idea being taken forward by President Mbeki of South Africa and a number of other African leaders for a kind of compact between Africa and the West for reform, good governance and so forth by Africa, with the West giving concessions in areas such as trade. It is critical that the MAP gets strong support; Clare Short and the Prime Minister have both voiced theirs.
We must ensure that we get action and that words do not get in the way, as with so many other plans and initiatives for Africa which have been meaningless because they have simply drifted along. Meaningful action on issues such as trade will be key, especially in agricultural and related processed products where EU policy and the CAP still cause great damage. Despite the recent EU rhetoric there will be strong resistance to change. This will be a key measure in knowing whether these countries are serious in tackling poverty. The late Archbishop Trevor Huddleston used to say words to the effect of: "Words, words, I am tired of words. What we need is action".
I turn to Angola where, frankly, I am unhappy with DfID's policy of giving only emergency aid apart from one NGO product in Luanda. There are tentative signs of hope in some areas, where displaced people have been able to settle. It is critical that donors are prepared to support those efforts with seeds, tools, resettlement grants and so forth, otherwise the painful faltering steps towards a lasting peace will not be given reality at grass roots level. That is important in building popular hope in the possibility of peace. Britain and NGOs have excellent expertise and experience in such areas. I hope that DfID will review its policy on reconstruction and development aid to Angola as a matter of urgency.
There is a tendency in our debates on international development to concentrate on matters upon which we agree almost entirely. I turn to one area which is not strictly a development Bill area but nevertheless is affected in terms of poverty reduction. Where do we stand in relation to the provision of dams? I notice in yesterday's Observer that the Ilisu dam in Turkey has again come to the fore. The headline stated. "Turkish dam to lose UK support. Report raises human rights concerns". I love the way in which newspapers print that sort of declamatory headline when nothing has been decided.

725
I am ambivalent about the provision of dams. I have read the report from the world commission on dams from cover to cover. It is a substantial document and makes gloomy and dismal reading. So many of the dams provided over the past 50 or 60 years have not lived up to the promise made when they were built. The detailed cold economic analysis conducted by that commission leads one to conclude that there would not have been any dams built in the past 50 to 60 years. It may well be that the great project of building dams in America might not have happened if we had applied to them those rigid tests.
The objection to the Ilisu dam appears to be not so much economic as social. Here, the figures keep changing. Initially it was estimated that there would be 12,000 to 15,000 Kurds displaced. According to recent reports, that figure has now risen to between 70,000 and 75,000. Friends of the Earth state that that would be terrible for the Kurdish people and the environment. Where does one draw the balance? How do countries which are deficient in energy make up the shortfall? We say quite vehemently and adamantly, "You are not getting nuclear power; you cannot have that". Then we say, "You cannot burn fossil fuels either because that is bad for the environment". How are they to make up the deficiency? It is easy for us sitting at home with a microwave, washing machine, dishwasher, television and video recorder. I have no doubt we have all sorts of other such things in our home, including light bulbs. However, we say, "You really cannot have that". I take a hard line—which sometimes gets me into trouble; I have no doubt it will do so tonight—on how we deal with people who have had a cultural history for many hundreds of years.
I am in favour of cultural history. However, when I go abroad as a tourist I am offended when I see people handing over tiny sums of money to bare-breasted black women, who are shuffling about and dancing, and being careful not to give them too much money in case that upsets the local economy. I have never had a vision of the noble savage kept in his place for the rest of time. How do we grapple with such issues? Sometimes we must face up to them and, on balance, I would now say—it is not a final view—that the Government should stick by the view they took two years ago; that they were minded to give export guarantee credit to have the dam built.
We shall never reach a position in which such matters are dealt with without controversy. We shall never reach a position in which every decision taken in terms of development has no knock-on effect one way or another. However, I hope that when we can examine these issues we can accept that the denial of modernisation to people because of our prejudices is just as bad as forcibly changing people's way of life. We must try to balance that equation and I hope that we can do so. Otherwise, much of what we do may be peripheral.
I believe that the Bill is worth having and that it requires rapid progress and implementation. I believe that at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the
726
Department for International Development we have the Ministers and civil servants to do just that. I commend the Bill to the House.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, perhaps I may first declare an interest as chair of Oxfam. It is a privilege to have listened to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who during his term at the United Nations was a good friend to Oxfam and the development agencies. I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, on her new appointment.
I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing it and on the powerful and inspirational leadership she has shown in the battle to eradicate poverty. The untying of aid and trade is an issue on which the development agencies have been campaigning for a number of years. I am delighted that the Bill implicitly entrenches the principle of untying. It is also reassuring that the Opposition, in their policy paper First Things First, take an equally firm line on this vital issue.
I do not agree with two points which the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, made in her thoughtful speech. I do not believe that any Chancellor of the Exchequer could have done more to push for debt relief than Gordon Brown. He has taken a remarkable lead in this regard not only in the United Kingdom but internationally. Indeed, much of the progress internationally has been due largely to his efforts and commitment to this important cause. As regards the speed of delivery of humanitarian assistance, there have been delays but more recently the department has moved with exceptional speed, having made a number of decisions literally within hours of dispatching relief to areas of natural disaster.
I support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about the amount of international aid. I also support the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that clear targets should be set by government to increase our aid to the agreed levels. Without such targets, it will be a long time before we reach the levels to which we are committed. Finally on this aspect, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, about NGOs being bypassed, with funds going directly to government.
The Bill deals also with the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission. These scholarships have the potential to make a significant contribution to developing countries, provided—and I emphasise this proviso—that the students to whom they are awarded return to their homelands after they graduate. If, however, they remain in the United Kingdom or move on to another developed country, it is the developed world which benefits rather than the developing world, for which the scholarships are intended.
This important issue stretches well beyond the Commonwealth scholarships. Current government policy appears to be to seek to attract nurses, teachers, IT experts and other skilled professionals from outside the United Kingdom, including from the developing

727
world, in order to fill skills shortages in this country caused by our failure to invest sufficiently in the training of such professionals.
To the extent that such professionals are attracted from the developing world, it does great harm to those countries which have invested considerable sums out of their limited budgets in their education. All who work in the field of development know that education is the key factor in enabling developing countries to create wealth and to eliminate poverty.
To deprive such countries of the very people they desperately need in order to develop their economies is unacceptable. It makes no sense, on the one hand, to grant scholarships to people from developing countries and to provide development assistance to them aimed at improving standards of education and, on the other hand, to deprive the countries in question of the benefits which derive from such scholarships and development assistance by luring away the very people they need.
I sincerely hope that the Government will consider this issue and take appropriate action to ensure that it is addressed.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I, too, welcome my noble friend Lady Amos to her new job at the Dispatch Box. I congratulate earlier speakers on their practical contribution to international development. I know of the work of my noble friend Lord Judd, of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, but I am sure that there are others.
I welcome the Bill. welcome it as a further step by the Government in the reduction of world poverty. I, too, thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, was a little grudging about the role of the Chancellor. As the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, told us, the Treasury has been particularly active in debt reduction and I have little doubt where that inspiration came from. Those of us who had the privilege of knowing the Chancellor's father, a Scots clergyman, knew that he often spoke of the moral duty that we all have to reduce world poverty among our fellow men and women. I have little doubt that the Chancellor absorbed that at his father's knee.
I also congratulate my right honourable friend Clare Short. I agree with other noble Lords that she has been a gutsy and powerful warrior for poverty reduction.
In our modern world, what is it that reduces poverty most? It is trade and the equal sharing of its benefits. This is why fair trade schemes which help develop products and their markets on an equitable basis are an effective form of aid. I am glad that my noble friend the Minister told us that the Bill will enable the Government to guarantee loans and other financial instruments to help support these schemes.
The "Everything But Arms" scheme, giving the world's poorest countries access to the rich European Community market, is another way of helping trade on a fair basis.
728
But fair trade requires rules and their enforcement. Without that corruption creeps in. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure noble Lords that this Bill will also help to defeat corruption. Why is that important? It is important because it is the poor who suffer most from corruption, and they are the very people whom we try to help. It is easy to say that if the culture of a country demands it the payment of money to accelerate business is not corrupt. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, mentioned commissions. I am not sure that this Bill will deal with those matters. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that the Government should seek to incorporate into UK law the OECD convention on bribery. I realise that to give UK courts jurisdiction over offences committed abroad creates problems, but I believe that the convention deals with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in his perceptive maiden speech, mentioned textiles. When I was a very young engineer I was sent to a developing country to install a textile process. In order to complete the necessary bureaucratic process in that transaction I had to visit a government official. I was rather nervous and wondered how I would communicate. When I arrived at the official's office I was delighted to see that his bookshelves contained the complete works of Shakespeare, large volumes of the works of Dickens and Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary. I complimented the official on his love of the English language. He looked a little surprised. He handed to me his copy of Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary and invited me to open it. When I did so I found inside a cut-out which fitted exactly the size of US dollar treasury bills. When I discussed this matter with my advisers back home I was told not to worry because bribing foreign officials was tax-deductible and that made it all very respectable.
Corruption, visible and invisible, takes many form. It can take the form of overlarge armed forces in developing countries, unnecessary extravagance, or enriching the elite. Aid can enrich UK companies if it is used to back commercially unsound projects. These forms of corruption are easy to see, but there are less visible forms. Sometimes tax incentives are offered to encourage foreign investors into a developing country. Those tax breaks may be legitimate, but it is not legitimate for a developing country to become a tax haven for prosperous companies in the hope that the tax forgone will be made up by overseas aid. There is plenty of advice on tax efficient schemes involving developing countries available from the tax avoidance industry here in Britain and I hope that the Government have taken note of it in preparing this Bill.
I agree that the Government should encourage business and industry to accept the standards proposed by Transparency International on these matters as a code of practice. The old idea of linking aid to trade facilitated corruption. By breaking the link the Government have gone some way to reduce the possibility of corruption. To help countries help themselves to reduce poverty through trade and humanitarian aid is a fine ideal and deserves every

729
support. At the same time, I hope that the Government will not allow it to become corrupted by short-term commercial, political and private interests.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. I said nice things about my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on Thursday. Therefore, I have to say nice things only about my noble friend Lady Amos, about whom we are always saying nice things. I am glad to repeat what many others have said. Welcome, at last you have escaped the Whips' Office, which is a good liberation to celebrate.
I should like to praise one matter in the Bill. The Bill contains a definition of sustainable development which is better than anything I have read in a long time. The whole notion of sustainable development became trapped after the Brundtland report way back in 1987 by references to the environment and handing future generations a world as good as that we inherited. That is a noble notion, but operationally it is very difficult to define. I am very glad that this Bill contains a more direct definition of sustainable development—not that the Secretary of State can define it—namely,
"the likelihood of it generating lasting benefits for the population of the country or countries in relation to which it is provided".
I believe that the notion of "lasting benefits for the population" rather than making a distinction in the population is very good; otherwise, we may fall foul of all kinds of environmental issues in giving development aid.
I do not agree with my noble friends who have talked about the target of 0.7 per cent. I do not disagree because I like governments to be mean, but when the target was set in 1970 the world in which we lived was very different. Today, official government-to-government aid totals about 50 billion dollars, give or take a couple of billion, and the private flow of capital, which was non-existent in 1970, is 250 billion. For countries that can get it, it is the private flow of capital which is a much better and swifter motor of development than development aid that goes from government to government. Therefore, the role of official government-to-government aid is very different from what it used to be in the 1970s and 1980s. Aid provides leverage for private flows. A number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa which have not been receiving any private capital flow need official aid to lever themselves into position so that, with good governance, education and health, they can become attractive havens for indirect investment.
That is a very different world from the one in which the original target was set. In that world there was no hope that private capital would flow from rich to poor countries. From that point of view I am not all that distressed that we have not reached a target; but of course more money is always preferable. What we really should be emphasising is that countries should prepare themselves in a way that they can become recipients of foreign direct investment.
730
I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said in his brilliant maiden speech about the negotiations for the WTO. That is another example of how poverty alleviation may have nothing to do with official aid but may very much have to do with rules which are set in the global economy about how trade takes place.
The Bill mentions development awareness. One awareness that I should like to see in this country is how much we need to have free trade so that poor countries will benefit. We have a reluctance to admit that some jobs will disappear because they will go off to poorer countries. We should not be protecting our declining industries but starting to invest in new ones. When one talks about globalisation and benefits of trade there are costs, but we are better equipped to bear the costs of structural change than poor countries. We want to educate the people that globalisation is beneficial. However, it will benefit the poor only if the rich countries do not stand in their way by following protectionist policies.
I very much welcomed what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said about the labour and green clauses. They are very well meaning issues and many people like them, but, from a developing country's point of view, they are very suspicious.
I do not, however, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. I am a prime example of brain drain, although I did not come with a Commonwealth scholarship. I believe that the noble Lord has a very antiquated view of development. Development happens when people go wherever they want to go and where they will be better off. Just because they come from a poor country they should not be nailed down. One would not put such a condition on someone with a Rhodes scholarship. Why penalise people? They may go somewhere else. They may stay in America. They may stay here. They may go back and benefit. All may benefit by being abroad. Think of Kofi Annan. He went from Ghana to America for a degree. He stayed in America. How terrible. Should he have gone back? Of course not. People should do whatever they can do to the best of their ability whenever they can do it.
Development and poverty alleviation take place by individual poor people becoming not poor. Forget about countries and statistics. Basically, poverty is alleviated when poor people get not poor. One reason why poor people get not poor is by migration. One-third of the European population migrated in the 19th century to North America. That was the biggest ever poverty alleviation divide.
We, today, are obstructing movements of labour. We are all for free capital movements, but when it comes to labour movements we suddenly become very territorial. I believe that if there are talented people and they want to move, let them move. There will be more talented people. If one looks at the history of Ireland, it gained in both ways. The many people who left the Irish shores to go to America were better off. The people who remained behind were better off because there were fewer people for the remaining jobs. Therefore, from that point of view we should not think that just because someone comes from a poor

731
country he is sold in slavery to the country and does not have to go back. Let the person do whatever he can do, wherever he can. He will remit more money back by staying here, than he would ever earn there.
Lastly, I was a little worried about what the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said. The noble Lord mentioned that official aid is increasingly not going to NGOs but to governments. I remember when the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, was Minister for Overseas Development, I was arguing very strongly that governments should give their money to poor countries via NGOs because that is a better way of reaching the poorest people than going government to government. One of the oldest known problems in development aid is that if it becomes government to government aid it takes a long time to trickle down. One has to have good governance and all those things. If at all possible, we should devise ways of giving such money as we have to NGOs which work closer to the grass roots and know what the people need. They can therefore get good value for the money we give them.
One thing we should have learnt in the last 30 years is that governments of poor and rich countries do not always look after the well-being of their citizens. Sometimes they can be completely antagonistic. The history of post 1960s Africa is full of those examples. What we really want to say is that we want to alleviate poverty of the people not poverty of countries. We should de vise ways of getting aid to them as directly as possible. I should like to hear what my noble friend has to say about the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, on the difficulty of getting aid directly to NGOs.
This is an excellent Bill. However, Clause 6 worries me a little. It is about financial assistance. While it is laudable, it may give rise to problems. In the modern world it is often the case that one buys equity in a company only to discover later on that the company is either part of a larger conglomerate or has been taken over by a larger conglomerate. One then ends up aiding people other than those one thought one was aiding. In exercising their rights under Clause 6, I hope that the Government are careful to find out whose equity they are buying.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall begin with one or two comments on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I agree with some of the noble Lord's points and disagree with others. I agree with him that it is useful when workers in the West from the developing world send money home. But I disagree with him when he suggests that workers who come here and acquire skills should stay in the West and not necessarily go home. I know he did not suggest that all should stay in the West. Not all of those who acquire great skills in the West will necessarily go back to their developing countries.
Although I am not a medic, my experience is in the medical world. In the developing countries I have visited the need for skilled doctors and nurses is very great indeed. There are not enough people in those
732
countries to treat all those who need that help. Those who acquire medical skills need to go back not only to use those skills themselves but to teach others. In some of the hospitals I have visited I have seen people, particularly those with some form of paralysis, become very much worse because their families are feeding them and looking after them but do not know how to nurse them. I have seen pressure sores the size of dinner plates and meat dishes. I do not know how they manage to survive, but some of them do when they eventually receive proper medical assistance.
I declare an interest. I run a small charity that provides telemedical links to remote hospitals in the developing world and keeps them in touch with medical consultants in this country and in other parts of the developed world.
I welcome the principle behind the Bill but I would like to see less of our aid being available through the EU. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that, by making some available through the EU, countries that have not given overseas aid in the past are brought in and we therefore increase the pool of overseas aid generally. I think that we as a nation manage our overseas aid well and probably better than most other countries. I may be biased but that is my view.
I know that following the inter-community strife the Solomon Islands are in extreme difficulty. It is the only nation in the world I know of that has to pay in advance for fuel supplies as its economy is in such a bad state. The telephone system has virtually broken down and until recently it was unable to get medical supplies because the companies supplying them would give no further credit. I understand that a trickle is getting through. I know that a number of the hospitals had to lay off all but very essential—not just essential—staff and could admit only patients who were genuine emergencies. The hospitals were not receiving the money to pay the staff or to do any work. I understand that the aid to the Solomon Islands is provided by a committee of people from various countries. We have our own High Commission in the capital, Honiara, where there are DfID representatives.
I feel certain that, if we supplied aid directly rather than through the channel of the EU, it would get to the right places much sooner than has been the case and would be dealt with far more efficiently. We know that there have been scandals regarding corruption in connection with EU aid. That is our money that is being used corruptly. It is our duty to make certain that our funding is used properly and honestly; that it reaches the right people at the right time and in the right places.
However, we are not perfect. One of the hospitals with which I work applied for a grant from DfID. The department sent out from the United Kingdom three individuals—I am told that they were experts—to undertake a gender audit on the hospital, which was run by an NGO. The hospital was told that it would not receive its grant because only 25 per cent of its beds were reserved for women. The other 75 per cent were reserved for men. That was not what the hospital

733
wanted. I know that it looks after some women for the rest of their lives because their families will not take them back.
The job of the gender audit could have been handled by DfID representatives on the spot, without sending people out from the UK at a cost of many thousands of pounds. The local representatives would have been able to advise DfID in the United Kingdom that, because of the culture of the country, women who are seriously injured or have become dangerously ill are simply not taken to hospital. The situation is unfortunate. In this country we take our female relatives to hospital, but in that part of the world they do not. Women are just not important enough. We cannot, simply by wishing to do so, change the mores of another culture.
We need to be sensible about how our aid is handled. We must take advice, not only from DfID representatives on the ground, but also from local NGOs and charities. Very often, their representatives have been in place for many more years than the DfID representatives. They have managed to build up considerable funds of knowledge and expertise which ought to be used.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and other noble Lords mentioned the problems surrounding bribery and corruption. I think that we should introduce measures in this Bill to reduce the incidence. In some parts of the world, great difficulties are caused to NGOs as well as to commercial organisations, when essential goods are held up in customs for weeks or even months. The duty has been paid and the correct import permits have been completed. Often those goods deteriorate so that sometimes, when they are released from customs, they are no longer fit for use. That applies in particular in regard to medical supplies which have a short shelf life. This occurs because charities are not prepared to pass something under the table.
We can deal with the problem by making it a part of the contract that, when DfID gives a grant for aid to an NGO or a charity, their accounts for how the money has been spent must be extremely detailed. It must be made clear that if bribes are paid those organisations will not receive any further funding, or that their funding will be cut off at that point. I know that this is a difficult problem. In some cultures, the salaries of individuals are extremely low because it is expected that they should make a little on the side. But that is not our way. We should not encourage it. If we can do something in the Bill about this issue, I should like to see it done.
As has been mentioned, the Bill separates aid from trade. I am in favour of that. A direct exchange of aid in return for trade is a mistake and is wrong. But will that mean that DfID cannot help small organisations in the developing world to start businesses that will give people employment and allow them to feed their families? In some developing countries, one individual in a family will be working and supporting 30 or more people. The more people we can get working, the greater the reduction in poverty and the greater the
734
chance of feeding everyone. If we can feed people properly—particularly the children—we will be building a healthier generation for the future.
I hope that we will be able to improve the Bill slightly as it passes through the House, but generally I welcome it.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, poverty in all its forms is the greatest challenge facing the international community. So said the world's leaders at the spring meeting here in London which was designed to combat world poverty. One of the successes of the first term of this Government was trying to meet that challenge. This Bill is a further opportunity to improve on what has already been done. I commend the appointment of my noble friend Lady Amos as a Minister well equipped to help in that task.
One may say that this Bill marks a coming of age for international aid from this country. We started with charity, mostly from church organisations; we developed to tied aid in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s; and now we have come of an age where we can confidently give aid without it being charity or without it being tied solely to our commercial advantage. The Bill seeks to put that picture of the past firmly out of the way.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai that one should look at Clause 1. The Short Title—International Development Bill—has to be defined, as it is in Clause 1, in an expansive way. "Development assistance" is that which is likely to help reduce poverty. But what is development assistance? It is that which furthers sustainable development; that which improves the welfare of people. It is not only about the alleviation of poverty; it is about its elimination, albeit down the avenue of reduction. As my noble friend Lord Desai pointed out, it is significant that in Clause 1 there is special mention of that kind of assistance which will generate lasting benefits.
When my noble friend, in opening the debate, said that poverty is a complex phenomenon and that the ways of solving it must be varied, she was right. I regret to say that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Judd when he complains about the lack of precision in the Bill. As a lawyer, I welcome that. I treat Clause 1 of the Bill as being in the widest terms; and rightly so. It has maximum flexibility to meet every circumstance. I will be very dismayed indeed if any Minister in future tells us that Clause 1 has some limited meaning. It has nothing of the sort. The only limitation is practicality and expense.
The Bill is wide in its intent. Perhaps I may address three features of it that merit development, if not in committee, then later by ministerial statement. The first is the role of multinational companies in the reduction of global poverty.
As Peter Hain said in a pamphlet published a month or two ago, globalisation of opportunity demands globalisation of responsibility. He was right. Profit

735
involves people. When we look at international development, the analysis is not merely donor governments, donee governments, NGOs and the people of the donee countries. It includes the commercial enterprises that make development work.
The 100 largest multinational companies account for one-third of the world's direct investment. That is mighty power. It deserves to be harnessed in part for the common good. Therefore, the provisions of Clause 4 enabling the Government to subscribe to, contribute to or promote organisations that will work to reduce world poverty and to make us more aware of the problem must include multinational companies—with two particular objectives. The first is innovation—they preach it; let us use it. At the Okinawa G8 summit a special programme was set up to produce cleaner forms of energy. It is marvellous that Shell is involved in a programme in South Africa to produce local energy by solar power. It is doing what it can do best technically. That could be used as a source of development aid in a critical area of development problems; namely, shared water resources. Also, companies which are innovative in international affairs should surely agree to work with our Government and others on regionally based programmes to avoid national sentiment frustrating initiatives that could be of regional benefit.
I turn, secondly, to the conduct of multinational companies in development work. Out of the 30 or so codes that presently exist, I want to give a few powerful examples. Such companies should raise corporate awareness of global poverty. They should identify broad-based common values, especially in the field of anti-corruption. They should provide special assistance for the social and environmental effects of their development programme. Where they fail, they should be accountable—but in order to ensure that such a problem does not arise, business schools should include in their programme regular tuition on the values of corporate efforts.
Why is all this so important? It is the antithesis of tied aid. II expects sympathetic free aid as a peripheral cost of major profit-making activity. Let us see, from the values that the companies preach and the codes that they produce, co-operation with the Government pursuant to Clause 4.
I turn briefly to the subject of children and their place in global poverty. My noble friend the Minister mentioned a figure of 1 billion people living in extreme poverty, many of whom are children. They would regard it a s intellectually patronising in the extreme to be required to define their condition. It is obvious. If it is that great a problem, each country involved has a special obligation to help its children.
Therefore, under the parts of the Bill that deal with "financial assistance", I invite the Government to consider requiring any government who benefit from debt relief or from a development programme to ensure that in some way children, in particular, benefit from savings made or extra moneys invested. It is a little more than that requested by the noble Baroness,
736
Lady Rawlings, as regards health and education: it must be targeted at children. At that February meeting, Gordon Brown put it well when he said:
"There is a virtuous circle of debt relief, poverty reduction and sustainable development";
at the heart of that circle are the children of the developing world.
The Commonwealth countries still show toward us a tremendous sense of affinity and, I emphasise, expectation. Gone are the days when people trained here, went back to their countries and there was a permanent tie. These days we should bring them here. In the clauses that deal with Commonwealth scholarships, I hope that the emphasis that appears to be solely on the educational is a misreading on my part. The 1980 Act properly provided for exchanges of health workers, police and teachers. I hope that this legislation will continue in the same way when it becomes law.
However, as well as Commonwealth scholarships at Oxbridge, red-brick, or wherever, why should there not be short-term visits to this country of, say, three weeks or a month? That could apply to nurses, teachers, environmental workers, civil servants, poor lawyers and accountants—people who are running the future of those countries with which we are concerned. Those people could come to this country for a month or so and, I hope, be dignified with the title of "Commonwealth scholars".
I close my remarks by reminding the House of that challenge which was said to be so great. We have the good fortune to have a Minister for international development who says what she thinks and who tries to do what she promises—a happy coincidence in a Minister for international development. We have a Government who, by the re-introduction of this Bill so early in the Session, show commitment to the cause. But, above all, we have a country that expects a moral obligation to be fulfilled to the people who need help. Everything that I have suggested tonight—multinationals, children, as well as educational and other exchanges—involves the people of those countries, or of our own country. When it becomes law, this Bill should improve the poverty problem of this world.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Brennan. I hope that my contribution will be seen as complementary to his remarks. I welcome this Bill on international development following the excellent White Paper, and the inspiring work of the present Secretary of State. Perhaps I may add my congratulations to those already expressed to my noble friend Lady Amos, with whom I share an education at the University of Warwick. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on his maiden speech. I look forward to discussing with him the prospect of increasing the understanding in this House of the importance of the United Nations.

737
My career has touched on aspects of this subject from the time when I was an engineering student and visited both modern and ancient irrigation schemes in Pakistan. At the Met Office I worked with developing countries on forecasting natural disasters. At present, I work with academic, charitable and consulting groups; and, accordingly, I declare my interests.
Bills on international development are rare but important events in the work of this House. Therefore, we need to examine the Bill closely to see whether it meets all the Government's objectives. We recall that this Bill relates to the work of an excellent department which over the years has transformed itself from a department of technical co-operation with such famous Ministers as the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Carr. I hope that the current focus of the department on the reduction of poverty will not lead to a lesser appreciation of the contribution of science and engineering to that task. I shall return to that issue later.
In considering the legislation which deals with an overarching theme, the House should be on its guard against passing a purely departmental Bill. Regrettably, departments find it easier to propose legislation which deals only with their department, or even one part of a department, rather than dealing with the more complex task of involving the whole government and the wider community as well. We saw that par excellence with the Transport Act in the previous Parliament which needed some crucial amendments on the environmental aspects of transport. I hope that this House will have the courage to do that again with this Bill. Although I support the Bill, at present in my opinion it is framed too narrowly.
Clauses 1 and 3 are excellent in that they include the three objectives of a reduction in poverty, sustainable development and alleviation of the effect of natural and manmade disasters. My point is that international development is a task which should be led and stimulated by the Secretary of State, but it is far too broad an objective to be her sole responsibility. Other government departments and agencies, including European intergovernmental agencies, need to be involved. My suggestion is that those organisations should be explicitly instructed in the Bill to have as one of their measured objectives contributions to international development paid for out of their budget to some extent. Those departments and agencies know better than the Secretary of State how best to meet those three objectives in a number of situations.
A strict reading of the Bill would imply that such work in government is to be done only if it is the express wish of the Secretary of State. Let me explain. The present Secretary of State has quite rightly emphasised that poverty reduction is effective only where conflict is eliminated and there is law and order. Sadly, the events in Sierra Leone and South America suggest that one of the causes of conflict is trading in legal and illegal commodities. I heard from a US official recently that oil trading is affecting the Indonesian situation. At the same time, of course, the UK and other countries sell arms for internal security.
738
Those matters are handled by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. One should read in the annual reports of those departments how their policies contribute to international development.
My own expertise is concerned with science and technology and how that can contribute to international development. Although it is not an explicit objective of many departments and agencies, nor of European intergovernmental agencies, the responsible civil servants in those bodies not only include that work as part of their regular tasks but also report on it in their annual reports. The list of such organisations goes far beyond those listed in Schedule 1. The list is bizarre in my view. As usual in the British public service, demanding and unusual tasks are taken on by civil servants without asking permission from higher levels and therefore without thanks or recognition and with the distinct possibility of being shot on the quarter-deck or a public accounts inquiry if things go wrong.
The Meteorological Office regularly reported on its work to improve hurricane warnings to some of the poorest and most vulnerable communities in the world, such as fishermen in Mauritius and in Andhra Pradesh on the coast of India. Farmers in north east Brazil and Africa utilise the three month seasonal forecast to decide which crops to plant. European intergovernmental agencies provide out of their regular budgets help with satellite forecasts and movement of pollution over the Indian Ocean.
More could be done. Why, one might ask, is it quite possible to use advanced technology to warn a Grand Prix driver in Sao Paulo to change his tyres because of an impending thunder storm when it is not possible to find funding to improve the expensive and erratic aviation services in central America? That point has been made by international banks. The legal, administrative point I am making is that current practice is ad hoc and may not necessarily continue unless such contributions are properly budgeted and agreed to in government as part of the overall responsibility of departments and agencies.
When that point was put to her, the Secretary of State commented that in emergencies she could call up fire officers from local brigades or helicopters from MoD. That is essential but it is only one part of interdepartmental collaboration. I am talking about the long-term programmes which are necessary for the long-term goal of sustainable development.
Another powerful example was made by James Wolfensohn of the World Bank who explained how the Internet now enables cocoa farmers in West Africa to arrange their sowing and trading. But the telecoms' arrangements in the developing world are very unsatisfactory and far too expensive. Are the DTI, the telecommunications agencies and the UN agencies for telecoms facing the problem? I am not sure. Is the City of London being used to help those farmers do their commodity trading?
The scientific community could also contribute much more to this goal. I have been on the Natural Environment Research Council and a holder of

739
numerous research grants. At present, research proposals even regarding a quite fundamental topic in the UK have to explain how they could contribute to "wealth creation" and "the quality of life". Surely if the Government could communicate their serious commitment to poverty reduction and sustainable developments to the science agencies and research councils, they could urge them to include those objectives in their equally important if more parochial goals and to devote a proportion of their research budget to that end.
I hope that the Minister for Science, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will support such a measure. Recently at the European Energy Laboratory at Petten in the Netherlands I saw research on photo-voltaic plastic sheets which in five years or so may provide cheap and practicable forms of electricity for the humblest dwellings all over the world, thereby obviating the ruinous deforestation which one sees everywhere. This research began in the laboratory of Professor Friend at Cambridge. It was originally applied to high-tech Piccadilly Circus type of lighting schemes. Noble Lords can see the implication.
To summarise, I believe that Clause 8 should be extended to require government departments and agencies to devote a certain small percentage of their budget to poverty reduction and sustainable development, to report on it and for the Secretary of State to ensure its wider effectiveness. One need hardly add that such a report from H M Treasury would have an up-to-date account of the outstanding initiative of the Treasury to reduce the debt of developing countries.
Finally, in line with the remarks of many noble Lords, I believe that Clauses 7 and 8 which empower the Secretary of State to fund activities for poverty reduction and sustainable development need amending to ensure that those arrangements are reasonably transparent. It is important that the public have a clear understanding of the relative effectiveness of those funding arrangements, whether with UN or EU agencies, the private sector, other governments or non-governmental organisations. Such comparisons need to be sensitive and sensible, but they are needed. I warmly welcome the Bill.
9.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, from these Benches we add our congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, on her new responsibilities. We are also delighted that the International Development Bill has been reintroduced so early in the life of the new Parliament. We see this as a sign that the Government intend to continue to work for a more effective global effort to reduce poverty. We would wish to give it our full support.
Like many others, we continue to be involved in the campaign to reduce the debt of the poorest countries. I agree with noble Lords who have indicated that one of the most heartening aspects of this campaign has been the personal commitment of a son of the manse, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the international
740
fruits of this campaign have been modest, as they have, we support the Chancellor in putting pressure on his counterparts in Japan and other prosperous countries so that the poorest of people on earth are no longer shackled in this modern form of slavery. We feel that there is genuine support at the financial and political heart of our own Government. We in our turn would wish to give general support to the Government's objective on development aid expressed in the Bill.
Within this general support, however, we express some more critical comments. I suppose that the Biblical word most appropriate to our deliberations is "tZED A KAH". That is sometimes translated "charity". However, a better translation would be "righteous benevolence". That contains the strong element of justice. Charity awaits the cry of distress and then acts. Justice anticipates the cry of distress. We view the provisions of the Bill through the spectacles of justice, not of charity. Seen through those spectacles, it falls short.
Any Bill that makes poverty reduction and sustainable development pivotal issues deserves support, but there must be concern that the Bill will make little impact without additional financial provision. I welcome the fact that the Government's commitment to overseas aid is increasing, but it still remains inadequate when compared with the challenges set out in their two international development White Papers. At current rates, it will be 50 years before the UK reaches the UN target.
As it happens, the General Synod of the Church of England will be debating international development concerns at the end of this week. Among other things, the General Synod will be asked to endorse a set of policy commitments prepared by Global View 2001, which is an alliance of 25 human rights and development organisations, including Christian Aid and our own Board for Social Responsibility.
We, too, have our wish list of specific policies. We will encourage the Government to take action in five areas on overseas development assistance. First, we would like an annual increase in the aid budget, with the aim of reaching the UN target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product within 10 years. Secondly, we want the proportion of aid that is spent on basic social services such as health and education to be increased to 20 per cent of the total budget. Thirdly, we would like the Government to improve the quality of European Union development assistance and increase its poverty focus by ensuring that 70 per cent is spent in the poorest countries. Fourthly, we ask them to use aid procurement and contracting to build southern capacity and to untie all aid, including technical co-operation. Fifthly, we want the Government to ensure the swift and effective delivery of humanitarian assistance to all civilians affected by conflict and natural disasters.
However, we want to play our own proper part in bringing aid to those most in need. Clause 4 makes provision for the Secretary of State to support activities or organisations likely to promote awareness and understanding of world poverty. I have no doubt

741
that faith communities fall within that provision. On that point I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. The Church has not just been involved with the eradication of poverty in the past; it is still very much involved in the present—and not just the Church.
I chair a national organisation called the Interfaith Network. As it happens, it has had its annual meeting today in Birmingham. Sadly, I had to leave it early to be in your Lordships' House this evening. However, before I left I heard from a young Sikh who, together with some of his friends, has formed an organisation to take emergency aid to regions in crisis. It all started from the Kosovo atrocities. In 10 days, that young man raised £25,000 from the Sikh community in Slough and took a lorryload of food and medicine across Albania to the war zone. There are not many Sikhs in Kosovo, but there are people in human need. The young man was responding to that need, as he and his friends have since done for those suffering as a result of the earthquakes in Turkey and Gujarat, where they helped to cremate bodies.
That is just one young man and a few friends—a drop in the ocean. But from such drops the wave of human concern can transform lives. All the great world faiths are rooted in local community developments. For example, the Church of England, which is part of the global Anglican communion, with nearly 70 million members, is well placed to encourage a deeper awareness and understanding of world poverty through our global action.
I saw a typical example of that on a Sunday morning in a Tanzanian village a few years ago. I was accompanying the local bishop to one of his visits to a far-flung village. There was no church building, so we worshipped in the open air. When the prayers had been prayed and the songs had been sung, the holy table was cleared of its sacred vessels and it immediately became a development table where basic medicines, nutritious milk biscuits for children and fish from the diocesan fish farm were all made available, together with illustrative leaflets on how to combat malaria or AIDS. Such is the stuff of grass-root development, and it is repeated hundreds of thousands of times through faith networks around the globe.
I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind such faith communities as she seeks to build the broad coalition of which she spoke when she addressed the General Synod in November 1998. We certainly want to play our part in this great enterprise and we shall listen with interest to what the Minister says when she responds to the debate. In particular, we would be interested to hear anything that the Minister might have to say on the role of faith communities.
9.56 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the Government on bringing forward this important Bill. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Amos on her new ministerial post. The Government's commitment to the reduction of world poverty is one in which we can take a deep pride.
742
The World Bank has estimated that around one-fifth of the world's poorest people are disabled. And disabled people are the poorest of the poor. Their literacy rates are considerably lower than those of the rest of the population, with recent UNESCO studies suggesting that only 1 to 2 per cent of disabled children in developing countries receive an education.
There are known to be 300 million disabled people in developing countries, but the enormity of their situation is rarely obvious because they are so often hidden away. That led Howard White, the author of the 1999 Africa Poverty Status Report, to conclude that disability was,
"the hidden face of African poverty".
Disability is a cause of poverty and poverty can cause disability. This vicious cycle, clearly described in DfID's March 2000 issues paper, Disability, Poverty and Development, shows how the social and cultural exclusion and stigma of disability lead to denial of opportunities for economic, social and human development. In turn, that leads to a lack of economic, social and cultural rights, and on the cycle goes to reduced participation in decision-making and the denial of civil and political rights.
It is on the matter of the promotion and protection of human rights that the International Development Bill is disappointing. The 1997 government White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century, has a clear rights-based approach. It states that poverty reduction can take place only in a climate of rights and non-discrimination. Moreover, it takes a rights-based approach in relation to market economies.
DfID has been working on a rights perspective to all its aid and development policies. But this Bill gives no support to ensuring that that approach will continue into the future. All the rights which this Government and disability development organisations, such as Disability Awareness in Action and Action on Disability and Development, have fought so hard to achieve could be jeopardised by a future, less-understanding government.
There needs to be a clear commitment on the face of the Bill to protect and promote human rights. That is all the more important as the Bill gives considerable powers to the Secretary of State. An explicit commitment would prohibit any other government or Secretary of State from making suggestions that would contravene rights and, by implication, discriminate. And, most importantly, it would ensure that all the groups which traditionally have been left out of development assistance could be included.
I am not arguing that specific groups, such as disabled people or women, should be mentioned in the Bill. They should not. However, the Bill must tacitly recognise that those groups exist and that they should be included in programmes, projects and policies that are committed to poverty reduction. That is why an explicit commitment to a rights-based agenda is essential to disabled people.

743
Although there has been a major shift in recent years from the traditional approach to development and aid, traditional habits die hard so far as disability is concerned. Disability projects are still predominantly medically based, exclusive and controlled by non-disabled people. Less than a year ago, the chair of a major aid agency articulated his belief that disability should not be part of his organisation's policy because disability was a,
"special issue and had to he dealt with by specialists".
An explicit commitment to rights in the Bill is all the more important because the UK has yet to support the call for a UN convention on the rights of disabled people. In 1993 the UN General Assembly adopted the standard rules on the equalisation of opportunities for disabled persons, but those rules have no teeth. The standard rules put no compulsion on member states, they are not tied to the human rights monitoring mechanism of the UN and they do not have any regular UN funding.
Eighteen months ago, Disability Awareness in Action set up a database to document violations of disabled people's human rights since 1990. It has already recorded cases against 2 million disabled people worldwide. It collected appalling evidence, such as the family in Spain who kept a disabled woman in a stinking six-foot hole for 40 years and the six disabled children who starved to death at a hospital in the Ukraine because staff stole their food.
Alongside those atrocities exists the unremarked acceptance that most public buildings and transportation systems throughout the world are inaccessible. Solutions to the violations of rights and discrimination can happen only through enforceable, comprehensive legislation that results in concrete social change. There are more than half a billion disabled people in the world today, 80 per cent of whom live in developing countries. While a UN convention would not make an immediate improvement to their lives, it would provide an important lever with which to push the rights of disabled people up the national and international political agendas. That in itself can result in important changes, not least in the writing and scrutinising of government reports and legislation and in changing the focus of legislative bodies and NGOs.
At a recent conference organised by International Service, Macline Twimukye was the speaker from Uganda, where disabled people have achieved a greater level of political representation than in any other country. The new Ugandan constitution provides for the representation of the disability movement at all levels of the political administration. Five seats are reserved for disabled people in Parliament, representing the four regions of Uganda and the interests of disabled women. In each local election at all levels of government there must be at least one representative who has a disability. However, Macline Twimukye, who heads the National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda, made the telling point that all of that progress could be lost with a change of government. For that reason she advocated strongly for a United Nations convention on disability to
744
provide her organisation with a powerful tool to continue to lobby governments for the rights of disabled people to be recognised.
I urge the Government to support the call for a UN convention on the rights of disabled people. Equally, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept that an explicit commitment to protect and promote rights needs to be part of the Bill in order that this Government's outstanding achievements will not be jeopardised in future.
10.5 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords for the constructive and insightful debate we have had this evening. I thank noble Lords also for the broad welcome given to the Bill across the Chamber. In particular, I thank noble Lords for their positive comments about the work of the Department for International Development, and about the energy and enthusiasm of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who has made such a difference in this area of work.
I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. His was a notable maiden speech, and the noble Lord's experience and knowledge will be greatly appreciated in this House.
I thank noble Lords too for their kind remarks on my promotion. It is a privilege to cover both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. I hope that this is an example of real joined-up government—I look to my noble friend Lord Judd. In a characteristically robust speech my noble friend asked: why poverty reduction rather than poverty elimination? I can reassure him that we are committed to poverty elimination and to the international development target of halving the proportion of people living in abject poverty by 2015.
I do not want to indulge in political point-scoring, but I must remind the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, as did my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, that the ODA GNP ratio fell from 0.5 per cent in 1979 to 0.2 per cent in 1997. I need say no more on that point. But I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that we are reversing that trend. By 2003–04 our ODA GNP ratio will be 0.33 per cent. That shows this Government's strong commitment. I am also pleased to say that we are making good progress in all the areas mentioned by the right reverend Prelate and I shall touch on them later.
My noble friends Lady Whitaker and Lord Tomlinson recognised the balance in the Bill; that it tightens the purposes for which development assistance can be provided but allows the Secretary of State to use a wider range of instruments and powers to achieve those purposes. That clear focus will have the effect of making the use of development assistance for further improper political and commercial ends unlawful. I welcome my noble friends' support for the Government's position on that issue.

745
The term "poverty" is not defined in the Bill, for good reason. As I said in opening, we are dealing with an extremely complex area. But, as my noble friend Lord Desai made clear, Clause 1(3) defines "sustainable development".
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked specifically about the difference between "poorest state" and "poorest people". The Government recognise that serious pockets of poverty exist in middle income and transition countries. The Bill is premised around providing development assistance to tackle poverty, not around providing development assistance to poor countries. It will therefore allow the Government's efforts to contribute to the elimination of poverty in middle income countries and in countries in transition.
I wish to make two further general points. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton made a plea for government departments to report on activities which contribute to the international development agenda. We are taking a more proactive and integrated approach across government; for example, the Conflict Prevention Fund. There are other areas of work but I agree that more remains to be done.
My noble friend Lady Wilkins raised the important issue of poverty and disability. The Government realise that that is an area which is not often recognised; that is why we published a paper. Social justice and equality are at the heart of our development effort and I can assure my noble friend that we take a rights-based approach extremely seriously.
I turn to some core themes which emerged during the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, among others, raised the question of UN and European Union reform.
It is important to say from the outset that we get additional leverage from our work through the multilateral institutions. The UN and EU both have the potential to make a huge impact on world poverty. Both are making genuine and significant efforts to become more efficient and more effective, in particular under the guidance of Secretary-General Annan and under Commissioners Patten and Kinnock.
DfID will continue to work with the UN and the EU to support and reward reform. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will be interested to note that last year we established an international policy and performance fund to reward improvements in the performance of multilateral organisations and to provide support for their reform efforts. Major recipients in 2000 and 2001 were the UN Fund for Children and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
I turn to debt relief, which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. Other noble Lords referred to the tone of the remarks made by the noble
746
Baroness, Lady Rawlings, in that respect. Twenty-three countries have qualified for debt relief under the enhanced HIPIC initiative with more than 50 billion dollars of relief being agreed.
Debt relief is agreed on the basis of poverty reduction strategy papers which are drawn up and owned by national governments. They set out how governments will tackle poverty and specify how the debt relief savings and other development resources will be used. They are public documents drawn up with the participation of civil society groups and international donors. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we have worked hard to ensure that the World Bank and the IMF appreciate and understand the need for a poverty elimination focus.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, chided us for reaching only 22 countries by the end of last year rather than 25. Perhaps I may remind her that conflict is a fundamental obstacle to many countries qualifying for HIPIC debt relief. We are working with our partners, including in G8 and the UN, to strengthen international and regional efforts to prevent and resolve conflict. For example, we are seeking to curb the use of diamonds to fuel conflict. We are working closely with the UN to improve its handling of crisis and conflict management following the Brahimi report on UN peace operations.
My noble friend Lord Brennan suggested that countries should be required to use debt relief savings to lift children out of poverty. Child poverty is a particular priority. However, it cannot be eliminated in isolation from the poverty of the community in which the child lives. Therefore, we must take an holistic approach.
The noble Baroness, lady Rawlings, and my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, among others, talked about the importance of good governance. There has been some debate over whether the Bill should contain reference, either as an aim or purpose, or even a precondition of development assistance, to good governance.
The quality of governance is critical for the eradication of poverty. Where governments are unrepresented, unrepresentative and ineffective or where corruption is endemic, economic growth and sound development suffer. For those reasons, we are clear that under the Bill the Secretary of State will be able to continue to support good governance activities. To add good governance as an additional aim or purpose of development assistance is therefore unnecessary. The quality of governance is important, but so are health, education, water, the environment, human rights and the empowerment of women. The list could continue. All those aspects of development are inter-dependent.
This is a good point to move on to corruption. It was raised by my noble friends Lord Haskel and Lady Whitaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. My noble friend Lord Haskel spoke of the enormous cost of corruption. He

747
was right to highlight the problem. Corruption affects all areas of development and the poorest suffer the most.
However, I am pleased to say that the prospects for progress have never been better. Corruption is no longer a taboo subject. Governments everywhere are exposed to pressure to bear down on corrupt practices and increasingly appreciate the benefits of doing so. DfID's strategy is to support countries which are genuinely determined to crack down on corruption and we are currently spending £350 million each year on programmes in this area. We are also collaborating with other development agencies and contributing to multilateral efforts, in particular through supporting the strengthening of financial intelligence units and regional and anti-money laundering mechanisms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, accused the Government of sitting on their hands with respect to corruption. Where governments are not committed to tackling corruption we have taken strong action in partnership with other donors, including, for example, the withdrawal of government-to-government aid in Kenya, Malawi and Zambia. But given what has been said tonight about the nature of poverty, that is clearly not a long-term solution and such actions can hit the poorest hardest. We need to engage with such governments in order to influence them.
The Bill will allow us to continue to support activities which help the fight against corruption in all its forms and I hope that this addresses the serious concerns outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, when he was talking about the particular case in Uganda.
My noble friends Lord Haskel and Lady Whitaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, were interested to know when the Government would demonstrate their compliance with the OECD convention on the bribery of foreign officials. I am pleased to say that the Government plan to introduce a criminal justice Bill into Parliament in the current Session.
My noble friends Lord Brennan and Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, raised the Commonwealth scholarships scheme. The scheme should be seen in the context of DfID's wider work in education. Our efforts are focused on the attainment of two international development targets for education: to achieve universal primary education by 2015; and gender equality in primary and secondary education by 2005. Within that framework, we are investing heavily in skills development. A key challenge is to address the education skills and development demands of the poorest, especially those who are completely excluded from educational opportunity. Skills to improve livelihoods are particularly important, and literacy is the major issue.
My noble friend Lord Brennan raised the question of engagement with multinational companies. The Government support and encourage socially responsible business practice by multinational companies in their activities in developing countries,
748
believing that this is one way in which the private sector's every-day activities can also work to decrease poverty further than is already the case.
I turn to tied aid. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale, Lord Freeman and Lord Joffe, my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Tomlinson and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark all mentioned tied aid. The Government intend that the new Bill will make the use of aid funds for improper political or commercial ends—so-called "tied aid"—unlawful.
We have been persuaded by legal arguments that the most effective way to ensure that aid cannot be used for improper political and commercial purposes is to rely on the clear statement in the Bill of the principles and purposes of development assistance which are set down in Clause 1. Under that clause the Secretary of State may provide development assistance only if he or she is satisfied that it is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty through furthering sustainable development or promoting the welfare of people.
It is entirely reasonable to ask why we have not chosen to make an explicit reference in the Bill to tied aid or improper commercial and political purposes with a view to making them unlawful. The straightforward answer is that, despite a good deal of effort, we have been unable to develop a convincing and useful definition of these terms. We concluded that tied aid could not be defined by the mechanism or form of assistance but only the motivation behind it. The question of motivation is dealt with in Clause 1 of the Bill which is the core power.
We also welcome the agreement at OECD that all financial aid to least developed countries will be untied with effect from 1st January 2002. Not only will that help to reduce the proportion of tied aid globally but it also sends an important political message on which we intend to build. Other bilateral donors are considering whether to follow our example of unilateral untying. We are working with developing countries to push for further untying at next year's Financing for Development Conference.
I turn to humanitarian assistance. I am surprised by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. We are often the first on the ground with our emergency response teams and through our support for NGOs. We should be proud of that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, for his positive remarks. The noble Baroness also spoke about the need for the voice of NGOs to be heard. The Government are committed to a partnership approach. We consult extensively and engage in robust discussions with NGOs about our priorities.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to NGOs being an irritant—quite rightly so given that we live in a democracy. I agree with the noble Earl and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that civil society, including faith communities, both in the United Kingdom and in partner countries have an important role to play in supporting the elimination of poverty in a globalising world. The Government channel a substantial proportion of their resources through them. I do not have time to go into the details.

749
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, that there has been no change in our policy which prevents DfID providing financial support directly to UK NGOs, but we take a sector-wide approach in our bilateral programmes and work with reforming governments to bring fundamental long-term sustainable change to specific sectors like health or education. I also confirm that projects which seek to empower local communities are in principle eligible for Challenge Fund support.
As to the funding of development education, we believe that if we are to succeed in meeting international development targets we need to build greater awareness and understanding of development issues across the United Kingdom and internationally, and we are working with NGOs on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Desai spoke of the importance of trade, investment and development. Trade has a vital role to play in helping developing countries to boost their economic growth and generate the resources necessary to reduce poverty. We are working to strengthen the WTO and particularly the voice of developing countries within it. We are also working for the launch of a broad-based trade round at the WTO ministerial conference in November, although noble Lords will be aware that that remains a challenge.
My noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside referred to Africa, a continent where we are in danger of not meeting the targets. I agree that we need to support the millennium plan for Africa which is about African leaders taking a leadership role in resolving that continent's problems.
I shall write to noble Lords on other questions which I have been unable to cover. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me specifically about the CDC; my noble friend Lady Whitaker asked me about long-term impact and security sector reform; and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton raised the important point about science. I shall of course write on other points which I have omitted to answer.
Parliament's approval of the International Development Bill would send a clear signal to our partners in developing countries in the donor community and within Britain that we are serious about developments and intend to continue to play a major part in tackling the challenge of world poverty.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Arts Council of England
10.26 p.m.
Viscount Falklandrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to implement the changes in the structure of the Arts Council of England; and, if so, what is their timetable.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to the first of our debates when we
750
look to her to answer on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is a small cast of players—if I may describe them as such—that we have today, but I hope nonetheless that a valuable discussion will be had.
It would be churlish of me not to say that we enjoyed an interesting and productive time with the predecessor of the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Some of our debates were carried out with rigorous toughness but all with unfailing good humour. I am sure that we shall see a continuation of that approach while the noble Baroness holds the office.
Tonight we are here to talk about changes proposed by the Arts Council of England. On 14th March the chairs and chief executives of the regional arts boards were informed by the chairman and chief executive of the Arts Council of England of a plan to initiate a significant reorganisation of the arts funding system. The arts funding system is never perfect but the search for perfection goes on. The RABs were told that these proposals had "political endorsement", whatever that may mean precisely; that they were "non-negotiable"; and would be pushed through regardless of the views of the regional arts boards. A deadline of 30th April was originally set for the RABs to transfer their staff, their assets and their liabilities to the Arts Council of England.
The following day the Arts Council of England produced their proposals—A Prospectus for Change. At the heart of the prospectus was the proposal to amalgamate the existing Arts Council of England and the ten regional arts boards to create a single, new national arts funding and development organisation. The new arts council, we were told, would have nine regional offices, based on the Government planning regions. The arts council would be the national governing body. There would be no independent boards at regional level, but a system of regional advisory groups would replace them. A new arts council executive team would be established to include the executive directors of the nine regionnal offices.
That was a very surprising announcement. It surprised everyone. It surprised almost everyone in the arts world. It surprised Members of Parliament. It surprised the media. I dare say that, in the way it was delivered, it surprised the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
The manner of the introduction, prior to the publication of A Prospectus for Change, shocked and dismayed the regional arts boards to an extent which I have not experienced since I have been in the House—and with the correspondence that I received—couched as it was in terms such as "non-negotiable" and "politically endorsed". No consultation beforehand and no argument afterwards seems to be the order of the day so far as concerns the Arts Council of England. Those methods would have been surprising in Vichy France in 1940 let alone within democratic England in the year 2001.
The way in which the Arts Council launched its prospectus surely contravened the Cabinet Office paper on staff transfers in the public sector and its

751
published code of practice on written consultation. The regional arts boards immediately jumped into action. They consulted widely on the proposals and persuaded the Arts Council in very short order to consider those events and to agree to an independent evaluation based on many written responses. The evaluation will be available this month. More than 1,000 responses were received, the majority expressing grave concerns at the proposals, with the loss of regional autonomy and accountability. Artists, regional development agencies, local authorities and arts organisations have expressed dismay and concern about what they fear is a proposal to centralise the arts under one national organisation.
Perhaps I may refer to a letter in the Independent written by my right honourable friend Mr Robert Maclennan, who is soon to be my noble friend. In the letter he said that we are returning the position to 1956,
"when the Arts Council last had regional offices explaining to the provinces how London wished them to behave … Such a centralised b urea ucracy"—
as is proposed by the chairman of the Arts Council—
"so far from being able to speak for all the arts, would quickly be driven to defending its own policies and strategies for distributing taxpayers' money to its clients. Concentrating decision-making at the centre would not reduce the personnel required"—
as forecast by those who have drawn up the changes—
"and would increase the time spent shuttling between the regions and the Arts Council".
One may be forgiven for having as a first impression that this RS a cost-driven exercise. Indeed, it was presented as such on radio. There did not seem to be much argument about it but there have been denials since. If one takes these proposals and examines them, the drift seems to be a desire to go towards populism and commercial success at the expense of what has been a satisfactory happening in many of the regions. Not all the work has been perfect but experimentation and demanding work, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, with her long experience in the arts, knows full well, are important. There must also be a degree of failure. Artists have to fail. Those who thought up the plans do not like that aspect at all.
There is a good deal of talk about people called change management professionals. I do not know what change management professionals are and I am not sure I want to know. But I am quite sure that they cannot satisfactorily do arts work. The cost of those people will no doubt be very high indeed and it will be at the expense of arts funding. The trust that exists in the best of the regional arts boards between the arts boards and the practitioners has been vital. The practitioners may be individuals or bodies. Individuals in the arts world are often difficult people. My mother was a painter. I did not think that she was a particularly difficult person, but she was fairly solitary and was not terribly interested in money. From time to time she was easily upset. She was also very talented. I suggest again that those who drive forward these commercial ideas—I interpret them as being commercial—do not like such people, and those feelings are reciprocated.
752
Communication with artists is a tricky business. In the best of the regional boards, it has been done quite successfully. Furthermore, to ape a piece of contemporary jargon, the secret of maintaining good communication between artists and those who fund them is location, location, location. The new proposals will make that communication extremely difficult. The southern region is to be based in Exeter. Will artists be prepared to travel to Exeter where now they have to travel perhaps only a quarter of that distance? Channels of communication must remain open.
We are not concerned only with dishing out money here. Long-term relationships with the people involved must be nurtured. We are not selling T-shirts or video games, we are selling human activity, activity which has to be encouraged and nurtured. That is what the arts are all about. I do not like the bureaucratic attitude of the proposals. I do not understand half of them. The proposals refer to,
"the ability to speak with one voice on behalf of all the arts".
What the hell does that mean? Another proposal suggests,
"greater capacity to address needs and act on bold ideas for the arts throughout England".
That is gobbledegook.
Perhaps I may turn to one or two more technical matters as I reach the end of my contribution. These were brought to my attention by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who is not in his place tonight—he would have liked to speak in the debate—because he is advising a regional arts board on their legal and constitutional position in the light of these changes. He has stated that, leaving aside the policy aspect here, there is a serious issue as regards charity law which the Government must take into account, something which I had not realised. My noble friend tells me that each of the 10 regional arts boards is a separately constituted charity in the form of a company limited by guarantee. The overriding obligation of the trustees of any charity—here I point out that the majority of the RAB trustees are not appointed by the Arts Council—is exclusively to serve the best interests of the charity concerned. Even if all the trustees of the arts boards were appointed by the Arts Council, that would still be the case. They would be acting improperly simply to do the council's bidding.
Another point which makes me think that this move is extremely arrogant and pompous is the fact that the arts boards secure funding from all kinds of sources. Funding comes in from local authorities, private charitable foundations and commercial sponsorship; often they have their own independent assets. We have heard the news that—perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to confirm this—some arts boards are minded to do the opposite of what they are being asked to do: they will not disband. So far as I can tell, there is no legal force to make them do so. The boards feel that they have a duty to continue until all these matters have been sorted out.
I should like to end by asking the Minister two questions. First, will she ensure that when further consultation takes place—we hope that that will

753
happen—the Arts Council is compelled fully to observe the Cabinet Office guidelines on written consultation? That is something which the council significantly has failed to do so far. Secondly, is the Minister aware that what the Arts Council is proposing is increased delegation to regional offices rather than any real devolution of power? Is that not a flat contradiction of the Government's policy aim to increase devolution of powers to the regions of England?
10.40 p.m.
Lord Bernstein of Craigweil: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on initiating this debate on the arts. They are an important part of our society and it is right that we should debate the changes that the Arts Council plans to make. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Blackstone on becoming Minister for the arts.
As to the noble Viscount comparing the Arts Council of England to an organisation of Vichy France, it is worth saying that the Arts Council has served the arts extremely well over the past few years. It has achieved the confidence of the Government, who have given it a greatly increased grant. Funding for the arts in this country is higher than it has ever been, which has done a lot to overcome the serious funding problems of the past two decades.
The Arts Council has done a great deal to put its own house in order over the past three or four years. It has reduced costs and staff at its London office and it has simplified its procedures. However, more remains to be done, and it is entirely sensible that the Arts Council should be looking at the complex organisation of the regional arts boards and their relationship with the national body.
Arts organisations have long complained about the complexity of dealing with the regional arts boards and with the Arts Council and about delays in implementing policies. I was once chairman of the Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester and I have bitter memories of endless discussions with the Arts Council, which were pursued for months, sometimes years, on end without any real decisions being made. It is much better that the arts organisations should spend their time and money on supplying high quality arts to their region rather than dealing with endless committees and endless paperwork.
The regional arts boards were established a long time ago with the best of motives—that is, to give due regard to the views of people who live in the regions—but the cost in time and money has been heavy. It cannot be right that the Arts Council spends £36 million on administering grants in this country; it cannot be right that it needs 660 people to fulfil this work. I do not think there is anything to be ashamed of in trying to save money in administering the arts, because that money can then be put to more productive use in the form of grants to the performing arts, the visual arts and all the arts in the regions and in London.
754
It is sensible of the Arts Council to create a single structure. It must be right to replace 11 organisations with one. Having 11 organisations may have been right a long time ago but it simply cannot be right now. These changes should lead to less delay, to better and quicker decision-making and, finally and importantly, to money being taken from administration and put into grants.
It is not surprising that these proposals have met with resistance from the regional arts boards. It would be easy to use the old cliché about turkeys not voting for Christmas, but I do not want to say that; it is not fair. It is legitimate for the regional arts boards to fear that they will be losing authority and decision-making in their regions, and it is legitimate for them to fear that decisions taken in London without proper consultation will do harm to their regions. After all, the arts are a vital part of our society, and the regions are quite right to feel that this is an important issue which should be raised.
Over the past 100 years, our great regional cities have lost both power and influence. There was a time when they were home to major banks and major businesses and to their founding families, who felt a strong loyalty towards their region. Globalisation has changed all that. Local companies—if they have survived at all—have become subsidiaries of companies in London, Frankfurt, New York or Tokyo, and major decisions which affect the regions are often taken hundreds or thousands of miles away. That happens less with our European partners. In places such as Düsseldorf, Lyons or Munich, large banks and large companies still have their head office and their commitments within the city. They take pride in local affairs. It is no surprise that arts funding on the Continent has been higher than it has in this country because of that identification.
I understand the concern of local people and why they are worried about any change to their status. However, that in itself is not a reason for not making any change. The present system is wasteful and inefficient. The Arts Council, however, should recognise those fears and put in place certain safeguards. Perhaps I may mention four.
First, if the regional arts boards are to be abolished, they should, as recommended, be replaced by strong advisory councils which have the respect of local people. Secondly, the regions should be able to have representatives who have access to the governing body of the Arts Council. In that way, any concerns in the regions can be fed to the top level of the Arts Council. Thirdly, officials in the regions should have at least as much power as they do now to approve small and medium-sized schemes on their own. Fourthly, the Arts Council should actively encourage a new regional system of consultation involving the Arts Council, local authorities and local enterprise.
I have not discovered from anything that the Arts Council has said that the decision to reorganise is led by commercial or populist ambitions, or even that the intention is to employ many more management professionals. I do not know what it means either.

755
After all, this Arts Council has been instrumental in producing up to £25 million for regional theatre. That indicates its concern as regards regional activity.
The Arts Council should not be discouraged from re-organising but it should be encouraged to consult with the regional arts boards while it does so.
10.47 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Minister on her new appointment. Also, I thank my noble friend for initiating this debate. Perhaps I can offer a perspective from the North of England, particularly that of the North West. I should add that my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland would have liked to have been present. Unfortunately, he has been "put down" for a day or two by some Yorkshire debilitation. He has probably been eating too much rhubarb! My noble friend would have brought a Yorkshire perspective to the debate, so I shall attempt to do so on his behalf.
The first thing that people—probably throughout the country but certainly in the North of England— would say is: if this is how the Arts Council brings forward its proposals, is it not a demonstration of how it would run matters in practice if it took them over? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the proposals that we are discussing, the way in which they came to light and the way in which they were put forward have been an absolute disaster. It will take a long time for those responsible to regain the confidence of others that they will act any differently if the structure is changed to one that is far more centralised, as the Arts Council wishes. Obviously, much consultation and debate have taken place since that time. It is interesting—is it not?—that almost all the responses that have been put forward, especially from our part of the world, have been negative as far as concerns these proposals.
Many of the concerns that have been advanced by organisations in the North West—we are talking about arts organisations, local authorities and many others—are as follows. First, there is a real suspicion that decisions in a region like the North West should be made in that area and that the intention is that such decisions will no longer be made by people there; that is to say, those who understand the diversity and the needs of the region, as well as its relevance. The latter may be quite different from that which applies to other regions and, indeed, to London.
Secondly, there is considerable concern among local authorities that this is yet another attempt to cut them out of the loop as regards public services, the disbursement of public money, and the support of arts organisations. There seems to be an attempt beneath the Arts Council proposals to underplay the importance of local authority support and activity across the whole range of the arts, together with a feeling that a national organisation would be less responsive. That seems to fly in the face of what is happening in almost all other areas of life in this country; namely, a belief that running things in a centralised way from London is not, in practice, the best and most efficient way to proceed.
756
The noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, said that it was about greater efficiency. I thought that the idea that centralisation meant greater efficiency went out a long time ago, and that people now understood that, in order to provide efficiency combined with flexibility for local circumstances and accountability to people in a particular area, you had to devolve service provision, accountability and decision making. In the North West we are some way on the road towards what we hope will be an elected regional authority, which will take over a great deal of responsibility for decision making across a whole range of areas in our region. Indeed, the same is true in the North East and in Yorkshire.
At the same time that this proposed change is taking place in one area of the arts with the apparent support of the Government, it seems extraordinary that the reverse is happening whereby people are looking to a much greater degree of centralisation. In so far as there will be decentralisation in the new structure, it really will be decentralisation of service provision: it will not be decentralisation of accountability and decision making. Many people in the region ask themselves the following question: if this is what is happening in our region, are the Government genuinely serious about regional devolution in general?
As regards costs, and the alleged, proposed savings, two arguments are being put forward. The first is that they are not really demonstrated at this stage; and, secondly, that, if there are savings to be made—everyone wishes to make savings in administration, if that money can then be used to support the arts or the service in question—that can take place by modification of the present structure without throwing it all up into the air and starting again.
At present, local authorities have considerable involvement in the regional arts board in the North West. There is some doubt as to whether the degree of support provided would be forthcoming under a new structure that cuts them out of the loop. There is talk of the regional office having a local partnership fund to which local authorities would be asked to transfer their funding. However, there can be no guarantee that that will happen if local authorities are treated in a way that they believe does not reflect their importance.
I do not believe that anyone is opposed to improvements, or even to structural change. However, people are opposed to the way in which this has been done. There was no prior consultation on the matter; consultation took place after the event with what still seems to be the core commitment by the Government that you can talk about the details but not the underlying issues of the proposal. We shall all be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
However, there are other fears. There are fears that while the arts are essentially about diversity and creativity, that inevitably means that different decisions will be made in different regions of the country. Those will partly reflect the needs, opportunities and cultural heritage of those regions. My noble friend Lord Shutt asked me to mention the

757
fact that he would expect brass bands to be considered more important in Yorkshire than in the South East. That matter has to be taken into account.
To whom are the decision makers in each of the new regions responsible? Who sets the priorities and to whom are they accountable? Diversity within regions is important. A region such as the North West has a varied and creative culture. It is rich, varied and cosmopolitan. It is a progressive region which, like many other regions, embraces people from all five continents. When I was a lad in Bradford we used to have an event in Peel Park known as the Peel Park gala. Last weekend there was an extremely successful multicultural event called the Peel Park mela. The latter is very much the same kind of event but is much richer in terms of its cultural diversity. I refer to the higher arts, the experimental and avant-garde arts and the arts rooted in the cultures of the people who live in the regions. Surely it is those people who should take the decisions and have the responsibility.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will give an absolute commitment that my next point will not arise; namely, that if decisions are to be centralised much of the money will also be centralised. Will the Minister assure us that whatever the new structure may be, the proportion of funding which is allocated to regions outside London and the South East will at the very least not be reduced?
10.57 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to her new post. Like other noble Lords I thank the noble Viscount for introducing our short debate tonight. It gives us a valuable opportunity to be given an indication of the way in which the Government's thinking on arts policy is developing after the cull of all four DCMS Ministers last month. The only survivor of the team is someone we are pleased to see survive—the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned this point—namely, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He was a spokesman, not a Minister. The noble Baroness will be aware of the high regard in which he is held in the House. We are rather surprised that he was never appointed to a ministerial post, but perhaps that may yet happen.
The debate is held at a time when it is clear that the Arts Council has had second thoughts about pushing ahead immediately with the plans it announced in March. I am grateful for its briefing. I welcome the fact that it has held wide-ranging discussions since March with the regional arts boards, the arts sector, local authorities and other partners. However, it is a pity that that did not occur before publication of the first prospectus. That would have saved much angst in the arts world.
The Arts Council now says that it will publish its second prospectus in July to answer many of the important questions and issues which people have raised and that there will then be a further period of consultation. It could be tempting for a Minister to interpret that as giving the Government a let out clause
758
enabling him to say, "I cannot comment now because the Arts Council has not put any concrete proposals before us". I hope that the Minister will not take that route tonight.
It is right that we should have this debate now. The Government have announced that the House will rise early this year on 24th July and will not return until 15th October. Therefore, we are unlikely to have any chance to discuss the Arts Council's second prospectus in this House or indeed make any comment upon it presumably until after the Government have given the Arts Council their seal of approval for its plans, or have rejected them. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity offered by the noble Viscount tonight to flesh out the rather tantalising glimpse of government thinking which we saw in the Daily Telegraph report of an interview with her that was published last Wednesday. The article stated that,
"The only action so far has been an order to the Arts Council of England to freeze its presumptuous abolition of regional arts boards, a decision that outraged local councils; and was sprung on Smith at short notice".
Is that true? Did the Government tell the Arts Council to freeze its plans? Is that why the Arts Council has delayed publication of its second prospectus from the original date of June to July and added in more consultation? Can the Minister inform the House how long that period of consultation will be? What meetings have DCMS Ministers or officials had with the Arts Council, regional arts boards or local government, the clients of the Arts Council since 7th June, or do they have any plans for the near future?
The Daily Telegraph article stated that,
"while she"
—I think that it refers to the Minister—
"approves of cuts in arts bureaucracy, she dislikes the ACE's grab for power".
Is that an accurate report of the views that the noble Baroness expressed? Daily Telegraph reader though I am, it was rather cheeky of the paper to say that the Minister is still reading her way into the brief. With her experience of the arts, I rather think that she wrote it.
The Minister is directly quoted as saying that,
"The aim must be that more money ends up in the hands of people who are putting on artistic endeavours".
Yes, of course, I am sure we would all agree with that objective. As ever, it is the route to achieving it that we must analyse.
When the Arts Council of England made that announcement in March—it was not received with a welcome in many quarters—we on these Benches made it clear that although we were happy that it was prepared to take on reform—at last, after talking about it for so long—its proposals would need careful scrutiny. Rationalisation, which would mean that more money could be spent on the arts and artists and less wasted on administration, would be welcomed. But we were surprised and alarmed that the Arts Council gave so little time for consultation and appeared to undermine its own consultation process by making its decision a take it or leave it affair.

759
We were also puzzled by the plan it proposed. It wants to merge the Arts Council with the 10 regional arts boards to create a new and restructured single body which would be more responsive to local and regional democracy. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for giving such a clear explanation of the proposal.
The Arts Council says that this is to achieve a more regional input and cut costs. Yet it seems to create a centralised bureaucracy in the hands of an organisation in London which has not met its own early promises of cuts in personnel and expenditure on its own patch—a point forcefully made in the first briefing to noble Lords by Southern Arts. I thank Southern Arts for its care in collating the views of so many artists, arts organisations and local authority partners in its area and publishing so many of those responses in The Artists Voices—responses to the Arts Council of England's Prospectus for Change. The responses make clear the level of anxiety in the arts world about the changes proposed by the Arts Council.
I am prepared to accept that this may be more a problem of perception than actuality. I shall continue to listen to all sides of the argument. I look forward to reading the Arts Council's second prospectus. I try to have an open mind on all this. I am very much aware that the chief executive of the Arts Council of England, Peter Hewitt, has first-class experience of the regional arts from his time with the Northern Arts Board.
We on these Benches are not opposed to reform of the arts funding system—just the reverse. We would welcome a fundamental review of the Arts Council of England, its structure and function. Are the Government planning to undertake such a review? We believe that it is important that the Government should develop in consultation with the arts sector a system of funding in which artists themselves can have confidence, and a system that is at arm's length from the Government.
We should ensure that the voice of the voluntary arts sector is heard where decisions are taken. We strongly recognise the particular need to ensure that the interests of the arts and arts audiences outside London are properly addressed. It is of great concern that so much of the present budget for regional arts is consumed by administration costs. Collectively, the regional arts boards in England spend well over £16 million on administration. The spending levels vary significantly between boards. South East Arts spends 34 per cent of its budget on administration, whereas the London and Northern boards spend respectively 15 per cent and 14 per cent.
Southern Arts also refers to the difficult question of what could and should be the most effective regional boundaries for arts development. That issue was referred to by many of the respondents and I hope that the Government will address it, given the proliferation of interlinking and overlapping regional agencies and quangos over the past four years.
Above all else, I hope that the Government's response tonight will demonstrate a willingness to move away from their interventionist policies that
760
have developed over the past four years. A nation's artistic life should never be an instrument of government policy.
11.6 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing the debate and to those who have taken part. I am grateful for an opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government in my first debate as Minister for the Arts. I thank the noble Viscount, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for their kind welcomes to me in my new position. I very much hope that the good humour that has always accompanied debates on the arts in this House will continue to prevail. I shall certainly do my best to make sure that it does.
While we are waiting for the Arts Council to produce its revised proposals, I can say very little about what might be in them. However, the opportunity to debate the issues is still very welcome.
Before I deal with current proposals, it is worth reminding ourselves that the arts funding system is not set in stone. It has been remarkably receptive to change since the original structures were put in place after the war. The past few years have seen the provision of bigger budgets, including lottery money, and the delegation of large areas of responsibility to the regions in an attempt to devolve as much decision-making as possible to the grass roots. I welcome that. However, if new ideas for further improvements are identified, we owe it to the arts community and to the taxpayer—whom we must not forget—to consider the options and at least give them a fair hearing.
As well as favouring devolution of decision-making and power to the regions wherever possible and appropriate, the Government are also keen to reduce spending on administration and bureaucracy so that more of the resources available can be committed to services and individuals and to the organisations in the arts that really need them. No one in this debate would dispute that objective.
For its part, the department is keen for the arts community to do its bit. We have been actively encouraging the Arts Council to consider how it could improve the way in which things are done. To its credit, the Arts Council responded. It is only sensible that any response that the council comes up with should consider the arts funding system as a whole rather than restricting itself to one single aspect.
It is no secret that, following years of under-funding before 1997–98, administration costs as a percentage of overall spending on the arts have increased That is regrettable. They have increased at the centre and in the regions. We cannot simply assume that costs have gone up only in the centre.
All that money could be better used by arts organisations. The Government have already taken a number of steps over the past few years to remedy the shortfall in funding that we inherited. Therefore, the increase in grant-in-aid funding of 80 per cent—that is, £150 million more—between 1997–98 and 2003–04 is, I

761
believe, to be welcomed. More funding, for example, has been made available for national touring so that people around the country can see the performing arts in a number of locations.
My noble friend Lord Bernstein commented on the £25 million extra that was allocated to support regional theatre between 2002–03 and 2003–04. I believe that that is a most important development. As my noble friend Lord Bernstein said, I am sure that it is important that that extra money is well spent. It is not only a matter of cost-cutting; it is a matter of spending the existing money in a sensible way. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, agrees that we should all share that aim.
I now return to the Arts Council's original proposals. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, they consisted of four themes aimed at reinforcing the regional agenda while, at the same time, saving money by reducing administrative costs and using that money for the arts. The proposals were, first, for the Arts Council to merge with the regional arts boards, creating regional offices of the Arts Council, and, secondly, at the same time, to align the regional offices with government offices and the RDAs. I believe that that certainly makes sense. The third proposal was to devote more money down to the new regional offices and give them a greater link with management at the centre. And, fourthly, the aim was to reduce that centre, saving money on administration overall. I want to stress that the aim of the Arts Council was to reduce substantially the number of staff working in the centre.
The Arts Council submitted its plans to my department in March. Keen to minimise any period of uncertainty that the proposals would be thought inevitably to involve, the Arts Council then announced that it intended to push through the changes by the end of April.
I am of course aware of the largely adverse reaction, especially from the RABs. I also recognise that a number of genuinely legitimate concerns have been raised in response to the announcement. Those focus mainly on how the proposals were drawn up and announced. Some questions have also been raised about the substance of what the Arts Council was proposing, in particular whether the proposals would mean greater decentralisation. I believe that the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, picked up that point.
Perhaps I may deal with each issue in turn. Concern has been expressed that the department did not play an active role in working with the Arts Council to formulate the proposals. I want to make clear at this point that there is nothing untoward about the Arts Council working out plans and then approaching my department. That is what we would have expected. It does not change the fact that whatever the Arts Council proposes will still require the eventual approval of the Secretary of State.
Concern was also expressed that the Arts Council could have consulted rather more widely before making an announcement. That has been very much
762
reflected in this debate. With hindsight, I believe that the Arts Council now sees that it might have handled matters a little differently. However, by undertaking a more thorough consultation exercise on its revised proposals, it has demonstrated that it has learned important lessons from that first exercise. Therefore, I believe that I can say in response to one question from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that the Arts Council is now committed to full consultation on its new proposals, and we shall ensure that it does so.
I move on to the question of extended consultation. For the sake of its employees and others who will be affected, neither the Arts Council nor the Government want to prolong the reorganisation process any longer than necessary. That would be unfortunate in that more time would be wasted and the savings in administrative costs which we have discussed would be delayed. It has taken away those proposals and entered into a longer and, in the case of the RABs, more formal period of consultation and negotiation. Incidentally, I am aware of the point raised about charity law. We are clear about the fact that RABs are both charities and companies limited by guarantee. That means that they will have to decide to hand over their assets to a new organisation.
The Arts Council spent the last few weeks engaging with RABs and the regional assemblies, RDAs and regional cultural consortia and it is due to issue its new prospectus quite soon.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who raised this matter, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have seen representatives of the Arts Council and the RABs. We asked them to reconsider their positions and to see whether they could reach an agreement together. That is the right approach and it does not involve the Government laying down the law. The noble Baroness asked the Government not to be too interventionist in general. This is an example of the fact that it is far better if the arts organisations work together to resolve their differences.
The new prospectus is expected in the next couple of weeks and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I will discuss it with the Arts Council. I am sure that noble Lords appreciate that it would therefore not be appropriate for me to go into any more detail about what might or might not be included until we and the RABs have had a chance to see and consider the final report. However, the fact that I cannot comment on exactly what the new structure may be like does not mean that I cannot comment on what my right honourable friend Tessa Jowell and I will insist on in relation to the revised plans. Our approval of what the Arts Council comes up with is very much conditional on its being able to satisfy both of us that the plans will deliver the outcomes. I hope that I can rise to the noble Baroness's challenge and put some flesh on what she has so far read of my views.

763
The central premise in relation to the Arts Council, which we continue broadly to support, has always been that what it proposes will deliver the administrative savings that would prove impossible to secure under the current structure and that it will at the same time succeed in delivering increased power and responsibility to the regions. Our approval of the revised proposals will also be conditional on the Arts Council being able to demonstrate several other points, including the fact that regional organisations within the new revised structure will have real power to spend money in light of regional priorities. I hope that that gives the reassurance that was sought by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
I emphasise that we do not envisage the Arts Council using the reorganisation as a means of reversing the general trend towards greater delegation of power and funding to the regions. If, when we see the proposals, we conclude that that is what the revised proposals amount to, we will simply not be able to give it our backing.
We will look at the levels of spending to be devolved to the regions, the ways in which decisions are taken and the influence of local people in that process. We accept the importance of local government in that regard and in relation to the way in which local representatives can influence the centre. We want to ensure that local distinctiveness will be preserved, with the involvement of local government, RDAs and the regional cultural consortia. It is important that all of those should be safeguarded.
764
Again, perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the centre will grow smaller as real decisions are given to the regions if we have our way, which we intend to. The Arts Council will be expected to provide details of exactly how that will happen in practice. We also want to see the end of duplication in the system, to which my noble friend Lord Bernstein referred. So it will be clear that when artists or artistic organisations have contact with their regional offices or with the centre, they are able to connect with those responsible for making decisions. There must be an end to the confusion that most people accept exists in the current system.
We are absolutely determined that efficiencies that are being claimed for the changes will be realised to ensure that the money goes to the arts and not to administration. Finally, the new organisation will offer best value for money. We will not sanction anything until we have been reassured on all those points. Approval is dependent on their being Able to do that—I cannot emphasise that enough.
In conclusion, I recognise that there are still questions to be answered and assurances to be met. Once the revised proposals have been submitted, we will consider them carefully. We will not sign up to anything until the case for greater devolvement of power to the regions and administrative savings have been made. But, in the end, it is in all our interests for us to continue to work towards a structure that is acceptable and beneficial to the arts in England.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Prisoners: Prevention of Self-harm
  Prisoners: Prevention of Self-harm
  Sporting Events: Drug-taking
  Sporting Events: Drug-taking
  Northern Ireland: Fuel Tax
  Northern Ireland: Fuel Tax
  Air Travel: Cramped Seating
  Air Travel: Cramped Seating
  Aviation Health Working Group
  Aviation Health Working Group
  Diabetes
  Diabetes
  NHS: Recruitment
  NHS: Recruitment
  CJD Surveillance Unit Report
  CJD Surveillance Unit Report
  House of Lords: Former MPs
  House of Lords: Former MPs
  Rural White Paper
  Rural White Paper
  Sound Recording: Copyright Exception
  Sound Recording: Copyright Exception
  Morocco: Artillery Pieces
  Morocco: Artillery Pieces
  Animal Rights Extremists
  Animal Rights Extremists
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease