Sitting of 1 March 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Family Incomes
    Helen Jackson: What measures he is taking to increase the incomes of families with children. [150135]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Government are committed to supporting all families, recognising the extra costs and responsibilities that come with parenthood and targeting resources at those who need them most, when they need them most. As a result of measures introduced during this Parliament, families with children will be on average £8.50 a year better off.
    Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that raising the income of families with children depends on our having a stable economy where industry and public services thrive and everyone has the chance of a good job? Does she further agree that the Government's determination to eliminate child poverty through progressive fiscal policies and the working families tax credit must work alongside the statutory minimum wage, which must be maintained or even enhanced so that employers can play their part too?
    Dawn Primarolo: I agree with my hon. Friend that the national minimum wage has an important role to play in raising the income of all those in work, particularly families, but I stress that the working families tax credit, particularly in respect of child care costs, the increase in child benefit and the introduction of the children's tax credit in April will make a huge contribution to the budgets of working families and ensure that the Government and employers play their part in tackling poverty in our society.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Surely the Minister will have seen the helpful leaflet that was produced by the citizens advice bureaux telling us just what a mess the Government are making of the working families tax credit. Has she spoken to her colleagues in the Department of Social Security who believe that the Treasury is making
    1022
    a mess of it and will she look again to see whether she can actually help working parents? Clearly, as always, the Treasury has been all spin and no delivery.
    Dawn Primarolo: I would recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads the whole of the CAB report. If he does, he will see that it welcomes the working families tax credit and acknowledges that 1.1 million families are being helped to the tune of £30 a week or more, compared with what they received under family credit. That is a contribution to the reduction in child poverty. The CAB report identified that, of the 90,000 calls that the bureaux received, there were only a handful of exceptional cases, and it gave one example involving a bad employer.
    I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said to the CAB. The working families tax credit has built-in protection against bad employers, but the overwhelming majority of employers welcome it and recognise the contribution that it makes to enabling their work force to stay in work, particularly by helping with child care costs, and to reducing child poverty, which the previous Government forced to increase.

    Full Employment
    Mr. John McFall: If he will make a statement on the prospects for achieving full employment. [150136]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Employment has risen by over 1 million since May 1997 and there are now 1.1 million vacancies across the United Kingdom. In this Parliament 250,000 young people have moved from welfare into work in only three years since the start of the new deal, at around half the estimated cost. Our challenge now is to extend new opportunities to areas which in recent decades have too often been left behind. In some of our high unemployment areas the rate of new business creation is one sixth of that in the more prosperous cities and towns.
    We are today publishing a consultation document on a new and generous tax credit for community finance intermediaries to encourage new flows of private investment to areas where investment is needed most. The tax credit will be implemented in a new way by competition for resources with the tax credit awarded to the best bids for economic regeneration. Taken together, all our new investment initiatives are estimated to increase investment in high unemployment areas by £1 billion and to create thousands more jobs. Copies of the consultation document are available in the Vote Office.
    Mr. McFall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the transformation in employment over the past few years. However, as he is aware, there are disadvantaged communities in my constituency and elsewhere where the light of increased employment has not shone. In addition, the rate of business starts in those communities is very low. My constituency has the sixth lowest number of business starts in the United Kingdom. What further measures is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that disadvantaged areas can play a full part in the economic and business life of our society?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who works hard to create new jobs and opportunities in his

    1023
    constituency. He is absolutely right. The business creation rate in his area is 19 per 10,000 resident adults. That needs to be increased. Today's measures, in addition to previous measures, will help to increase the ability of people to start businesses and cut the costs involved. We are also expanding the new deal, which others want to abolish. Youth unemployment is at the lowest level since 1975; long-term unemployment is at the lowest level since the 1970s; and last week's unemployment claimant count was the lowest since 1974.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Chancellor announces a new tax credit to help to create new businesses, but why does he feel it necessary to clobber existing businesses with new rules and regulations and new stealth taxes, the latest of which is the climate change levy? Has he assessed the impact that that might have on jobs in horticulture and manufacturing, because it will increase their costs? Among those affected will be Mr. Eddie Topping of Barton Grange, a horticulturist in my constituency, who employs 35 people in the winter and 70 people in the summer. Horticulture will be hit very hard indeed. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that dreadful tax?
    Mr. Brown: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to thank us for the fact that unemployment has fallen by 44 per cent. in his constituency since the election. As for the climate change levy, far from being a stealth measure, it is the result of a process of consultation that started with a report by the president of the Confederation of British Industry. Its recommendations are being implemented in consultation with industry. The levy gives no revenue benefit to the Treasury because all the money is passed back in a national insurance cut for employers. [Interruption.] Well, Opposition Members are drawing me towards attacking Conservative policy, which I am reluctant to do until there is another campaign.
    On businesses and taxation, the small business tax rate has been cut from 23p to 20p—something that the hon. Gentleman's Government never did; there is a small business starting rate of 10p; mainstream corporation tax has been cut from 33p to 30p; and, of course, the income tax that many small businesses pay has been cut from 23p to 22p. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating us on the jobs that we have created.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the north Derbyshire coalfield area, where every deep-mined coal mine was closed in 15 years of Tory Government, there are still pockets of high unemployment? We appreciate the £24 million for the Shirebrook employment zone that was recently passed on by the Treasury. However—hon. Members should remember these words because they will hear them a lot in the next Parliament—we want the Markham employment zone, which will create 9,300 jobs, and junction 29(A) off the M1. We do not care what kind of employment it creates. Oil companies can go up there so long as they do not line the pockets of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. While he has been making money on the side, many of my constituents have had to go on the dole. It is the job of this Government to put that right now and in the next Parliament.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I take what he says as a Budget representation for next week. He is absolutely right. It will be necessary to expand the new deal in some areas, to increase the number of employment action teams and to do more to tackle long-term and youth unemployment in those areas where people have been left behind. That is possible because we are committed to the new deal. It would not happen if the new deal were abolished under Conservative policies.
    Mr. Michael Portillo: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer put right the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who described a transformation in unemployment? Is it not the truth that since the right hon. Gentleman became Chancellor, unemployment has been falling more slowly than before? [Interruption.] It is true—let me give the figures. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that more jobs were created in the last three years of the Conservative Government than have been created in the first three years of the Labour Government? Will he admit that, whatever he says about the new deal, the fact is that it has had no impact on unemployment; and that youth unemployment has also been falling more slowly than it was before? Is it not the case that the last Conservative Government created 69,000 manufacturing jobs and that under the current Government 350,000 manufacturing jobs have been destroyed? Is not the real truth that there can be no prospect of full employment under the current Government because they are determined to raise taxes relentlessly year after year, while other countries cut their taxes? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is increasing the tax burden and putting at risk this country's jobs.
    Mr. Brown: I know that the right hon. Gentleman was out of Parliament for some time, but he does not seem to know what has been happening in the United Kingdom. Even the International Monetary Fund report that he was quoting last night said that the new deal programmes
    "appear to be working well".
    The right hon. Gentleman should join other Conservative Members who have said that the new deal is a good measure.
    Mr. John Bercow: Name them.
    Mr. Brown: I believe that it is terrible mistake for the Conservative party to tell the young and long-term unemployed of this country that it would abolish the new deal. What we have achieved—
    Mr. Bercow: Name them.
    Mr. Brown: I am reluctant to name people, but the shadow Chancellor, before he returned to Parliament, said that, on the face of it, the new deal was working well.
    Youth unemployment is now the lowest since 1975; long-term unemployment is now the lowest since the 1970s; unemployment among men is the lowest since 1980; unemployment among women is the lowest since 1976. If unemployment was lower under the Conservatives, how can those figures be accurate? Unemployment is now lower than it was at any time under the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is absolutely unable to deny any of my points. Unemployment has been falling more slowly under the present Government than under the last. The present Government have destroyed manufacturing jobs; the last Government created manufacturing jobs. The right hon. Gentleman is unable to provide a shred of evidence that the new deal has helped the young unemployed because the rate of youth unemployment has been falling more slowly under the present Government than it was before.
    Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: how exactly does it help employment to pile an extra £5 billion of taxes on to business? How does it help employment when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry reacts with contempt to the complaints made by business about being over-regulated? How does an energy tax that is particularly directed at manufacturing industry and the constituencies of Labour Members help employment in this country? Will the Chancellor admit that, even if in the Budget he were able to take something off income tax, he has presided over an increase in taxation equivalent to 10p in the pound and would merely be the 10p-up-2p-off Chancellor?
    Mr. Brown: If the shadow Chancellor denies the existence of rising employment and falling unemployment in this country, the country will no longer listen to him. In the past four years, as a result of the new deal, 274,000 young people have moved from welfare to work. Instead of criticising that, the right hon. Gentleman should congratulate us. Now, long-term unemployed people are moving from welfare to work; lone parents are moving from welfare to work; disabled men and women, who were denied the right to work for 20 years, now have better chances of moving into work. As for the Conservatives and their policy of attacking us on the economy,
    "Governments are in a strong position when the economy is doing well. There is absolutely no point in denying that … I'm not going to go around saying the economy is not doing well.
    That was the shadow Chancellor speaking on 23 March 2000.
    Mr. Portillo: Every time the Chancellor fails to deny what I have said, the more eloquent it becomes. He cannot deny that unemployment has been falling more slowly under the Labour Government than it was under the Conservative Government, nor that youth unemployment is falling more slowly under the Labour Government than it was under the Conservative Government, so he cannot sustain his claim that the new deal has had any impact at all.
    Would not a real policy for employment depend on a real policy for cutting taxation in this country? Is it not absolutely absurd that the right hon. Gentleman has raised taxes in this country, forced many families into means-testing and forced people to plead with the state for sufficient income to pay the taxes that he has imposed?
    When we come to office, we will abolish taxes on savings, thus helping 16 million people. We will let pensioners have another £2,000 of tax-free income a year. We will recognise marriage in the system and we will provide extra assistance to families with children. We will abolish the climate change levy to help with employment. We will abolish IR35 to help with employment.
    1026
    As always, there is only one party that believes in lower taxes and only one party that will deliver lower taxes, and that is the Conservative party.
    Mr. Brown: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of something.
    "Even after three years of Labour government, we are less taxed and less regulated relatively than our continental partners."
    That was the shadow Chancellor on 5 July.
    Why does the right hon. Gentleman not thank us for the fact that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 51 per cent? Youth unemployment has fallen by 81 per cent. Long-term unemployment has fallen by 79 per cent. The Conservatives were in government for 18 years. They are in danger of being in opposition for more than 18 years.
    Mr. Derek Twigg: Unemployment in my constituency has fallen considerably. It is certainly much less than the 18 per cent. that it reached when the Tories were in power. However, it remains stubbornly high, and the situation was not helped by the announcement by Ineos Chlor yesterday that it was to shed 600 jobs, many of which are well paid and highly skilled. One of the main reasons for the scale of those job losses is lack of investment by the previous owners, ICI, which did not invest for more than 10 years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that businesses invest for the long term, not the short term? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that disadvantaged areas such as Halton are the subject of special measures that he has mentioned? Ineos has made a grant application to help it restructure the business in Runcorn, which may need Treasury approval. Will my right hon. Friend consider the application favourably?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Job losses are personal tragedies, and the Government wish to do what they can. I think that my hon. Friend will agree with me that that is why we need a new deal, which the Opposition would abolish. It is why we need regional development agencies with economic strategies for the north-west, which would also be abolished. It is also why we need the working families tax credit and special measures for the over-50s, which again would be abolished. It is precisely because we know that it is our duty to help people cope with change that we are prepared to take these actions, and will continue to do so.

    Tax Revenue
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What his forecast is of the revenue from (a) personal taxation, (b) corporate taxation and (c) VAT for each of the next seven years. [150137]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Forecasts of tax revenues were published in tables B8 and B11 of the pre-Budget report. Updated forecasts will be published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" next week.
    Mr. Hughes: I predicted that reply. The projections show that the tax take over the next five years will be constant as a proportion of national income. However,

    1027
    investment in health over the term of this Government is on average lower than it was under the term of the Major Administration, the previous Tory Government. Average investment in education over the Government's term of office is less than it was on average under the Tory Government. On the same basis, investment in pensions is less than it was.
    Have Treasury Ministers got the message from the public that they have no desire next week to be bribed with their own money, following a tax-cutting agenda that the Tories are suggesting? The public want real extra investment in public services such as education and health and for groups in the community who need it and deserve it, such as pensioners throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Smith: It is because we made tough choices, which the hon. Gentleman's party opposed, that we have been able to get the national debt down from 44 per cent. of gross domestic product to 33 per cent., and it is due to fall to 30 per cent. That is establishing the strong foundation for the investment that is under way—a doubling of investment across the spending review period, with record increases in health, education, transport and fighting crime, the people's priorities. We can deliver because we took tough choices and built a strong economy, which the hon. Gentleman's party would never do.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to continue the sensible and prudent planning and forecasting of revenue and expenditure? I urge the Government to ignore and not be tempted by the advice of either the Liberal Democrats, who seem to think that money grows on trees, or the Conservatives, whose sums never seem to add up.
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. I shall take my hon. Friend's comments as a Budget representation. I can assure him that we have no intention of being drawn down the path of irresponsibility proffered by either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: If everything is so rosy, why is the European Union worried about the Government's future taxation and spending plans, and why did the International Monetary Fund warn yesterday of
    "negative consequences for investment and growth"?
    How can the Government describe that as vindication?
    Mr. Smith: That is a total misreading of what the IMF said. Let me give the hon. Gentleman the quotes. The directors stated that
    "plans to increase public investment in infrastructure and human capital are justified in the light of the evidence".
    They said:
    "even after taking account of recent spending decisions, the fiscal position remains sound and fully consistent with the authorities' medium-term fiscal framework."
    The acting chairman, summing up, commended the authorities for the continued strong performance of the United Kingdom economy.

    Education Investment
    Mr. Bill Rammell: What his assessment is of the impact on Government finances of his plans for future investment in education. [150138]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): As I said, because we took tough choices, stuck to prudent fiscal rules and built strong public finances, we are able to raise capital investment in education from £2.4 billion in the current year to £3.8 billion by 2004, a real-terms increase of 48 per cent. Total education spending will rise by £11.7 billion over the same period, an increase of 16 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Rammell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. When I recently visited the Water Lane primary school in my constituency, the head teacher told me that in 25 years of teaching, she had never known so much extra money going into schools. Given that capital spending on Essex schools has more than doubled in the past year, that is hardly surprising. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that investment needs to increase in future years, as set out in the three-year comprehensive spending review, and does he share my concern that were any party to come to power committed to cut that investment by £16 billion, that would be entirely the wrong way forward?
    Mr. Smith: I share my hon. Friend's concerns. I am grateful for his remarks and those of his constituent. Those remarks reflect the Government's record in already increasing average spending per pupil by £300 in real terms. That will be a £450 real increase next year. As for the future, by 2004 we will increase real-terms education spending by one third—a bigger real increase in the early years of this Government than in the entire period of office of our predecessors.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: As the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor are so keen to take comments as Budget representations, will they take the remarks of Mr. Chris Woodhead, the former chief inspector of schools, as a Budget representation, when he states:
    "As a taxpayer, I could not stomach the way in which public money was being squandered"?
    Do they agree with Mr. Woodhead that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have
    "presided over a set of initiatives that has wasted taxpayers' money, distracted teachers from their real responsibilities and encapsulated the worst of the discredited ideology that has done so much damage since the 1960s"?
    Do they agree that the Government have not delivered, and that
    "a generation of children has been betrayed"?
    Mr. Smith: Education has suffered in the past from being turned into an ideological battleground. I would caution the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues against trying to do the same on the basis of those comments. The truth is that under Chris Woodhead's leadership, Ofsted made a distinguished contribution to raising standards, worked closely with us on the literacy and numeracy

    1029
    strategy, praised what we did in respect of cutting class sizes for infants—a policy opposed by the Opposition—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked a question. He must show some courtesy when the reply is delivered.
    Mr. Smith: What the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) should do is praise the accomplishment of this Government, which is based on their work on raising literacy and numeracy standards from the disgraceful level to which they fell under the previous Government, raising the proportion of pupils who achieve top GCSE grades and turning around 650 failing schools that would have continued to suffer under the Conservative Administration.

    Employment Statistics
    Gillian Merron: If he will make a statement on changes in employment and unemployment over the past 12 months. [150139]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Since the Government were elected, employment has risen by more than 1 million. Over the past year, it has risen by 225,000 and International Labour Organisation unemployment has fallen by 169,000. The claimant count now stands at just 5,000 above 1 million.
    Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend will be aware that unemployment in Lincoln has almost halved since the general election, while long-term youth unemployment has decreased by 86 per cent. However, that positive picture is not exactly uniform across the city, as people in wards such as Park and Abbey remain more likely to be out of work. Will my hon. Friend step up the application of targeted measures to areas such as Abbey and Park, to ensure that all my constituents can benefit equally from the stable economy created by the Government?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend correctly identifies that there are particular areas where it is necessary for the Government to concentrate our effort, perhaps through the expansion of new deal opportunities to help people into work. We must continue to remove the barriers to ensure that people can move from welfare into work and be financially secure. Of course, we must also continue to ensure that that work pays and that people can progress through work using lifelong learning. It is through all those measures, including expansion of the new deal, that we intend to continue to drive down unemployment, to move to full employment and to ensure that all the talents of all the people in this country can be used.
    Mr. John Bercow: In reflecting on employment policy, does the Paymaster General, as a former member of the Bennite left-wing Campaign group of Labour MPs, now accept that that free-market capitalist the United States of America has been dramatically more successful than most countries in creating and retaining jobs? To that end, has she made any assessment of the
    1030
    efficacy of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996? If not, why not?
    Dawn Primarolo: I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman of a couple of facts. First, the United States has the welfare-to-work partnership, which includes 10,000 firms. Secondly, it was the Conservative party that said in government that unemployment was a "price worth paying", following which it rose to the record level of 2.9 million. It is under this Government that 1 million jobs have been created and that long-term and youth unemployment are down. There are 1.1 million vacancies in the economy and the challenge is to match them with the people who are seeking jobs. The hon. Gentleman has no answers to that proposition.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: In my constituency, we have a new deal for communities area, which means that about £50 million will be invested in the next 10 years to help people back into work, among other things. Thanks to this Government, big capital projects are also starting, such as the North Bridge road and the transport interchange. In the light of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's earlier statement about community investment, will my hon. Friend consider what incentives can be given to big companies to ensure that they employ local people in areas of high deprivation?
    Dawn Primarolo: I reassure my hon. Friend that that is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has emphasised the importance of investment in our communities and, in particular, the use of tax credits in that work to build on the new deal for communities. I shall certainly bear her comments in mind.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Given that the word "employment" appears in the title of another Department, is not the fact that this question was not transferred an example of the Treasury's astonishing contempt for other Departments in Whitehall?
    Dawn Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that employment is part of the economy, I cannot help him further.

    Euro
    Mr. Alan Simpson: What rate of conversion between the pound and the euro is compatible with the UK's long-term economic interests. [150140]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The best contribution that the Government can make to delivering a stable and competitive pound over the medium term is to adhere to stability-oriented policies based on delivering low inflation and sound public finances.
    Mr. Simpson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for a non-committal statement on the exchange rate—it is exactly what prudence would have expected—but can he confirm that even the most gung-ho and enthusiastic of his current or former Cabinet colleagues has not urged him to join the single currency at either yesterday's or today's rates of exchange? If there is a case to be made

    1031
    for devaluing the pound, which is implicit in the representations that they make, will he use his powers of persuasion to urge them to recognise that macroeconomic consequences will follow in respect of precisely the issues that he has set out—inflation, interest rates and the implications for personal and company taxation?
    Mr. Brown: It is precisely because there are major issues to be addressed in any decision about the euro that, in 1997, we said that although we supported the euro in principle, in practice five economic tests have to be met. We said that we would review the matter and make those assessments early in the next Parliament—indeed, within the first two years. That is precisely what we shall do. We support the euro in principle because of the benefits. We believe that there are constitutional issues, but if the economic benefits to Britain are clear and unambiguous there is a case for joining—but the decision would be based on the five economic tests. If we were to recommend yes, there would be a referendum.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Chancellor agree that the highly relevant question asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) is unanswerable? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that our national experience with the pre-war gold standard, the Bretton Woods dollar standard and the exchange rate mechanism has surely proved that any fixed rate exchange arrangement must, inevitably, become incompatible with our long-term economic interests? Will he use his great influence in such matters to ensure that this country does not re-enter any form of monetary straitjacket imposed on us from overseas?
    Mr. Brown: It is precisely because of the major issues involved in dealing with the relationship between the euro and the pound that we have set the five tests. We shall assess those matters early in the next Parliament and report accordingly—but I take it that the hon. Gentleman is criticising the policy of the previous Government.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Is not it the case, despite the recent exchange rate, that, to quote the International Monetary Fund report again, our economy has enjoyed
    "the longest period of sustained non-inflationary output growth in more than 30 years"?
    Is not it a counsel of despair to suggest that the best or, indeed, the only way to maintain competitiveness is through a weak sterling policy?
    Mr. Brown: The IMF report does mention the euro and says that our proposals to make assessments based on economic tests are the right way forward. The report, as my hon. Friend said, commends the authorities
    "for the continued strong performance of the U.K. economy."
    It continues:
    "Sound fiscal and monetary policies have contributed to the achievements"
    and says that, looking ahead, directors expected that

    "output growth would remain robust, with a substantial increase in public spending from measures announced in last year's budget offsetting slower private consumption growth … prospects for inflation remain benign".
    1032

    If the previous Government had achieved a good report from the IMF in any one year, as we have received in every year of our government, they might have some cause to ask us questions about the economy, but they never did.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Following his embarrassing interview on the "Today" programme, when he refused to discuss his so-called tests, will the Chancellor at least give Parliament some straight answers? Does he agree that his five tests on the euro are nothing more than a sham, that they are completely subjective, and that they add up to four fudges and a fiddle? The best way to protect Britain's long-term economic interest is to keep the pound by voting Conservative at the next election.
    Mr. Brown: The IMF report quoted by Conservative Members overnight suggests that the five economic tests are the best way forward. They are not arbitrary tests; they are tests concerning the issues that are relevant to the United Kingdom economy—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) and his friends now think that it is not relevant to assess first, investment; secondly, employment; thirdly, manufacturing industry and financial services; fourthly, flexibility; and fifthly, the degree of sustainable convergence, it is clear that their policy is built purely on dogma.

    Public Service Investment
    Dr. Nick Palmer: If he will make an assessment of the implications of the comprehensive spending review for future investment in public services. [150141]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The plans set out in last year's spending review will double public net capital investment over the next three years to £19 billion. The Government will reverse years of underinvestment in order to deliver modern schools and hospitals and an integrated transport network.
    Dr. Palmer: In Broxtowe, there are two new schools, numerous refurbishments and two major hospital developments. Does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituents, who feel that such action makes more sense than the last Government's policy of squeezing public investment in order to pay for their other policy of high unemployment?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend gives excellent examples of the benefits of public investment in his constituency. I well recall discussing these and other matters with him at the consultation meeting with his constituents that he arranged for me last year. The good news he reports is proof that the Government are listening and delivering.
    Mr. Edward Davey: What contingency plans does the comprehensive spending review contain for increasing investment in London's public transport services if the public-private partnership is not concluded by the end of the financial year? Is the Minister aware that alternative public investment plans for

    1033
    the tube, first presented by the Liberal Democrats, are now supported by more than 80 per cent. of Londoners, by Bob Kiley, and—following their latest U-turn—even by half of those on the Conservative Front Bench? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore also support a plan that is safer and more cost-effective than the PPP, draw back the curtain, and come down the yellow brick road?
    Mr. Smith: The refurbishment and modernisation of the tube in London is of the utmost importance. That is why we have presented the public-private partnership as the best means of delivering cost-effectively the modernisation that is needed. The operation of trains will remain in the public sector, health and safety will remain independently in that sector, and discussions must take place—and are continuing—with Mr. Kiley and with Transport for London. It is in the interests of Londoners and the future of the modernisation of our tube that those talks succeed, and that through the public-private partnership we avoid the overruns on costs and time that characterised the Jubilee line extension.

    Public Investment (Emergency Services)
    Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: If he will make a statement on the implications of the pre-Budget report for investment in public services, with particular reference to emergency services. [150142]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): We have been reminded in the past 24 hours of the critical importance to all of us of the work of the emergency services. The whole House will want to express its admiration for their work at Selby.
    The Government's plans for spending on public services were set out in last year's spending review, and updated in the pre-Budget report. Police spending is set to rise from £7.7 billion to £9.3 billion in 2003–04; the standard spending assessment for fire services is set to rise from £1.4 billion to £1.6 billion in that year.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick: Given the extra resources and the new partnership arrangements being created across the emergency services, can my hon. Friend assure us that full consultation will take place with both trade unions and professional associations, as well as with local authority representatives and the managers of the various organisations and services?
    Mr. Timms: What has happened is that national debt is down. In 1997, it was 42 per cent.; it is now 31 per cent. and decreasing. That plus lower interest rates means that £4 billion is available for extra spending. Unemployment is also down, which again makes extra spending available. Those key changes enable the emergency services to plan with confidence for the future, working—as my hon. Friend said—in partnership with local authorities, trade unions and others who are involved. What the services could not cope with is having to contribute to the spending cuts that would be necessary to deliver the policy of Conservative Members.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Is the Minister aware that in Surrey, the sum being given to our police force is being cut in real terms and, according to figures supplied to me by Surrey police, in absolute terms by as
    1034
    much as £6 per head? How can we have any confidence in the Government's commitment to fight crime when they are prepared to cut the funding of one of the best performing police services in the country?
    Mr. Timms: I have said that our plans are to increase spending on the police service. The hon. Gentleman must explain why he supports cuts if he is really looking for more spending. In the next three years, an additional 9,000 recruits across the country will be funded centrally by the crime fighting fund. Police numbers will reach 128,000 by March 2002, and we are expecting further increases after that.

    Interest Rate Policy
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on the impact of interest rate policy on the exchange rate of the pound. [150143]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): Interest rates are set by the Monetary Policy Committee to deliver the Government's inflation target. Interest rates are among a wide range of influences on the exchange rate.
    Mr. Lloyd: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already reminded the House, the Government have an extraordinarily strong record on employment creation. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend accept that one current concern is the loss of jobs, particularly in manufacturing industry, and the consequences of those losses in different economic regions of the country? Will he take the time to remind the Monetary Policy Committee that to overshoot on interest rates—or to undershoot on inflation—has serious consequences, and that manufacturing jobs have borne some of those consequences?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right about the current strength of the economy. It is worth bearing in mind, for example, that the sterling exchange rate was stronger in June 1999, when interest rates were 5 per cent., than in 1998, when interest rates peaked at 7.5 per cent. Manufacturing needs stability in the economy, low interest rates and stable growth, and that is what it now has. The latest figures for manufacturing exports for the three months to December 2000 were 10 per cent. up on a year earlier. That is the fastest growth rate for more than a quarter of a century.
    I think that the prospects for manufacturing are very optimistic indeed. Yesterday, I was in my hon. Friend's part of the country talking to manufacturers in the chemical sector—in which increased research and development is critical to success—and heard about various developments such as the new university innovation centre for organic materials at Manchester university. We want there to be more such developments and partnerships between manufacturers and universities to promote further productivity increases and to sow the prospect of even better developments in manufacturing.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Is it still the Government's position that we would not need to enter a form of the exchange rate mechanism if we were

    1035
    to decide to join the single currency, despite all the protestations, information and statements from the Commission to the contrary?
    Mr. Timms: The Government have made our position absolutely clear: we have no intention of rejoining the ERM.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I have told Corus that my view is that the euro's inevitable rise against sterling next year will be of immeasurable help to its United Kingdom operations. Does my hon. Friend agree?
    Mr. Timms: I think that we will have to wait and see what happens. As I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), recent figures from manufacturing have been extremely encouraging. We are seeing very good performances in many parts of manufacturing. My hon. Friend may have read, for example, about the new British-made models launched this week at the Geneva motor show. There is a new optimism in the car industry. He may also have read about the new South Yorkshire advanced manufacturing centre, which is being supported by Boeing and builds on the very latest metal cutting technology developed in Sheffield. Aerospace, too, has been a big UK success story. I therefore think that the prospects are extremely encouraging.

    Gold Sales
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the sale of gold by the Bank of England in the past 12 months. [150144]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): In the current financial year, the Government have sold 125 tonnes of gold at five auctions, raising revenue of $1.1 billion. A further auction is scheduled for March. Along with the auctions in 1999–2000, the sales have been successful and have achieved value for money for the taxpayer. Over the medium term, the sales will achieve the Government's overall aim of a better balanced portfolio of reserve holdings.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Chancellor has instructed the Bank of England to put 40 per cent. of all the proceeds into euros; as the Bank has been instructed to take over the issue of vast quantities of euro bonds; and as it has been widely reported that Britain, Japan and America have been intervening directly to prop up the euro, would not it be helpful for the Government to announce the size of the mountain of euros now in the Bank? Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that, instead of engaging in this very expensive exercise, it would be better for the world economy if the Government simply allowed the euro to find its natural level in world markets? Surely that would be far better than all the back-door methods of trying time and again to prop up the euro.
    Mr. Smith: I admire the hon. Gentleman's persistence on this issue, which he raises endlessly, as he has the right to do, in the House and the Treasury Committee. He is becoming something of a gold standard in his own right.
    1036
    The National Audit Office has looked into all these matters and concluded that the Treasury has
    "met successfully its objective to sell in a transparent and fair manner while achieving, value for money."
    The report said that, in taking income from the foreign currency securities that we have purchased on account, the Government were on 18 December showing a gain of £23 million over what the gold would have been worth.
    Such sales have nothing to do with propping up the euro, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he reflected for a moment, he would realise that every time there is a gold auction, we are involved in purchasing something like 80 million euro. That contrasts with the $1.5 trillion turnover on the foreign exchange markets on any single day. So, such sales represent a very small pebble in a very large lake.

    Third-world Debt
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in other countries on the elimination of third-world debt. [150145]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): On Monday, I was pleased to hear from the head of the International Monetary Fund, Horst Köhler, and the President of the World Bank, Jim Wolfensohn, that following the path-breaking initiative on which we congratulate them, 22 countries are to receive debt relief and will qualify for 100 per cent. write-off of debt owed to the UK. Among those countries still to qualify, many are in conflict and civil war. Britain has renounced from December 2000 its right to debt payments. Those payments will be held in trust until they can be used for poverty relief.
    I met the chairman of the heavily indebted poor countries Finance Ministers group on Monday, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I hosted a conference to discuss the 2015 targets for education, health and poverty. On 17 February, I met the G7 Finance Ministers in Palermo, where the Italian presidency made new proposals to extend debt relief during 2001.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He is probably aware that many organisations in this country appreciate his efforts in trying to get the IMF and other countries, as well as Britain, down the road of debt relief. What further plans does he have on third-world debt, particularly with regard to Bangladesh, which, as he knows, fairly recently suffered some tremendous natural disasters?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and all those on both sides of the House who have raised the standard for debt relief and worked with the Churches, non-governmental organisations and many UK and international charities which have been pressing for a sensible solution to the problem of unpayable debt. Forty-one countries qualify under the HIPC initiative; 22 have already received debt relief. As I have said, most of the others are in conflict or civil wars. Bangladesh is not one of the countries in the HIPC initiative because its debt is less than that of other countries. It is, of course,

    1037
    being committed resources through the Department for International Development's aid and development budget, which has risen by 41 per cent. in real terms in the five years to 2004.

    Life Insurance
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the performance of the regulatory authorities in respect of with-profits life insurance [150146]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Financial Services Authority took responsibility for the prudential supervision of insurance companies on 1 January 1999. With-profits business forms a significant part of that responsibility. Howard Davies announced an FSA review of the with-profits business last Friday.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Minister agree that when the Government are encouraging millions of inexperienced investors to put their money in some new products, such as stakeholder pensions, it is vital that the regulator must be seen to act in the consumer interest in cases of mis-selling and the irresponsible assumption of liabilities risk, as occurred at Equitable Life?
    Specifically in relation to the inquiry that is under way, will the Minister undertake to look not merely at the misregulation of the FSA, but at the events of the early and mid-1990s when, inexplicably, reporting standards on the industry relaxed and the Government regulator of the day appears to have completely ignored the impact of falling interest rates and falling inflation on the sustainability of guaranteed annuities?
    Miss Johnson: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the FSA was set up with the important objectives of recognising the needs of consumers and, indeed, to educate consumers. In addition, the FSA has a consumer panel. That is an important part of the FSA's remit, and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an important focus of its work. Indeed, that is why we set up the FSA.
    The FSA's report will cover both its role as a prudential regulator and the Personal Investment Authority's role as a conduct of business regulator. The report will look into the background and events leading up to the point at which responsibility for prudential insurance regulation moved to the FSA.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: Does my hon. Friend accept that there needs to be more clarity about how bonus payments within with-profits policies, particularly terminal bonus payments, are decided?
    Miss Johnson: The FSA's report is yet to emerge. When it does, we will study it carefully to see what issues are identified in relation to the history of Equitable Life and the events surrounding its closure for further business. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, without seeing the report, it is premature for us to draw any conclusions at this point.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I declare an interest in that I hold a with-profits insurance policy. Will
    1038
    the Economic Secretary explain why neither the Treasury nor the regulator took a proper interest in this matter when the original action was taken to block new members taking policies with Equitable Life?
    Miss Johnson: All these matters are clearly monitored by the Financial Services Authority. It is producing a report and, when it does, we will have some conclusions to study.

    Chester Street Holdings Ltd.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: If he will make a statement on Chester Street Holdings Ltd., previously known as Iron Trades Holding Ltd. [150147]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Government understand the concern of those suffering from asbestos-related disease as a consequence of employment in firms whose employers' liability insurance has been provided by Chester Street Holdings Ltd.
    Mr. Clapham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I also thank her for meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and me yesterday to discuss the issue. As she is aware, it appears that Iron Trades dumped the asbestos liabilities into Chester Street Holdings in 1990. The company continued trading until the late 1990s, when it was sold to an Australian insurance company.
    The insurance protection board will provide some protection for some of the cases, but the pre-1972 cases—that is, cases of men exposed before 1972—may not be covered by the protection system. Will my hon. Friend therefore set up an inquiry into Iron Trades? Will she also consider how she might urge the insurance industry to work with the Government with the aim of ensuring that each claimant gets compensation in full?
    Miss Johnson: As an insurance company, Chester Street—and Iron Trades before it—was authorised to do business in the UK, and has been supervised by insurance regulators to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Insurance Companies Act 1982. Since 1 January 1999, the FSA has been responsible for prudential supervision of insurance companies.
    The Policy Holders Protection Act 1975 offers protection for compulsory employers' liability insurance policies, which are required under the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. It is the employer who holds the policy with Chester Street, not the employee. The employer remains liable for claims made against it by employees or former employees. It is for the employer to establish whether any further protection is required under the 1975 Act, to the extent that Chester Street is unable to meet the terms of the insurance contract in full.
    I am aware of the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend of the pre-1972 claims. The Treasury is considering that issue.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Would the Leader of the House give us the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 MARCH—Debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 6 MARCH—Second Reading of the International Development Bill.
WEDNESDAY 7 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
THURSDAY 8 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 9 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 12 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget Debate.
TUESDAY 13 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget Debate.
WEDNESDAY 14 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill.
THURSDAY 15 MARCH—Estimates Day [2nd Allotted Day].
The Liaison Committee will recommend subjects for debate.
At 7 o'clock the House will be asked to agree the Spring Supplementary Estimates, Votes on Account and Defence Votes A.
FRIDAY 16 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 7 March, there will be a debate relating to motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements in the European Community in European Standing Committee C.
On Wednesday 7 March, there will be a debate relating to health requirements for animal by-products in European Standing Committee A.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 14 March, there will be a debate relating to community immigration policy in European Standing Committee C.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 7 March 2001: European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: (a) 12648/00 and (b) 12646/00, Health requirements for animal by-products. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 28-iii and HC 28-vii(2000–01).
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 13889/00, Competition in motor vehicle distribution and servicing. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee report HC 28-iii(2000–01).
Wednesday 14 March 2001:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 11529/00, Community immigration policy. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee report: HC 28-iii(2000–01).]
Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Yesterday's debate in Opposition time on the
1040
continuing foot and mouth crisis was welcomed by Members on both sides. Despite the fact that we have a busy schedule next week, including the Budget statement, I hope that the right hon. Lady can confirm that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be available to come to the House as necessary to share new information and advice with hon. Members, not least because the disease has now spread throughout the United Kingdom. Members will have questions in respect of telephone calls and queries from constituents, and it would be helpful to be updated by the Minister and to have an opportunity to ask questions. I hope that time will be found for that.
On foot and mouth, can the right hon. Lady tell us what contingency arrangements are in place in case the crisis continues? In particular, I have in mind the need to collect national census forms across the country on 29 April and any change that may have to be made to county council elections scheduled for 3 May.
Can the Leader of the House tell us whether Downing street has yet received the report of the Hammond inquiry? She will know that there are press reports that it has. If the conclusions of the report are imminent, will she outline how the Government intend to convey that information to the House and what opportunities the House will have to question the Government on it?
May I bring the Leader of the House back to something that I raised at the last business questions: namely, the continuing problems with programming motions, especially in Committee? I have mentioned the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. The House was told that the Government intended to allow 16 sittings on the Bill but, in Committee, the Home Office Minister concerned offered only 14. I gather that in a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, that was increased to 15 sittings. However, on the last day of its deliberations, the Committee will have to deal with no fewer than 50 clauses as well as new schedules, all of which will have to be compressed into a Thursday, when there are fewer hours for consideration.
I know that the right hon. Lady shares the concern that the programming procedures should be sorted out. I ask her to focus on our experiences with Home Office Bills in particular and to consider the case of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. It is a matter of grave concern to my colleagues that they will have to deal with that very important Bill in such a short space of time.
On the same subject, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill is due to come to the Commons soon from another place. Conservative Members in another place tabled many amendments to the Bill as a result of consultation with many large charitable organisations. It was a matter of great concern to them that they faced open criticism from Labour Members of another place for doing so. I flag that up now because I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the education team is responsive to the need for clauses and amendments to be properly scrutinised and discussed when the Bill comes to the Commons. It is clearly a matter of interest not just to us but to many charitable bodies with an interest in special educational needs.
Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food intends to try to keep the House

1041
informed about foot and mouth. I understand that he is seeking to put in place arrangements to keep hon. Members informed and to extend the availability of information in localities so that there can be as much accurate information as possible available in the public domain. I know that my right hon. Friend is, among other things, anxious to learn the lessons of the Phillips report and the handling of the BSE crisis, and feels that open and transparent provision of information is desirable in such circumstances. I hope that the House shares that view.
The hon. Lady asked me whether I could say any more about contingency plans for issues such as the census and the local elections; these were well-concealed inquiries about the date of the general election, I thought. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Minister has issues such as the handling of census forms under active consideration. I cannot give the hon. Lady any more information about that at the present time.
The hon. Lady and the House will be aware that the time period is such that we are probably talking about outbreaks of the disease that were incubated before movement was stopped. How great the difficulties are and how speedily they can be resolved will depend on events in the next few days. I cannot tell her any more about that at the moment, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will wish to do so.
I would have assured the hon. Lady that there will be an opportunity to question my right hon. Friend the Minister in the near future but for the fact that two Departments will be answering oral questions next Thursday, so I shall handle that matter with some caution. However, there will come a point at which the hon. Lady and the House will be able to question my right hon. Friend.
I am not aware that the report of the Hammond inquiry has been received, although, of course, I am aware of the great interest in the matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it plain that he has every intention of publishing the report as speedily as possible. The issue is under consideration, but I understand that it is not yet resolved.
The hon. Lady again raises the issue of programming motions. I am mindful of the concerns that she expresses. We are extremely anxious, as she noted, to reach agreement on those matters. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill receives its Third Reading in the Lords today. Although I am aware that the Bill is progressing, I am not aware of the issues raised by the hon. Lady or of problems with regard to the amendments. I certainly assure her that the education team will take seriously any issues or concerns that arise during the Bill's passage through this House.
Helen Jones: In view of the article in The Daily Telegraph today, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the record of the former chief inspector of schools? I refer especially to the evidence, documented in his own reports, of the success of many of the Government's policies, including the rising GCSE standards, the vastly improved literacy and numeracy standards in primary schools and the success in cutting infant class sizes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that
1042
we should have the opportunity to debate those issues before the former chief inspector becomes a Conservative peer?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend asks me to arrange a debate on those issues. However, given that we are to have Education questions and that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill is to come before the House, I suspect that there will be opportunities for Members to air such issues.

I am, of course, aware of the former chief inspector's comments. I also heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the radio this morning handling the issue with extreme skill. He showed the concern for educational standards that I hope everyone in the House shares. I share my right hon. Friend's view that it is to be regretted that the former chief inspector has, apparently, changed his mind on several things that he previously supported; that is, of course, entirely a matter for him.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I return to the scourge of foot and mouth? Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House as soon as possible so that we can hear more about the contingency plans that may have to be used if this terrible disease continues to spread across the country? I draw her attention to the statement made yesterday by her colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that there seemed to be a good case for the postponement of the census. Will the right hon. Lady confirm whether that requires legislation? If so, we need to know in good time.
Will the right hon. Lady go further and ask the Home Secretary to come to the House and explain what the arrangements would be for polling day on 3 May—whatever elections take place on that day? As I understand it, new regulations provide for a complete election by post, if necessary. There has been a complete relaxation of the postal vote arrangements. It would be possible to use postal votes in rural areas, such as Cornwall, where there would be a total distortion of the result—of the county council elections or any other election—if any foot and mouth restrictions remained in the area on polling day. Will the right hon. Lady ask the Home Secretary to explain to the House exactly what contingency plans are in place?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman raises two issues. I think the census may be a matter for the Treasury rather than for the Home Office. People are obviously considering contingency plans, although there may be some reluctance to get into detailed discussions until we know whether there is a need for such steps. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my relevant right hon. Friends.
On voting, it is certainly my understanding—although I have not checked the matter with the Home Office—that postal voting, which is much more widely available, might assist in resolving any difficulties. I cannot undertake to ask the Home Secretary to make a special statement on that issue in the near future, not least because Home Office questions will take place on Monday 12 March, offering an opportunity to raise it at a pertinent point.
Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if any criticism is to be levelled at the

1043
Government about Woodhead, it would be that he was not sacked on day one? It is difficult to understand why someone who was so hostile to the Government's plans for education was kept on for so long.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has had reservations about those issues for some time and is, of course, free to express them. I simply say that I understand that one of the former chief inspector's criticisms is that he believes that there is a lack of follow-through on policies. I understand also that Mr. de Gruchy, who is not always the Government's greatest fan, has said that however much he may disagree with many of the Government's policies, he does not believe that it can be justifiably alleged that they are not followed through.
Mr. Peter Brooke: In the context of the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on the Government's handling of foot and mouth and the considerable concern about foot and mouth across the island of Ireland, will it fall to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to keep us informed of events in Northern Ireland and their effect on the border counties?
Mrs. Beckett: To be honest, both are involved, as the right hon. Gentleman will clearly appreciate. However, without becoming too involved in the detail of a specialist subject, I understand that, as far as we are aware, the outbreak in Ireland has some relationship to the original case in the north of England. In that sense, such matters still fall within the remit of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Clearly the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is involved and will certainly play his part in keeping the House informed.
Perhaps I may trespass on your good graces for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to confirm to the House that questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will take place on Thursday 8 March and questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will take place on 15 March. Those are the occasions on which Members will have an opportunity to raise the issues to which I have referred.
Mr. David Chaytor: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of the staff and pupils of the excellent comprehensive schools in my constituency? Each of those schools has its own diversity of ethos, and each has high standards and is producing improving results, year on year. Those improvements are largely due to the work of the staff and pupils and have little to do with the policies of the former chief inspector, but they are also due to the support provided by the excellent local education authority in Bury. In view of the publication last week of the Green Paper on the future of secondary schools and the huge interest that those wide-ranging proposals have produced, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a strong case for a debate in Government time about the future shape and structure of comprehensive education in this country?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raises an interesting issue and I join him in paying tribute to the excellence
1044
of the schools in his constituency. On the day the recent announcements were being made, I happened to be visiting an extremely good comprehensive school—which, as he says, has a richness of diversity—in the Halifax area. There is no doubt that much excellent work is being done, but it is important that we raise the standards of all schools, as he suggests. [Laughter.] Opposition Members are enjoying themselves, but those are the schools that our children attend, even if theirs do not; they are important to Labour Members.
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the work of many good LEAs, which are working in partnership with schools. He refers also to the Green Paper. I am mindful of the remarks in the Financial Times this week that much of the detailed policy in the Green Paper—particularly the emphasis on secondary schools—deserves praise. That view is widely shared.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I return to the issue of the foot and mouth crisis? Following the Downing street emergency meeting with farmers' representatives on Tuesday and the debate that took place in the House yesterday, I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will announce that the Government will open selected abattoirs to take livestock from farms that are free from foot and mouth.
J. J. J. Heathcote, a small but modern abattoir in my constituency, has been in touch this morning to advise me that it understands that the Government will open only large abattoirs. That means that animals may have to travel many, many miles, which some believe has contributed to the crisis that we face today. If that is the case, it could have a devastating impact on small farms and small abattoirs. Will the Leader of the House assure me that the Minister will open not just large abattoirs, but will consider opening small, modern abattoirs? We believe that that would help farming communities.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that my right hon. Friend is giving careful and detailed consideration to the issue of how the travel of animals to slaughter can be handled so that they do not come into contact with other animals. Consideration is being given to what that will mean in terms of travel distances, times and so on.
I am not aware of the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman has just raised about the size of the abattoirs that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has in mind. However, I take his point, as will my right hon. Friend. I certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Last year on 19 July, an hour and a half debate was held in Westminster Hall following the report of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' working party on park homes. Should we not now have a full debate on the issue in the House, as it is becoming an increasingly serious matter? More and more people who are not interested in the sites are becoming site owners; they merely rip off the residents. The report of the park homes working party was an attempt to flag up future legislation to introduce controls over these sites. It is important that we make effective progress on the matter.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I am aware of a number of examples of people expressing

1045
anxiety about the running of such sites. I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter on the Floor of the House in the near future, but I undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Mr. Peter Lilley: Mr. Speaker, you will have noticed that, at Treasury questions, Labour Members appeared to be under orders not to ask supplementaries about the euro and the exchange rate that relates to it. Labour Whips may wish to give up discussion of the subject for Lent. However, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate so that we can discuss the truncated questions that were asked at Treasury questions today and consider the condition in the treaty that there should be a period of stability for at least two years before we would be allowed to enter the euro? We could also consider whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were he still to be in post after an election, proposes to have a referendum before that condition is met or intends to wait two years before he holds any referendum.
Mrs. Beckett: There is no ordinance—self-denying or otherwise—on the questions that Labour Members ask. I imagine that they wish to raise other matters and, unlike Conservative Members, do not want to keep going obsessively over the same ground. My hon. Friends have heard the answers and know that they have not changed. Consequently, I can only guess that they feel disinclined to dwell on an issue that has already been resolved. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is rather sad that Conservative Members are so obsessed with this issue. They insist on asking the same questions over and over again, even though they keep getting the same answers.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, yesterday, the Home Office published a draft statutory instrument on the prevention and suppression of terrorism, listing 21 organisations that it sought to have banned in this country. When is that measure likely to be debated in the House? My right hon. Friend will be aware also that many people have misgivings about the inclusion of certain organisations on the list, which might restrict peace negotiations. Under the current procedure, the measure can be debated for one and a half hours on an unamendable motion. Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is an extremely serious issue, that we should have longer than one and a half hours to debate it and that right hon. and hon. Members should be able to table amendments so that we can discuss the individual organisations that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is proposing to ban? Many of us believe that there are implications not only for civil liberties, but for the peace process in a number of places, including Sri Lanka.
Mrs. Beckett: I can understand my hon. Friend's concern. As he rightly says, these are serious issues and he knows that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes them extremely seriously. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to provide for a procedure that would allow amendments to be tabled to a statutory instrument. There is a precedent; such proposals have often been considered

1046
in the House, but have been rejected by every Government. While I understand my hon. Friend's wish to have a lengthy debate on the matter, he will understand that I have to balance that wish against a number of other pressures on time. However, he will know that Home Office questions will take place on Monday 12 March, when an opportunity may arise to consider some of these issues. I undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend who, as always, will do everything that he can to meet the concerns of hon. Members.
Mr. Paul Keetch: May I return to the foot and mouth outbreak? It is not acceptable that we should have to wait another week until Agriculture questions next Thursday to raise the matter, as it is a fast-moving disease. This morning, I was contacted by Mr. Kevin Feakins of Garron Livestock Ltd. in my constituency. The company was closed down two days ago due to foot and mouth disease. He is very concerned about some 3,400 sheep that he exported to France which are currently being slaughtered by the French authorities. The French authorities are telling the British Embassy in Paris that Mr. Feakins will receive only FF300 per sheep, which is approximately one third of their value. Whatever we may think about live exports, they are still legal. Given that Mr. Feakins will receive the full market value in compensation for sheep that are slaughtered in the United Kingdom, but not for those exported to France, will the Leader of the House make sure that when the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food returns to the House, he will have details about those sheep, as well as those being slaughtered in the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Beckett: I did not say that we would have to wait a week to discuss the matter. I said that Agriculture questions would take place next Thursday, providing a natural opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to raise the issue. I also said that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will try to keep hon. Members informed by whatever means he can. The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that I told the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that my right hon. Friend is even now working on arrangements whereby hon. Members can be kept informed and speedily updated on any developments. I know that he will seek to do that. With regard to the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, I understand his concern. I cannot undertake that my right hon. Friend will make a statement specifically about that matter, but I shall certainly draw it to his attention. I am confident that he will be in contact with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to future business on the Order Paper. The Home Secretary has tabled the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Franchise of Relevant Citizens of the Union) Regulations 2001. Before those regulations are brought to the House, will they be reviewed, as they are flawed? They omit to fulfil the Government's commitment to enfranchise the people of Gibraltar in the next European elections, which they are obliged to do following a court action that they could have avoided had they taken the advice of myself and others. I hope that the measure will be looked at again before it comes to the House because some of us will not acquiesce in this grave omission by our silence.

1047
If my right hon. Friend thinks it somewhat irksome that I keep raising these issues as a matter of attrition with the Home Secretary, let me say that I take heart because the Home Secretary is a listening Minister. Two or three years ago, I asked him to introduce a measure to allow Church of England and Catholic priests to stand for election in the House of Commons; he refused. It pays dividends to keep working at it because, this afternoon, I hope that we will give a Third Reading to the very important measure for which I campaigned.
Mrs. Beckett: I would never dream of regarding my hon. Friend as irksome. He is a conscientious and hard-working Member who has had a good deal of success in raising issues in the House, as he points out. I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I cannot undertake to find time for a separate special debate. The order will have to go through a scrutiny process in the House and outside, and I shall ensure that his concerns are aired.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate next week on departmental replies to the correspondence of Members of Parliament? If she cannot do that, will she use her influence with other Departments to ensure that we receive speedier responses? I wrote to the Department of Health on 29 September 2000 and received an answer on 12 February which said:
"You and your constituents will be pleased to learn that the British Medical Association currently runs a mentoring scheme for overseas doctors. They can be contacted at … BMA House."
That was an interesting answer, but I do not think that I should have waited five months for it.
Mrs. Beckett: I share the hon. Gentleman's view, as will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, to whose attention I shall draw that example.
Mr. Keith Darvill: Now that my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity to read the Procedure Committee's report on the election of the Speaker, what progress has she made in finding time to debate its recommendations at an early date?
Mrs. Beckett: I am mindful of the Committee's report and its excellent work. We have not been able to find time to hold that debate in the next couple of weeks, but I am aware that there is pressure on both sides of the House for the matter to be discussed.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On foot and mouth, can the Leader of the House guarantee that a Minister will give guidance on how animals that were sold for slaughter in Carlisle ended up on an open-range farm in south Armagh? Something has to be done to tighten procedures, especially when that practice could have a devastating impact on the hard-hit industry in Northern Ireland and could spread the disease to the Republic, which would be even worse hit.
Mrs. Beckett: I believe that that is under active consideration.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will it be possible to debate the impact of Government policies on single
1048
parents, if only to dispel the myths peddled by the tabloids and to demonstrate that the vast majority of single parents are victims of desertion, bereavement or divorce? Perhaps we could also discuss cases such as that of my constituent who came into my office the other day to tell me that her life had been transformed by the working families tax credit. She was able to afford child care, which meant that she could get off benefits, into work and do something interesting.
Mrs. Beckett: I know from experience and from comments that people have made to me how much many single parents welcome the beneficial changes that the Government have introduced, especially because they are directed at children, which is a prime concern for single parents in particular. What my hon. Friend says is true: most single parents are involuntarily in that role and are doing their best to raise their families without them being harmed further by the circumstances that they face. I fear, however, that I cannot find time to hold a special debate on the matter on the Floor of the House in the near future, but she might want to pursue the issue in Westminster Hall.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. During business questions, hon. Members should ask for either a statement or a debate. Furthermore, if they are brief, I can call all those who want to put a question.
Mr. Stephen Day: Thank you, Mr. Speaker—I shall try to get this right.
The Leader of the House will be aware that, although the Opposition Whips Office is extremely effective, it cannot possibly be so effective as to have planted two or three moles on the Labour Benches this afternoon to demand that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment come to the House to explain why a former head of the schools inspectorate launched such a devastating attack on the failure of the Government's education policies. I hope that she will feel able to listen to the demands of her Back Benchers. If she agrees to them, I assure her that the Opposition will be extremely pleased.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that I can add much to what has already been said, but no doubt the matter will be returned to many times in the House.
Dr. Desmond Turner: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 365:
[That this House, hearing in mind the calls in the NHS plan, echoed by the British Medical Association, for more medical professionals, welcomes the joint bid by the universities of York and Hull to establish a medical school; notes the support from NHS trusts in York, Hull, North Yorkshire, the East Riding and South Humber; further notes that this is the largest population centre in England without a medical school; and expresses hope that, if successful, this bid will improve healthcare provision and training in a region with significant areas of deprivation and help alleviate the significant problems the region has in recruiting and retaining clinical staff]
It refers to the need to expand provision for medical education and new medical schools if we are to satisfy demand. A bid focusing on my constituency has been

1049
made by the universities of Brighton and Sussex. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on that important issue, given that the provision of mare doctors is one of the keys to bringing our health service up to scratch?
Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view on the importance of providing more doctors. He will know that the Government have already expanded the number of training places and that we are keen to ensure that the work force is expanded in that way. I am aware of the application to which he refers; it will be given sympathetic consideration, as are all such applications.
Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Leader of the House provide for an urgent debate, immediately after the Budget statement, on the disproportionate state benefits and expenditure in Scotland compared with those in England? Does she not agree that it is important that the electorate are informed, through a lengthy and detailed debate in the House, as to why Scotland is such a privileged an I cosseted part of the United Kingdom? She will know that the Scots sometimes receive as much as 25 per cent. more expenditure per head than the English on education, health and other matters. The taxpayers of England will want to know why that is so and where the Government Stand on that issue well ahead of a general election.
Mrs. Beckett: The Government stand where previous Governments have always stood on implementing the agreement on and breakdown of the provision of public moneys. As I recall, that was not changed by the Conservatives when they had a 20-year opportunity to do so. In that context, I cannot undertake to provide an urgent debate on a matter that is not an emergency and has no urgency about it.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on local transport investment? This week, the final report of the Aire Valley public transport commission in my constituency will be launched. It will help us to take advantage of new investment in the Bingley relief road and improvements to Leeds city station, as well as bringing together for the first time all the bus and train companies and transport user groups.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my ion. Friend's strong interest in the issue, on which he has long campaigned—in fact, I think that he chaired the Aire Valley public transport commission, which provide s a good example of a range of local interests coming together to address and satisfy local need. I also understand my hon. Friend's desire for the matter to be aired. Perhaps he will find an opportunity to do that in Westminster Hall; I fear that I cannot find time for it on the Floor of the House.
Mr. John BercowWill the Leader of the House reconsider her uncharacteristic truculence of 8 February and agree now to a debate on the Government's plan to scrap the pound after a rigged referendum? Given that millions of Labour voters want to keep the pound and that the right hon. Lady herself has a distinguished track record of euroscepticism, why does she not now do the noble thing t and resign from the Cabinet to speak up for those people, thereby ensuring
1050
that she becomes a real heroine, perhaps the length and breadth of the land and certainly from her birthplace of Ashton-under-Lyne to her constituency of Derby, South?
Mrs. Beckett: That is all very flattering. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's warm wish to welcome me back to the Back Benches.
First, it is pushing the boat out a bit to talk about a rigged referendum for which no preparations have yet even been made or announced. The hon. Gentleman is convinced already that it will be rigged.
Secondly, I fear that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. Although he is entirely right that I campaigned in 1975 and for some years thereafter on the issue of membership of the European Union—I not infrequently remind those who did not share that point of view at the time that I did so—I have long since come to the conclusion that the United Kingdom has been involved in the EU for so long, and our legal and financial structures are so enmeshed, that it is now essential that we make the best of our membership. If that means that at some point we must consider entry into economic and monetary union, the House and the country will have to consider it.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader arrange for a Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to make a statement, following much concern about the erection of telecommunication masts and related environmental and health problems? In my constituency, there are three applications involving Ribchester, Clayton le Dale and an area just outside Longridge. It is a rural constituency and we do not want to turn the Ribble valley, or the countryside of the rest of England and Wales, into a giant Meccano set. Is it possible for a Minister to advise us of the changes that may be made to ensure that more power is given to local authorities to determine where masts are erected?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that the issue arouses concern on both sides of the House. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) introduced a ten-minute Bill on the subject yesterday. Incidentally, it was opposed by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), which shows that there are different views on both sides of the House.
The issue is frequently aired, and I shall draw the remarks of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In the circumstances, I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter on the Floor of the House. There are many opportunities to raise the issue, and it is raised and aired continually. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are passed on.
Dr. Vincent Cable: After the premature leak to the media yesterday of the results of the Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry, will the Deputy Prime Minister make a statement on the report, which is of enormous interest to London and south-east Members. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a courteous and proper presentation of the report's conclusions. When he does so, will he tell us what action he is taking to trace the leaker of highly market-sensitive information?
Mrs. Beckett: My understanding is that there has not been a leak and that no decision on the inspector's report

1051
has yet been taken. I do not know from where the report originated. I undertake to let my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister know of the concern in the House that, when a decision is made, it should be properly conveyed to the House.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week on the delay in Departments responding to written parliamentary questions? One of my written questions was answered yesterday and appears today in Hansard at column 649W. I tabled the question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport four weeks ago. It was a simple question. I asked when the Hinduja foundation paid the sponsorship money for the dome—hardly the most exacting question. I now have the answer, which is that a 10 per cent. deposit was paid in February 1999, just before the passport was issued, and that the rest was paid afterwards. I am still waiting for answers to questions that were tabled at the same time about the involvement of Lord Levy in the episode. I cannot understand why I am not getting more timely responses.
Mrs. Beckett: The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises has been aired in the House and no doubt will be aired again, but I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on it.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I take the Leader back to the foot and mouth crisis? Farmers in my constituency are subject to movement restriction orders because of outbreaks just across two county boundaries. They are desperately worried about the situation. Will the right hon. Lady make earnest representations to her right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement to the House early next week on the fast-moving situation? Farmers are urging me to make representations about the welfare implications of their not being able to move animals to slaughter, and the compensation arrangements.
If the Leader of the House is unable to do that, may I make a practical suggestion to her, which I ask her urgently to consider? My suggestion is that after the Minister takes Agriculture questions next Thursday, he should answer a separate question on foot and mouth, so that we will have time to question him specifically on the issue. Thursday is a light day of business in the House. It is one of four days' debate on the Budget, and there is no reason why a little time should not be found for such a serious situation.
Mrs. Beckett: I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the general wish that has been expressed today for the House to be kept informed. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend is extremely conscientious about doing that. I know that my right hon. Friend hopes that the arrangements that he intends to put in place for information will mean that hon. Members do not need to question him at the Dispatch Box about developments, and that he will keep them informed by other means, but obviously that remains to be seen. The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting suggestion about how to handle the issue at Agriculture questions, which no doubt
1052
Mr. Speaker will also have heard. Again, I will draw that to the attention of my right hon. Friend, to see whether he considers it the right way to deal with the matter.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to this week's edition of Computer Weekly, which is published today? It alleges that two leaked internal Ministry of Defence documents indicate that critical changes were made to the Chinook mark 2's FADEC software. As a consequence of that, I was given a misleading answer to a question that I tabled in the summer of 1999. The Leader of the House will be aware that the matter is of interest to hon. Members in all parts of the House, and that the Prime Minister has answered a number of questions on it. The other place is due to debate the issue next Monday. Given the allegations made in Computer Weekly, does the right hon. Lady agree that the House deserves a statement or, at the very least, a fulsome written answer?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that Computer Weekly, no doubt incorrectly, is not my daily reading, or even weekly reading. Consequently, I am not aware of the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I undertake to draw it to the attention of the relevant Ministers, who are no doubt already being briefed on the matter. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on it, but if there is concern that the wrong information has been given, that will doubt less be addressed in some way.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement, please, from the Prime Minister explaining the contradiction between what he told our most important ally, President Bush, about the so-called European Union rapid reaction force being "firmly embedded" in NATO, and the provisions of the annexes to the treaty of Nice, which make it abundantly clear that the command and control of any such force will be entirely independent of NATO or any other organisation, other than the EU?
Mrs. Beckett: The issue has been aired repeatedly in the House. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is certainly aware of the concern that has been expressed. I understand that the discussions that took place in the United States were I full and constructive, and that there is complete agreement between our Government and the Government of the US that there will be real value in the different role that the European rapid reaction force will play, and about the huge importance of NATO.
Mr. Graham Brady: May I endorse the calls for a debate on education policy that were made by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) and for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor)? Clearly, they want to sort out the confusion among Labour Members, who now know that they are part of a Government in which the Secretary of State for Education and Employment finds it difficult to make tough decisions and the Prime Minister cannot see things through. Of course, the Government are also prepared simultaneously to attack comprehensive and grammar schools. They are terminally confused and they do not know whether they are in favour of selection or against it, so it is time that we had a statement or debate to clear the matter up.
Mrs. Beckett: There have been extensive statements and debates on education matters, and more will no doubt

1053
occur in future. The only confusion of which I am aware exists on the Opposition Benches, and perhaps in the mind of the former chief inspector of schools.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the huge threat that is posed to rural magistrates courts by the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998? To conform with the Act, courts must be reorganised so as to ensure that the public do not see prisoners in handcuffs, as such restraints infringe their dignity. The courts of Market Drayton, Whitchurch and Oswestry face significant costs. For example, Oswestry magistrates court requires £197,450 for compliance. May we have an urgent statement from the, Lord Chancellor's Department, explaining its policy? The requirements are imposed by central Government, but in theory the local expenditure is decided by magistrate.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I know that issues regarding the handling of rural magistrates courts and their problems are frequently raised with the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy). Indeed, I believe that Question Time for that Department will be held next week, so he may find an opportunity to raise the issue then.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the timing of the foot and mouth outbreak is especially unfortunate for hard-pressed farmers, as at least 50 per cent. of last year's lamb exports were destined for France and other European Union markets, which also form 90 per cent. of the culled sow markets? I understand that those two categories would not qualify for the funds that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food explained yesterday. Will she therefore invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement next week to announce the application of contingency funds to those categories?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the particular misfortune in respect of the timing of what is in any case a very worrying outbreak, and of the great anxiety that is felt in the farming community. I cannot undertake to invite my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to make a special contribution on that issue next week, not least because he will be making his Budget statement. What that will contain is another matter, about which I know no more than she does.

BILL PRESENTED
  FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS
  Tony Wright, supported by Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Frank Field, Helen Jackson, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Ms Harriet Harman and Mr. Mark Oaten, presented a Bill to provide for fixed-term Parliaments: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 54].

Point of Order
1.23 pm
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the terms of the Order of the House made on 6 February this year ensure that if the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill, which we are about to consider, is amended during its Committee stage, consideration on Report must begin no later than 5 o'clock this afternoon. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I am therefore interested to establish what guidance you can offer as to the admissibility or otherwise of manuscript amendments, especially in view of the regrettable experience of 17 July last year, when the House considered the Football Disorder Bill in similar circumstances. After the Committee stage, we proceeded to Report and there was no proper opportunity for hon. Members to table amendments. Obviously, we would want to avoid a repetition of those events, which were acknowledged to be a farce by not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) but the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
Mr. Speaker: If manuscript amendments are submitted, I shall obviously consider them, as I always do.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That—
(1) the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
(2) the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet at the County Hall, Cwmbran, on Monday 12th March at half past Ten o'clock to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)), proceedings being interrupted at Four o'clock.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Orders of the Day

  House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill
  Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [6 February].
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]
  1.25 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I am sorry for interrupting, but may I raise with you the availability of the responses to the consultation document, which underlie the Bill? As Committee proceedings get under way, it would be helpful if we had the fullest information, as a Standing Committee would have. The explanatory notes, which you may have before you, refer to the consultation process that the Government undertook before producing the Bill. On Second Reading, the Minister in charge prayed in aid the results of the consultation with the various Churches concerned. However, when I asked the Library whether the Churches' replies had been deposited there, I was told that this was not a public consultation exercise.
  I have not telephoned the Minister's office—I gather that that is rather dangerous and one might lose one's job over it—but this point matters. Allowing priests to stand for Parliament is a significant change to the constitution and one would expect such a change to involve a consultation. A consultation has been conducted, but one would also expect the Minister to make the results available. On Second Reading, he said:
  "All were content for the restrictions to be removed."—[Official Report, 6 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 806.]
  However, perhaps that does not convey the complexity of the Churches' response on some issues and the Committee will therefore be forced to rely on his interpretation of those responses, rather than have the documents to hand.
  Would it be in order to suspend proceedings for a few minutes so that the material could be made available? In Standing Committee, it is normal for such a request to be made and, indeed, for a Minister's office to supply the necessary documents.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to air his point in full, but I have to tell him that it is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for debate. I have no doubt that he will have the opportunity to press the point further in the course of later debates.

  House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill
    Clause 1

      REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATION OF CLERGY
      Miss Ann Widdecombe:I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 1, line 6, after "ordained", insert—
      'to the office of priest or deacon'.
      1056
      No. 12, in page 1, line 7, after "minister", insert "(or the recognised equivalent)"
      No. 15, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
      '(1A) A person is disqualified from being or being elected as a member of the House of Commons if—

      (a) he has been ordained to the office of priest or deacon in accordance with any form of episcopal ordination, and

      (b) he is practising as a priest or deacon.'.

      Miss Widdecombe: I should say at the outset that there will be free votes for Conservative Members on all the issues being debated in Committee and on Report, though the Government obviously intend not to allow that stage of consideration, as well as on Third Reading.
      I have moved the amendment to try to distinguish between serving and ex-priests. The Minister will be aware that I said on Second Reading that I was unhappy with the prospect a practising priests, as opposed to ministers in non-conformist Churches, being able to sit in the House. Bishops of the Church of England, who are, of course, practising are allowed to sit in the other place. However, they do not have 70,000 constituents to look after, nor do they have long and complicated Committee interests. Their attendance tends to be confined to debates on issues that have t direct impact on matters on which the Church has, or is expected to have, a view.
      An ordained priest who had not given up his orders would serve as a Member of Parliament both as a priest consecrated to the full-time service of almighty God and one engaged in the service of Caesar in this place. That is, in my view, an amazing combination even to contemplate, but we are now putting the possibility of such a combination into law. The proposal needs to be tested on its merits, and should be viewed entirely separately from the issue of ex-priests.
      1.30 pm
      We all know why the Bill is being introduced: it is to enable a particular prospective Labour party candidate to take his seat if he is successful. It is not about great issues of principle. As I said on Second Reading, the Bill could have been presented on at least four earlier occasions—I subsequently discovered a fifth—had the Government been seriously moved by its merits. The fact is, however, that it was not presented on those occasions, because it was of no interest t. the Government until it affected a Scottish Labour candidate, who suddenly realised that if he won he would not be able to sit in the House. He, of course, is an ex-priest.
      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I may be able to deal with some of the right hon. Lady's other points later if I catch your eye, Sir Alan, but I now have a question about the narrow point relating to episcopally ordained and practising priests. Does the right hon. Lady extend that to a priest ordained in the Liberal Catholic Church or any of the old Catholic Churches? She should bear in mind, for instance, that our late and distinguished friend Dr. Eric Taylor, Assistant Clerk of the House, was ordained as a priest in the Liberal Catholic Church. Would

      1057
      she have excluded him or his colleagues for seeking election, given that such people are by definition part-time pastors as well as episcopally ordained priests?
      Miss Widdecombe: I am going to stick to—
      Mr. Mackinlay: The right hon. Lady does not know the answer.
      Miss Widdecombe: I do, but I am going to stick to the definitions on which we have worked throughout. I fully acknowledge that they are arguable: I doubt whether anyone here would suggest that there is a logical coherence in the definition of what constitutes a priest and, for that matter, the definition of what constitutes an ex-Roman Catholic priest. No one is likely to claim that those definitions are perfect.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The right hon. Lady described David Cairns as an ex-priest. I understand that he is currently a priest, although he no longer conducts the Mass: he no longer does the work of a priest, and I gather that he has no intention of returning to the priesthood. Under the rules of the Catholic Church, however, once a priest, always a priest. That presents one of the difficulties and in many ways illustrates the point that the right hon. Lady appears to making.
      Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. The Minister may recall that during our last debate I called out, from a sedentary position, "Once a priest, always a priest".
      It is already possible for members of the Church of England who have been ordained and have forsaken the priesthood to be elected to sit and to serve. That is not possible if they are currently serving members. There is a distinction between those who have left the priesthood and those who are currently serving. The candidate on whose behalf all this shemozzle is taking place no longer practises—although I agree that "once a priest, always a priest" is one of the more confusing issues.
      What I am trying to ascertain is whether, when we gave the Bill a Second Reading—unwisely, in my view—we should have explored in more detail the issue of allowing someone who is currently practising to sit, and allowing someone who no longer practises to sit, regardless of whether his Church has released him from the title or order of the priesthood.
      Mr. Eric Forth: Is not the point that my right hon. Friend has introduced to the debate more properly a matter for the Church or religious denomination or institution itself an. I its adherents than for the law? The issue on which she is now touching—whether we need the law to rescue religious beliefs and believers from themselves—is very important.
      Miss Widdecombe: We are already using the law for that purpose. That is why we are having this debate. If we had always taken the view that the matter was nothing to do with Parliament, there would not be a law prescribing who can and who cannot sit in our midst. There is already such a law. No religious denomination really has the power to prevent its ex-priests from doing anything that they like. Therefore, one cannot sensibly argue that we
      1058
      can leave it to the Pope or to the Archbishop of Canterbury when his people have forsaken the priesthood, renounced their vows and decided that they are not going to be bound by the strictures of whoever it was to whom they previously pledged obedience. I think that my right hon. Friend will acknowledge that there is some difficulty in just passing the whole matter over to others.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I am struggling to understand why the right hon. Lady—who objects to the legislation because she thinks that a pastor has too great a work load—makes a distinction between those who are episcopally ordained and other ministers of religion.
      Miss Widdecombe: The law does.
      Mr. Mackinlay: If the right hon. Lady were to pursue her argument to its logical conclusion, she would be seeking to amend the Bill to exclude ministers of other religions. I am a walking witness to the fact that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is, according to his lights, an extremely good and diligent pastor; I have been to Martyrs Memorial church, which is extremely good value in terms of preaching and in every other term. He also demonstrably fulfils his role as a very diligent, albeit controversial, hon. Member. Why is there a distinction between those who are episcopally ordained and those who are ministers of religion but not ordained?
      Miss Widdecombe: As I made very clear to the hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, the issue is being debated from the point of view of conscience. He will be aware that some of us regard the priesthood as something that is consecrated and flows from recognising the orders of those who do the ordination in the first place. There are other denominations, to which neither he nor I belong, that do not take that line in their recognition of ministers. I have always held that view. However, it is not only a matter of where I might be coming from; in this case, the law itself makes the distinction. Therefore, operating on the basis of the distinction that the law already makes, I am trying to examine whether, on that same basis, we should be proceeding as was decided on Second Reading.
      Siobhain McDonagh: The Bill says that we should not make a distinction between those who are episcopally ordained and those who are not, whether they are Baptists, Methodists or any of the other great faiths. Surely we are saying that it is up to Churches themselves to decide what their ministers or priests can and cannot do and that it is not up to the state to do that. Our job is to extend as far as we possibly can the boundaries of those who can stand.
      Some of us share and practise the same religion. In a way, the fact that Catholicism is at the centre of this particular case might obstruct us from seeing the overall illogical nature of the debate. However, if we want to go ahead and attempt to define in law what an ex-priest is, we really will have the wrath of the Catholic Church on us.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is catching a bad habit from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) in making an intervention into a speech. An intervention must remain an intervention, even in Committee.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I anointed her.
      Miss Widdecombe: Whether the hon. Lady made an intervention or a speech. it did not take us much further.

      1059
      With all due respect, she was raising exactly the same point as that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and I answered it. I do not see much point in repeating the answer. It is worth while debating whether it is proper for people who have been episcopally ordained—I know that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will complain that I confine myself to that, but so does the law—and are full-time serving priests to sit in this House.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
      Miss Widdecombe: I hope that the intervention is sensible.
      Dr. Godman: The right hon. Lady speaks with characteristic courtesy and all the fervour of a recent convert—[Interruption.] To someone born into the Church, she is a recent convert. Would not proposed section (1A) in amendment No. 15 harm the interests of former priests?
      Miss Widdecombe: No, I do not believe that it would. On the other hand, my position is straightforward, as I have always said that once one is a priest, one is always a priest. By tabling the amendment, I was endeavouring to debate a distinction that was not made on Second Reading, when we debated matters in the round. What do we accept in the case of ex-priests? If somebody enters holy orders, subsequently leaves and then wants to pursue some other avenue in life, why should not they be allowed to do so in law? There is a quite serious case to be made on that basis. There is a distinction, however, between whether such people should be able to sit in this place and whether somebody who is consecrated, practising and has a flock should be able to do so, which is worthy of debate.
      The House will know, because I said it on Second Reading, that I do not believe that the two go together. I believe also, however, that there are other big issues concerning bishops, which may be debated under later amendments. If the Bill were enacted, a bishop would be able to sit in this place. I see a distinction between a fully serving diocesan bishop not being allowed to sit in this place, because he could be called to the House of Lords, and a suffragan bishop, who is not—I was about to say in danger—likely to be called to the other place. We have gone into this rather too quickly because of the Labour candidate in question, and we have not properly considered a host of refinements that raise further questions.
      I shall endeavour to press the amendment to a Division because it would at least be appropriate if those of us who do not believe that consecrated priests should be involved in this place had the opportunity to put that on record.
      Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief.
      The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has said a couple of times that once a priest, always a priest. It would be fair to say that that complies with paragraph 3 of canon 285 of the Roman Catholic code of canon law 1983, which states:
      "Clerics are forbidden to assume public office whenever it means sharing in the exercise of civil power."
      1060
      Although I have no experience as a parliamentary draftsman, my concern—I asked the right hon. Lady about this—is that the wording of amendment No. 15, against which I shall happily vote regardless of whether it is the subject of a three-line Whip or is a free vote, as I believe it should be because it is a matter of conscience, would harm the interests of former priests. That is a serious charge to lay against the right hon. Lady, whose attention I do not expect to receive, although I am glad that her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), is listening.
      1.45 pm
      I know a goodly number of fine, decent and honourable men who have given up the priesthood. A man whom I am honoured to say is a very close friend of mine gave up the priesthood after 25 years of selfless and remarkable service to his parishioners in Glasgow. He decided that he could no longer accept the canon law on celibacy and that he wanted to lead an ordinary life, as many others throughout the Catholic Church have decided to do. That man now leads a happily married life in the south of Glasgow.
      There is no chance of the right hon. Lady's amendment being accepted because it does not make sense and it is harmful to those who have left the priesthood. [Interruption.] Yes it is, in my view.
      Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Godman: I shall give way with, I hope, better grace than the right hon. Lady gave way to me.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for doing so in a state of grace. Amendment No. 15 would not affect those who have left the priesthood because of the use of the word "and", not "or". The amendment says that he would be disqualified if he has been ordained to the office of priest and he is practising as a priest or deacon.
      Dr. Godman: That is an assurance of sorts, but it is a question of interpretation. I stick to what I said: the amendment is unhelpful.
      Of course, I am closely involved in what has become known as the Cairns affair in the west of Scotland. In this place, just three weeks ago, I had to defend the good faith of the members of the local Labour party, who were quite unaware of the anomaly faced by Mr. Cairns. He chose not to make this known at the hustings. That was a decision for him and his conscience. I am saying, in all conscience, that I am deeply disturbed by the right hon. Lady's amendment. She seems to be seeking to subsume the law of the United Kingdom under that of Roman Catholic law. That I find unacceptable.
      A priest may choose to give up his parish duties and take up what I think is a more normal life. I have never been convinced about the law concerning compulsory celibacy—I think that it is harming the Church badly. I hasten to say that I speak as a lapsed Catholic. I was born and baptised into the Church, but I left. It was many years before the right hon. Lady entered the Church—there was no link between my departure and her arrival into the Church, I am pleased to say.

      1061
      It is only right and proper that we enact the Bill. I believe perhaps in a Leninist way—I am old Labour rather than a Marxist or a Leninist—that in the light of the right hon. Lady's comments about a certain candidate, the ends justify the means. That is why I support the Bill but certainly not amendment No. 15.
      At present, if that good friend of mine in Glasgow chooses to stand for the Scottish Parliament, it seems that there is no impediment to his doing so and, if he were successful, to taking his seat there. The same holds for the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies, and it should hold for this place, too. It might improve matters in this place if we had a few former priests on the Benches.
      Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that we would take precisely the same attitude towards the Bill if the person concerned was a Conservative or Liberal candidate? I certainly would. It would make not the slightest difference.
      Does my hon. Friend also accept that there should be no discrimination against anyone in this place? Catholics campaigned to be able to stand for Parliament and so did Jews in 1860. Charles Bradlaugh who represented Northampton, was refused the right to sit in this Chamber four times because he had no religious views. We want an all-inclusive House of Commons, and I hope that that will always be the case.
      Dr. Godman: I agree with my hon. Friend. As soon as this anomaly became known to people in the west of Scotland—I do not think that ordinary people knew about it before—a number of Catholics asked me whether it was yet another element in discrimination that they had suffered down the years. I make that point in relation to amendment No. 15. Catholics and others, from the Church of Scotland and from elsewhere, have said that the anomaly is absurd and should go. I hope that when I address a meeting of ministers and priests in my constituency tomorrow, I shall be in the happy position of being able to say that the amendments—especially amendment No. 15—have been rejected and that the Bill is proceeding on its way to the other place, which should be abolished anyway.
      Mr. Fallon: I shall speak to amendment No. 13, though I confess that amendment No. 14, moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), covers a mach bigger point. Although she kindly indicated that we have a free vote, I am happy to tell her that if she chooses to press it to a Division, I shall be in the Lobby with her.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to allow me to let him know that I have asked my officials to ensure that at least some of the letters from the Churches that we consulted will be placed in the Library, as he requested. Letters from the United Kingdom Churches—Catholic, Church of England and so on—should now be in the Library, or at least on their way there. We are still seeking the consent of the Catholic Church in Ireland and the Church of Ireland to allow their letters to be placed in the Library. I shall obtain that as soon as possible.
      Mr. Fallon: I am not just grateful, but stunned at such speedy action by a Minister. It is important that the responses are in the Library so that we may read the wording used by the Churches on these complex issues.
      1062
      I was speaking specifically to amendment No. 13. The Bill appears to have been drafted rather hastily. It contains no definition of "ordained", and we should be clear on exactly what we are talking about. My amendment reflects the wording of The House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801, which will be repealed by the Bill, picking out the words "priest or deacon". I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald picked out the same phrase for amendment No. 15, and I hope—indeed pray—that if I support her on amendment No. 14, she may be moved to support me on amendment No. 13. I stress that it is essentially a drafting, technical amendment, and is not as significant as amendment No. 14, which I shall support.
      Mr. Mackinlay: During this Committee stage, I want to express some irritation. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) initiated a private Member's Bill that would, in effect, have introduced the measure before us, but because of our procedures, it was not enacted. I had previously questioned the Home Secretary about the desirability of such a measure during this Parliament, but he saw me off. We know that the Bill is now being introduced because of events in Greenock and Port Glasgow—
      Dr. Godman: Inverclyde.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and lnverclyde (Dr. Godman). That is the reason for the Bill's introduction, and it is the worst possible reason for making a change. Nevertheless, it is a change that we should make. Sometimes, I am a moderniser, while some of my good friends on the Front Bench are deeply conservative: they should have taken the initiative sooner as a matter of human rights and enfranchisement, rather than introducing a Bill now for the worst possible reason. I wanted to make that point, and I do so unashamedly. I wish that the Home Secretary and others would listen more to Labour Members and others in this place. It would be better for the House.
      Also on a serious note, long before I had an early ambition to be a Member of Parliament, I wanted to be not a train driver but a priest. I remember telling a small group of children about it in later years. They were pretty geared up and they said that it reminded them of a parable. I asked what they meant and they said, "A man came from Jericho and fell among robbers." They were referring to the fact that I took a different course. I persuaded them that the honourable House was not like that, but the course of my life could have been somewhat different had ambitions from early childhood been sustained.
      More recently, I remember that the vicar of East Tilbury, who was a good friend of mine in the constituency and has now moved on, was indignant that he was prevented by law from standing for election to the House of Commons. He did not want to stand, but he found the fact that he was prevented from standing an affront to his human rights. He pressed me on the matter; he was the cause of my tabling the original question to the Home Secretary. The fact that he was prevented from standing by virtue of his calling is discrimination that is contrary to human rights and to our traditions of democracy in the House.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is not the phrase "by virtue of his calling" the key point? That is

      1063
      the higher calling. If the priest exercises his mind overmuch with his rights, is he not giving rather less attention than he ought to his duties and responsibilities to his flock?
      Mr. Mackinlay: I am coming to that point. It is an interesting one. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when she moved her amendment, and I think that it is fair to say that part of the thrust of her argument was that a good priest—for some reason, she makes the distinction between those who are episcopally ordained and ministers of religion, as if they had different obligations to the people for whom they provide pastoral care—cannot possibly have time to give service to the House of Commons. That is a very dangerous argument for any of us here to advance, and especially for a Conservative Member.
      Yesterday, I stumbled across the Register of Members' Interests, which has now been published, and my breath was taken away by the dexterity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) can apparently fulfil all their other obligations and still fulfil their obligations to the House of Commons. I am amazed at, and admire, their dexterity.
      I invite people to look at the Register of Members' interests. I only wish that Members of Parliament were full-time. We are told that it is perfectly proper and honourable, and that as a matter of capacity, it is possible for people to fulfil the office of Member of the House of Commons and diligently pursue other offices as well—except, if we accept the argument of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, if one is a Roman Catholic priest or a practising priest of the Church of England. It is illogical to suggest that there is an incompatibility.
      Mr. John Bercow: If the hon. Gentleman attended the Second Reading debate, he will know that I am sympathetic to the Bill. May I counsel caution to him in traducing, deliberately or inadvertently, the track record of hon. Members on a particular side of the House? Does he accept what the empirical evidence will demonstrate to him—that the most active and assiduous attenders of the Chamber sit on the Conservative Benches?
      Mr. Mackinlay: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that I carefully crafted and weighed up every word that I uttered about my fellow Members of the House of Commons. I expressed some amazement, nay admiration, for their dexterity and capacity diligently to fulfil both the office of Member of the House of Commons and other obligations. I only wish that I was as qualified—or even ordained—so to do.
      2 pm
      There is an important point that relates to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and to a matter that we have also debated in this place: should the parliamentary oath be an
      1064
      impediment to serving here? I am amazed that hon. Members cannot understand that the right to be a representative in this place should come from the people alone. If the people want to put up the candlestick maker, the clock maker, the good, the bad, the ugly, the malevolent, the eccentric—[Interruption.]—the National Front, a minister of one religion or a pastor of another, that is their right. If people overextend themselves so that they are dilatory in discharging their office as Members of the House of Commons, that is something that the electorate can and should take into account if those people offer themselves for re-election. Indeed, their electoral opponents could legitimately draw attention to their conduct, their stewardship and their attendance to the business of the House.
      It is irrelevant w here those who offer themselves as candidates come from. It is the right of people in every constituency to choose their representative in this place. It is not for us to impose conditions. As well as supporting the measure, I want a greater extension of the possibilities by doing away with the problem of the oath. Historically, the oath was an impediment to membership of this place, and it remains so.
      Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that he is using almost the same words as those who argued for the right of Charles Bradlaugh to enter this place? As I pointed out, Bradlaugh was refused on four occasions; and even when he was willing to take the oath, the House said that it would be a mockery. However, he lived long enough to hear the House apologise for its conduct. He established a right without whit h many of us would not be able to be Members of the House of Commons.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Indeed. Furthermore, if those impediments exist, either people are invited to ignore such unenforceable provisions or they have to do so anyway, because their conscience dictates that they are entitled to be Members of this place.
      I shall come to the question of whether a priest is laicised or has renounced his priesthood in a moment. However, we are illustrating the absurdity of the amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. We touched on the oath as an example. Fianna Fal1 Members were kept out of the Free State Parliament because they had to sign an oath of allegiance to George V. Eventually, De Valera said that the procedure was charade and signed the oath. That is not healthy—
      The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think I need to try to maintain a distinction between matters that are better discussed on Second Reading an, I those that are directly applicable to the amendment that we are discussing. I have given him some leeway for illustration, but he must now come back to the point of the amendment.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan
      Amendment No. 15 refers to "episcopal ordination". The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald seems to believe that there can be some material distinction between people who are episcopally ordained—primarily, although not exclusively, in the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.

      1065
      As she has invited us to do so, we must look into what episcopal ordination means. It relates to episcopal succession, a concept that even some of the most distinguished theologians of those churches and other denominations consider somewhat dubious. The question turns on whether there has been a continuity, since the apostles, in the laying on of hands in an order, so that there can be political succession.
      Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Mackinlay: I will give way in a moment, but I am dealing with the right hon. Lady's argument.
      The concept is challengeable by theologians. It is nonsense that it should be an issue in British constitutional law. Bishop Montefiore—a distinguished former Member of another place and the Anglican bishop of Birmingham—challenges that view in one of his tracts. In dealing with the validity of Anglican orders, about which the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England have disagreed for some 150 years, he said that the question of the laying on of hands is dubious.
      If the right hon. Lady's proposal were passed, could a part-practising priest be elected to tie House? If he were challenged, his defence might be to challenge the meaning of the phrase "episcopal ordination" That would involve the absurdity of going back not hundreds but thousands of years, and bringing in theologian; as witnesses to say whether the ceremony, rubric and intention of the laying on of hands, which goes right back to the apostles, was involved. I invite the House to consider how absurd that would be.
      Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Mackinlay: I shall give way to the right hon. Lady in a moment, but I hope that I am diligently dealing with her proposals from a constitutional and a canon law point of view.
      The right hon. Lady failed to respond to the point about the very important—albeit minor—religious denominations that ordain episcopally. For example, Dr. Eric Taylor—Assistant Clerk at the House of Commons who sat alongside your predecessors, Sir Alan—was ordained in the Liberal Roman Catholic Church and became a bishop in that Church. His orders were fully recognised as valid by the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The right hon. Lady has not explained whether that small but fully recognised denomination would be excluded.
      Orthodox Churches are now extensively found in the United Kingdom—the Greek Cypriot Church is one of the bigger ones. Would a priest or minister of the Orthodox Church be excluded, and if so, on what basis?
      Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that such matters are irresolvable, and that if someone said that his ordination was not episcopal, we should have to go back 2,000 years to prove the opposite. That exact issue arose in the argument about the ordination of women priests, when certain priests of the Anglican Church wished to move to the Roman Catholic Church. The issue was whether their orders could be recognised, because generally, Anglican orders are not
      1066
      recognised by the Roman Catholic Church, as the hon. Gentleman will know. However, the orders could be recognised when the ordination had taken place in a line that was demonstrable from old bishops. Those lines are already established; they are on record. So it is much easier to resolve the question than the hon. Gentleman suggests. My answer to the other question is that where orders are recognised as valid, those involved have been episcopally ordained.
      Mr. Mackinlay: The right hon. Lady implies that she would extend the constitutional impediment to priests of other religions. I understand that the current legislation relates exclusively to priests in the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.
      Siobhain McDonagh: The legislation also includes priests in the Orthodox Churches because they, too, are episcopally ordained. It might be useful if we were to concentrate on the Greek Orthodox Church, rather than the Catholic Church, because we seem to be going off in a number of directions that are perhaps not that relevant.
      Mr. Mackinlay: In any event, for the reasons that we have adduced, priests should not be excluded. The right hon. Lady has not dealt with priests who have the approval of the Holy See to stop fulfilling the office of priest—laicisation is the term used. I regret that the current Holy Father has tightened up on allowing his bishops to grant laicisation. The result has been that many people have left the "priesthood"—I use that term in inverted commas, because once a priest, always a priest—without the permission of their bishops. Therefore, they have not been laicised. We then get this absurd blurring of their position. They are still priests and are fully empowered to administer the sacraments.
      In the Church of England—it is a very good practice in many cases—some priests are part-time. They may work in commerce or banking and fulfil their priestly duties on a part-time basis. Why should they be impeded from standing for the House of Commons? The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has not dealt with that black and white issue, and she cannot do so because her amendments and her deeply—I do not know—conservative view—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady says that I took a long time to get that phrase out, but it is very difficult to find adjectives that adequately describe her troglodyte view. Her view is not mediaeval but, as I have said, goes back 2,000 years.
      If we look in the Official Report tomorrow, we shall see that someone said that this issue was not easily resolvable—but, of course, it is. We should pass this Bill and move on to the next argument, which is about the oath. We have got to deal with the problem. I hope that hon. Members will do that, not because of Greenock and Inverclyde, but because it is a matter of matter of human rights. It is a matter of principle to extend our democracy, so I hope that the Committee will dismiss these absurd amendments and the House will support the Bill's Third Reading.
      Mr. Forth: I declare my personal position, because it is important in such a debate that everyone knows where we are coming from. I am not a member of any Church or faith. In that respect only, I probably represent in my modest way more people in this country than most of

      1067
      those who have spoken or who are likely to speak. I can therefore claim to come to the issue from a genuinely impartial point of view. I have no involvement with faith, Church or religion, so I consider the issue from that perspective.
      In principle, I support the thrust of the Bill. On this point, I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). It is a matter for the voters only to judge who should come to this place. However, to elaborate on what he said—I hesitate to say that I am correcting him—the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 contains a list of the people who are disqualified from election to the House of Commons. They include senior civil servants, judges, ambassadors, members of the forces and the police, paid members of the boards of nationalised industries—it is a pity that there are any left—Government-appointed directors of commercial companies, of whom there certainly should be none, and directors of the Bank of England: bless their cotton socks.
      Mr. John Gummer: Has my right hon. Friend noted that those posts are all connected in that they are, in some sense, offices of profit under the Crown? The difficulty with this Bill is that it deals with a residual issue whereby Roman Catholics were specifically excluded. Will he consider the fact that other disqualifications apply to Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects? However, they are not dealt with by this Bill because it applies to a particular person in particular circumstances. That is what I object to in the Bill.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because I was going to say, in parenthesis, that I will not support the Bill unless the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and myself is accepted. I will not support a Bill that has been introduced at this stage to benefit one individual in a very political fashion, but that is a matter for subsequent debates and perhaps for Third Reading. However, I share my right hon. Friend's view.
      2.15 pm
      I would support any measure that sought to remove an artificial, arbitrary, historic, traditional or any other kind of discrimination against the members of any Church or faith. Because I see all Churches or faiths in exactly the same way, I see no reason to discriminate. I understand the ramifications of any change for the established Church and the monarchy, and they will have to be resolved properly—not with such indecent haste. My support for the measure in principle is unshakeable but, unless we amend the timetable, I will regrettably be unable to support the Bill in its present form.
      My amendment No. 12 may be unique. It is certainly very rare in that it exhibits what I would normally describe as political correctness. When I examined the Bill, a doubt entered my mind as to whether the use of the words "minister", "religious denomination" and "ordained" would necessarily cover all Churches and all faiths. I wish I heard less of it, but I hear endlessly about how we are now a multicultural society and that all faiths are equal and welcome. To the extent that that is the case, such a Bill should cover beyond doubt with equal validity

      1068

      all the people who may be affected. That covers the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made, but in a slightly different way.
      I have searched elsewhere for definitions of the crucial terms that appear it the Bill. I looked up the word "minister" in my thesaurus. It first resorted to the term "clergyman", which it defined as
      "one duly ordained to the service of God in the Christian Church."
      My anxieties were therefore multiplied. The terms of art used in the Bill rely on the words "minister" and "ordination", but I have seen a definition that relates them simply to the Christian Church. Interestingly, the thesaurus offered alternatives to the word "minister"; they included cleric, divine, parson, preacher, priest, reverend, chaplain, curate, pastor and vicar and—because it was an American thesaurus— it offered several other suggestions that I thought I had better not repeat in this place.
      That gives us an id m of the difficulty of the issues that we are now exploring. Things get more intriguing when one considers the use of the term "the Christian Church". As the hon. Member for Thurrock asked, does it include the orthodox Churches? Obviously, it must, but what about—I hope that I do not offend anyone—Jehovah's Witnesses or the Plymouth Brethren?
      Mr. Gummer: I am happy to inform my right hon. Friend that neither of those denominations has ministers, so there is no difficulty. Jehovah's Witnesses are, of course, heretical and potty. What is more, they do not vote in elections as they are still waiting for the theocratic kingdom that is unlikely to come.
      Mr. Forth: That is, a matter for Jehovah's Witnesses, but I am not sure that my right hon. Friend has answered my question in the way that he had hoped to. In the list that I cited, "preacher" was offered as a possible alternative to the word "minister". No doubt I shall have to elaborate on this point, because I have not yet satisfied all members of the Committee. However, my point is that the alternative terms for "minister" show the difficulty that we shall face unless we put the matter beyond doubt. That is the reason for the wording of my amendment.
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is entirely correct to say that Jehovah's Witnesses do not vote, but I certainly do not identify with what he said about their being potty—far be it from me to cast aspersions. I am a mild-mannered fellow and I would in no way descend to that level of abuse. I should point out that the same goes in terms of non-voting for members of the Plymouth Brethren. However, the fact that neither the Plymouth Brethren nor Jehovah's Witnesses vote does not mean that they are not entitled to ask others o vote for them.
      Mr. Forth: Indeed. The fact that a large number of Labour supporters may not vote in the coming election may also have some implications, but I am not sure whether to get involved in that.
      Mr. Gummer: In order that the House should not be misled by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I should point out that it is not true that the Plymouth Brethren do not vote: only closed members do not vote, whereas open brethren do. That distinction is

      1069
      very important. I have closed brethren in my constituency and they do not vote, but open brethren do. If my hon. Friend has open brethren in his constituency—
      The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) are moving to the periphery of the argument. I should like us to return to the centre.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Sir Alan. I do not want to be diverted from the main thrust of my argument—[Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Order. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am always ready to help him.
      Mr. Forth: Indeed, Sir Alan; I am always conscious of that.
      I was at the end of my list. My right hon. and hon. Friends rather spoiled what I thought was a whimsical point, but I shall persist with it anyway. As well as giving what are now rather contentious definitions, I was going to throw in the Wee Frees—I do not know whether anyone in the Chamber understands Mat term.
      It is obvious even from this brief explanation of the matter that the term "minister" is not satisfactorily defined and therefore may raise some doubts That is even more so in respect of the definition of a rabbi as one ordained and having juridical and ritual functions. In the Muslim religion, the term "mullah" is an honorary title referring to ecclesiastical dignitaries. When I got to looking up Hindu and Brahmin religions, there was also mention of the priestly order.
      People of various other faiths could be subsumed into the general term of "minister" because the word "ordination" and the phrase "holy orders" arise repeatedly. The definition of "religion" gets us into even deeper water. It refers to belief in a superhuman being or beings, a personal god, a system of faith, doctrine and worship. That would encompass a very wide range of beliefs, activities and adherences.
      When I looked for a definition of "ordination", what I found touched on a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) drew to our attention. "To ordain" was defined as to set apart for office or duty, to appoint and consecrate, to dedicate or to confer holy orders. The term "dedicate" was defined as to give up wholly for some purpose. That takes us back to what my right hon. Friend said at the start of the debate.
      Frankly, I do not want to get involved in all that. I am not qualified to judge—certainly in the company of my right hon. Friends—but I wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to and gain its support for my amendment, which would put it beyond doubt that where we are seeking to eliminate any disqualification of someone who is a minister or ordained as p in of a religious denomination, we intend to refer to what I have set out as the equivalents. I have tried to expand that in a Pepper v. Hart sense. If we are going down this route—and I hope that we are, because in principle I want to sweep away all historic and arcane disqualifications—we have to get the provision right and make sure that it is all-encompassing.
      Mr. Gummer: I am worried about my right hon. Friend because it seems to me that e should be drawing
      1070
      a distinction between the decision of this House as to who should be qualified to stand for it and the decision of Churches as to who they should allow to stand for Parliament. It seems to me to be perfectly proper for the Catholic Church to say that it does not want its priests to stand for Parliament. It can make that decision; whether or not one agrees with it is a personal matter—I declare an interest in that I am a Catholic and accept that piece of discipline—but it is not for the House to support that view or in some way to give credence to it. I am not quite sure whether my right hon. Friend has explained why his amendment deals with that issue better than the Bill does, and that is what the Committee needs to know.
      Mr. Forth: I agree with my right hon. Friend, but we seem to have reached opposing conclusions. I am absolutely of the view that it is a matter for religions, Churches and faiths and their adherents to decide or determine whether or not they wish to disqualify themselves from political activity. Some approach the issue in a fundamental way, and others do so in different ways. I respect that; I have no difficulty at all with it.
      There is nothing wrong with the Bill in terms of its historic context, but I may disagree with other right hon. and hon. Members in terms of the individual concerned. It would appear that it is necessary for us to put beyond doubt in legislation the fact that anyone who is a minister of religion will not be disqualified by the law from being elected to this place. I hope that we would all respect the right of members of an institution of faith—to use a rather modern, all-encompassing term—to decide what they will do and from what they may be disqualified. That is a different matter altogether. My amendment is designed to put beyond doubt the fact that we wish this to be an all-embracing principle.
      Because of our history, we may have started by focusing on the Roman Catholic Church. I understand that, but I want to make sure that now, early in the 21st century, we acknowledge that we can no longer focus simply on the established Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church or other Christian denominations. Our society now consists of many different faiths, both Christian and non-Christian, and, even within the broad umbrella of the Christian faith, many others of which we may approve or disapprove. I have no view on any of them, for the reasons that I have given.
      My amendment is simple, direct and uncomplicated and I hope that it will attract the support of right hon. and hon. Members. I really cannot get involved in the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, for reasons that I have tried to explain. However, I believe strongly that the House should be able to express its view on matters such as this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said that she wanted to express her view and wanted to know the view of the Committee, and I am certainly prepared to help her to divide the Committee so that Members can express their views, although that should not be taken as an expression of my supporting or not supporting the substance of my right hon. Friend's amendment.
      Mr. Bercow: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can help me. If we posit a scenario in which an individual, either with the approval of his faith and its masters or in the face of their acquiescence, decides to stand for Parliament, is elected and takes his seat, but subsequently

      1071
      finds himself in conflict with his organised religion and subject to a threat of excommunication because of a speech that he has made or a vote that he has cast, does my right hon. Friend think that that would constitute a contempt of the House?
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Forth: My instant response is no. I do not believe that our responsibilities lie in that direction. As a general principle, the law should not interfere in the internal workings of a Church or institution of faith. That should be respected as a matter for its adherents, not for the state. Another Bill, which will be discussed at a later date, involves the same principles, and they are of great importance. I do not agree that it is our responsibility to frame laws that would interfere arbitrarily in the internal workings of faith groups, Churches or other institutions, to sort out matters that are, by definition, issues of faith. That would be dangerous, even if we dressed them up as human rights.
      I hope that I have persuaded the Committee to support my modest but important amendment. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald wants to divide the House, I shall be only too happy to give her my assistance.
      Ms Joan Ryan: I reject all the amendments. I am especially concerned about amendment No. 15. The tone of the debate worries me. I get the impression that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is interested in the issue only because of her particular faith, and many outside the House would probably agree. The remarks about the Plymouth Brethren and Jehovah's Witnesses were deeply intolerant. Some hon. Members seemed to smirk and sneer at people whose beliefs they do not have much in common with or share. Those who are members of a church that has people who are episcopally ordained—be it the Catholic Church or the Church of England—have put themselves on a higher plain. I absolutely reject that notion.
      I was born and brought up a Catholic. I am committed to being tolerant and to working, living and acting in a community that is multifaith and multiracial. I want a community that is based on equality and tolerance. People outside the House will find it impossible to believe that other hon. Members approach communities on the same basis. Some of the remarks were very unchristian.
      Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Lady will draw a distinction between my comments on the Plymouth Brethren and the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Plymouth Brethren are respectable and earnest people who belong to a long-standing faith. Although we have different views, I respect those people. However, Jehovah's Witnesses hold a belief that is provably fraudulent and wrong. It is right to be tolerant, but not to be ignorant. Jehovah's Witnesses base their faith on doctrines that are propounded by a crook and a fraud who was arrested and found guilty as such in court. For us not to make that perfectly proper distinction is to mislead our constituents.
      Ms Ryan: The right hon. Gentleman makes my case. I cannot comment on such remarks.
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is well able eloquently to
      1072
      defend himself at all times. However, the hon. Lady is trying it on when she attacks my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) I have taken an interest in the Bill since its inception. To avoid any doubt, I am neither a Jehovah's Witness nor a member of the Plymouth Brethren. However, many of my constituents are, and I have the highest respect for both faiths.
      Ms Ryan: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates that we all want to be tolerant and respect others.
      It is important that we stick with the Bill as drafted. We would create or perpetuate problems were we to accept the amendments. I have some sympathy with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. I doubt whether a practising priest could fulfil his commitment to that role while working here. Being a Member of Parliament is a full-time job. However, the same argument applies to anyone with an outside interest, such as directors of business as, lawyers or barristers. The situation is problematic whether one is a practising Catholic priest or a Church of England minister.
      As for the conduct of the debate, it is important to mention—as many lion. Members have—that the Bill has been proposed because David Cairns, who is a man of great integrity, was selected to stand as a Member of Parliament. On Second Reading. my hon. Friend the Minister admitted that that is what triggered the legislation. However, we cannot hold David Cairns responsible. We would have taken the same action irrespective of a candidate's party. The Bill is long overdue and it is right that we propose it. It is wrong to make David Cairns the subject of the debate and responsible for the Bill. This is a matter of equal rights—his as much as any one else's—and he is entitled to be treated fairly.
      Mr. Bercow: None of us wants to over-personalise the issues, but the hon Lady, in common with other hon. Members, has referred to Mr. Cairns. I am not going to pontificate on Mr. Cairns' s integrity. As I said on Second Reading, I have no strong views about him, for the simple reason that I have never made his acquaintance. However, she is unwise to bar g on about his integrity when, on the admission of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)—for whom I have the highest regard—Mr. Cairns deliberately refrained from telling the constituency Labour party of the problem that would arise in the event of his selection.
      Ms Ryan: That point has been made. However, it is right that David Cairns was able to put himself forward for selection on thy same footing as other candidates. Legislation that is against human rights and is discriminatory should not be able to place a millstone around his neck that prevents him from being selected. The law is complete y out of date and unnecessary. When David Cairns put himself forward for selection, he knew that he could expect a Labour Government, of all Governments, to do something about his rights.
      The Chairman: Order. I think that we have heard enough on that. The hon. Lady should speak to the amendment.
      Ms Ryan: Thank you, Sir Alan. I was about to sit down, but I should like to reiterate my rejection of the amendments. Two wrongs do not make a right. The Bill as it stands does the right thing.
      Dr. Godman: I am exceedingly grateful to my hon. Friend for showing her characteristic courtesy by giving way to me. May I point out that I was misquoted by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. B scow)? If she cares to read the Official Report, my hon. Friend will see that what I am saying is the truth.
      Ms Ryan: I am certain that my hon. Friend agrees about the integrity of David Cairns and about how good a Member of Parliament he will be for Greenock and Inverclyde.
      Mr. Swayne: I rise to speak in favour of amendment No. 15. I started with rather greater enthusiasm for that amendment, having made the same mistake as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and believed that it was a wrecking amendment. I have now heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) correct the hon. Gentleman.
      Despite opposing the principle of the Bill, I acknowledge the force of the amendment. It appears to deliver a compromise that should be acceptable to those on both sides of the argument, by delivering the remedy to the problem in Inverclyde that the Bill is designed to solve and at the same time addressing absolutely the reservation held by those who oppose the principle of the Bill, which is that we do not regard I it as proper for a member of the ordained ministry of either the established Church or the Roman Catholic Church to hold a position as a Member of Parliament.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Why?
      Mr. Swayne: With respect, that is a Second Reading question rather than one that relates specifically to the amendment.
      Mr. Mackinlay: It is a matter relating precisely to the amendment. It mentions "episcopal ordination", which almost exclusively relates to the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England. That is my reason for asking, from a sedentary position, "Why?" A Methodist minister is not covered by the provision, yet the same arguments about compatibility advanced by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and, I assume, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) apply. The difference is purely a matter of rubric, relating to the question of the laying on of hands and the episcopal succession. It is an absurd distinction.
      Mr. Swayne: It is a distinction rooted in an historical context. I shall come later to the: hon. Gentleman's question about "episcopal ordination ", but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) wants to intervene.
      Mr. Gummer: The amendment is even worse. A Methodist minister ordained in America is ordained episcopally; therefore, the amendment would exclude an American-ordained Methodist minister, but not an English-ordained Methodist minister The argument is not about the episcopacy, but about whet her the episcopacy is within the apostolic succession, which is a wholly
      1074
      different argument and one that would exclude Anglican bishops as well as Methodist bishops. My hon. Friend must think twice before supporting the amendment.
      Mr. Swayne: I remind my right hon. Friend that the amendment stands in the name of our right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I know that I come rather late to the debate, but at least I come with an open mind. I have a great deal of sympathy with the question raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) says it is improper for a priest of the Church of England to serve as a Member of the House of Commons. Will he be so good as to explain his reasons to those who, like me, have great difficulty understanding why it is improper?
      Mr. Swayne: The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) said that it would be highly unlikely that a clergyman—according to my understanding of the amendment, a priest of either the Church of England or the Church of Rome—could fulfil his role as a priest and carry out the duties of a Member of Parliament. However, the hon. Lady recognised that that might apply equally to any number of other callings—if calling is a proper word to use in that respect—and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will find that he has some sympathy with that point.
      From my point of view, they are clean different things: there can be no comparison between functioning as a clergyman of the established Church or the Roman Church—a very special role, administering sacraments and occupying a leadership role in what I suppose we would now call a faith community—and carrying out an occupation that involves political controversy and political leadership.
      2.45 pm
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Swayne: I face any number of Members wanting to intervene. As I have referred to her, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Enfield, North first.
      Ms Ryan: Is the matter the hon. Gentleman addresses for us, or for the electorate to decide?
      Mr. Swayne: Obviously, since I support the amendment, I would say that it is a question for us and one on which the House should divide. Equally, I think that it is a matter of some impertinence on our part to intrude on the decision-making processes of the Churches. The Church of Rome has a clear position: it does not believe that it is proper for its priests to hold any sort of elective office of the sort to which the Bill would welcome them. Therefore, to introduce the Bill strikes me as impertinent.
      Mr. Gummer: Surely if the Church of Rome makes that decision, it is not up to us at all—the matter has been sorted out. However, my hon. Friend must explain one simple issue arising from his argument: if I were,

      1075
      for example, an Anglican worker priest or a Catholic worker priest, I could work in a factory and be a priest, but not become a Member of the House of Commons and be a priest. My problem is that that is to denigrate the work of the House of Commons—to say that what we do is so unpleasant that one cannot be both a Member of Parliament and a priest. I do not approve of that. I think that what we do is as perfectly priestly a function as working on a factory floor.
      Mr. Swayne: I disagree profoundly with my right hon. Friend in that respect. I share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): I believe that consensus is no friend of the legislative process. The House should divide as often as possible and propositions should be tested by vociferous and rigorous argument. I am prepared to extend that principle beyond the confines of the Chamber to the positions that I take among my constituents: I am prepared to argue robustly about clearly political and ideological questions. I do not therefore believe it would be proper for me to occupy such a position and behave in such a way and, at the same time, to attempt to perform some priestly function and expect constituents with whom I might have profound disagreements—perhaps outside the bounds of good will, as is often the case in politics—to come and kneel at the altar and take the sacrament from my hand. That would be an abomination.
      Mr. Bercow: Methinks my hon. Friend doth protest too much. None can gainsay his qualities of robustness, eloquence and ideological purity; in his company I have often greatly enjoyed dividing the House and ordinarily I am in agreement with him. However, did he not give the game away a few moments ago when he said that the practice of a priest and the pursuit of other, outside occupations were, from his point of view, clean different things? Does he accept that, in a matter of this nature, his point of view is not the basis of statute?
      Mr. Swayne: I am saying only, as Martin Luther said, "Here I stand. I can do no other." Of course I speak only for my own point of view; none the less, it is a point of view that I am prepared to press in the Lobby.
      Mr. Mackinlay: The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) referred to worker priests. Had he been in the Chamber earlier, he would know that I referred to them. We have at least three diligent and highly regarded, albeit controversial, worker ministers in this place. They are Presbyterian ministers from Northern Ireland. The only distinction is that they are not episcopally ordained. Their pastoral functions and qualities are the same as those of Church of England priests or Roman Catholic priests.
      The hon. Gentleman heard the argument of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), whom he is supporting. She alleged that the responsibility of pastoral care led to a conflict in terms of time—
      The Chairman: Order. Interventions must not become speeches. I think that the hon. Gentleman has said enough.
      Mr. Swayne: With respect to the hon. Gentleman's reference to the tradition in Northern Ireland, and specifically the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea)—
      Mr. Mackinlay: And the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
      Mr. Swayne: Yes, and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
      There is a difference of tradition. There is a tradition in Northern Ireland that does not apply here. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) correctly identified, those Members would not regard themselves as members of an ordained ministry in the terms that we are discussing. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Antrim would be appalled at the notion that he had been ordained for any sort of sacramental ministry.
      Mr. Mackinlay: It is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests that the hon. Gentleman is a serving officer in the Territorial Army. I think that that is compatible with being a Member. However, if we accept the argument of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, that is not so. The right hon. Lady says that a Member does not have enough time to do other things of that sort. Apparently a Catholic priest would not have enough time to serve as a Member, but apparently a serving officer in the TA would. We must think the matter through.
      Mr. Swayne: It is not so much a question of time, which is important, but of role. My duties as a TA officer take up about one weekend a month. In the past, they took a great deal more time. To suggest that a clergyman—a practising priest—could continue with that commitment while serving as a Member would not say very much for the nature of his ministry.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend says that it is the role that makes it inappropriate. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is telling the Committee that the congregation would be unduly beholden to the candidate or that the candidate would be unduly beholden to the congregation. Perhaps he will make that plain.
      Mr. Swayne: I am not entirely sure that I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's question.
      I do not want to be distracted any further from what I regard as questions involving the principle of the Bill. I have found it odd that my remarks have been taken as controversial. I am speaking for the status quo, and in favour of amendment No. 15.
      Amendment No. 15 would spare us the argument that so many Members are seeking to have. It would remove the discrimination to which the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) referred, which penalises the Roman Catholic priest because he is not able to divest himself of his orders in quite the same way that would be open to a member of the priesthood of the established Church. The amendment would deliver the remedy that is sought through the Bill. At the same time,

      1077
      it would not raise profound constitutional questions, as I regard them. In its present form, the Bill would do so because the priest would have to be practising before he were disqualified. That is the key distinction.

      The hon. Member for Thurrock was on better ground when he complained about the distinction of episcopal orders. As he did so, I was reminded of "Decline and Fall". The Committee will recall that the central character found himself having hands laid upon him by an episcopi vagante—a wandering bishop, who bestowed valid holy orders upon him. That blights the rest of his life in so far as it is recounted in the book.
      That is not quite as fictional as it may first appear. Wandering bishops exist, and they bestow orders. I clearly recall attending a patronal festival at St. John's church, Holland road. A number of priests, or those purporting to be priests, having been so ordained, presented themselves and asked whether they could sit with the clergy during the festival.
      The amendment does not deal with the possibility of those who find themselves ordained in other traditions, such as the orthodox, and those who might have been ordained in another fashion. They would be captured by the amendment. However, as long as they do not practise, the problem does not arise. The amendment deals with that. We might have widened the catchment of those who might be disqualified by the Bill, but by accepting the amendment we will have a safeguard. As I see it the principal problem comes with those who practise.
      We have been told that the candidate for whom the Bill is the remedy no longer practises and has no intention to do so. However, there is nothing to say that in future he might start saying mass. If he does not start practising priestly functions, the amendment would provide a proper safeguard.
      Siobhain McDonagh: I am not sure of the religious background of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), but I imagine that he is not a Catholic. If he were, he would understand that his suggestion that Mr. Cairns might suddenly decide to say mass is an unlikely proposition.
      I find it strange to argue from the Government Benches that the state has no right, or should have fewer rights, to determine which religious priests should be able to stand for membership of this place, and which should not. I found the hon. Gentleman's contribution disturbing. We would be putting ourselves in the way of individual churches. We would be putting ourselves up as a counter-force to canon law. In my view, it is for any Church, Christian or any other great faith, to decide what its ministers do, whether they can stand for Parliament and what other work they can take up It is not a question for Parliament.
      Mr. Bercow: I do not want to cavil at the way in which the hon. Lady is developing her argument. However, I put it to her that there is a further and obvious lacuna in the argument of those who oppose the Bill and support the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the Shadow Home Secretary, and it relates to the issue of taking one's seat. Will the hon. Lady rephrase the advocacy of her argument and accept that part of the problem is that it is perfectly in order for someone in
      1078
      the situation that we have been describing to stand for Parliament, but that if he or she receives the democratic endorsement of his or her electorate, the individual cannot take up his or her seat in this place? That is an undemocratic outrage.
      Siobhain McDonagh: I was aware of that. I am sorry about the way in which I phrased my argument. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to a further anomaly. An ex-Catholic priest or an ex-orthodox priest, for example, can stand for Parliament. The problem is taking up his seat.
      My argument with the amendment of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is not that it suggests that it is difficult for someone to be a full and proper Member and have another job, but that it does not solve the discrimination that we are discussing. If the amendment is agreed, a serving Methodist minister could be a Member, but not a serving Greek Orthodox minister. What logical reason can there be to exclude orthodox priests, but not Methodist ministers? The Bill would still be disturbing and confusing. Some aspects of the argument are being obscured because we are concentrating on the Catholic element, although I well understand why.
      3 pm
      The legislation is obscure. Currently, some religious officials are disqualified, but others are not. Some priests can relinquish their ministry to become a Member of Parliament, but others are unable to do so. Some Christian priests are disqualified, whereas ministers of all other religious faiths, such as Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, are eligible. All Catholic priests are disqualified. Ex-clergy are entitled to stand for election and to be elected, as we have said, but they cannot take up their seats. Non-conformist clergy are not disqualified, except for the Church of Scotland. As has been mentioned, several Protestant clerics have served and continue to serve with distinction. Finally, all episcopally ordained priests of the Anglican Church are disqualified, but not in Wales.
      It is surely not up to us to determine which clerics can stand and which cannot. It is up to us to widen as far as possible people's ability to stand and to be elected, and to allow the voters to decide. If we attempt to define who is and who is not a Catholic priest, we will get into areas that are not within the scope of the business of the House, but which remain the pure preserve of canon law.
      Mr. Gummer: It would be helpful if we remembered that the real problem with the law is that it confuses a series of thoughts.
      Anglican clergymen are excluded from membership of the House of Commons because they were seen to have an office of profit under the Crown. The established Church was seen as being influenced by the Crown to such an extent that were an Anglican clergyman to stand for Parliament and be elected, he would not be a free agent because he would rely for his living on a Church that was subject to the Crown. That is a perfectly reasonable position; I will say later why I think that it has changed.
      Catholic priests were excluded for an entirely different reason. They were excluded as part of the general determination to ensure that the Catholic faith did not

      1079
      return to our land. That was a clear decision, in the same anti-Catholic vein as the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874 and the Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1871, that stopped Catholic bishops being named at the same bishopric as Anglican bishops.
      The two kinds of exclusion happened to come together, and the proposed change in the law happens to touch them both, but we should not ignore the reasons why they came about. They are different, and we should argue the case differently.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Is not that why—as I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm on Third Reading—after the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, an Anglican priest who is ordained and serves in the Church in Wales can be elected to the House, even though he is episcopally ordained?
      Mr. Gummer: That is exactly true. A clergyman of the Church of England ordained outside England, whether in Scotland, Wales or Papua New Guinea, is not covered by the same circumstance. That important distinction enables me to explain why I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is wrong.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, as I seek information. I am sure that his explanation of why Catholic priests were disqualified from membership is right, but when the various other disqualifications on Catholics were removed, why was that prohibition not removed?
      Mr. Gummer: I dealt with the point when my right hon. and learned Friend was inadvertently absent from the Chamber. Unfortunately, all those disqualifications have not been removed, which is one of the reasons why I am so unhappy about the Bill. I would have hoped that this was an opportunity to get rid of a range of disqualifications on Catholics. For example—I shall give just one brief example, as I wish to keep to the amendment—no Catholic church may ring a bell. That would be contrary to the law.
      There are a series of such disqualifications. It would have been more proper for the Government to introduce a single, simple, one-clause Bill that lifted all the disqualifications that distinguish Her Majesty's Catholic subjects as against other subjects. Hopefully we would vote on such a Bill with no discussion at all. My objection to the present Bill is that that opportunity, which the Government should have taken, was not taken. However, that is not for this debate.
      I shall explain why I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald is wrong. The problem with the amendment is that it makes a statement in English civil law about what is a fundamentally ecclesiastical matter. I am among those who believe that there is a distinction between those who are validly ordained and those who are not.
      I ceased to be an Anglican and became a Catholic because I believed that the Church of England had ceased to be able validly to ordain priests. That is why I became a Catholic, but it was an ecclesiastical, not a civil,
      1080
      decision. It is a fundamental matter of faith, more important than any civil decision that I could make. I do not underestimate such a decision; I merely say that it is different in kind.
      A Catholic teaches that a priest ordained in the Catholic Church is ordained in the apostolic succession and is therefore able validly to administer the sacrament. Many Anglicans take the same view, and all the Orthodox and Armenians do. The amendment would make a distinction between those who do—actually or in their formularies, validly or because they think validly—and those who do not.

      My problem with the amendment is that I do not understand what that has to do with standing for Parliament. I passionately believe in the distinction; I believe that there is a fundamental difference between a priest of the Catholic Church and the hon. Member for one of the Northern Irish constituencies who is, in a sense, self-ordained.
      Mr. Hogg: Two Northern Ireland Members.
      Mr. Gummer: No, the particular man is self-ordained because he decided to set up his own Church. That is a perfectly reasonable decision for him to make, but there is a difference between that view of ordination and the historic view of the Catholic Church. The difference is not a secular one; it is an ecclesiastical and religious difference. It is still a vital difference—more vital than any secular thing that I can think of.
      Let us not mix the two issues up. We do not enhance the validity of the orders of Holy Church by saying what Parliament thinks about it. It does not matter two hoots to the validity of the orders of the Catholic Church what the House of Commons believes about it. If that were the case, none of us would be here. There was a time when the House of Commons said that not only were those orders not valid, but it would chop our heads off if we were found.
      Let us not start saying that what Parliament thinks about the doctrines of Christ's Church is important. It is not.
      Miss Widdecombe: What about the established Church?
      Mr. Gummer: I shall deal with the established Church in a moment. I am dealing with my right hon. Friend's denomination.
      Miss Widdecombe: And yours.
      Mr. Gummer: And mine. My right hon. Friend should not object to my setting out the historic fact. We are not here to tell the Catholic Church what is valid and what is not. That is for God 's Church to decide, not for us.
      Miss Widdecombe: All this would be welcome if Parliament had never taken any view about Church matters or about who might or might not sit in Parliament, but, as I pointed out from a sedentary position, we have an established Church. My right hon. Friend and I, together with a collection of non-believers and adherents of other Churches, went through the Lobbies to decide

      1081
      on such issues as the ordination of women as priests and divorced clergy. He did not take the view then that that was not a proper matter for us to consider.
      Mr. Gummer: That is not the issue that we are discussing now. I shall deal with the nature of the established Church in a moment. I am speaking about a Church that is not established and which is not and never has been under the jurisdiction of the House. Indeed, it has been specifically as it is because it does not hold that established view, and it is unacceptable for us to purport to say what its priests should be allowed to do.
      I now move from the Catholic Church to the Anglican Church. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the other way around."] The truth is—[Interruption.] The joke has been made, so I shall continue. I shall move in my speech from the Catholic Church to the Anglican Church, and I do so with care. The Anglican Church is the creature of the state. The Church of England was created by the state as a result of a series of factors, including Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. That is the truth of history and it is a perfectly respectable position. Historically, there was a twofold reason why clergy of the Anglican Church in England—the Church of England—were denied membership of the House. First and primarily, they held offices of profit under the Crown, or if they did not, they were hoping to do so, which was even worse in terms of the fear of simony. Secondly, it was though 1s that they were represented by the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords. Those were the two reasons why they were excluded.
      However, we now have the following problem: should a person who does not have an office of profit under the Crown, but who has ceased to be a practising Anglican clergyman, be denied membership of the House? It is extremely difficult to claim that such people should be so denied. Indeed, they have not been prevented from becoming Members of the House in the past. There have been hon. Members who were ordained as Anglicans, but as they had cast aside their orders, nobody saw fit to take their cases to court. We know that to be true. In any event, is not it most illogical to say that when the Church of England has decided that something has finished, Parliament can decide that it should not end? That is what is being suggested by those who argue that a laicised Anglican clergyman can be regarded as a lay person by the Church of England, but not by Parliament.
      That is a reversal of any sense, and I am not in favour of it. It is much more sensible to argue that it is for the Church of England to decide that Anglican clergyman cannot be Members of the House, if it wishes to do so. Similarly, if the Catholic Church continues to say that its priests cannot be Members of the House, that is for it to decide. However, if people present themselves as candidates and are elected, whether they were once ordained or whatever, it is not for the House to exclude them. That should be the proper procedure, which is why I find the amendment unacceptable.
      We must face the issue with which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) dealt: the different roles that are involved. There is a difference between the role of an episcopally ordained priest and that of a Protestant minister. I point that out in case the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan)—I am sorry that she is not present—feels that I am being dismissive. I think that one has to be honest about people's pretensions. I mean that in a non-offensive way. People have particular
      1082
      views about their ministry. The views held by Catholics about their priests are different from those that, for example, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) would have about a minister. Indeed, as was suggested earlier, he would be displeased if one were to suggest that he was in any way a priest, and he makes that view very clear.
      3.15 pm
      A minister carries out a series of pastoral duties, including the preaching of the ecclesiastical doctrines of his particular Church, and a priest administers the sacraments. That is a very important distinction, but it cannot be of importance to parliamentary representation. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West is not right to suggest that somebody who is ordained as a priest cannot be a Member of the House of Commons, but that is not the case if he is made a minister. I do not believe that that is sensible, although I understand that it is emotionally clear. Becoming a priest is the highest demand that can be made of anybody. For me, it is odd that somebody who has been made a priest would want to do something different afterwards. However, some people have no decision in the matter and it is not for me to say in this secular House—at least, it is secular in that sense—that such a person should be prevented from becoming a Member of Parliament. It is for his religious superiors to make that decision.
      With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West, I think that he is mistaking his vocation. As a Member of the House of Commons, it is not for him to say what our ecclesiastical superiors, either in the Church of England, to which he belongs, or in the Catholic Church, to which I belong, should decide. Our job is to ensure that if somebody is allowed to stand by somebody else, by his own conscience or whatever, he should not be stopped because he was episcopally ordained.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not think that that squares with what I understood to be my right hon. Friend's position regarding the ecclesiastical legislation that comes before the House. Is he suggesting that we should forswear any involvement in the legislation that has typically been considered in the House? As I understand it, the House still has an Ecclesiastical Committee, although it might not sit or its proceedings might not be very public. As I understand it, that is the forum where we consider ecclesiastical Measures in the House.
      Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is correct, but the Ecclesiastical Committee relates only to the business of the established Church. As there is an established Church, it is perfectly proper for the House to have the Ecclesiastical Committee, on which I have the honour of serving. Although it deals with the established Church, it does so on a non-denominational basis. Protestants, Anglicans and Catholics serve on the Committee, but it deals only with matters that relate to the effect of the establishment on the civil rights of the people of this country. That is what it is supposed to discuss.
      As I have explained, the amendment would impose restrictions on people who are not members of the established Church, which makes it entirely different in

      1083
      any case. When I was being teased because I said that I was about to move from the Catholics to the Anglicans, perhaps the teasing prevented hon. Members from recalling that I was making that distinction precisely because I believe that it is wholly improper for the House to take on the right to legislate for Catholics, Armenians, Holy Orthodox worshippers and so on. They are not members of the established Church and we have no right to legislate on ecclesiastical matters in respect of them. Of course, there is a question about whether we should have rights in respect of the established Church, but that is a different matter altogether.
      Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has just said that the Bill imposes restrictions on individuals and cited the case of the Roman Catholics. Of course, he is right in that respect, but the restrictions imposed by the old law go much further. It restricts the ability of local associations to choose their candidates and, even worse, restricts the electorate's ability to choose in a general election the person whom they want to represent them.
      Mr. Gummer rose—
      The Chairman: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind that we are discussing the amendment, not the Bill as such.
      Mr. Gummer: I am happy to return to that discussion, but what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said is germane because passing the amendment would not only exclude those who have been accorded the grace of episcopal ordination, were they still practising as clergymen or priests, but prevent the associations that wanted to adopt them and those who had already voted for them from getting such people elected to Parliament. That is wholly unacceptable, for a rational reason.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and I do not always agree on ecclesiastical matters, but we are usually on the same side in respect of reason. We are having a rational argument, but it is not rational to say that such people should be excluded, because nothing in their experience enables the House to say that they should not be Members of Parliament. Making a slight change by allowing those who are not doing the job to stand would be even odder, because that would suggest that those doing the job should not stand.
      Some Methodists in America do not have bishops. Why should a Methodist minister who was not ordained by a bishop be allowed to sit in the House when an American Methodist who is a member of the United Methodist Church, and who was ordained by a bishop, would not be allowed to do so, even though that bishop is not in the apostolic succession and even though those people do not believe that such ordination is the same as ordination as even the Anglican Church teaches it? The amendment would take us to a pretty peculiar position.
      Mr. Swayne: I merely point out that my right hon. Friend has raised profound issues that touch on the very establishment of the Church of England. The beauty of the amendment is that it would avoid all that by giving Labour Members precisely what they want—a candidate
      1084
      for Greenock and Inverclyde—without stirring up those other issues, to which my opposition and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald is total.
      Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend cannot have that.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Yes he can.
      Mr. Gummer: Well, he can have it, but it is not true. We can all have things. I do not want to return to the Jehovah's Witnesses, but they, too, can have it, although it is not true. The fact is that all that will not wash, for the simple reason that I cannot explain to my constituents why an Armenian is not allowed to stand for Parliament if he has been ordained in the Armenian Church, while a Baptist is allowed to stand. On the other hand, Methodists of certain sorts are allowed to stand while Methodists of other sorts are not.
      If I may say so, there is another aspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald has not thought through.
      Miss Widdecombe: Just because you disagree!
      Mr. Gummer: Let me put it this way. If my right hon. Friend has thought this aspect through, I would love to hear her answer. Some Pentecostal Churches have people who are called bishops. Therefore, when such a person ordains someone, one could say that he has been episcopally ordained. Can my right hon. Friend explain why a minister of the Elim Four Square Gospel Tabernacle is allowed to be a Member of the House whereas a minister of the Apostolic Tabernacle is not? They are charming people, all of them, and many of us would be hard put to distinguish between their doctrines—but, I am sorry to say, the fact is that accepting the amendment would mean that the House was suggesting that one could be a Member and the other could not. I would find it difficult to explain that distinction to the people of Walberswick. Intellectually able as they are, people in the local pub—
      Mr. Hogg: The Mitre?
      Mr. Gummer: No, not the Mitre. I am happy to say that it is a non-ecclesiastical pub.
      Mr. Bercow: The Turk's Head?
      Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that no pub in my constituency is called the Turk's Head. [Interruption.] Why not? Because we are politically correct. If we started to use ecclesiastical terms of the clarity demanded by the amendment, we would get ourselves into severe trouble.
      Miss Widdecombe: I thought that I should rise to the occasion once the mirth had subsided. My right hon. Friend's rebuke of me for making a distinction based on episcopal ordination would be valid were that concept not already what underlies the old system, which the Bill seeks to change. I have tried to stick with the old definitions, but not to make changes as significant as those that the Government want. That is all.
      Mr. Gummer: Perhaps my right hon. Friend missed my remark, but at the beginning of my speech I said that

      1085
      that principle did not underlie the legislation. Two principles underlie the Bill: first, the nature of the established Church of England and the fact that its clergymen were considered to hold offices of profit under the Crown; and secondly, the exclusion of Catholic priests from the House because it was the fashion of the time to believe that they were too dangerous. I only wish that they were as dangerous today, because that would be good for us all. That distinction was made, and my right hon. Friend must not introduce a false one.
      Miss Widdecombe: It is not false.
      Mr. Gummer: I apologise. My right hon. Friend should not introduce a misunderstood distinction, which has been used to explain an even more complex issue.
      I must now address my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West on the question whether it is acceptable for a priest to be involved in party politics. I understand what my hon. Friend meant. I deeply oppose two attitudes to the priesthood, the first of which is that priests should be involved in party politics. I remember a minister who took that view: the late Lord Soper thought that it was impossible to be a Christian without also being a socialist. I think that that is wrong and I object to any suggestion that one cannot be a Christian and at the same time either a socialist, a Liberal or a Conservative. One cannot be a Christian and a communist or a Christian and a fascist, but one can be a Christian and a member of any of those democratic parties.
      Therefore, I deeply oppose parish priests who espouse political views that derogate from their ability to be priests. However, I want priests in the pulpit to be able to talk about politics and to have a powerful voice in that respect. A fortnight ago, I was at mass and I listened to the parish priest make some telling points about the bombing of Iraq. I would not say that I agreed with every one, but a priest of the Church of God made proper statements about politics and I needed to listen to them.
      The Government and the Opposition have to ask themselves big questions about bombing from on high people who are unable to defend themselves. Those moral questions have to be examined. I have still failed to get any answer to questions that I tabled about the bombing of an aspirin factory in Sudan. To me, that is a moral question. However, I am told that it is such a delicate matter of national defence that my question cannot be answered. It is right for the priest in the pulpit to be able to raise such issues, so I say to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West that priests who do not take politics into account are not doing their job properly. Politics is too big a part of life for the gospel to have nothing to say about it. The question is, could those priests be party politicians in the House while they were ordained? I would be unhappy about that, but it is not for me to decide; it is for the priests to decide.
      3.30 pm
      There are one or two Members of Parliament who are independent—or, as in the case of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), independent in practice. Although I disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge?Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on a range of matters, it cannot be said that he is not independent in the House. I do not consider it unreasonable for someone
      1086
      to come to the House with a political label and then behave independently. Others, of course, come to the House as independents in the first place.
      Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more independent-minded Members we have, the better?
      Mr. Gummer: I do not want to be led down that route, but one of the joys of debates such as this is that we hear some Members speak from the heart. That does not usually happen in the House. It is important for the House to have independent-minded and independent Members, and I would consider it perfectly proper for someone to perform such a role even were he an episcopally ordained minister of the Church of England or a priest in the Roman Catholic Church.
      Dr. Godman: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Paragraph 3 of canon 285 in the Roman Catholic code of canon law 1983 states:
      "Clerics are forbidden to assume public office whenever it means sharing in the exercise of civil power."
      Despite the explicitness of that law, I am given to understand by the Minister that the Catholic Church in Scotland, and indeed the Catholic Church in England and Wales, have no objection to the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. Gummer: The Church has no objection because it thinks that this is its business rather than ours. I do not understand why we think it is our business; it is the business of the Catholic Church, and we should work on that basis.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: So it is the business of the Church of England to establish how many bishops should take their seats in the House of Lords, is it? I accept that it is for the Church to decide which bishops they should be.
      Mr. Gummer: I am not discussing the established Church; I am discussing the Catholic Church. [Interruption.] There is a fundamental distinction to be made, and my hon. Friend must make that distinction. We happen to have an established Church in this country; we could have an argument about whether we should have one or not, but we do have one. We are now discussing something that straddles the established and the non-established Churches.
      The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) referred quite properly to the canon law not of the Anglican Church—which has its own canon law—but of the Catholic Church. He was merely saying that the Catholic Church had reasons for what it decided. The Catholic Church has no bishops in the House of Lords—although if there were some there, they might say things that would shock, and would stand up to debate rather more powerfully than what I have heard from a number of bishops who are currently in that House.
      Mr. Swayne: At least the Catholic bishops believe in God.
      Mr. Gummer: That is certainly true.
      Things used to be different. Bishops used to play an active part in politics, but they have decided, perfectly properly, that that is not how they wish to act in future.

      1087
      That is a reasonable decision, and we should respect them for it. In any event, it is their business. The question of how many bishops of the Church of England should be in the House of Lords, however, is a matter for the establishment, and hence a matter for the House of Commons, because that is what we have ordained. We have not ordained the same in the case of the Catholic Church, for two reasons. First, the Church did not want it; secondly, we would not have it. After all, we threw out the Catholic Church. We said, "We're not having you as the established Church. We're going to have this lot, and we're going to do things this way." We could not have said, "But while we're about it, there are one or two things over which we will retain control." That would be a very peculiar approach.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend not understand that in its current form, the Bill entitles a bishop in the Church of England, or the established Church, who is not a Lord Spiritual in the other place, to stand for Parliament, and that the same applies to an ordained and practising Church of England clergyman?
      Mr. Hogg: Why not?
      Mr. Howarth: That is another matter. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that unless the Bill is changed, a bishop in the Church of England could stand for Parliament.
      Mr. Gummer: As it happens, that is the subject of a later amendment. I shall confine myself to the subject of amendment No. 14, which relates to clergymen.
      I was trying to make a distinction between two arguments that are different. The reasons for them are different, and we should approach them from a sensible historical position. We should say first that we should not exclude Catholic priests, because they do not operate under the jurisdiction and within the structure of the established Churches, and secondly that we should not exclude Anglican clergymen, because there seems to be no rational case for doing so. Things are not the same now: Anglican clergymen no longer have an office of profit under the Crown as they once did, and it is reasonable for us to respect that. When it comes to the bishops, no doubt we shall all say what we think.
      I want to say something about the whole question of independence. [Interruption.] I think we have had rather a good debate so far, and I do not want sedentary interruptions to spoil it.
      I know nothing about the person who is to stand as a candidate, and I would say nothing that would denigrate his position or what he said to the selection committee. I do not think any of that matters. Let me, however, say something seriously to the Minister. Although I agree with every word of the Bill, I consider it an affront that, either through ignorance or for some other reason, the Government did not present a simple Bill to exclude all the discrimination that can be applied to Her Majesty's Catholic subjects under our law.
      I do not think it proper that the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster is forbidden by law to walk down Victoria street in his clerical clothes. That is unacceptable, and in this day and age we should have removed the law. A short
      1088

      Bill would have removed it. [Interruption.] It is easy enough to say that earlier Governments should have done that. I am not making a party political point; I am merely saying that the present Government had a real opportunity with this Bill.
      Miss Widdecombe: Five Bills passed by Parliament gave the Government an opportunity to introduce these measures, but they did not take that opportunity. We must conclude that that is because the Bill that we are discussing is all about the prospective Labour candidate for Greenock and Inverclyde.
      Mr. Gummer: It is true that such action should have been taken before, and that there were a number of opportunities for it to be taken. We know why this Bill has been introduced. I do not think any member or supporter of the Government could possibly claim that it is here for any other reason—but that, in a sense, makes my point even stronger.
      I support the Government in opposing the amendment, but I do so with a heavy heart, because I think that they had an opportunity to rid us of a manifest inequity. I do not understand the logic of the Home Office in not even asking itself whether we should think about other issues. Is it not about time we ended the present circumstances in which Westminster Cathedral commits an illegal act every day when it rings the bell? Is that not unacceptable? Does the Minister realise that when the millennium peal rang out at midnight, every Catholic church was doing something illegal?
      Mr. Hogg: I rather agree with my right hon. Friend about the removal of all disabilities from Catholics, and I am sorry that it has not happened. My wife and my children are Catholics. In the spirit of inquiry, however, may I ask him whether his views extend to the succession to the Crown?
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We are moving from bells to the succession. I think that it would be a very good idea if the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) returned to the amendment under discussion.
      Mr. Gummer: Mr. Lord, as my neighbour in Suffolk you have often come to my aid, but today you have given us a spectacular example of that. I thank you very much indeed.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald has moved her amendment in a spirit of compromise, and of care to bring the two sides together. I think, however, that history is against her. The problem is that the two historical strands that have got us where we are do not admit of a compromise. We have to leave the Catholic Church, in its universal majesty, to make its own decisions and not to propose that this place has any right to shackle in any manner what the Holy Church does. Conversely, in the case of the Church over which, because of its establishment, we do claim some curious control, we have to say that there is no rational reason for clergymen not to stand for election to this place, nor, if they are elected, for this place to say that they may not sit here. That surely is the rational response.

      1089
      For those reasons, I think that we should oppose amendment No. 14.
      Mr. Hogg: I should like to begin with an apology—particularly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), as I did not hear her speech—for missing the earlier part of the debate. However, I know my right hon. Friend views, because I have occasionally had the opportunity to read them.
      I shall be very brief because, apart from anything else, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has said everything that could possibly be said on the subject, and a few additional words, too. I am a libertarian, and I ask myself four questions which I think deal with the matter pretty conclusively.
      The first question that I ask myself is whether Members of Parliament are in fact capable of performing functions outside the House in some other capacity. I declare an interest: I am a practising barrister. I think that it is a very good thing for hon. Members to have external interests and to practise at them. My conclusion is that there is nothing about this place that prevents hon. Members from pursuing other activities as well. Indeed, I believe that it is a good thing that many do so, as it brings a wealth of experience and independence which I greatly welcome.
      Mr. Gummer: Would my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to say that even more clearly? It is surely to the detriment of the House if hon. Members do not engage in business and other outside activities. If they do not, all they can bring to the House are their memories or their theories. Those with activities outside the House—I restate my interest—at least bring to it current knowledge of how the world outside works.
      Mr. Hogg: I believe that very strongly. My right hon. Friend is right. He has described independence and independent-minded Members of Parliament. I believe that independence flows at least in part from having an existence and an experience outside this place, and also from having the resources to be able to say boo to the goose—by which I mean those from the Whips Offices who sit on the Front Benches.
      Mr. Keith Simpson: I will remember that.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend can remember it as much as he likes.
      Mr. Bercow: For the avoidance of doubt, and to respond to the earlier observations of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, so far as this Bill is concerned, he sees no qualitative difference between the practice of a religious faith or responsibility and the practice of a profession or business arrangement?
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend's mind is as logical as my own, because that was my second point. Having asserted that I think it is a very good thing for hon. Members to have current interests outside this place, my next question is precisely the one that he has just asked: is there anything about the role of an ordained priest that causes
      1090
      one to depart from the conclusion to which I have come in response to the first question? I think that the honest answer is no. I can see absolutely nothing qualitatively different about the role of a priest that makes it possible to distinguish it from, for example, that of a barrister, a practising doctor or a practising dentist—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford). If I am wrong about that—being a modest man, I am always prepared to accept that I may be wrong—I believe that it would be a matter for the associations that adopt those people and for the electorate whose support they seek at the poll. That is my third point. Let us therefore have hon. Members in this place who have outside interests—which would surely apply to ordained priests. Nevertheless, if one is wrong about that, let the matter be for the associations and the electorate.
      Finally, I find it quite impossible to distinguish between the reasons for disqualifying priests of the Catholic Church and the Church of England and those for not doing so in relation to the members of many other Churches, including the apostolic Churches identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal.
      I am sorry to be robust with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald—
      Miss Widdecombe: It would not be the first time, would it?
      Mr. Hogg: No, it would not be the first time. I have disagreed with her on other occasions and about other matters.
      Miss Widdecombe: Yes, yes.
      Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend sounds resigned. I am afraid that, so far as I am concerned, she is going to have to be resigned. I have disagreed with her on various occasions when she has spoken, and this is another of those occasions. I really cannot even get into the lists in terms of understanding the arguments in favour of this group of amendments. I think that they are wholly and utterly wrong. I shall therefore take very considerable pleasure in opposing amendment No. 14.
      Mr. Andrew Stunell: I should like first to apologise to the Committee for being absent for an earlier part of the debate. I notified Mr. Speaker and the Government and Opposition Front Benchers that I would miss it. I am sorry also to have missed what has evidently been a very lively debate. It has certainly been lively since my arrival.
      I am very much with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and very much against the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on this group of amendments. As I made clear on Second Reading, I do not approach the issue as someone with a Catholic or Episcopalian background; I am a Baptist by profession of faith. As I have also made clear, I disagree with many of the very fine points of distinction that have been drawn between ministers and priests—on who does what, and on whether there is a major difference between the roles.
      I believe in the priesthood of all believers and that belief is founded on the New Testament. On another day and in another place, I might argue that case in great

      1091
      depth. However, if we were to accept New Testament teaching on the priesthood, the consequence would be that all of us who are practising Christians would be excluded from membership of this place. That fact perhaps demonstrates the folly of the current restrictions, which are a way of keeping good people out of the House. We should be worried about whether that is really in the long-term interests of democracy and of the House.
      The restrictions not only keep some good people out, but are entirely arbitrary in their effect. I fear that amendment No. 14 would make the impact of the restrictions even more arbitrary and strange.
      We already have a situation in which a priest or other clergy member of the Church in Wales may stand for Parliament and, if elected, sit in this place. A retired clergyman or clergywoman in the Church of England may stand for election to this place. If one is a defrocked Roman Catholic priest, one may stand, but, if one is a retired Catholic priest who has not gone to the trouble of getting defrocked, one cannot stand. If one is an orthodox priest or a retired orthodox priest, one cannot stand. If one is a rabbi or a Methodist minister, one can stand. The distinctions are meaningless, not just in secular law but in New Testament theology.
      The sooner that we sweep away the remnants of religious discrimination in our democratic practice, the better. That is not specifically the Liberal Democrat line. I am sure that in my party we would find people who hold a different point of view, as on many other subjects[Interruption.] That may not surprise hon. Members, but I am happy to stand here in my own right to say clearly that it ought to be offensive to us in this day and age that religious discrimination is built into our legislation.
      I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal; perhaps we should have gone further. We certainly should have gone sooner. However, the fact that we should have gone sooner or further does not mean that we should now go nowhere. To that extent, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is misdirecting her efforts, and so are those who support her case and her cause. We should be trying to eliminate religious discrimination, not entrench or refine it. To that purpose, I shall certainly vote against the amendment and support the Bill.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that the debate was lively. My instant reaction was that he was not talking about the debate that I had heard—but of course he was not; he was in a different debate.
      The debate has been sensible, if lengthy. Sometimes it almost verged on being an argument about angels on a pinhead, but that might be appropriate in this case. The debate has none the less been good humoured, and certainly constructive. I extend my thanks particularly to my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) for their contributions and for their support for the Government's position.
      I found surprising—indeed, almost frightening—the extent to which I agreed not only with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), with whom
      1092
      I have agreed on several issues, and even with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), whose civil libertarian views I have some sympathy with on occasion, but—although I thought I would never say it—with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Indeed, during part of the debate, I almost expected him to speak in favour of an inclusive, multi-faith, multicultural society. He did not quite do so, but in a very Tory way he almost advocated some form of political correctness.
      I agree strongly with the right hon. Gentleman that the House should be open to as many people as possible, that it should be the choice of the electorate whom they send here and that it is not the job of the state to interfere with the internal organisation and practices of Churches. That is a Tory way of being politically correct, and I agree with him.
      A number of points were raised with which I shall deal head on. Evidently, the Bill was introduced to address the case of David Cairns. I was open about that at the outset on Second Reading. Let me make it clear that that is the reason the Bill was introduced. It was patently obvious to us that an injustice would be done if David Cairns was prevented from taking the seat that the electorate might put him in a position to take after the election. It would have been wrong to allow that situation.
      There are many demands on parliamentary time, all the time. Arguably, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal raised several points with which Parliament might like to deal. There are many other issues, too. I have been trying to secure the introduction of a fire safety Bill for a couple of years. There is always a premium on parliamentary time. However, a patent injustice was about to be done with which the Government felt it appropriate to deal. Other issues may well have to be dealt with at some point; that remains to be seen.
      Mr. Gummer rose—
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, then to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and then to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and then I shall make some progress.
      Mr. Gummer: Does not the Minister agree that although it would have been inappropriate for him to have included in the Bill a series of clauses about fire safety, it would not have been inappropriate for him to have included a series of clauses that removed all disqualifications on Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects? That is the gravamen of the attack. He could have done so without the need for any extra parliamentary time. The fact that he did not do so is at least a disappointment and at most a serious wrong.
      4 pm
      Mr. O'Brien: I have much sympathy with the principle that the right hon. Gentleman is advocating, but I do not assent to the practical effects of introducing a Bill to

      1093
      remove some of the distinctions. The bells, oh the bells! I can imagine the debate about whether people wanted more bells to ring or whether the muezzin should have rights to call the faithful to prayer, and to what extent we should allow that through loudspeakers. With his experience of Parliament, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can imagine that, too. So, I do not accept that introducing such a Bill would have been easy. We wanted a focused Bill, and that is what we have got. A particular case exposed the particular principle involved.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the injustice to Mr. Cairns—just as there would be injustice to Mr. Cairn's association and electorate—and I agree, but would not the problem go further? Would not it probably breach Mr. Cairns's convention rights if he were prevented from standing? Would not it be difficult for the Home Secretary to make a declaration of compatibility on the Bill if the amendment were accepted?
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall tread with a little caution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly asks me to express a view on whether the amendment might cause us to breach the European convention on human rights.
      Mr. Forth: Who cares?
      Mr. O'Brien: It is the law of the land, and it is right that we take due account of it. I want to reflect on the matter. I suspect that we might get very close to an infringement. Indeed, I suspect that if we had not introduced such legislation as this Bill, we might well have found ourselves challenged in the Court under the convention on the Cairns or some other case. That was not particularly why we introduced the Bill, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a good point.
      Mr. Bercow: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will not spoil the argument, because I for one—I suspect that I will be joined by colleagues in this observation—could not give a tinker's cuss about the view on the European convention on human rights. I am motivated by different factors in my support for the Bill and in my opposition to the amendment.
      I in no way dissent from what the Minister has said, but will he nevertheless confirm that one effect of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary would have been to enable Monsignor Bruce Kent, had he been elected, to take his seat in 1992 to represent the people of Oxford, West and Abingdon? If the Minister accepts that that correct—I believe it is—why did no Labour Member propose such a measure in the run-up to that election? Was it on account of the fact that Labour knew that Father Bruce had not the slightest prospect of being elected or was it because it did not wish him to be? Which is it?
      Mr. O'Brien: I am not aware of any discussions that went on before 1992. 1 was not in this House, and neither was the hon. Gentleman. Therefore neither he nor I were in a position to bring forward such a Bill as this. When the case of David Cairns was brought to my attention, I thought that justice needed to be done, and I think that in due course the House will do justice to David Cairns.
      1094
      Let me explain why this issue was not dealt with in a Bill introduced earlier in the Session: we wanted to consult the Churches, and that consultation has now been completed. [Interruption.] I am being interrupted by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) who, from a sedentary position, and in her usual vociferous style, is waving her five fingers in the air and saying that there could have been five Bills. We could not have included this measure in five Bills in the period following the consultation. That was not the case. There were two possibilities, but the consultation period on this measure had not been completed in time to include it in those Bills. The short title of the Bills would not have enabled us to include this issue. None the less, short titles can be dealt with. However, by the time the issue was before the House and the consultation had been completed, it was not possible to include it in those Bills.
      Dr. Godman: I disappeared from the Chamber for a minute because I dashed to the Library to obtain a copy of Cardinal Thomas Winning's letter, which was part of the consultation. Cardinal Winning says in his letter, inter alia:
      "I would not be in favour of any priest being elected to the House of Commons. That, however, would be because of Canon Law and not because of what can be seen as discrimination in the civil law of our country."
      That is the anomaly that I had in mind.
      In his letter of 4 February last year, Cardinal Winning asked whether the restrictions would be lifted on "clergy"—that is, on bishops, priests and deacons, or simply on priests alone? Has that question been answered?
      Mr. O'Brien: All the restrictions on bishops other than bishops of the Church of England who are Members of another place would be lifted. Therefore, any restrictions on deacons or anyone else would be lifted. The only people who would, as a result of their ecclesiastical background, continue to be excluded from this place would be those who were actually Members of another place and therefore had a voice in the legislative process.
      The key principle is whether we should exclude certain citizens from participating in the legislative process. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst read out the list of those who were excluded. As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal pointed out, many of those are in receipt of some funding via the Crown and there are therefore reasons for excluding them. However, that does not include the sort of people we are now discussing, who are priests or ministers in various ways of particular religions.
      Amendment No. 13 would limit the meaning of ordination as relating to ordination as either a priest or deacon. It would echo similar words used in the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801. We consider that the additional words are unnecessary, although their effect would not be inaccurate in terms of the purpose of the clause. Parliament has not thought it necessary to retain that gloss on the meaning of the word "ordination" in the more recent legislation that refers to disqualification on grounds of ordination—that is, the 1998 devolution enactments and the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. We are trying to place election to this House broadly on all fours with the sort of provisions that relate to the devolved Parliament and Assemblies and also the European Parliament.

      1095
      I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for explaining the purpose of amendment No. 12. Our view is that the amendment is unnecessary. The meaning of "minister" does not need broadening. Those affected by the disqualifications in the 1801 Act and the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 are sufficiently identified in clause 1(1)—that is, persons who have been ordained or are a minister of any religious denomination. The addition of "or the recognised equivalent" would provoke doubts as to the sufficiency of the phrase referred to in clause 1(1), which appears in the 1998 devolution enactments for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. Accepting the amendment would therefore necessitate making similar amendments to those pieces of legislation.
      The proposed words would also run the risk of being construed in a way that was restrictive. It is to do with the way in which the legal interpretation rules apply. If an additional phrase is added to a list, it may well restrict the breadth of the interpretation of those words. That could result in the amendment having precisely the opposite effect to the one intended by the right hon. Gentleman. In addition, including this wording could mean that we had to add it to the other relevant pieces of legislation. Accepting the amendment could cause problems.
      For the purposes of Pepper v. Hart, the Government intend the Bill to receive the broadest possible interpretation and to cover the sort of circumstances about which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned. He and I agree on that issue, although I am not able to accept his amendment.
      On amendment No. 15, I recognise that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has strong reservations about the possibility of ordained clergy sitting in this House if they are also practising as priests. She mentioned this on Second Reading, and I recognise her concerns. She and I are of the same religious background, and I have some sympathy with the ecclesiastical idea—the religious idea—that priests have a full-time job and should not do another one. A number of arguments were presented most eloquently by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal about worker priests and other circumstances. However, the key argument was put forward by Members on both sides of the House—it is not the job of this Parliament to tell the Catholic Church what rules to follow and how its priests should carry on their work. It is Parliament's job to open to people the right to elect those whom they wish to elect.
      The Catholic Church is not an established Church. The established Church may well have particular rules that apply. It is my view that election to this House and, indeed, to the devolved Assemblies and Parliament and to the European Parliament should be open to as many as possible, without artificial and unnecessary restrictions.
      The Select Committee on Home Affairs looked at the issue in 1998 and recommended the removal of all restrictions on ministers of religion standing for and serving as Members of Parliament. It commented:
      "these restrictions seem to us to be out of place in modern times. There should be no restriction on ministers of religion becoming Members of Parliament, and certainly no distinction between those of different faiths or of different Christian traditions. Whether such persons should serve as an elected representative should be a matter for the rules or customs of their own faiths or churches and for the electorate, and need not be restricted by law."
      1096
      The Government share that view.
      Secondly, we consulted the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Churches in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. All were content for the restrictions to be removed. Representatives from the Roman Catholic Church pointed out that it would not affect them, because canon law would prevent serving priests from sitting in this place. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham referred, quite rightly, to the Church in Wales. The Church in Wales was disestablished in 1912—[Interruption.] I am corrected—it was 1914. The effect is that its ministers are able to stand for election to this House. If I remember rightly, back in 1979 Rev. Bill Morgan was a member of the Church in Wales and was able to stand at Worcester, in England, without restriction.
      Mr. Gummer: If the amendment were carried, ministers of the Church in Wales would, for the first time, not be able to stand for Parliament, because they are episcopally ordained. If they were in full-time ministry, they would be excluded.
      Mr. O'Brien: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman may be right. I look to see whether the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald agrees with that; it appears that she does. I find that even more worrying. The arguments advanced by my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for Greenock and Inverclyde and by others on both sides totally demolished the points made by the right hon. Lady. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment, although I hear her saying that she intends to press it to a Division. That is her right, and many hon. Members will wish to express their strong views in opposing her. Her amendment is wrong in principle and would put the House in the position of interfering—wrongly—in the internal operations of Churches that have a right to make their own rules. It should not be for us to interfere with them.
      Miss Widdecombe: I do not intend to withdraw the amendment. Members on the Government Benches are not being allowed a free vote, which is wholly inappropriate for a decision of this sort. They are being whipped to vote by the Government. I urge those who are free, who do not approve of what the Government are doing and who seek a workable compromise to support my amendment.
      The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 264.

      Division No. 139]

      [4.13 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Syms, Robert

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Viggers, Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Wilkinson, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Mr. Desmond Swayne.

      1097

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Ainger, Nick

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Allan, Richard

      Dowd, Jim

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Austin, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Edwards, Huw

      Ballard, Jackie

      Efford, Clive

      Barnes, Harry

      Ennis, Jeff

      Beard, Nigel

      Etherington, Bill

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Fisher, Mark

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Benton, Joe

      Foulkes, George

      Bercow, John

      Galloway, George

      Best, Harold

      Gapes, Mike

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Blunt, Crispin

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Godsiff, Roger

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Goggins, Paul

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Browne, Desmond

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Burden, Richard

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Burns, Simon

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hancock, Mike

      Healey, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Casale, Roger

      Hendrick, Mark

      Caton, Martin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cawsey, Ian

      Heppell, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hill, Keith

      Chaytor, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hope, Phil

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Clelland, David

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hutton, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cohen, Harry

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Coleman, Iain

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Colman, Tony

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cotter, Brian

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Crausby, David

      Joyce, Eric

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cummings, John

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Khabra, Fiara S

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kidney, David

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Laxton, Bob

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Lepper, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Levitt, Tom

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

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

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Dismore, Andrew

      Linton, Martin

      1098

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rammell, Bill

      Lock, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Love, Andrew

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Rooney, Terry

      Roy, Frank

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonnell, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Sawford, Phil

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McNulty, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McWalter, Tony

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Maxton, John

      Soley, Clive

      Meale, Alan

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Spellar, John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Miller, Andrew

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mitchell, Austin

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stringer, Graham

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moore, Michael

      Stunell, Andrew

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Morley, Elliot

      Temple-Morris, Peter

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

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Trickett, Jon

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Mullin, Chris

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Tynan, Bill

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Ward, Ms Claire

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Öpik, Lembit

      Watts, David

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      White, Brian

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Pearson, Ian

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Willis, Phil

      Pickthall, Colin

      Winnick, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Woodward, Shaun

      Pollard, Kerry

      Woolas, Phil

      Pond, Chris

      Worthington, Tony

      Pope, Greg

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Pound, Stephen

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Mr. Clive Belts.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Fallon: I beg to move amendment No. 4 in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
      'or Bishop of the Church of England'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, after first 'of, insert 'a see in'.

      1099
      Amendment No. 6, in schedule 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
      'or Bishop of the Church of England'.
      Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, after first 'of, insert 'a see in'.
      Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
      'or Bishop of the Church of England'.
      Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, after first 'of', insert 'a see in'.
      Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
      'or Bishop of the Church of England'.
      Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, after first 'of, insert 'a see in'.
      Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
      'or Bishop of the Church of England'.
      Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, after first 'of insert 'a see in'.
      Amendment No. 10, in schedule 1, page 2, line 28, at end insert—
      'or Bishop of the Church of England'.
      Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, after first 'of', insert 'a see in'.
      Mr. Fallon: It is an extraordinary side effect of this Bill to enable David Cairns properly to contest his seat in Scotland that the Government should now propose that any bishop should be able to become a Member of this House. That is an enormous change, and something that certainly requires further consideration.
      The Minister has prayed in aid of the change that he has recommended today the Home Affairs Committee report, but that same Select Committee report was careful to exclude not simply the senior diocesan bishops but all serving bishops from the change that is proposed. Indeed, the change was not recommended by Professor Blackburn, on whose paper the Committee relied. The House would be making a serious mistake if it allowed bishops to become Members of Parliament.
      Of course, we are not simply talking of those senior diocesan bishops who are already represented in the House of Lords. Another 16—we may call them junior diocesan bishops—may well in the fullness of time move through to the House of Lords. Two other bishops may not—the Bishop of Sodor and Man and the Bishop of Europe. There are many suffragan bishops; there are also honorary assistant bishops. We would need to think carefully about suddenly allowing bishops to become Members of this House.
      It seems to me that there would immediately be a recipe for a conflict of loyalty. Under the Bill, a diocesan bishop could be, say, a Labour Member of Parliament, and his suffragan bishop could be a Conservative Member of Parliament. We would have not only a conflict of loyalties between their duties to their Church and to their Parliament but a conflict of loyalties between bishops within the same diocese. If a junior diocesan bishop were elected to this House and a month later a senior diocesan bishop happened to retire, as the Bishop of Chichester has just done, and if the junior bishop was next in line of seniority to move through, he would have to cease being
      1100
      a Member of this House, even though he had been elected by his constituents, and proceed up the Corridor to the other place.
      It is technically possible under the Bill for a senior diocesan bishop to retire and stand for election to the House of Commons all over again. It gives a new meaning to the phrase "flying bishops"; we could have bishops flying up and down the Corridor. I know that Lords Home and Hailsham sat in both Houses twice. but the House ought to think carefully before having bishops here, in the other place, and then back here. Why should a constituency that has elected a bishop to serve it here in Parliament suddenly face a by-election because that bishop becomes senior enough to proceed through to the House of Lords? That would inflict a wholly unnecessary by-election on that constituency simply as a result of the rotation of diocesan bishops.
      Mr. Hogg: I remind my hon. Friend that there is a precedent for that difficulty. In a previous incarnation, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) exposed his constituency to a by-election. Indeed, under the old regime, any eldest son of a peer who was elected to the House of Commons and then saw his father die would cause a by-election. We have been here many times before, and the House thought that the situation was wrong in that case. It is wrong to advance the argument now.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Fallon: I take it from that intervention that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees with me. Under the Bill, we are putting the House in a position that, as he points out, was corrected in the case of hereditary peers. That is what the Government will do. It will be possible for bishops to become MPs, to move through to the House of Lords and then to come back to this place. That puts the House and the constituencies that would be involved in an absurd position—simply because of the drafting of the measure.
      Those anomalies might arise if we allow bishops to become MPs. There are also two substantive arguments against bishops becoming Members of Parliament. First, they obviously already have their own place in the legislature; they have reserved seats and special arrangements in the otter place—the only group to do so. The House of Bishops is collectively represented. I do not wholly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who referred earlier to the fact that some bishops were in the other place while others were not. The House is collectively representative, so because of the rotation principle, all the bishops would have the opportunity to sit there in the fullness of time. It is not right that they should also have an entitlement to sit in this place.
      Mr. Bercow: I presume that my hon. Friend wants his amendment to receive a response from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Does he agree that that might he difficult as the hon. Gentleman is not at present in the Committee? Is it the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, to respond?
      Mr. Fallon: I shall have to leave that matter to Members on the Treasury Bench to sort out among

      1101
      themselves. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is present in order to answer my second substantive argument, which I was about to develop.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): We shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an adequate reply to his important amendment.
      Mr. Fallon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that assurance, from which I assume that it does not matter which Minister responds.
      My first substantive argument is that the bishops of the Church of England are collectively represented in the other place in any event; they thus do not need the additional facility of seats in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Stunell: Is it the hon. Gentleman's view that those hereditary peers who were unsuccessful in the ballot for places in the Lords should also be disqualified on the grounds that they have representatives in the other place?
      Mr. Fallon: I was coming to that point; it relates to my second substantive argument, and offers a good illustration of the mess the Government have got themselves into. We cannot admit bishops to this place without also considering the effect on the composition of the other place—the problem to which the hon. Gentleman draws our attention.
      The Wakeham commission includes recommendations on those senior diocesan bishops. The report recommends that their number should be reduced from 21 to 16 and that five seats should be made available for members of other denominations. It also recommends that the principle of rotation and seniority be ended and that, somehow, the new Appointments Commission should be able to select the membership of the bishops' Bench by the process of "ecumenical instrument"; to be organised by a group known as CTE—Churches Together in England.
      I am a little hazy on that point; I do not understand what is wrong with the principle of rotation and seniority. However, perhaps we should leave that aside.
      The measure is a recipe for conflict. If there were bishops in this place and bishops in the other place, and if suffragan bishops and their senior bishops from the same diocese represented different parties in this place, that would seem muddled.
      It may be that there is an agenda behind this sudden change. Perhaps the Government really want to drive bishops out of the House of Lords altogether. If we let the measure through, the Government could say, in a few years, that we need not have bishops in the House of Lords at all because they are entitled to stand for the House of Commons. Perhaps that secret agenda is at work in this measure.
      If I were involved in the higher reaches of the Church, I should be extremely worried about that point—not only might the number of bishops be diminished, but there is a threat to their position altogether. Once we have bishops as MPs, someone is bound to ask why we should also have bishops with reserved places in the House of Lords. That is inconsistent.
      The measure is muddled; there will be an important side effect that has nothing to do with David Cairns. That matter should have been considered much more
      1102
      carefully—perhaps by a Speaker's Conference, but certainly as part of the more general implementation of stage 2 reform of the House of Lords. I urge the Committee to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Gummer: I often agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), but the picture he paints is unlikely. The idea that, all over the country, hordes of bishops are rushing out to get themselves elected seems to be, ab initio, unlikely. The idea that both the diocesan bishop and his suffragan would be elected to this place for different parties at the same time seems so unlikely as not to be worthy of consideration. It is possible that a bishop might be elected to the House of Commons, but even that is extremely unlikely.
      The point at issue is different from that under discussion in the previous amendment; this amendment deals only with the established Church. I disagree with my hon. Friend for the simple reason that, for the most part, the bishops to whom we are referring are not able to be Members of the House of Lords. A suffragan bishop may not sit in the House of Lords; an assistant bishop may not sit in the House of Lords. Associate bishops or bishops from abroad may not sit in the House of Lords. The only people to whom my hon. Friend's argument applies are those diocesan bishops who are not rotationally able to sit in the House of Lords at present.
      I am not a betting man, but I am prepared to take a large bet that none of those bishops would stand for election to this place in any circumstances—for two good reasons. The first is the rotational system itself. The second is that one cannot conceive of a diocesan bishop who would think it possible both to hold that office and to be a party political Member of this place—because that is what it would mean. The situation would not arise.
      We are really talking about the other bishops. Surely it would be odd to remove the inability of clergymen of the Church of England and priests of the Roman Catholic Church to stand for election to this place, while saying that clergymen who are bishops of a different sort—associate bishops, suffragan bishops and the like—should not be able to stand. It is not that I think that any of them would stand, but that there is no logic for excluding them. It would be logical for the Church of England to do so, but not for Parliament to take that step.

      In this situation, we are much better guided by history. In the past, the word "bishop" referred only to diocesan bishops; the Church of England did not go in for suffragan and assistant bishops. We are treading new ground. Change has taken place in the Church of England since the legislation that we are dealing with became extant. There is thus no historical reason why we should not take this step.
      I do not believe that the procedure will take place. Even if it were to do so, my hon. Friend's concern about bishops flying up and down the Corridor is unlikely to come about. After all, there is a perfect answer: the people who elected them would know of the possibility and would take it into account. It is not for us to say that that is not possible and proper. Even if they elected them and the occasion arose, it would be possible for the bishop to refuse the preferment.
      The amendment makes a meal out of something that is not really worth a bite. We can perfectly properly leave the matter; it will not, in fact, make a ha'p'orth of

      1103
      difference. If I were to vote for the amendment and it were passed, that would not make a ha'p'orth of difference either. However, it happens to be a bit more logical to carry the argument through as the Bill now stands. I suggest that the House can do so without any fear at all that we shall be under the jurisdiction of a horde of bishops, whether vagantes or not. The fact is that they will not come; we will not have them here, so either agreeing to the amendment or not is, frankly, immaterial—but it is a matter of rationality, and I prefer to be on the side of reason.
      Mr. Stunell: For the second time today, rather worryingly, I find myself in almost complete agreement with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).
      Mr. Bercow: Savour it.
      Mr. Stunell: Yes, I will; it may not happen again. I struggled to comprehend the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). If I understood him properly, he was saying that we should not pass the Bill in its current form because the bishops already have representatives in the House of Lords who can speak for them. However, as I tried to suggest in my intervention, it is also the case that hereditary peers who were unsuccessful in the election have exactly that kind of representation. Of course it is arguable that that applies to other people who sit there in some sort of representative mode. No special reason exists to use the representative role of those bishops who sit in the Lords to disqualify those who do not sit there.
      The second argument was that by-elections could be caused. If a by-election were foreseeable, that would perhaps be a reason for not having certain categories of candidate. I wondered whether we should also introduce a rule to prevent people who have a series illness from standing for Parliament. Should we have health checks? To be honest, by-elections are much more often caused by death than by preferment, so they might best be avoided by having rigorous medical checks to weed out those who are not up to the next four or five years. In all conscience, I think that the by-election argument is not sustainable; it is only adduced as an argument to prop up the weakness of other arguments.
      Another argument is that there is a see-saw case and people may appear in one House and then the other. We may like to think that the right direction for traffic is from this House to the other place, but in all conscience, why should not there be a route back from that House to this place? If a retirement age were introduced, or if other factors came into play, what on earth would be wrong with that?
      The third argument seemed to be that there might be a conflict between bishops if they finished up in this House, but on different sides. As hon. Members will know from my previous contribution, I am not a member of the Church of England. I do not take detailed account of what goes on in the Synod, but I was under the impression that its members were on opposite sides already. The idea that we would somehow avoid conflict by keeping them out of the House seems misplaced.
      1104
      The fourth argument was perhaps the most feeble of all. It was suggested that if the Bill were passed, it would be bad for bishops because it would sound the death knell of bishops in the other place if they were allowed to sit in this House. That is a self-serving argument. Allowing politicians from that place into this place certainly has not sounded their death knell, so there is no particular reason why allowing bishops into this place should sound their death knell either.
      In fact, it would suit hon. Members best if we had the smallest possible constituency of people who were allowed to be elected to the House. Ideally, we would restrict entry to those who have already been elected, but we widen it a little. There is always a tendency for us to consider restrictions on those who can be elected not solely in terms of the benefit to democracy, but perhaps at the back of our minds, subconsciously, seeing benefit to ourselves.
      I argue strongly that the amendment is wholly mistaken in its purpose and will not achieve what the hon. Member for Sevenoaks seeks. I hope that it will fall.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) is perfectly capable of defending and promoting the amendment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seriously suggesting that my hon. Friend seeks to restrict the opportunities for people to stand for election to the House of Commons because he is personally fearful of priestly competition.
      Mr. Stunell: I am properly drawn up by the hon. Gentleman—there is a tendency slightly to overstate one's case. I do not envisage that bishops will be clamouring to stand at the forthcoming election for the constituency of Sevenoaks. I may have missed something, but so far as I know, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not have an eye on Sevenoaks, or on Buckingham. I am happy to confirm that no such suggestion was intended. I hope that the House will very quickly dispose of this unnecessary amendment, which NA would have poor outcomes were it to be passed.
      Mr. Hogg: I should like to make a quick contribution to what I hope is the rapid disposal and dispatch of the amendment. I do not agree with it. I have already argued in general terms why I am in favour of freedom. All that I said in the debate on the first group of amendments applies to this group. I believe in choice and freedom; they are traditional Conservative values, and I shall do nothing to depart from them. I approach this group of amendments from that general position.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has adduced four arguments. They are all misplaced. He first talked about a conflict of loyalty between the bishops and their suffragans, or between the bishops and their Churches. That may be so; there may be a conflict of loyalties. Many Members have various conflicts of loyalties, and it is ultimately a matter for the person who puts himself or herself forward for election to resolve. It is a matter for the associations to address and, ultimately, it is for the electorates to decide. It is not for us to be prescriptive. Yes, there may be conflicts of loyalty, but they are no greater and no less than the conflicts of loyalty that already face many Members.

      1105
      The second point was the suggestion that by-elections may be caused by the death or retirement of a Lord Spiritual and his replacement in another place by an elected bishop. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) expressed his views on that point, and I agree with him.
      In any event, what is the problem? As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks—I do not think that he quite followed the point—we have been here many times before. In the past, the eldest sons of peers have triggered by-elections on the death of their fathers. That happened in the case of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and in the case of my right hon. and noble Friend, my father, when he succeeded my grandfather and had to vacate his seat at Oxford. Constituency associations selected the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and my father to stand for Parliament and the electorate voted them in at a general election. It is therefore an issue for the associations and the electorate and not something about which we should be prescriptive.
      The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made a perfectly sound point when he said that, if we were to extend the provision so that the possibility of causing a by-election would lead to someone's disqualification, we would almost, by definition, have to exclude the elderly and the very elderly. I shall not say into which category my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) falls, but I am entitled to say that the House would have been the poorer without his presence. I am very glad that his association and the electorate returned him over many years, and he has now served for 51 years in the House. That same point applied to Sir Winston Churchill. We must not make the possibility of a by-election become a barrier to someone's being adopted or selected as a candidate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said that the proposal might push forward the secret agenda that the Lords Spiritual should no longer sit in the other place. I wish to make a couple of observations about that. If it were left to me, I would not have Lords Spiritual in the other place. I would have an entirely elected second Chamber, and I suspect that we are moving towards one that has a very large elected element. I would be surprised if the Lords Spiritual ultimately retain their seats. As I am pressing for a second Chamber that is either largely or wholly elected, I would support their disappearance. There is nothing personal about it; I believe in a powerful second Chamber and that means an elected one.
      I make it clear to my hon. Friend that there is no secret agenda; it is public and overt. I want an elected Second Chamber. If this provision makes a small contribution to that, it is another reason for opposing my hon. Friend's amendment. I hope that we shall have no more of this nonsense.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have had a good debate on the amendment. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made clear, elections to Parliament have been an issue on many occasions in the past. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to two examples, one of which was obviously close to him because it concerned his father. From time to time, people have been sent from this House
      1106
      to the other place and a by-election has been necessary. We do not take the view that particular restrictions should apply to anyone who might be sent to another place.
      The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made exactly the right point. He said that the amendment makes a meal out of something that is barely worth a bite. I agree with him entirely.
      Amendment No. 4 is contrary to the view taken by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its report, "Electoral Law and Administration". At paragraph 127 of volume 1, it recommended that
      "all restrictions on ministers of religion standing for, and serving as, Members of Parliament be removed; the exception would be in respect of all serving bishops of the Church of England who, for so long as places are reserved for the senior bishops in the House of Lords, should remain ineligible to serve as Members of the Commons."
      The secret agenda that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks fears appears to be the secret agenda of the Conservative party rather than that of the Government. I do not know whether the support of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for the Bill is part of a secret agenda, but the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham got it right. There is no secret agenda: it is overt.
      There are 42 Church of England diocesan bishops, of whom 40 could qualify to sit in the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual. At any one time, only 26 are summoned to be Lords Spiritual and those bishops will be disqualified from House of Commons membership because they already have a voice in the Lords.
      The proposal is broadly in line with the Home Affairs Committee recommendation, but it goes slightly wider. Although we consider it extremely unlikely that bishops—whether or not they are Lords Spiritual—would wish to become MPs while performing the duties of a bishop, it seems right in principle to relate the disqualification to those who actually have a voice in the other place. We therefore consider it right to remove all statutory restrictions, thereby enabling anyone—save for those bishops who are Lords Spiritual—who so wishes to become a Member of Parliament if elected.
      I do not think that a queue of bishops wish to stand for Parliament, so the fears of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks are unfounded. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Fallon: I shall not pretend that the amendment has widespread support across the Chamber and I shall certainly reflect on what has been said. However, the Home Affairs Committee supported it, saying that all serving bishops should be excluded. The Minister described that as going slightly wide of what he intended, but the Home Affairs Committee agreed with me that no serving bishops should be in the House. It is important to put that on record, but in view of the fact that the amendment did not attract quite as much support as I had originally anticipated, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Mr. Fallon: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—
      '(1A) This Act shall come into force on the day after the general election for the Parliament after that in which it is passed, and shall apply only to persons elected to the House of Commons after that date.'.
      I hope that I have better luck with this one, Mr. Lord. The purpose of the amendment is very simple. It is to delay the implementation of the Bill until after the election. Let me immediately put on record that I have nothing against Mr. David Cairns or his ambition to serve as a Member of Parliament. In the fullness of time, I hope to welcome him to the House. If he finds a safer seat than the one for which he has been selected, we will all be ready to welcome him.
      I made the point on Second Reading—and the amendment gives it effect—that introducing the Bill in order to support a candidate discriminates against those who might have put their names forward for selection by either party during the years in which candidates were selected, but did not do so because they knew how the law stood. We would be discriminating against all those people if we changed the law to benefit one individual.
      On a more general point, I do not think that we should change the law governing elections either to suit a particular candidate or in the weeks running up to a general election, or to do so without widespread cross-party support. That is why in the old days, when these things were done properly, we had Speaker's Conferences where such matters could be discussed between the parties and then put on the statute book, so that at the beginning of the next Parliament everyone would be absolutely clear about where they stood.
      Mr. Bercow: I put it to my hon. Friend and to the House that his argument is certainly unsustainable and possibly disingenuous because it would have been perfectly open to other individuals, knowing the law as it stood, to put themselves forward as prospective parliamentary candidates, to be selected as such and then to seek by democratic pressure to change the law. The fact that none of them apparently did so is really not a good reason to fail to do the right thing now.
      Mr. Fallon: We could not know whether other candidates wanted to take advantage of a change in the law. To his credit, from the outset the Minister has been honest about the fact that the Bill has been introduced simply to facilitate the candidature of one individual. I think that it is bad law to legislate simply to assist one person. Perhaps it should have been a personal Act—we do not get many of those.
      Mr. Gummer rose—
      Mr. Fallon: I am being challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I hope that he will not damage my case as much as he did on the previous amendment.
      Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, looking back over history, the law of the House has been
      1108
      changed in response to the situations of individual Members. Bradlaugh changed the law of the House for his own good, in a sense. With the election of Wilkes, the law was changed for one man. The law was changed for Rothschild to allow Jews into the House. It has to be the individual case that concentrates the mind and enables us to take such decisions. My hon. Friend really ought to allow this to be in the great historical tradition of freedom.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Fallon: I am being pressed to give way again.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The measure would come into effect the day after the general election, so deals only with Members being able to take up their seats. It would have no practical effect on an individual case. The law prevents people not from standing, but from taking up their seat. What is the point of the amendment?
      Mr. Fallon: It avoids the situation that the hon. Gentleman outlined on Second Reading—
      It being Five o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [7 November and 6 February].
      Amendment negatived.

      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
      Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Can you explain what just happened? A number of hon. Members shouted "Aye" when you put the Question on amendment No. 11, but we did not have a Division. This is for my guidance only; I would not dream of challenging you.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Lady is, in a polite way, challenging me. I believe that we followed the correct procedure.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      5.1 pm
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      In commending the Bill to the House, I should say that I am grateful for the very constructive way in which it has been considered. I am also grateful for the strong support that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has given the Bill and for other Opposition Members' support for the principles behind it. I also express my gratitude to my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). She has been trying to bring the issue before the House for some time and to convince me that it is right to change the law, and I agree with her.
      We have had a good discussion on some issues. The Bill was introduced because of the particular injustice that might have been done to an individual. However, there have been injustices in the past. Had we allowed this injustice to take place, it would have affected not just the

      1109
      person involved, but a constituency Labour party and a whole constituency. They would not have been given the choice, which they may, or may not, accept.
      The debate has shown that there are still strong feelings on religious issues in this place, and it is right that we discuss them. The main Churches in this country have been consulted. They agree that the restrictions are no longer required—if they ever were—and that they can be removed. The Government share that view. It would be absurd if Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and other religious groups, including most nonconformist denominations, were able to become Members of the House, but that serving and former ministers of religion of some faiths were not allowed to do so. That is a particular hardship for people who are religious but who, as in the case of Mr. David Cairns, no longer wish to practise as a priest. The existing law hits those people hard, for they are not free to exchange one way of being in service to the public for another. It cannot be right that a former priest is denied the right to sit as a Member of Parliament solely on the grounds of his former calling.
      As I said on Second Reading, I do not consider that there is likely to be a long queue of clergy pressing to become Members of Parliament. That will be a matter for Churches and individuals to consider, but I believe that it is for the individuals and for their constituents to consider, not for the House of Commons to dictate to the Churches involved. The Catholic Church does not consider that practising Catholic priests ought to be Members of Parliament, but I think it right that the House sends a message that, if the Catholic Church were to change its mind, no law of the state would prohibit a Catholic priest from sitting as a Member.
      This small, but none the less somewhat controversial Bill—at least with some right hon. and hon. Members—will remove what I regard as an archaic restriction that has been in force for 200 years. A potential injustice will be avoided thereby. The repeal of existing legislation is timely and I hope that the House will give the Bill its wholehearted support.
      5.6 pm
      Mr. Bercow: I rise to speak in support of giving the Bill its Third Reading. Its principles were thoroughly and rigorously debated on Second Reading and it is right and proper that we should have had the opportunity today further to consider the issues involved and proposed amendments in Committee. A Report stage was possible, but in the end—although obviously a matter of nip and tuck—it did not come to that, and we now have the pleasure and responsibility of engaging in what I hope will be a serious and constructive debate on Third Reading.
      Much earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) drew attention to his secular motivation, if I may so describe it. He emphasised that he was not a member of the Church of England, or of any other Church. I think that I do not misrepresent him in saying that he is not a religious person, and it might even be said that he is an irreligious person. Other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have either admitted or openly professed that they have a religious motivation, at least in part; therefore I think it right that I put my own cards on the table.
      1110
      I practise no religion and I have no plans to do so. My late father, bless his cotton socks, was Jewish; my mother converted to Judaism, although I suspect that she would be first to concede that she did so out of convenience, not conviction. I was brought up in a Jewish household—I had a bar mitzvah and so on and so forth—and I have always strongly identified with the Jewish people. I have never apologised for or felt embarrassed about being Jewish—rather, I have been proud of it; and I have an especially strong identification with the state of Israel. However, I am not a religious person. I cannot get hung up about religious considerations.
      None the less, I respect the fact that many people are motivated in their lives by a commitment to religion. I certainly recognise that religion can be a source—perhaps, for some people, the source—of civil obligation and personal morality, but I would argue that religion is by no means the only source of civil obligation or of personal morality. That is the vantage point—that of an irreligious person taking a secular interest in an important subject—from which I approach the Bill.
      In supporting the proposition that the Bill be given its Third Reading, I emphasise that—as today's debates have made clear—I speak on my own account and in no sense on behalf of the Opposition. I repeat what has been said by others, including my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary: it is deplorable that the Government have not allowed Labour Members a free vote on the Bill. It should be a matter of conscience for them, but it is assuredly a matter of conscience for us. Liberal Democrats have contributed to the proceedings of the Bill, and I think that they, too, have a free vote. Unfortunately—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position to the effect that there is only one Liberal Democrat Member in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell).
      Mr. Forth: It is a very free vote.
      Mr. Bercow: Indeed.
      Mr. Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bercow: Yes. The hon. Gentleman is provoked.
      Mr. Stunell: Perhaps not for the first time in the debate, I should remind the hon. Gentleman that size is not important.
      Mr. Bercow: I can rally to that proposition with enthusiasm and alacrity. I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have always and everywhere argued that size is not everything. I go so far as to say that height is not everything either.
      Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important for the Liberal Democrat party to have at least one other Member present so that it may, as usual, vote on both sides of the case?
      Mr. Bercow: That is right. However, with the self-effacement, modesty and characteristic understatement that we all associate with my right hon. Friend, he has not made the case as strongly as he could have done. To suppose that Liberal Democrats tend to divide in only two

      1111
      directions on a piece of legislation is markedly generous to them. Ordinarily, we see a four-way split among Liberal Democrat Members—those in favour of a Bill, those against it, those who abstain and those who do not turn up or were not aware that the debate was taking place.
      Mr. Stunell: This is a great deal more fun than the proceedings in Committee. Those who want to examine objectively the evidence that is being put to the House would want also carefully to examine the Division list for the only Division on the Bill that we have had so far today. The facts will speak for themselves. I do not believe that the Division list will show a united Conservative party on the issues that were facing us.
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) responds, I shall bring him back to Third Reading.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to be brought to heel, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your exhortation is absolute as far as I am concerned.
      I emphasise that we did not regard the Bill as a party matter. There are genuine differences of opinion among Conservative Members. In endorsing the call for a Third Reading, I am speaking for myself and not for the Conservative Opposition.
      There have been some good exchanges on Second Reading and in Committee, and I hope that there will be good exchanges on Third Reading. By way of illustration, I pay tribute to the many Members who have spoken in the debate, generally in a good-natured fashion and representing a variety of different viewpoints. There have not been significant differences of opinion among Labour Members, but those who have spoken in support of the Bill have done so with clarity, with commitment and, in a number of instances, with passion. That is respected. I say that to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who has introduced a ten-minute Bill on this important subject. I refer also to the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan).
      I had originally intended to say that I was totally, utterly and unreconstructedly unrepresentative of my right hon. and hon. Friends. on this subject. I was not planning to say that apologetically, but by way of frankness and candour. As things have transpired and the debate has evolved, it has appeared to me that I am at least marginally less unrepresentative of my right hon. and hon. Friends than I originally supposed and anticipated.
      I am delighted that I am in the company of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). As far as I can tell—it seemed pretty clear from his ferocious eloquence—I am effectively in the lobby of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).
      I thought originally that I would have to say that I was virtually in a minority of one—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is not with us today—but that is not the case. Several Opposition Members see
      1112
      a good and powerful case for the Bill. Nevertheless, there is no denying that there are Conservative Members who think that the Bill should not be given a Third Reading.
      Mr. Forth: I hope that in this part of his analysis, my hon. Friend will make it clear that there are those who support the thrust and principle of the Bill, as I do, but are against its taking effect neatly in time for a general election, to bail out one Labour candidate, and that my hon. Friend will recognise the fact that I, and perhaps others, may have to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, even though we support its principles.
      Mr. Bercow: Not for the first time, and I imagine not for the last, the symbiotic relationship that exists between my right hon. Friend and me has re-asserted itself. His remarks anticipate what I had intended to say. I wanted to draw attention to the different motivations of Conservative Members for refusing to give the Bill a Third Reading.
      Mr. Swayne: I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge the body of opinion on the Conservative Benches that is wholly opposed to the principle of the Bill, but would have gone to some practical length to accommodate the problem in Greenock and Inverclyde.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had been planning to speak in complimentary terms about him—he is one of the great parliamentarians of our time. I mean that. I said it in his constituency, so there is no reason why I should not say it in the House. I do not resile from that tribute, but I am bound to say that my hon. Friend's views on the matter are antediluvian.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Pre-historic.
      Mr. Bercow: Indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) might be described as a parliamentary troglodyte. He is living in the cave-man age. I richly enjoyed his historical exegesis and the development of his argument in opposition to the Bill, but I believe that he is profoundly mistaken. Listening to his speech, I was reinforced in my conviction that my hon. Friend was born in 1956 at the age of 140.
      Mr. Gummer: I am sure that I was not the only Member who was unaware of the precise definition of the word "symbiotic" as my hon. Friend used it about our right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). If he explained it in detail, it would help us a good deal.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may or may not be true. It certainly would not help the deliberations on the Third Reading of the Bill. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Buckingham would return to those directly.
      Mr. Bercow: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would otherwise have been enormously keen to refer to the precise page in the Oxford English dictionary, but on the basis of your guidance, I shall not make the attempt. I am grateful for your restraining influence.
      Of all those who oppose the Bill, the person who has done so with the greatest passion and intellectual consistency is my right hon. Friend the Member for

      1113
      Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary. It is important to emphasise that her view is perfectly legitimate. She is motivated by an intellectual conviction that the Bill is unjustified, and by her sense of the ethical, as well as the practical, incompatibility of serving priests continuing to serve as priests while being practising Members of the House of Commons.
      I happen to believe that my right hon. Friend is mistaken in her conviction, but she adheres to that conviction tenaciously and powerfully, as she adheres to every other conviction that she holds or has held in the past. I do not criticise my right hon. Friend at all. We take different points of view.
      My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West is in a broadly similar category. He is opposed to the Bill in principle. He thinks that it constitutes a form of parliamentary and possibly even religious vandalism, so he cannot bring himself to support it.

      It is only fair to record that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has a different motivation entirely, as he helpfully reminded me. He made it clear in his contribution that he can see a case for the Bill. He thinks that it ought to be stated much more explicitly that the Bill is not just about the protection of one category of religious person, but that it extends much more widely—indeed, universally—to accommodate people of all faiths.
      In that respect, he made what might be called the conservative politically correct case for an all-embracing, deregulatory measure.
      There is nothing remotely surprising or unusual about that. In a sense, my right hon. Friend argued for the equivalent of what Dr. Erhard argued for in the immediate aftermath of the second world war regarding a bonfire of economic controls. In the light of his zealous commitment to deregulation, allowing the market to make decisions and leaving matters to the populace to judge for themselves, it was to be expected that he would not get hung up on a point of ecclesiastical doctrine or liturgy. Sure enough, he has done nothing of the sort, but he is motivated by one other factor: he believes that the Bill is cynically motivated, that it should not be introduced now and that it is unacceptable that, unless any last-minute developments occur, it will benefit only one individual, who has put himself forward as a prospective parliamentary candidate at the forthcoming election.
      I want to deal briefly with those points, but before I develop my argument, I remind the House of what the Under-Secretary said at the commencement of Second Reading. He pointed out that two principal measures confirm in statute the discrimination to which there is now such widespread objection: the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801 and the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. On Second Reading, there was some debate and dispute about whether one might be obliged to refer to as many as seven or eight items of legislation to say whether a minister of religion could be elected as a Member of Parliament and then take his seat. The hon. Gentleman said that he would not dilate on all those measures because he had been advised by Government lawyers that the two Acts did the trick on their own. However, there is widespread objection to that legislation and clear, strong and spontaneous support from
      1114
      the different Churches in this country for the relatively modest reform that the Government now wish to take through the House.
      I think that the Government are justified in seeking to introduce the Bill, but a recurrent question in all the debates on it is why they did not do what they are now proposing some time earlier. The argument that they should have done so is not entirely without merit. Many references have been made to the Home Affairs Committee report produced in the 1997–98 Session, which, as the Under-Secretary reminded the House, called for the removal of these antiquated restrictions on the entitlement to sit in the House of Commons.
      We can argue the toss about how many opportunities the Government have had in this Parliament to introduce in legislation that has since been enacted the change proposed in the Bill. On my reckoning—I feel sure that I will have the eager and earnest attention of the Under-Secretary as I make this point—there were at least three opportunities earlier in this Parliament to introduce the measure that they now commend to the House, even though they were not very much earlier. The first opportunity—I think that I have got the right chronological order, although I cannot be certain—was the Representation of the People Act 2000. The Government could have constructed or amended that measure in Committee or on Report to make the changes that they now commend.
      Siobhain McDonagh: On a point of information, I asked the Chairman of Ways and Means whether I could table such an amendment to either the Representation of the People Act 2000 or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Both times, I was told that such a proposal was outside the scope of the legislation.
      Mr. Bercow: That is very interesting, though I am bound to tell the hon. Lady and the House that I in no sense retire hurt on the point. What she has said is not necessarily conclusive, not because there is a qualitative distinction or a distinction of status between her and a Front-Bench Member, but because the terms, purpose and architecture of a Bill are, in the first instance, matters of Government intention and Government inspiration. Therefore, although it may have been impossible for her to table an amendment of the kind reflected in this Bill, I am not at all persuaded that it would have been impossible for the Government so to have crafted the Representation of the People Act 2000 to admit of the change that they now commend. She may not be convinced, but that seems to me to be perfectly credible.
      The hon. Lady referred also to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The same argument applies. Similarly, we undertook a lengthy, albeit hurried debate—the two are not incompatible—over a day and a half when we considered the Disqualifications Act 2000. It suited the Government to make a particular and narrow change, which was of interest to Members of the Dail, and they took that opportunity very much at the behest of Sinn Fein. The Minister would be hard pressed to prove that it was legislatively impossible to introduce a measure of the type that forms the basis of this Bill. Perhaps he is about to enlighten us.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Certain things are possible, but they may not be desirable, and there were two good reasons why

      1115
      such a measure may not have been desirable. First, accepting an amendment would have significantly widened the ambit of that legislation to include matters of this sort. A large number of other issues would have been introduced and there would have been potential to make further amendments to the measures, both of which were broad enough.
      Secondly and much more importantly, we wanted fully to consult with the Churches, which took time to draw up their responses. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the previous cardinal regrettably died and a period elapsed before a new cardinal was appointed. We were concerned to ensure that the consultation was carried out properly and that we gave all the various Churches the time and opportunity to reach a view on the matter. They have done so, and we are grateful to them for that. Had we rushed into introducing an amendment to the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, we would not have allowed the time for consultation that the matter required.
      Mr. Bercow: I always stand to be corrected or persuaded, but I am afraid that the Minister has not succeeded. It was a nice try. He advanced a poor argument as forcefully as he felt able to do in the circumstances, but it was not remotely persuasive. He should not be unduly troubled by what I am saying, however, because the Home Affairs Committee report was published in the 1997–98 Session and the three Bills to which I have referred were considered in the 1999–2000 Session.
      Ministers have an extraordinary attitude to time. When it suits them, they hurry matters through at a ferocious rate of knots, admitting of minimal time for debate or objection. However, when they want to doff their hat to leisurely consideration and full consultation so that all points of view may be aired over an extended period, that is the course that they invariably take. Whatever justification the Minister might advance, it is not credible to argue that the consultation needed to take two years.
      My view—shared by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends—is that the Government could have made the change earlier. However—this is where I suspect the Minister and I agree—the fact that we could have done the right thing earlier, but did not do so, does not obviate the need to do the right thing now, when we have a further opportunity. That is, if I may say so, the lacuna in the arguments of a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. They say "They could have done it before and did not bother to do so; why should we indulge them now?" I do not consider that to be a credible and sustainable position.
      If we are fair—it irks me to be fair to this ghastly, crass, burdensome, irritating, smug and patronising new Labour Government—we must accept the reality that all Administrations have legislative priorities, and judgments to make about them. They are able to introduce some Bills in a Session, but not others. It is not possible for them to introduce every measure that is desirable, and that they would like to introduce, in a given Session. The fact that a Select Committee report has called for a measure does not mean that that measure will immediately be presented, and it is the height of absurdity to suppose otherwise.
      Mr. Forth rose—
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is clearly becoming upset, so I shall give way to him.
      Mr. Forth: I simply wanted to remind my hon. Friend that the Government found legislative time for—indeed, gave legislative priority to—Bills as important as the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, which concerned people selling hamburgers, and the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, which sought to make illegal the living of a limited but important number of people.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are discussing this Bill, not previous Bills dealing with entirely different matters.
      Mr. Bercow: You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am exceptionally grateful to you for your reminder, and for the guidance that it contained. My point, however—in support of giving this Bill a Third Reading—was that the fact that the right thing had not been done in the past did not prevent us from doing the right thing now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested that there was an alternative point of view. There is an alternative point of view; it just has the demerit of being mistaken.
      I believe that when we have an opportunity to do the right thing, we should do it. The Government have introduced a number of foolish measures that they should not have introduced, and for which it would have been much better not to find time, but that is a reflection of the legislative priorities of the Administration by whom we are currently and, I hope, only temporarily belaboured. I still say that if we can pass this Bill now, we should do so.
      Let me now deal with another argument advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends who oppose Third Reading. It is a slightly different argument, or at least a variant on the theme of "They could have done it before but they did not, so they should not be allowed to do it now". My right hon. and hon. Friends argue that this ghastly, risible—gosh, I had better not be too rude—Government were motivated by consideration of the interests of just one individual, and that it is not right for a measure of this kind to be taken through Parliament simply to facilitate the ambition of that one individual.
      It is as though the argument for the Bill were in some way sullied by the fact that there is, at least in the immediate term, only one possible beneficiary. I am sorry to have to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and to my right hon. and hon. Friends who agree with him, that I do not think that that is right either, ethically or in terms of historical precedent.
      In regard to ethics my feeling is that if the argument for reform is compelling, the fact that only one person will benefit is not a good reason for not passing legislation. I was not persuaded by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who said that it was all frightfully unfair on people who could otherwise have been perspective parliamentary candidates at an earlier stage in the Parliament but declined to do so, because they knew that under existing law they could not take their seats.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Bercow: I shall in a moment.

      1117
      As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks and to the House, it would have been perfectly open, at an earlier stage, for other individuals who aspired to sit in the House of Commons to get themselves selected as prospective parliamentary candidates and then to seek to change the law so that they could take their seats if they were elected. The fact that they chose not to do so is a matter for them. However, I do not think that that should prevent us from doing the right thing for the individual concerned in the present case. Before I develop the argument further, I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke).
      Mr. Clarke: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is speaking with his customary eloquence. On this occasion, he is also speaking with much more logic than he may have used in some previous debates. I think that he is making an excellent point. I am puzzled by the argument that setting right an injustice on the basis of an individual case is not the right approach. Many precedents fly in the face of that argument. The hon. Gentleman will recall the case of the then Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn and the consequent legislation—which, remarkably, led to the election of one Alec Douglas-Home as leader of the Conservative party and as Prime Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that, if a turbulent priest should come to lead the Conservative party, the day may come when Conservative Members even bless this day?
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The only down-side of my giving way to him is that he has thoroughly stolen my thunder—I was going to make precisely that point. Implicit in the arguments of some of the Bill's critics is that we are behaving in an unprecedented manner. That is not true. History is littered with examples of measures taken by the House because of the pressure and immediacy of a given case. There is nothing remotely ignoble about that. It does not discredit the argument for a measure; nor is it an argument in favour of postponing or delaying that measure.
      One could say, "There is an ethical argument and an intellectual case for the Bill. We will not do anything about it now because there is no particularly pressing case that requires its passage and there are other matters in the Government timetable. However, we will in due course consider when we can accommodate it within our legislative programme. When a particular case comes along that gives it an added piquancy, the Government of the day will introduce it." That seems to be perfectly reasonable.
      The historical recollection of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston is, as far as I am aware, absolutely correct. The legislation that he mentioned is the Peerage Act 1963. It did indeed facilitate the re-entry into this place of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It is also true that when Lord Home of The Hirsel became leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister in—if memory serves me correctly—October 1963, he had to come into the House of Commons and was a beneficiary of that legislation.
      As the right hon. Gentleman will know, those are not the only historical precedents that can be adduced in support of the Government's proposals. There are other cases. Although it may not be entirely convenient to refer to them, it is justified to do so. For example, in arguing the case for the Bill's passage, I have in mind the
      1118
      Defamation Act 1996. The previous Government passed that legislation without, I think, opposition, and possibly with assistance from the then Labour Opposition, on the grounds—I am trying very much to relate the matter directly to Third Reading of this Bill—that the then hon. Member for Tatton would thereby be able to use extracts from parliamentary debates in pursuing his legal actions. It seemed extraordinary that, by an historical anomaly, he had been unable to do that. Passage of the 1996 Act enabled Mr. Neil Hamilton to use parliamentary proceedings and the parliamentary record to make his case. So there is also that example.
      There is also a more recent example. Admittedly, it does not concern the passage of a piece of legislation, but it does concern a judgment made by the House of Commons. There is a particular appropriateness about the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the Third Reading of the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill. I ask him to confine his remarks to that.
      Mr. Bercow: Of course. I am arguing that one reason why this Bill should be given a Third Reading—I know that this is what you were jogging me along to reach, Madam Deputy Speaker—is that it will enable a prospective parliamentary candidate fully to exercise his democratic rights. The Bill is principally for that purpose.
      The only other measure that I had in mind was one of the Government's, which was intended to protect the rights of Members of Parliament. That was taken with the support of Government Front Benchers to enable the legal costs of a Member of Parliament sued by one or more of his constituents to be defrayed. That decision was taken in order to assist in the particular case of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid?Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), but it could of course apply much more widely. I do not remember Members objecting—not in large numbers or vocally—that we would not be justified in passing such a measure simply because it helped only one person. It could help more.
      Mr. Swayne: The measures to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention were mainly cost-free, in that enacting them achieved the aim intended but with no unforeseen consequence. We are being asked to enact a Bill to provide relief for someone who is no longer a clergyman. The problem is that the consequence will be that any number of clergymen will be able to populate these Benches.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is engaging in a certain amount of crystal-ball gazing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal suggested, it is very unlikely that any significant numbers of religious individuals—men or women of the cloth—would seek to enter this House. However, we have a duty—in this respect, my hon. Friend has a point—to anticipate that outcome. It could happen. Several people who are priests or former priests could stand for Parliament. That is obviously anathema to my hon. Friend; it is not anathema to me.
      Mr. Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman express an opinion on whether the House would be better or worse if it were stuffed full of priests or stuffed full of lawyers?
      Mr. Bercow: That challenge is pretty unfair because, as the hon. Gentleman might know—if he does not, he is

      1119
      about to discover—I regularly make the point that I am not a lawyer and that I say that as a matter of pride. There are many lawyers in this place, and that gravely incommodes me. I am very unhappy about it; I find them irritating individuals. If one gathers together three lawyers, one invariably encounters no fewer than five opinions. I do not know that we are especially well served by a large complement of lawyers, but I share some of the anxieties of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal about members of the Church of England and, indeed, of a number of Churches in this country. It is not always readily apparent that they are as preoccupied with preaching the religious message that it is their duty to preach as with the pursuit of secular matters that should properly be considered and considered by them outwith their remit.
      I am not enthusiastic about having a great many churchmen or churchwomen in this place. Moreover, I even go so far as to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald that, simply in terms of practicalities, it is difficult to see how a practising minister of religion can also find time to be an assiduous and effective Member of Parliament. That leads me to the final and most compelling argument in support of the Bill: public opinion. Just before I dilate on that point, I shall give way.
      Ms Ryan: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has been a sterling ally in trying to see the Bill through, but he has been speaking for some 38 minutes. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have played a part in the Bill's proceedings would like to contribute to the debate. When will the hon. Gentleman allow them the opportunity to do so?
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I shall very shortly bring my remarks to a conclusion. I think that I have a good excuse for not knowing that all that many people on the Government Benches want to speak. On Second Reading, the House was not exactly replete with Labour Members wishing to contribute. However, the hon. Member for Enfield, North has played an important part in the Bill's proceedings, and of course she should have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, if she is able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      I conclude with the point about democracy, which, ultimately, is the kernel of the argument for the passage of the Bill through this House today. There are those who say "once a priest, always a priest"; they believe that the priestly vocation is incompatible with secular public service and, in particular, with the performance of parliamentary duties. I was about to say that I do not think that that is true. However, I am not sure that I know whether I think that that is true. As I said at the outset, I am not religiously motivated in these matters. I would not presume to compete with the religious commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald or with the extent of her knowledge of religion. I do not know whether they are compatible, but whatever my right hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill think about the compatibility or otherwise of a religious ministry with a parliamentary career, they should not seek to foist those
      1120
      views on the country as a whole via the passage of a statute. That is the point. It is a matter of what the public want.
      If a churchman stands for Parliament, makes it clear that he intends still to practise his ministry and to combine it with parliamentary service, the voters can decide. If the voters think that the two vocations are incompatible on ethical or practical grounds, they have a very simple recourse—not to vote for, and perhaps even to vote against, such a candidate. The matter should be determined by public opinion.
      The existing statutes of 1801 and 1829 are archaic, antediluvian and indefensible. It is time that they went. The Bill might be a relatively modest measure. Perhaps a more far-reaching Bill could, and should, be introduced at a later stage. However, even those Members who are not convinced that what is being offered is the full cake and who suspect that it might be only half a cake will, I hope, if they are hungry for change, prefer to eat a slice than to be deprived of any nutritional sustenance at all.
      This is essentially a good Bill. It deserves to be passed, and the fact that it was not introduced before does not mean that today we should not take the opportunity to wish it godspeed and give it a Third Reading. That is what I want to do; it is what I intend to do when the House is divided, as it will be, and I hope that I will be joined by a number of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House.
      5.48 pm
      Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief. I will certainly not take as long as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), although his was a powerful and eloquent speech. I think, if I heard him aright, that he said that when we have the opportunity to do the right thing, we should take it. I agree.
      The hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill's objective is to remove antiquated restrictions. In the eyes of many of my constituents, the Bill is concerned with the task that the House has undertaken for many years of dismantling the wall of discrimination against Catholics and many others.
      Let me give an example. We have come a long way since a Conservative Member of Parliament, one Howard Vincent, representing Sheffield, Central, said in 1904:
      "While over 260,000 people emigrated from the United Kingdom last year, their places were taken by no less than 82,000 of the scum of Europe."
      He was referring, in that dreadful speech, mainly to Jews. However, my Scottish colleagues could tell the House of the discrimination suffered by many Catholics who emigrated to Scotland from Ireland, including my wife's grandparents. In the early 1920s, her grandfather was one of many Catholics in Govan who had to stand watch over the building of a church which, once the contract workers left, was progressively demolished by people deeply hostile to Catholics in that area.
      The shadow Home Secretary speaks with great fervour and conviction. I am one who left her Church many years ago—long before she entered it, although there is no connection between the two facts—and I suspect that she deeply regrets the lack of compatibility between her Church's canon law and the civil legislation of the United Kingdom. The Catholic Church, while upholding

      1121
      canon law, nevertheless wants an end to institutionalised discrimination against its members. Last year Ms Gay Catto of the Home Office constitutional and community policy directorate received a letter from the Right Rev. Monsignor Arthur Roche, saying:
      "it would appear that there is no reason for the Catholic Church to oppose such a change in legislation, although it is necessary to point out that priests exercising their ministry and in good standing with the Church would come under the prohibition of Canon 285#3. It is also noted that this would remove what might seem to be discriminatory legislation from the Statute Book."
      Cardinal Thomas Winning said something similar in his letter to an official at the Home Office as part of the consultation process.
      I shall not mention local matters, as this is not a pre-election speech. My seat, however, is one of the safest in Scotland, and is a lot safer than it was when I took it on a few years ago.
      Institutional discrimination is being dismantled in the United Kingdom. We can see that at its clearest in Northern Ireland. I know many Catholics there, and I am chairman of my party's Northern Ireland committee. I have spoken to many members of the nationalist community who say that they have seen dramatic change in recent years in what the House of Commons has done about the discrimination that they had suffered for generations. Moderate Unionists would say the same.
      We are dealing with a form of discrimination. I may be charged with being a Leninist in this matter, but I believe that the ends justify the means. We should put aside the points about an individual candidate and continue to dismantle all forms of discrimination. If we want to live in a tolerant society that honours, protects and promotes the needs and concerns of its minorities, we must persist with legislation such as this so that all groups—recent incomers to the United Kingdom, or whoever—can say, "Yes, this is a tolerant society, and I am proud to live in such a nation."
      5.55 pm
      Mr. Gummer: This is an important Bill, and I am pleased that we are to pass it, because it is clear from the debates that we have had so far that is the will of the House of Commons. The Bill is important because it rids the statute book of an attitude to a section of the community—an attitude that was steeped in prejudice and discrimination. We have to remember why the disqualification exists. At the time of Catholic emancipation, the House of Commons could not rid itself of the fear of Catholic priests. It could just about imagine that Catholics should not be locked up, but it could not quite bring itself to think that Catholic priests could be treated like other human beings. So, in order to satisfy the most revanchist views, it excluded Catholic priests from public life. That was the effect and the intention. To reverse that position by passing the Bill must be a valuable step. For that reason alone, we should support its Third Reading.
      It is not rational to argue that it is improper to give the Bill a Third Reading simply because it applies to the case of a Labour candidate in Scotland. It has always been true that individual cases make law. That is how law is often made. If one presents to the House of Commons a possibility or a for instance, the House often says, "Well, it may not arise. We have lots of other things to do. Why should we apply ourselves to that?"
      1122
      It is only when a Bradlaugh comes and says, "I cannot take the oath in good conscience," that the House of Commons has to decide what to do about people who cannot take the oath in good conscience. It is only when someone such as Wilkes says, "You may not like me, but I have been elected," that change is made. Three times he had to say that before the House of Commons was prepared to let him in. It is only when a Lord Stansgate says, "I do not want to be Lord Stansgate any longer. I insist that my electorate has elected me," that we change the law. It is only when an individual says, "I am the case that proves that the change is necessary," that we can no longer say that the problem is merely hypothetical, and the House does its proper job and gets rid of legislation that is no longer appropriate.
      Mr. Fallon: My right hon. Friend has made again the point that he made earlier today, and very eloquent it is. However, in each of the three cases that he has put before the House, the process took some considerable time. The arguments made on behalf of the individual were rightly tested either in the courts or through successive attempts to change the law. We are being asked to consider making a one-off change very quickly just before a general election.
      Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend's case would be weightier if during the debate anyone had made an argument that even began to stand in real opposition to the central purpose of the Bill. [Interruption.] I will come to my hon. Friend's arguments in a moment. Even my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) began his argument by saying that he was in favour of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) is not against the Bill; he simply raises questions about the speed of the measure, and says that we do not have enough time to think about it.
      We have had enough time to think about the measure—
      Mr. Fallon: No, we have not.
      Mr. Gummer: We have had nearly 200 years to wonder whether the proposal is sensible.
      I am a Conservative; I am a believer that what has been is not necessarily bad, and that that which has stood the test of time may well be taken into account. I certainly believe that what is new is not always good, but 200 years—or at least that part of the last 200 years during which I have been able to think—have given me enough time to realise that there is no basis for such arguments.
      This Third Reading reminds us of the central issue: Parliament cannot properly enter into discussions about the validity of holy orders. I am very committed to the importance of the validity of orders—indeed, like at least one other Member of the House, I have proved my commitment; it is the reason why I ceased to be an Anglican and became a Catholic. I did so because of the nature of authority and its effect on the orders of the Church, so I think that I have a right to speak on that issue.
      The validity of orders is a matter of faith; it is not a matter of secular jurisdiction. The idea that that matter of faith should inform the discussion as to which persons should be allowed to stand for and sit in Parliament seems odd.

      1123
      It would be much better for us to recognise, first, that the matter is one of enormous importance—more so than almost all the things that we discuss in this largely secular assembly. Secondly, however, the fact that it is important does not mean that it is relevant to the discussion about who should stand for Parliament. Its importance is eternal, but its relevance is minimal to that issue. That is why we should give the Bill its Third Reading.
      My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) expostulated when I suggested that no reasonable case had been made against the Bill. I do not want to do him a disservice. I should certainly not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who sits on the Front Bench and who referred in uncharacteristically uncomplimentary terms to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West. I do not call my hon. Friend antediluvian, although I think that many of his views are not up to date. For example, his views on Europe are very, very out of date. However, that is proper for him; he can carry on as he is and let the world go by. That is up to him. He can be a Member of the House and make those points.
      Let us imagine, however, that at some distant point my hon. Friend is ordained as a clergyman of the Church of England—not in Wales, but just over the border in the diocese of Hereford. After serving for a year or two, he decides that he has mistaken his vocation. At that point, he could become anything from a brain surgeon—if qualified—to a lorry driver or a taxi driver. He could represent the Rotarians at an international conference. There is no vocation that he could not follow—except that of Member of Parliament. The argument for that is difficult to uphold. Why could he do anything but be a Member of the House of Commons, even though he might have managed to persuade a large number of people to choose him as their candidate and to vote for him? That is manifestly barmy, and I cannot understand the logic of it, which is why I do not believe that a strong case has been put for retaining the current law.
      A better case relates to clergymen of the Church of England on historic grounds. Once upon a time, Church of England clergymen owed their living to the state. The issue was tied up with ensuring that the House of Commons was not stuffed with placemen. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to say that that original prohibition was not discriminatory; it was a proper reflection of the need to keep the House independent. So in deciding whether to agree to Third Reading, we must ask ourselves whether that situation now obtains. The answer is no; it is no longer true that a member of the clergy of the Church of England has so close a relationship to the state, through payment, that he would be unable to act independently in the House.
      The office of profit—in so far as a clergyman's salary today can be referred to in those terms—is no longer under the Crown in the direct sense that it once was. Perhaps, in an indirect sense, the livings in the hands of the Crown as patron are of that kind, but they are disgorged, shared or whatever in a wholly different way than they were in the past. It would be extremely difficult to show that a Church of England clergyman was a placeman in that sense, and thus should be denied entry
      1124
      to the House. The argument relating to Church of England clergymen is stronger; none the less it can no longer be upheld.
      It is also true that it is more proper for the House to deal with Church of England clergymen than with those of any other Church, for that is the established Church, and its establishment means that we in the House can properly deal with such matters. I do not suggest that that that is universally accepted, but given the constitution of the House, we can properly deal with the Church of England in a way that is different from our dealings with any other denomination. In our role as guardians of the wider public interest as affected by the established Church, we must ask ourselves whether it is proper for us to exclude its ministers from standing for election and sitting in Parliament. The answer is that no basis for such an exclusion exists.
      The Bill's Third Reading cannot be held up on the grounds that we think that the wider interests of Her Majesty's subjects might be affected if clergymen were allowed to stand for election and to sit in the House. I can think of no way in which that would happen. Although you have not had the luck to be present throughout the preceding debates, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can say that I heard no argument to suggest, in that narrow sense, that in our role of defending the general public from the activities of the established Church, we should make an exception for its ministers. That brings me to the rights of others.
      We have laughed about the curious anomalies that might be introduced if we were to make a distinction between the episcopally ordained and the non-episcopally ordained. I take the nature of episcopal ordination very seriously. Indeed, at the heart of my disagreement with the Church of England was my belief that it had forfeited its ability to talk about its episcopal ordination as it once could. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, I think that an important matter. I speak from an entirely religious point of view, but the suggestion that being able to dispense the sacrament validly should exclude someone from becoming a Member of the House of Commons seems very odd, especially as that exclusion does not apply to Baptist ministers, or to those who do not believe in the priesthood or in the sacraments in the same sense as Catholics do.
      We are a curiously heterogenous House, but our ability to prognosticate on the detailed matters of theology and canon law has not hitherto struck me as being very obvious. I have listened carefully to the debates and I have heard people use words that suggest that their familiarity with the precise details of Thomist philosophy is at least distant. Therefore, if I were looking for a body to prognosticate on the nature of valid ordination, it would not be the House of Commons. I would go somewhere else, and that somewhere else would be the Church concerned.
      The Holy Catholic Church has made its decision and it says that its priests cannot stand for Parliament. That is perfectly right and I agree with it. However, it is right that it, and not the House, should say that. It is right that I should support the decision in my capacity as a faithful Catholic, but not in my capacity as a Member of Parliament. That is the proper distinction for me to draw.
      I shall say something that will upset a number of my colleagues, but I wish to say it none the less. We would be placed in a very difficult position vis-à-vis the

      1125
      European human rights legislation if we were not to give the Bill a Third Reading. [Interruption.] Before my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham says anything, I remind him why the European convention on human rights was introduced. It was established by many countries, including the United Kingdom, to defend many minorities in the rest of Europe, particularly those behind the iron curtain and those who needed protection from persecution. Many of them were Jewish do not like the way in which some people take lightly a convention that was entered into in all good faith by this country to ensure that people were protected.
      Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
      Mr. Gummer: I shall return to my right hon. Friend in a moment.
      I wish to make another point that is pertinent to the Bill. We British are inclined to believe that the only people who discriminate are people abroad, and that we are always perfect. In fact, we have a long history of pretty bad discrimination. I do not wish to associate myself with a whole range of things that we, like so many others, have done in all sorts of places. We happen to have done some pretty good things as well. The rule of law has been much enhanced by the fact that Britain took it to many parts of the world. There is no doubt about that, and I am not for a moment underestimating the huge contribution that we have made.
      However, this Bill is in some part an acknowledgement that we have discriminated in many areas. Northern Ireland provides an example that we live to regret. Let us not easily believe that this is an unimportant issue. We should place ourselves in the proper ambit of the standards to which we should all adhere. In a sense, being willing to adhere to those standards through the Bill will allow us to have the right to say to other people, "You, too, should adhere to those standards."
      We should abhor discrimination. The fact that the issue is properly covered by the European convention on human rights, which is referred to in the Bill, is a matter that we should be pleased about. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham might support that view when I remind him that it has nothing to do with that institution with which he is not altogether happy—the European Union.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is not as alone among his right hon. and hon. Friends as their comments about the European convention might have suggested. When the Human Rights Bill was considered on Third Reading, the Conservative Front Bench spokesman wished the Bill well and there was certainly no Division. In fact, the Bill received broad support from all parties.
      Mr. Gummer: I agree with the Minister. I wish to conclude my speech. but I have an awful feeling that I promised to give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and I would not want to miss what he has to say.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I simply wanted to suggest that in exactly the same way as the Bill seeks to put right something that happened a long
      1126
      time ago, the European convention was a creature of circumstances 50 years ago, and the world has moved on. The fact that its provenance was European is irrelevant for these purposes, but we now live in a different world, and constantly to be told that we have to give obeisance to a 50-year-old convention that was created in very different circumstances is about as relevant as this Bill is to the Act that it seeks to repeal.
      Mr. Gummer: If we are behaving properly as regards these matters, we need not worry about the European convention. If we are not, it is pretty disgraceful. So I do not consider that to be a sensible argument. In large measure it is otiose, and bringing it into our law was not a high priority for me because I do not think it matters very much, and because certain peculiarities of the common law make it quite difficult to deal with. However, it is a pity to object to the European convention on human rights in a rather offhand way when we are debating the removal of discrimination, which is the proper thing to do and something of which I approve.
      Mr. Bercow: Of course I am aware that the European convention on human rights is not related to the European Union, but can I put it to my right hon. Friend that many Conservative Members—I suspect a very large number—opposed the Human Rights Bill on Second Reading, and that many Conservatives are motivated by belief in the Burkean doctrine of rights. which is not a doctrine of natural rights, rather than by the highfalutin declarations of abstract principle that tend to be reflected in the European convention?
      Mr. Gummer: I shall not be led away from the Bill that we are discussing, which reflects a view of human rights that seems perfectly compatible with Conservative beliefs. I say that as someone who has a difficulty with the word "rights" in any case. I happen to believe that we do not have rights, but obligations. I do not believe that created human beings can have rights, but that we owe our creation to the Almighty and therefore owe obligations to him and to our fellow creatures. Our rights inhere in other people's obligations rather than in anything that is selfishly held to ourselves. That happens to be my view. I think that Thomas Paine did a great deal of damage, and that we would have done much better to follow a much older tradition in terms of rights and obligations.
      I am not sure that that gets us anywhere when we come to discuss the European convention on human rights. I am pleased that the House will be passing a small Bill with a small effect; but it is a proper effect and it removes yet again another piece of discrimination against the Catholic Church.
      On Third Reading we have to confine ourselves to what is in the Bill, but let me say to the Minister that this Bill reminds me of one of those new office buildings in which the largest part of the space is made up of an atrium, otherwise known as an empty hole. I feel that we ought to have had a better Bill. It ought to have got rid of all those things that suggest that being a Catholic makes one a second-class citizen. I do not understand why that opportunity was not taken, and I wish it had been. I shall vote for the Bill, but my vote is cast on the basis that the Government know that the next Conservative Government will do what this Government should have done.
      6.20 pm
      Siobhain McDonagh: Almost four years after getting elected, I still cannot attempt to be as eloquent as other hon. Members have been on this issue and I have not learned the ways of the House enough to want to repeat what other people have said.
      For my part, supporting the Bill is about saying that we should not discriminate against people of any religion or no religion. A Methodist minister, an imam, a Catholic priest and a Greek Orthodox Church priest should have an equal right to stand for Parliament, to be selected, to get elected—if the voters so wish—and to take up a seat in the House. As a Back Bencher, it has been an amazing voyage to see a tiny issue, which affects few people, create such interest and concern and generate understanding in hon. Members. That process has strengthened the House. It has shown that we do not only debate huge issues that involve millions of people, because this matter involves the rights of the individual.
      I thank Professor Robert Blackburn of King's college for his help. He was mentioned several times on Second Reading. Without him, I would have had no knowledge that such discrimination existed. I believe that he has also been a great help to the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Minister in particular, whom 1 also want to thank. My small insight into how much it takes to get a Bill this far makes me even more amazed at the amount of work that Ministers and shadow Ministers do. The forces of conservatism are strong and it is very difficult to achieve change. The proposal that we are debating today is right because it is wrong to discriminate. The proposal is right not because a Labour candidate will be discriminated against if the law is not changed, but because it is right in itself.
      My interest began because a constituent would not have been allowed to take up his seat were he elected. However, it has become a wider issue because people of my faith and others are discriminated against, which is wrong in the 21st century. We should change the law as quickly as possible. I am sorry that that did not happen two years or 18 months ago, but it was not for the want of trying. Many issues affect the Government, and I am glad that this small issue has reached the top of their list. The change will benefit not only David Cairns but everyone else who wants to stand for election and is disbarred because he previously decided to become a member of the clergy of an episcopally ordained faith.
      We should pass the Bill because it is right. It is to the benefit of the House that we care about such matters.
      6.23 pm
      Mr. Stunell: I thank my hon. Friends who were gracious enough to allow me to speak on their behalf in the debate. It has been a fascinating occasion.
      I am pleased that the Bill will become law. We should be ashamed that residual acts of religious discrimination are still on the statute book. The fact that one case prompted the change is not a good reason to back away from ending discrimination. Much has been said about discrimination against Catholics, and I certainly oppose legislation that has that effect. I am a Baptist and legislation that applied to Catholics applied to Baptists with equal force. From the different end of the religious spectrum, I feel as strongly as others about the need to withdraw such acts of discrimination. When the Bill is
      1128
      passed, all ministers of religion, whatever their religion, their faith and then standing in their Churches, will be eligible—if their electors grant them success in an election—to represent people in the House of Commons. That is right.
      There is no reason to discriminate against people simply because their Church or their employer has a different set of rules. Those engaged in some types of employment are prevented from engaging in political activity—indeed, I spent some years working in that type of employment. I accepted the restrictions of my employment, but I was not prevented by law from doing that which I eventually did, which is change my employment and take up political activity.
      We appear to have misunderstood one of the consequences of the existing law: that the law as it stands, unreformed, tends to keep out of the House of Commons those who accept the values of society which we all profess to espouse profoundly, and let in those who do not necessarily share those values. On the pragmatic and rational grounds of trying to get into the House of Commons more people who espouse the values that we all say we share, we should be prepared to pass the Bill.
      Widely diverse views have been expressed in our debates—I call the phenomenon the Buckingham consensus. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made a powerful speech—considerably longer than my own will be—in which he drew attention to the existence of many different views. He attributed four different views to members of my own party, but, on reflection, he might repent of that, especially as he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed five different views during the debate.
      Mr. Bercow: That is diversity.
      Mr. Gummer: We are on a free vote.
      Mr. Stunell: True, so let us examine that diversity. If I understood his remarks correctly, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is in favour of the principle but against the specifics of giving relief in the individual case, whereas the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is in favour of finding a way of allowing the gentleman in Scotland to stand, but opposed to the principle. The hon. Member for Buckingham is in favour both of the principle and of the mechanism and therefore supports the Bill, whereas the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) opposes the Bill lock, stock and barrel.
      Finally, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is not merely in favour of the Bill, but wants to go further and eliminate all discrimination against religious groups. I make that five categories of opinion within the Conservative party, whose members have a free vote tonight. Perhaps the Buckingham consensus will hold—we shall see. However, I can assure the hon. Member for Buckingham that, in a free vote, we Liberal Democrats will all be in the same Lobby as him.
      Mr. Bercow: Who is the "we"?
      Mr. Stunell: As is so often the case, I am surrounded by a heavenly host of my colleagues.

      1129
      Having spoken about the Conservatives, I turn to the Government. I think that they would admit—privately, in the Tea Room, after the vote is over—to a little embarrassment about the way in which the Bill has been introduced. Whatever the Minister says—he has tried to frame it in the best possible light—the truth is that the issue was clearly on the agenda three years ago and there were plenty of opportunities for progress to be made far more briskly than it has. Indeed, if we look for historical precedents, we see that it was on the agenda far more than three years ago.
      Instead, the Government jerked into action only when they realised that it was in their best interests to do so. That is not the right foundation for reform. I made that point on Second Reading and I repeat it again today. It is the test of a reformer that he reforms when it is not wholly in his own interest, not that he reforms only when it is solely in his own interest. When I see what opportunities there have been to introduce alternative legislation to fill the slot, it is clear that the Bill is opportunistic in its timing, if nothing else.
      One argument against the Bill is that we should not proceed on the basis of particular cases. I do not believe that that is the right approach, and several Members have sought to refute it. I shall briefly add some further refutations.
      The legislation that caused all the problems was The House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801. It was put on the statute book following the election of the Rev. Horne Tooke to Old Sarum. I like the name Horne Tooke and I feel the need to wind it into my speech.
      The House was scandalised by the election of the Rev. Horne Tooke. He was such a radical voice that the House wanted to find a way of excluding him from this place. Legislation was brought forward, which we are now seeking to repeal. It was designed specifically to exclude someone who was regarded as a dangerous radical from this place. The precedent for the 1801 Act coming into force is hardly one from which we can derive pride. We certainly should not be worried about considering a particular case and repealing the Act
      Another hard case was that of the Rev. MacManaway in 1950. On that occasion, the Home Secretary of the day ran away from the issue. The resulting legal judgment probably left us in an even deeper mess than hitherto.
      Much has been said about priests who will be too busy to do two jobs. I do not know about that. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that he is a practising barrister. I remember having a discussion with him shortly after the last general election, when he was no longer occupying a Cabinet seat. He made it clear that he regarded it as an important part of his role as a Member to pursue a wider career and to bring extra experience into the House. No doubt he would say to his colleagues in the legal profession that his membership of this place gave him added insights when it came to working with the law.
      I do not support or defend the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pursuit of a second career. I do not pursue one. However, it is difficult to see how the commitment, experience, skill and brain power that is needed to be brought to bear by a priest in holy orders, when coupled with membership of this place, would put the individual in a less favourable position than a QC or other barrister who pursues a legal career at full blast outside the House.
      1130
      The argument that someone cannot do two jobs does not bear examination, particularly when it comes from the Conservative party, which historically has seen employment outside the House as bringing value to the House rather than taking value away from it.
      The case in point involves not a practising priest, but someone who has taken holy orders and, because his Church's discipline does not allow for the relinquishment of those orders, is deemed still to be a priest. If he had been an Anglican—a member of the Church of England in England and an ordained member of it—he would have been able to relinquish holy orders. As a retired clergyman, he could have taken up his preferred career in politics.
      Many arguments have been advanced about the special role that priests fulfil, about the necessity of their committing time to it and about conflicts with Church discipline, but when we unpick them we find that they are entirely irrelevant to the central question that faces the House, which is whether we want to maintain discrimination against a religious minority, preventing members of it from entering the House if they so choose and the electorate so chooses, or whether we want to sweep that discrimination away. The answer for me and for many of my colleagues is that it should have been swept away a long time ago, and we should act now.
      6.34 pm
      Ms Ryan: The House can be proud of itself today if, as we may be entitled to expect, we give the Bill a Third Reading. Ensuring equal rights for all our citizens is an important part of the work of Parliament, which our citizens would expect us to do.
      The question of timing has been raised, but the issue was never likely to come before the House unless there was an individual case driving it. That may be a shame, but it is realistic to acknowledge it. Because of that, the issue was always likely to arise a little late in the day. If there is a particular case driving it, that must involve someone who has been selected, and we select candidates not long before a general election.
      The timing of the Bill was therefore inevitable. It is not opportunistic simply because the candidate in question is a Labour candidate. I say that for two reasons. First, in his opening remarks on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister was entirely open about the case that triggered the Bill. There is no hidden agenda. Secondly, I believe, although I accept that some Opposition Members may not agree, that a Labour Government would have taken the same action in the case of a Conservative candidate. I believe that because of our commitment to equal rights, human rights and social justice. I do not accept that the timing of the Bill presents a difficulty.
      If there has been a difficulty, it has been for only one person—Mr. Cairns. I am pleased that we have removed that difficulty, as he is entitled to the same rights as anyone else in this land. He is entitled to look to his Government and Parliament to ensure that he has those rights. We can be proud that we have taken the necessary action.
      In some ways, it is amusing for me, as a woman Member of Parliament, to argue for equal rights for men. Clearly, the Bill may affect women as well, now that there are ordained women priests in the Church of England; it will mainly affect ex-priests, as they do not have the right

      1131
      to renounce, wait for six months, and so on. It is a pleasure to argue for the equal rights of men. Many male colleagues in this place argue for the equal rights of women, so it is a pleasure to repay them. I feel certain that any man who benefits from the legislation to enter the House will want to continue the tradition of arguing for the equal rights of all, whatever their gender or former profession.
      It is right that there should no longer be grounds for distinguishing between clergy of different religions. That is not the business of the House. Equally, there are no grounds for legislation that applies detrimentally or punitively to all clergy, so it is right that the Bill should become law. The matters with which we are dealing are matters for the Churches and for the electorate.
      The question whether there is to be a free vote is a red herring. I cannot be sure, but I guess that it is raised by the Opposition who, as has been said, have four, five or more positions on the matter, so there is a problem of discipline. The reason that there is not a free vote for Labour Members, as I understand it, is that this is not an issue of conscience. It is a constitutional issue, so I do not see why there should be a free vote.
      I understand that some Opposition Members view the Bill as a matter of conscience, but I do not think that they are correct or that they have a free vote because of that view. They have one because they cannot guarantee that they will be united in the Lobby. As far as I know, no Labour Member has been up in arms about a free vote. None of my hon. Friends have told me since Second Reading that the Bill is a matter of conscience and that they are being forced through the Lobby on Labour business with which they do not agree.
      I think that the Opposition's point about a free vote, which has been made a number of times, holds no water and makes no sense. I reiterate that it is entirely correct for the Bill not to be decided by such a vote as it is Government business and deals with a constitutional issue. Indeed, I am pleased that it will not be decided in that manner, although if it had been, the outcome of Third Reading would have been the same as those of Second Reading and Report.
      It is right that we are now in line with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
      Mr. Forth: What a shower.
      Siobhain McDonagh: It has given you representation in Scotland.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Ms Ryan: My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) makes a valid point about the success achieved by the Conservatives in Scotland, where previously they had no representation.
      In an intervention on the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I said that he had been a sterling ally in respect of the Bill. However, he made some entirely unjustifiable remarks about what he called the new Labour Government.
      Mr. Forth: He has done something right.
      Ms Ryan: As has just been indicated from a sedentary position, we still disagree on some things.
      1132
      It is interesting that every time the European convention on human rights is mentioned, there is a little storm of protest from some Opposition Members. At no time during the passage of the Bill, or indeed at any other time, have they said anything that justifies their opposition to the convention. We await an explanation that makes their view acceptable or even tolerable. I guess that it simply relates to the Eurosceptic views that they often express, so it is clearly a matter of ideology and perhaps of xenophobia.
      I have been pleased to participate in our proceedings on the Bill. I have found the experience instructive and have heard some excellent speeches, from which I freely admit that I have learned a great deal. I am pleased that the Bill has such overwhelming support and I am proud to be a part of the House when it agrees to such measures, which ensure the equal rights of all our citizens.
      6.43 pm
      Mr. Fallon: The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) spoke about removing discrimination and intolerance, but then slightly spoiled her speech by saying how intolerant she was of those who still had doubts about the European convention on human rights. I do not think that she can have it both ways.
      I must tell the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) that I am probably in danger of creating a sixth category—there is definitely a free vote for Conservative Members—because, as 1 have explained at length, I have reservations and I do not think that the Bill should be promoted in this way and at this time. I hope that that qualifies as a sixth category, which will make the hon. Gentleman even happier than he already seems to be.
      As I have already said endless times, I have nothing against David Cairns. I am sure that he will become a Member of this House in the fullness of time and I look forward to welcoming him. I respect the part played by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) in facilitating such change. I hope that she equally respects the fact that those of us who are worried about the way the change is being made are not necessarily to be accused of favouring the kind of discrimination that she seeks to remove.
      There are concerns about the procedure, and our debates have highlighted that. We could create the potential for a new House of Commons, which could be a House of bishops. Chat would be allowed under the law. It is perfectly possible that the Roman Catholic Church might change its own rules, so we could end up with a House of Catholic priests. It may be unlikely that such events will occur, but when one makes a small change to the constitution it is important to take into account the implications and consequences.
      One of my main reservations throughout has been the lack of evidence, apart from the case of Mr. David Cairns, for making the change. The Home Affairs Committee made its recommendation, but it did not take evidence. It took a memorandum in favour from Professor Blackburn, but it did not question any witnesses or consider the implications and discuss them with other professors. Indeed, there was little further support for the change and it was not mentioned in the Labour party submission to the Committee. If the burning injustice that we have heard about really existed, we might have expected the Labour party to refer to it in evidence.

      1133
      The plain fact is that this case, which, I concede, is certainly a hard one, has not been canvassed particularly widely. It is not right to make what could be a significant change on the basis of so little evidence. I also happen to think that such changes should be made on the basis of extensive consideration and widespread consensus, possibly through a Speaker's Conference or a commission. A limited consultation took place and the Minister was kind enough suddenly to place the results in the Library today. However, the Committee was unable to read them to discover exactly what each Church has said. We have had only a couple of days to consider the matter and we have considered it in the wrong way.
      Furthermore, it is a somewhat questionable principle to change electoral law on the basis of one particular case. I know that others disagree. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made the eloquent point from history that individual cases have helped to change law, but I am sceptical as to whether that should always be the case. I am also sceptical about making such a change just because of someone's election: the people have chosen, so we should facilitate his or her progress to the House simply because he or she is the candidate that they want—so runs the notion.
      That principle could apply to a 20-year-old, for example. The Minister might one day tell the House, "This constituency has chosen someone who will be 21 in a few months. He will not be able to take his seat when he is elected, so there will be a court case and all the rest of it. We must change the law immediately to allow him to take his seat." The same could be argued on behalf of a Dutch citizen. A Dutch minister of some religion might be selected, stand and be elected. The Minister could make exactly the same argument that the law should be changed to accommodate a non-UK citizen simply because that person had been chosen by his constituency.
      All I would say to the House is that such constitutional changes almost always turn out to have slightly more impact than we might have expected in respect of the example for which we have legislated. The Bill will help just one candidate, but it raises big questions about the future of the bishops in the other place and further questions about the way in which we should change electoral law. Such a change should not be rushed so late in the day, just before a general election, to help a particular candidate, however deserving he happens to be.
      6.49 pm
      Mr. Swayne: I did not speak on Second Reading, as I was serving on a Standing Committee so I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to contribute. I know that the Minister wishes to respond, so I shall be as brief as possible.
      I represent the fourth view to be expressed this evening. I follow the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan), who spoke eloquently, in holding the view that it is right and proper to take steps to alleviate the difficulty faced by David Cairns. My concern relates to what we have done to alleviate that difficulty. I entirely accept that David Cairns faced discrimination that was unjustifiable—unjustifiable because he was a Roman
      1134
      Catholic. At this point I can answer the question asked of me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). He suggested in his speech that had I chosen a career as a clerk in holy orders and discovered half way through that career that it was not right for me, I would have been able thereafter to pursue any other career—
      Mr. Fallon: It is a vocation.
      Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend is right, but other careers are careers, not vocations. My point is that, according to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, I would have been able to pursue any career except one in the House of Commons.
      In fact, that is not entirely true. In such circumstances I would have been able to come to the House, were I prepared to renounce holy orders. This is the problem in the case of Mr. Cairns: he is being discriminated against in the sense that he is not able, as a clergyman in the Church of England is able, simply to renounce his holy orders, thereby enabling himself to be elected to the House of Commons. It is entirely right that we have provided a remedy enabling his problem to be alleviated; however, our remedy will enable him to come here, but it will equally enable all who are currently practising clergymen in the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England to do so as well.
      As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, that is not a problem, because the Roman Catholic Church takes the view that its clergymen—its priests—should not sit in Parliament. The difficulty for me lies in the fact that clergymen of the established Church will, as a result of this measure, be able to come here and take a political stance. We have had the argument, and I think we must simply differ; but still, in my opinion, that is not compatible with the role of a priest.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal identified the historical reasons for excluding clergy of the Church of England, and intimated that those reasons were no longer valid. I accept that, but it strikes me that there are many good reasons—certainly one good reason—for maintaining the exclusion. I consider leadership, in the sense of the role of a priest in the Church of England, wholly incompatible with membership and political leadership in the House of Commons.
      The Bill involves constitutional issues that we overlook at our peril. I believe that this should be an assembly for the laity: after all, the second estate has its representation elsewhere. In the past this place has had a more religious outlook, and that is not a happy history. I remind Members of the Parliament of Saints, and the Barebones Parliament; I remind them that we have allowed ourselves to be governed by prelates in the past, not least by Cardinal Wolsey. We have gone beyond that now, and we should remain beyond it.
      Mr. Fallon: Do not drag the Lord Chancellor into it.
      Mr. Swayne: I would if it were in order, but time is pressing and the Minister wishes to reply.
      I would have accepted a measure that simply made things easier for Mr. Cairns in Greenock and Inverclyde, but what we have is a wider constitutional measure with which I profoundly disagree.
      6.54 pm
      Mr. Forth: What we have learned during the debate on this Bill, small though it may seem and mild though it may appear, is that it contains a number of substantial issues. There is, for example, the issue of history and tradition, which was covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) in his usual elegant and knowledgeable way. We need only glance at schedule 2 to see that the repeals go back as far as 1801—as has been mentioned a number of times—and involve six Acts. There is therefore no doubt at all that what is being dealt with in this seemingly small Bill is a substantial part of our history and tradition. From that point of view, it has an importance that perhaps goes beyond its apparent scope.
      The matter at the heart of the Bill is whether it is right and proper for the law of this land to seek to determine which members—outside those who have offices of profit under the Crown, as has been mentioned in the debate—of which faith or Church should or should not be able to come to this place. As I have said, I am happy to be in the camp that says that there should be no such restrictions. I have made that very clear and I have no problem with it at all. On that basis, I would be happy for the Bill to proceed. I also think that we all understand why, although it seems paradoxical, the Bill has to provide that Lords Spiritual should continue to be disqualified from membership of this place—obviously because of their position in another place.
      Despite the arguments that have been made most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), my difficulty with the Bill remains its provenance. It has been said a number of times and in a number of different ways that surely the mere fact that the Bill would happen to help one individual should not stand in the way of the principle. I do not see it that way at all. If that were the case, the Bill should have been introduced earlier and handled in a different manner, and we should not be under the time pressure in which we now find ourselves. I also regret that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and me could not be dealt with fully and properly.
      The Bill, if passed, would take effect on Royal Assent and thereby enable an individual whom the law would previously have debarred to be elected to this place. I believe that that in itself is sufficient reason for the House not to support the Bill in the circumstances in which we are being offered it. That is why, although I favour the principles of the Bill, I shall oppose it if, as I hope, we divide on it. I think that it is the right Bill, but at the wrong time.
      6.57 pm
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I ask the House to support the Bill. The Government believe that it is a very important Bill which does have constitutional implications. That is why, in Committee, it was debated on the Floor of the House. It raises issues about the proper role of the state and about the role of the state in relation to the Church.
      The Government's view is that we should not tell the Catholic Church or other Churches—I appreciate that there are specific arguments about the established Church—how to run their internal affairs. That should be a matter for them. Today, we are deciding what should be
      1136
      the law of this land. In my view, the law of this land is discriminatory. It provides that a person such as David Cairns—who was a priest, practised as a priest and remains a priest, although he is no longer practising as such—should not be able to stand for Parliament. The Bill will ensure that he can.
      There has been much discussion about priests being defrocked and laicised and other such issues. The fact is that David Cairns does not wish to be defrocked. That is really not a course of action that is open to him. Additionally, the Pope takes a particular view on laicisation, which makes it very unlikely that David Cairns could be laicised. At least in religious terms, therefore, he remains a priest although he does not practice as one. In such circumstances, it is wrong that he should be prevented from standing for Parliament.
      As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has said so eloquently, David Cairn's case is in many ways within a tradition in which the House can have some pride. When faced with the Bradlaugh case, after a while—perhaps it needed convincing—the House changed the law. In the early 1960s, when faced with the circumstances of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the House again took the decision to change things.
      This Bill is right and I commend it to the House. It is a small Bill and a good Bill. I hope that the House will support it.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House dividerd: Ayes 196, Noes 15.

      Division No. 140]

      [6.59 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Caplin, Ivor

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Casale, Roger

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Caton, Martin

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Austin, John

      Chaytor, David

      Bailey Adrian

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Banks, Tony

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Barnes Harry,

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Coffey Ms Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Cohen, Harry

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Coleman Iain

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Colman, Tony

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Benton, Joe

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bercow, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cox, Tom

      Best, Harold

      Crausby, David

      Betts, Clive

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dalyell, Tam

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davey Valerie (Bristol W)

      Boswell Tim

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

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

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Dismore, Andrew

      Browne, Desmond

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dowd, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Cann, Jamie

      Fisher, Mark

      1137

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Gapes, Mike

      Moffatt, Laura

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Gerrard, Neil

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Morley, Elliot

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Mullin, Chris

      Godsiff, Roger

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Goggins, Paul

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      O'Neill, Martin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Page, Richard

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Pearson, Ian

      Healey, John

      Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Perham Ms Linda

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hendrick, Mark

      Pond, Chris

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Pound, Stephen

      Heppell, John

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hill, Keith

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Hood, Jimmy

      Rammell, Bill

      Hope, Phil

      Raynsford Nick

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Hutton, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Joyce, Eric

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Soley, Clive

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Kemp, Fraser

      Spellar, John

      Khabra, Piara S

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Kidney, David

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Laxton, Bob

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Leigh, Edward

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Lepper, David

      Timms, Stephen

      Levitt, Tom

      Tipping, Paddy

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Trickett, Jon

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Linton, Martin

      Tynan, Bill

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Lock, David

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Love, Andrew

      Ward, Ms Claire

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Wareing, Robert N

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      White, Brian

      McDonnell, John

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      McIsaac, Shona

      Winnick, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Woodward, Shaun

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Woolas, Phil

      McWalter, Tony

      Worthington, Tony

      Mallaber, Judy

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Meale, Alan

      Mr. Tony McNulty and

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Mr. Graham Allen.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Chope, Christopher

      Paterson, Owen

      Fallon, Michael

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Gale, Roger

      Swayne, Desmond

      1138

      Syms, Robert

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Mr. Gerald Howarth.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 February],
  That the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if they related to instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instruments be approved—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)
  Motion made,
  That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
  Line 31, at end add—
  '() The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
  That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
  That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John Mc William, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
  Motion made,
  That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
  Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
  Motion made,
  That—
  (1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and
  (2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Metropolitan Police
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  7.11 pm
  Ann Keen: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate the terms and conditions of service of the Metropolitan police. Hon. Members are well aware of the fundamental changes that have taken place in the police service throughout the United Kingdom, which have affected every police officer's duties and hours and the structure of their jobs.
  We have come a long way after seven years of declining police numbers, and we have finally turned the story round. In the six months to September 2000, we had 444 extra police officers, not fewer. Assaults on police have decreased. Funding for the Metropolitan police has finally increased. There is more need than ever to address the practical realities of being a police officer today.
  As we watched the terrible scenes at Selby over the past couple of days, similar to the recent scenes at Paddington, we must have appreciated that our police officers are engaged in the most terrifying of incidents. We must accept that they are individuals, parents and partners. They have families, and when they witness such scenes they must go home to take on their familial roles. That is not easy. Police officers have responsibilities, and if we do not treat them fairly, we will lose their valuable service.
  I wish particularly to address the scale of the problem in London. The front-line police officer, normally young and relatively inexperienced, is providing a first-class service to the public of London in very demanding times. Since publication of the Macpherson report, the Metropolitan police have taken great steps forward in their efforts to improve that service to all sections of the London community. It was recently announced that the force had addressed all the report's recommendations.
  To coin a modern phrase, a police officer's lot is not a happy one. The conditions of service of the modern police officer have suffered, particularly since the 1994 publication of the Sheehy report, commissioned by Kenneth Clarke, when he was Home Secretary. Michael Howard, the Home Secretary at the time of publication, abolished the housing allowance—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Lady must not refer to right hon. Members by name.
  Ann Keen: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The Home Secretary at the time of publication abolished the housing allowance paid to police officers, which had for many years been seen as an essential part of the remuneration package by the Police Federation, supported by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. In many cases, that led to police officers receiving thousands of pounds less than their counterparts who had joined before September 1994.
  For a number of years, there has been a decline in police numbers throughout the country. In London, however, the shortage has been more acute, with the loss of more than 2,000 officers since 1992. The situation may

  1141
  worsen. At a recent meeting of the Greater London Authority budget committee, Sir John Stevens said that over the next five years one third of London's police officers and two thirds of the support staff will be eligible to retire from the service. He suggested that ways must be found to encourage them to remain and continue to provide a service to the city of London.
  I should like to give an example of a long-serving officer in my area, the borough of Hounslow. Police Constable John Collins has given more than 30 years' service and was rightly awarded the MBE recently for his commitment and work in the community. He joined the police force at 19. He will be 55 this year, and he wants to stay on. He really wants to continue his work in crime prevention, for which he is well known. He has a supportive chief superintendent in Mike O'Brien, who values his service. Constable Collins would like to stay on until the age of 60. He would like to know now that he can do so in order to plan his family life and look forward to his eventual retirement. When someone has done more than 30 years of active service in the police force, it is admirable to want to stay on, and his skills are much needed in crime prevention.
  We must recognise the skills of experienced officers in mentoring inexperienced young officers. At the moment, younger officers have only a limited time in which they can benefit from mentoring by older and more experienced officers. We must recognise the work of experienced officers if we wish them to stay and we must be flexible in our approach to the work of our police force.
  We have all seen the excellent police recruitment advertisements in the past year. People were asked whether they could deal with a violent incident, a road traffic accident or breaking bad news. We have experienced officers who can do that In this very House, Sergeant Les Lenaghan, an officer with more than 30 years' experience, told me recently of the need for flexibility, especially on pensions. The pension structure is restrictive, and the police officer's pension provides little if any financial incentive to stay on. Morale can then fall, and we need the Government to provide confidence that when the pension review that has been discussed for some time takes place, it will not be divisive and damaging.
  A great deal of work has to be done to create confidence among our police officers and make them feel truly valued. In addition, we must find ways to encourage more recruits into the service and, once they are recruited, to retain them. The obvious way is to provide better rewards for front-line duties, perhaps by way of a shift allowance. At present, officers who provide 24-hour policing to the people of London are paid at the same rate as those who protect buildings. Protecting us is serious work, but it is not quite the same as front-line work out on the streets of London.
  The return of the housing allowance would at the stroke of a pen boost the morale of today's young police officers. It would encourage Metropolitan police officers to remain in London rather than bring up their families elsewhere. It goes without saying that that would also attract more recruits. Police numbers are rising in London. The last intake at Hendon was 200 and the next is likely to be 250. That follows the introduction of a new London allowance for post-1994 recruits of £3,327 last year, but more needs to be done.
  1142
  I was pleased to be able to take part in a debate that encouraged people to re-examine retirement. I was pleased that our Minister stated on 14 February that the Government
  wants to encourage more flexibility and choice for retirement, with benefits to employers and employees alike. For employers, a flexible approach can be a means of reducing capacity without losing the people concerned or the qualities and expertise they bring to business".
  Well, that is business, and the police service is different. Police officers are not employees; they are appointed as police constables. The regulations governing the police were looked at in 1918 and more recently in 1995. I suggest that they need to be reviewed.
  We have been made aware of the haemorrhage that is about to occur in our great capital in the next four to five years. We cannot say that we did not have the time to plan and make changes that could bring about a flexible retirement approach for valued officers who have given so much service.
  7.19 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): It is a genuine privilege to participate in this debate, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate. It is important to focus attention, as she has done, on the state of affairs in the Metropolitan police service.
  I take the opportunity that my hon. Friend gives me to pay a public tribute to the officers of the service. She mentioned officers working in her constituency and officers whom she knew, and described their outstanding personal commitment in times of great difficulty and tension. Communities are strengthened and people given confidence by such commitment. It is important to place that on record.
  Let me add to that my appreciation of the tremendous and committed work of all ranks—from the Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, and his deputy, Ian Blair, down through the whole force. There is a major drive in the force at present to ensure that we can deliver right across the range of its services.
  Because of the responsibility that I hold, it saddens me that many people form their view of policing from descriptions in some of the media programmes, rather than from the police work that they know about. At the beginning of this week, I visited outer London boroughs to the east of the city, where police officers told me that the characterisation of policing in some fictional programmes does not give a fair picture of the life, commitment, experience and solidarity of working police officers. That is true. The Government will do what we can to address the issues in the ways mentioned by my hon. Friend.
  The important issues raised by my hon. Friend stem from many of the recruitment difficulties experienced by the MPS in recent years. We have tried to tackle those issues, through initiatives such as the national recruitment campaign—to which my hon. Friend referred—the crime fighting fund and the starter homes scheme. That scheme attempts to address the massive problem that has arisen for all public services and many private industries throughout London as the economy grows and succeeds.

  1143
  There is great tension between the rents or mortgages that people have to pay and their salaries. That is why we have increased the London allowance for new recruits, and for officers recruited since 1 September 1994 who do not receive housing emoluments. We have also provided funding for free rail travel for Metropolitan police officers within a 70-mile radius of Charing Cross; that includes my hon. Friend's constituency.
  I remind the House that all matters concerning police officers' hours of duty, leave, pay, allowances and pensions must be considered by the Police Negotiating Board, the statutory body set up to make recommendations to the Home Secretary. Sections 61 and 62 of the Police Act 1996 provide for the constitution of the PNB and for the procedure for reaching agreement on recommendations made by the PNB. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider any recommendations that the PNB makes before amendments to police regulations are made.
  Related to the terms and conditions of service are the standards with which recruits have to comply in order to be accepted. We are developing national recruitment standards that will remove unnecessary barriers, provide clarity for applicants and ensure that recruitment standards are clearly job related and non-discriminatory. All aspects of the recruitment process are being reviewed, including entry criteria and medical standards for recruitment.
  In the light of some of the ill-informed comments in the media about the attempts of the MPS to address recruitment standards, I make it clear that the Met have been correct in their handling of the matter. The service has tried to remove some of the more outdated restrictions and is determined to do whatever is possible to remove artificial barriers to recruitment, which have been raised in the past in some cases. There has been media controversy about some aspects of that initiative, but the MPS is right to take those actions. I hope, moreover, that the national recruitment standards development programme that I described will help to create a national framework for that work.
  Police pay is based on national pay scales, which do not vary from force to force. Starting pay for police officers compares favourably with other public service occupations and professions. A police officer will earn £17,133 on recruitment, rising to £19,170 on the completion of initial training and £20,304 after two years. That reflects the serious responsibilities that police officers undertake and the dangers in which they are sometimes placed. However, it has long been recognised that the cost of living in London is high and London officers receive a London weighting, which is pensionable, and a London allowance, which is not pensionable.
  In June 2000, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accepted the PNB' s recommendation for an increase in London allowance from 1 July 2000 for new recruits and for those officers recruited on or after 1 September 1994—the post-Sheehy officers, to use the vernacular to which my hon. Friend referred—who are not in receipt of housing allowance.
  Metropolitan police officers recruited before 1 September 1994, who are in receipt of either rent or housing allowance, which ranges from £5,126.70 to £9,153—significant sums—also receive a London
  1144
  weighting of £1,713 and a London allowance of £1,011, totalling £2,724. Metropolitan police officers recruited on, or after, 1 September 1994, and not in receipt of housing allowance, receive a total London weighting and London allowance of £6,051 which is comprised of £1,713 London weighting and £4,338 London allowance.
  The PNB has also recently recommended an allowance of £1,000 to be paid to those officers recruited before 1 September 1994 who are in receipt of half-rate housing allowance or flat-race transitional rent allowance, and the Home Secretary will make an announcement on that soon. I am glad that my hon. Friend has been able to secure this debate to highlight the importance of such issues.
  The Home Office also funds free rail travel for Metropolitan police officers at a cost of about £2.45 million in the coming financial year.
  The Metropolitan police service's arrangement with the Association of Train Operating Companies allows police officers free rail travel within a 70-mile radius of London on production of their warrant card, on or off duty. That came into effect only recently, on 14 February this year, and extends the current arrangements whereby Metropolitan police officers travel free on London Transport buses and the London underground. Police officers will have to buy tickets to cover any rail travel outside the 70-mile limit and the arrangements will not extend to civil staff, the special constabulary or family members.
  Free rail travel w ill provide an additional incentive to new recruits and will help to retain serving officers. I am sure that it will also encourage more officers to use the railways with the result that our trains will be safer for everyone to use—a very important consideration.
  Funding for the current financial year will come from central provision. The sum for 2001–02 has been made available from the total provision for policing—£8.495 billion—agreed at the outcome of the spending review. The £2.45 million cost of free Metropolitan police rail travel will not reduce the amounts already announced as being allocated to the police authorities through the police grant and the standard spending assessment. The money for the coming financial year will be met from the £91 million announced in the March 2000 Budget for police modernisation.
  The starter homes initiative represents an important Government effort, across all public services, to address issues relating to housing costs. The initiative is expected to help about 10,000 key workers to buy their own homes in areas of high-cost housing. Some £250 million will be made available for that over the next three years. Priority will be given to police officers, teachers and nurses—my hon. Friend's former profession.
  Bids in the first bidding round have now been received from those organisations, including registered social landlords, local authorities and employers, that wish to run a scheme under that initiative. Bids have been submitted in respect of 14 police force areas, including several bids that cover the Metropolitan police area. The bids have yet to be assessed and funds will be made available in the summer to successful applicants. A second bidding round will take place in the autumn.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the national recruitment advertising campaign. To support forces in meeting their recruitment needs, the national recruitment campaign was launched on 30 August last year. The campaign has two

  1145
  main aims. First, it is designed to provide forces with high-quality potential recruits, which is its obvious focus. However, I give at least as much importance—perhaps, in some ways, even more—to raising perceptions of the status and professionalism of the police at large. It is important that the community as a whole understands what it is to be a modern police officer. The police's responsibilities and how they carry them out are the types of points that my hon. Friend mentioned.
  A campaign website carries information on joining the police and allows individuals to respond online for more information. Calls are handled by a professional call centre. Basic details are taken and an information pack is sent out with an outline of the role of a police officer, along with details of how to take an interest further. Potential applicants complete an expression of interest and the call centre forwards those expressions of interest to forces to progress.
  The campaign has been extremely successful. By 4 February, more than 100,000 inquiries had been received through the website and call centre, resulting in more than 22,000 formal expressions of interest. That is a significant proportion and a tribute to the way in which the campaign has been able to convey what the responsibilities of a modern police officer are. The Metropolitan police have received 1,946 expressions of interest and a further 1,115 inquiries have been redirected to the Met's own call centre.
  The Metropolitan police recently fried out a full-scale review of their recruiting standards and the resulting changes have been made to ensure that the Met are socially inclusive, non-discriminatory and fair. As I said earlier, the changes have brought the Met's recruitment standards into line with those of other police forces in the United Kingdom.
  The Met have been allocated a total of 2,044 recruits from the crime fighting fund. These recruits are over and above the force's existing recruitment plans. More than 500 of the crime fighting fund officers will be recruited this financial year. As my hon. Friend said, there is already evidence that police numbers are rising as a result. Police recruitment numbers are increasing as she stated, and we have every reason to believe that we are finally beginning to make an impact after years of declining police numbers in the Met. We are beginning to turn the curve upwards, which is an important step both for its effectiveness and for the morale and confidence of the force.
  In Hounslow, at the end of January 2001, police strength was 398 against a budgeted work force total of 411, which means that the borough was 13 officers—or 3.08 per cent.—down on its budgeted total. Civilian strength was 115, compared to a budgeted work force total of 111, so the figure was above budget on the civilian side.
  I am advised that the Metropolitan police service has already recruited 1,130 officers this year and expects to be only 100 officers below its budgeted work force target
  1146
  of 25,600 by the end of March this year. This is very good news. I commend the service on all the work that it has done to deal with its recruitment difficulties.
  My hon. Friend mentioned morale. Total wastage in the police force compared with other organisations is very low. The figures for wastage are 5.2 per cent. 4.8 per cent. and 4.7 per cent. in the past three years. The survey of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development for labour turnover in 2000 reported a wastage rate of 18.3 per cent. for all employees in 1999, compared with the figure of about 5 per cent. that I have just given for the police.
  Most police service wastage consists of retirements; the number of resignations—at 1 per cent. or less in the past three years—remains very small. I want to place those figures on the record because people sometimes glibly accept the argument that there is a serious morale problem in the force. If we compare it with other aspects of the public service and life, the figures for the force are very good. Of course, the police face greater challenges than most other occupations and that makes things difficult. They also face a challenging media environment. That can be problematic, too. However, the position is good, and I pay tribute to the force for its contribution to morale.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned pensions. We have three initiatives on that, and I hope that they will bear fruit shortly. First, in the next few months, we shall publish a consultation document on ill health, medical retirements and pensions. That will have important implications for how we deal with the issues. Secondly, we are considering how pension costs are distributed across police forces. That is rather unfair at the moment.
  Thirdly, we are looking at the possibility of establishing a funded pension scheme for new recruits, which would transform the budget structure in that relationship. We have been working closely with the Treasury on that. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I are meeting to discuss the proposal and to try to deal with some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised. Her point about people's desire to commit in a flexible way at the end of their normal working lives is absolutely true. Many police officers want to find a way of doing that and we are actively looking into the possibilities.
  I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I am glad that she has given me the opportunity to be as positive as I think the whole country should be about the work of the Metropolitan police.
  In the absence of any Opposition Members, it is appropriate to mention that some of them have been very aggressive and have despaired of what is happening in a way that is dishonest and untrue. I am exceptionally glad to have had the opportunity to try to set the record straight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eight o' clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

NHS Mental Health Services
[Relevant documents: Fourth Report from the Health Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 373, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4888.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Hutton.]
2.30 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the report, which makes an important contribution to the mental health debate.
I thank the Committee for its hard work during the inquiry. I also thank the many witnesses who provided oral and written evidence. That was very helpful to the Committee's deliberations, as were the visits that it was allowed to pay to a broad range of establishments and agencies—I thank them too. Thanks are also due to the specialist advisers on the inquiry: Professors Bob Bluegrass, Tom Burns and Ray Rowden, Ms. Angela Greatley and Mr. Chris Vellenoweth.
It is not usual to express appreciation for the work of individual Committee staff, but I would like to thank Katherine Wright. Some of my colleagues will know her from her work in the House of Commons Library. She was seconded to the Committee for the period of the inquiry as a specialist assistant. I also thank all the Committee staff for their help.
I want to explain why the Committee undertook the inquiry. I was not the only member of the Committee who thought that mental health policy lacked co-ordination and that, occasionally, there were inappropriate placements. I had seen that in my constituency, which has two prisons, a regional secure unit and a psychiatric unit. I visit them frequently, and I have discovered that some people have been placed in the wrong institution. That is why I began to ponder how we might develop a better arrangement to ensure that such people were appropriately placed.
In an inquiry into the regulation of the private health sector, the Committee visited a private hospital in York. Everyone was struck by the preponderance of young black men in the hospital whose homes were 200 miles away in London. It seemed very wrong to us that they had been placed there, rather than nearer to their homes, and we felt that race and gender might be playing a part.
The Committee also felt that there were discrepancies in the ability of different areas to offer care in the community. For example, on a visit to north Birmingham, the Committee was impressed by the extent to which it was possible, through assertive outreach, to care coherently and constructively in the community for people with severe problems. However, other areas do not have enough in-patient beds. Sadly, my constituency is one such area: patients from Wakefield are placed in a private hospital in Cheshire because our in-patient facilities are under too much pressure as a result of a lack of appropriate alternative facilities in the community.
302WH
The Select Committee was concerned that some people high up in the Government have commented that the care in the community policy has failed, and that the pendulum has swung too far from hospital to community. We needed to examine the reality of that claim, so we undertook a wide-ranging inquiry that looked at the transition points in mental health services and the ability of the different sectors to cope with patients. Our terms of reference were deliberately very broad.
The inquiry examined the definition of mental disorder because the Select Committee thought that the criteria that people with mental disorders had to meet to access services could be the first hurdle to overcome before patients ended up in the right part of the system. We looked at how users of the system regard its services. We considered the effects of the new national service programme and the delivery of general mental health services, and that included an examination of the current proposals to overhaul the legal framework of mental health that would allow compulsory treatment to be given in the community as well as in hospital. We considered proposals to create a specific legal framework for people with severe personality disorder who are deemed to be dangerous. Finally, we examined how the transition is managed between general mental health services and more specialised services—for example, those for children and adolescents and secure mental health services.
I stress that I recognise that that is a contentious area. If we consider our history of treating successive generations of people with mental illness, we can see that attitudes and definitions have varied considerably. A few years ago, I visited a museum in my area that was organised by someone who had worked for the Stanley Royd psychiatric hospital for a long time and I found a book that defined the diagnoses of patients who had been admitted to a Poor Law lunatic asylum in the 19th century. I was interested to see that a large number of mental health cases consisted of people suffering from "political excitement"—it was one reason for detention in the asylum.
As some hon. Members know, I worked for the mental health services in professional social work for many years. I will always remember the move towards care in the community that began in the 1970s, and the practice of removing people from psychiatric hospitals—women in particular—who had been detained all their lives because they had been deemed "moral defectives", even though they were not mentally ill. I have met more moral defectives during 14 years in this place than during all my years in the mental health services. My point is that definitions are value-based.
The Select Committee was well aware of the values that influence how we define mental disorder: definitions are frequently gender-based and race-based. We made one specific recommendation about definitions. We felt that there was a need to improve services for people with dual diagnosis; they are people who might suffer from a mental disorder and substance abuse, or a mental disorder and learning disabilities. We felt that such people were poorly served by the present arrangements. I am pleased to report that the Government agreed that greater priority should be given to that.

303WH
We felt that it was crucial to involve users and carers in all aspects of planning and delivering mental health services. We found an acceptance of the role of users and carers, which was a welcome shift in emphasis from the attitude of recent decades. However, we were warned that the reality of such a consultation is sometimes suspect. Karen Campbell of the Manic Depression Fellowship was scathing about the limited impact that user involvement often has. She said in evidence to us:
"I think we have reached a stage, as people who use mental health services, of thinking, you ask us to come to meetings and listen to what we say, but very, very rarely—I can count it on two fingers—does what we say make a difference."
We recommended that users should have much greater input in the training of mental health professionals. Again, I appreciate the fact that the Government have accepted the recommendation.
We were particularly concerned by the evidence that mental health services do not adequately meet the needs of ethnic minority patients. Some of my colleagues might speak in more detail about that. Our concern was not simply that black patients are more likely to be in the compulsory part of the mental health system, but that the services offered are often inappropriate or insensitive. Our recommendations included developing race awareness among NHS staff, designating NHS trust board members to take active responsibility for making services more culturally aware and expanding early intervention and interpreting services.
We looked at the effects of the national service framework and the delivery of general mental health services. The Committee was impressed by the impact of the framework, which was generally welcomed within the system as a positive development. However, we received evidence from a variety of witnesses about the low quality of much in-patient care. On some visits, we saw evidence that, materially, the system does not offer a great deal to patients in the wards, despite caring staff who were doing their best to function within the existing regimes. The system leaves much to be desired.
The Sainsbury Centre suggested to us that the pressures on acute beds were so great that the environment was untherapeutic, that services lacked clear goals and that links with community services were sometimes poor. We proposed that a capital modernisation fund aimed specifically at improving environmental standards on in-patient wards could make a significant difference to the quality of life for patients.
We spent considerable time looking at proposals to change the existing legal framework of mental health. We all accept that there is a need to modernise the law as it relates to the detention of patients within the mental health system. The current system is outdated. It is largely based on legislation passed in 1959—the Mental Health Act 1959—when the system was institution-based rather than community-based. We felt that any legislation replacing the Mental Health Act 1983 should have a broader remit than merely setting out when compulsion will be permitted; for example, through ensuring a right of access to a mental health assessment, an acceptance of the principle of reciprocity and a right of access to advocacy services. The Government are reviewing the latter point, and I hope that there will be positive proposals in due course.
304WH
We support the philosophy underlying the recommendations of the expert committee on the reform of the 1983 Act, in contrast to the proposals set out in the Government's Green Paper. We saw some distinctions between the expert committee's recommendations and the Green Paper. We recommended in particular the inclusion of the principles of non-discrimination and respect for autonomy in any new legislation. We felt that further work should be done to investigate the viability of a capacity test and that there should be provision for the use of crisis cards and advance directives to help individuals in crisis to signal their preferences regarding treatment, which they might not be able to do at the time that they need treatment.
We felt that there should be greater emphasis on the importance of the health benefit for the individual if compulsion is considered. The legislation must be operated in such a way that patients would receive a demonstrable health benefit. We also felt that compulsion should be used only as a last resort.
We discussed the contentious issue of community treatment orders. As a Committee, we accepted the arguments about the benefits of such orders, which would compel individuals to accept treatment even if they are not detained in a psychiatric hospital. However, we felt that that should be coupled with the safeguards that were set out in the expert committee's report.
I recognise the difficulties facing any Government when addressing policy for the difficult matter of dangerous people with severe personality disorder. It raises enormous problems and challenges. The evidence that the Committee received about the Government's proposals was remarkably uniform, and mental health professionals expressed considerable doubts about the proposals on several grounds: first, the civil liberties implications of detaining people who are deemed to be untreatable, yet who have not committed an offence; secondly, the resourcing and staffing implications of setting up a third system between the Prison Service and the health service and, thirdly, the validity and reliability of the diagnosis of dangerous severe personality disorder.
The evidence that the Committee received from the Institute of Psychiatry was typical. It emphasised that severe personality disorder is not a clinical definition, and that the severity of a personality disorder bears no relation to how dangerous a person is. We welcome the recognition that the Home Office proposals on dangerous people with severe personality disorder are primarily a criminal justice matter, but we were concerned about the inappropriate use of a quasi-medical definition.
We were also concerned about apparent confusion over the term "untreatable". When I worked in mental health, I occasionally undertook compulsory admissions, and the issue of treatability has always been contentious. Two main conclusions were drawn from the evidence that we received: first, there is no professional consensus, either among psychiatrists or psychologists, on whether personality disorder is treatable; and secondly, the debate surrounding treatability is concerned with the lack of available resources.

305WH
We rejected both options in the Home Office proposals because they seemed to be illogical and unnecessary to achieving the service enhancement that we agreed was necessary. We recommended that research should be initiated on the treatment of antisocial personality disorder, and that adequate facilities should be made available within the national health service for people who suffer from a recognised disorder and who would benefit from treatment. We also recommended that further thought should be given to the proposal of reviewable sentences that would provide for those who are deemed to be a danger to the public but who are genuinely not amenable to treatment within the NHS. We further recommended that a definition similar to that used in Scotland—
"serious violent and/or sexual offenders who may present a continuing danger to the public"—
should be used in the English proposals to clarify that they are concerned with offending behaviour, rather than a mental disorder.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I am sorry to interrupt, but I wish to return to the issue of capacity.
Since the Committee's report, the Government have produced a White Paper. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he thinks about the safeguards that the Government have proposed for people who do not actively object to treatment, but who are deemed to lack the capacity to consent to it? That is the issue of the Bournewood judgment. Is he satisfied with the Government's proposals?
Mr. Hinchliffe: The report makes it clear that the Government have not gone as far as we proposed, although I understand that there has been movement since the original Green Paper.
We were very impressed by the witnesses from the expert committee, who spent considerable time developing their arguments on that matter. It is a hugely complex area, and I recognise the Government's difficulty in ensuring that there is a system that addresses the acute problems that patients occasionally have. We also need to anticipate psychiatric provision in 10 or 20 years' time. As I have pointed out, policy circumstances change in that we may move further towards community provision—I hope that we will—and any new mental health legislation must take such change into account. That is extremely difficult and this is a tough area with which the Government must deal, but the Committee felt that the expert committee had offered a way forward that had not been picked up in the Green Paper.
When looking at the challenge posed by the transition between elements of the service—especially between services for children and adolescents and adult mental health services—we found that clear systems linking them were the exception rather than the rule. I should have liked to have had more time for that part of the inquiry, because the problems that we saw showed that much work had to be done. We felt that the present system offered the worst of both worlds.
The evidence that we found suggested that the lack of a nationally agreed target age for transfer does not enhance local flexibility; it simply creates a patchwork of
306WH
incompatible services. We recommended that the Department of Health should consult on a target age for transfer that would allow local flexibility where necessary, but would prevent the current extraordinary position in which 16 and 17-year-olds might be eligible for neither service.
The most radical solution to the problem of transition was the proposed creation of a youth service to look at provision for young people aged between, for example, 16 and 25. We felt that that proposal was attractive in many ways; it would avoid the need for transfer at a time when adolescents are especially vulnerable, and could encourage the development of specialist services identifying the onset of psychosis in late teens. We therefore recommended the commissioning of research on the viability of such a service and, in the meantime, the monitoring of the adequacy of current transfer arrangements.
Finally, we looked at transitions between secure and general mental health services. The Committee was concerned about the human rights implications of patients staying far longer than necessary in the higher levels of security, because of a lack of appropriate provision elsewhere. We received evidence from both Ashworth hospital and Broadmoor that patients were being detained in those high security special hospitals when they did not need to be there. They could have been helped in low-security, even community, placements quite safely and to greater benefit to themselves.
Those human rights implications were raised with us more than once by senior staff, who acknowledged that there had been inappropriate placements on a wide scale. We recommended that the action already being taken to assess the needs of individual patients should be completed as speedily as possible, and that, if short-term funding was necessary to provide appropriate placements, it should be made available. We were also concerned at the apparent lack of hard information on the numbers and types of alternative beds required to deal with patients of the kind that we met, particularly in the special hospitals. We recommended that the Department should publish firm figures on the number of secure beds that will be available, separately identifying short-term medium-secure, long-term medium-secure, short-term low-secure and long-term low-secure beds.
I welcome the fact that the Government have commissioned a review of medium-secure provision and forensic networks of care that will identify gaps in capacity. However, the Committee significantly differs from the Government—and I have raised this point in the Chamber with successive Secretaries of State—in that it feels that the Government should seriously consider the recommendation of the Fallon committee that the three special hospitals should be replaced by eight smaller regional units.
Having been in Parliament long enough to have heard this recommendation being made in response to problems that have occurred in the three special hospitals on other occasions, I strongly support the Committee's view that the Fallon committee was right. The Government should look again at the issues raised by that and other inquiries. We found a widespread view that the three special hospitals had been allowed to develop independently of the rest of the NHS, leading to

307WH
isolation and a culture that is sometimes more akin to that of a prison than a hospital, with the resultant recruitment difficulties.
Although our visits to Ashworth and Broadmoor made us sceptical about the so-called special expertise that is alleged as a benefit of the special hospitals, we felt hat the arguments for a genuinely regional focus to secure care were overwhelming. We concluded that reform and improvement to the special hospitals is probably not workable. I welcome the steps taken by the Government to link the special hospitals more clearly to the regions in which they are based, but we want them to go further and make much more meaningful the ability of patients to move through the system, be that up, down or wherever is appropriate to their needs.
After hearing the evidence, the Committee strongly supported the principle of an entirely separate service for women. Some of it shocked us, and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon), who visited Broadmoor with me, might speak about that in more detail as she spent more time with the women patients. We felt strongly that the Department should bring forward its women's strategy urgently. We know that it commissioned work, supported by an expert group chaired by Dame Rennie Fritchie, to examine issues surrounding women in high-security hospitals. It is a pressing issue, which I urge the Minister to examine as soon as possible.
We had serious concerns about standards in prison health care centres and supported the proposal of the chief inspector of prisons that any prisoner who needs specialist mental health services should be transferred to the national health service, if necessary under temporary licence.
I apologise for speaking at some length on what was a comprehensive inquiry, which found many positives. I picked up on some of the negatives because Select Committee inquiries work by drawing attention to negatives and pressing the Government to address them. I welcome the fact that the Government are already examining some of our points.
I commend particularly the staff that we met in a range of agencies and hospitals. They were doing an extremely good job in difficult circumstances with some very disturbed people. Having worked in the system, I have some insight into the problems that those people face. The House owes a great deal to those dedicated people, and we should recognise that far more than we do.
We should also strongly commend the user groups, which have developed relatively recently and have given a long-overdue voice to those who were frequently ignored. A number of patient groups gave evidence, and it was among the most moving and important that we heard in the inquiry. I welcome the steps taken by successive Governments in the direction of more civilised treatment of the mentally ill but much more still needs to be done. The Health Committee recognises that and I think that the Government do too.
I would like to express a personal view, having worked in the mental health system. Vast numbers of people who would previously have been institutionalised can now lead more normal, positive
308WH
and meaningful lives through the efforts of successive Governments to create a more humane policy. Our present situation is summed up for me by the most memorable quotation that we heard during the inquiry. It came from David Joannides of the Association of Directors of Social Services. He said:
"Community care has not failed, it has failed some people."
It is important that we continue in the direction of enhancing and strengthening community care, addressing the failures and protecting patients and the public. Hopefully, we will move towards a more civilised system than we have had in the past, even in my lifetime.
2.58 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I am pleased that the Health Committee devoted one of its major reports of the past Session to mental health. All too often in the past, although to be fair not under the present Government or in the last few years of the previous Government, mental health was the Cinderella service of the NHS. It tended to get brushed under the carpet with regard to funding priorities and public and ministerial attention, because it is an unknown quantity and because of the stigma attached to it.
I hope that I will be forgiven for speaking on a narrow issue: paragraphs 63 to 66 of the Health Committee report, which concern stigma, and the Government's response. Other hon. Members will want to discuss other important issues and I do not want to duplicate their remarks.
I have been concerned for a long time about the raw prejudice and stigma attached to people suffering from mental illness. Most of us, as individuals, are genuinely caring. If we hear that a member of our family or a friend is suffering from cancer or has flu, we are naturally responsive. We want to find out how that person is and offer our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Many people, however, do not understand mental illness. That fact, together with the way in which mental illness is categorised in society, makes people frightened of suffering from it—although 20 per cent. of the population will suffer from a form of mental illness at some point in their lives. Fear and ignorance mean that many families do not want others to know if a family member is suffering from mental illness. They fear the reaction that it will evoke. Many sufferers of mental illness want to hide it from their friends, perhaps from their family, and certainly from their employers, for fear of what may happen to them. It is unforgivable for a civilised society at the beginning of the 21st century to have such a prejudice, misunderstanding and fear. I welcome any move to open up the subject of mental health and break down those barriers.
Our report made a number of recommendations in that area. They include the crucial role to be played by education. If young people can be persuaded during their formative years to accept the problems of mental illness as they accept those of other illnesses, it will be a great step forward. The Government's response mentioned the initiatives being taken, through the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health, to start that process, which began last autumn I welcome that positive step forward.

309WH
The matter cannot be resolved simply through education. Paragraph 63 of the report contains a quotation from Dr. Mike Shooter of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which reads:
"The members of the users and carers group in the college, for example, have said to me when they have listened to the philosophy of a campaign like that,"—
a campaign for greater education—
"that it is very laudable but in the end it will not help unless they"—
the sufferers of mental illness—
"can get insurance, unless they can get a job, unless they can get a mortgage without running up against the sort of institutionalised stigma we were talking about before."
That statement is important because it opens up the reality of stigma, which is not just fear, prejudice and ignorance displayed through individuals' comments. That quote pinpoints the real-life, daily problems that people face and that can crucially affect the improvement of their quality of life and their chances of having a fresh start in society. Education is important, but we must do more to help people with insurance, employment prospects and day-to-day living needs. We cannot simply say, "Do more in education and the problem will be resolved", because it will not be.
Another problem will be understood by any Members of Parliament who have faced it in their constituencies. When a health authority's proposals to establish a hostel in a residential area are known, prejudice—completely ill-informed more often than not—immediately erupts in that area. It is time for all Members of the House and other elected figures at local and national level to stand up and be counted. It is easy to jump on to the political bandwagon of saying no to a hostel in a residential area, but in my experience, nothing more is heard about hostels after they have been established and proper supervision, with back-up services, help and support for their residents, is in place.
The horror stories put about before hostels are established to try to prevent their opening never materialise as fact, and never would. The prejudices of individuals who want to prevent hostels from being opened create a climate of fear that bears no resemblance to reality. It is time for politicians at all levels to have the guts and courage not to say no as an automatic, knee-jerk reaction to hostels. Integration into the rest of the community is important. I still passionately believe that care in the community is the correct policy. It is a civilised policy that has moved with the times. Long-term hospitals that tried to hide the problems of mental illness by locking people up and giving them an unacceptable quality of life were an affront to civilisation.
Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate and strong contribution The Committee has argued about the Fallon inquiry recommendations on moving more towards regional provision. In all seriousness, how do we tackle the difficulties that any Government would face in doing so? My area has a regional secure unit. I am on board with everything in the hon. Gentleman's philosophy, but how would he feel if one of the Committee's recommendations were a proposal to create a regional secure unit in Chelmsford? Politicians have to face such challenges.
Mr. Burns: The straightforward answer to my Chairman's narrow question is that my view would depend on where in my constituency the recommendation for the medium-secure unit was. I would have no problem with a hostel in a residential area—I accept that hostels are not medium-secure units—as it would basically be a house like any other house with multiple occupancy. A medium-secure unit would have to be put in the right place, as would a prison. One does not put them in the middle of residential areas. One can put such units in areas all around the country, with proper security and protection so that local communities can live side by side with them, just as they can with prisons. There is a prison in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and I have one in the centre of Chelmsford. It causes my constituents no problems, because it is secure.
I still believe strongly in the philosophy of care in the community. It is an affront to lock up the people that we are discussing. The Minister could confirm the irony that, under the old policy of simply locking people up, throwing away the key and hoping that no one saw the problem, there were more deaths and personal injuries among patients than there are now with them in the community.
I do not intend to make a party political point. What I am talking about happened under the Government in which I served, as it has under the present Government. The trouble with care in the community is that while fewer violent incidents are happening, the fact that they happen out in society and that public inquiries are held afterwards, means that there is greater publicity and public awareness. Sadly, such horrific incidents have happened—often as the result of blunders—that it is feared that such things happen all the time. Also, to return to the problem of stigma, members of the public are sometimes fearful of totally harmless persons who live in society while suffering from a degree of mental illness, because it is relatively new to encounter such people. In the past they would have been locked up, out of sight and out of mind.
As to the horrific incidents that have occurred, of which there have been too many, the policy of care in the community has to an extent gone out of synch. There has not been enough protection of the public in some limited instances. That fact has engendered a complete lack of public confidence and brought the policy into disrepute. We need now to build up public confidence in a principle that is right. I agree with the Government—and I would dearly have loved the previous Government to have taken the same line, had the parliamentary arithmetic and the time available allowed it—that matters need to be tightened up with respect to people suffering from mental illness who are allowed to remain free in the community. We got things wrong and the present Government have done so too; but, to be fair, it could be argued that the existing legislative regime has placed the Government in their present position.
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) referred to the issue of untreatable patients, and I want to take a slightly different angle on it. The state should have more powers to protect the public from people who are untreatable. I remember vividly from my time at the Department of Health two instances when it was contacted about two individuals aged over 18—which

311WH
was of course a fundamental issue—who were coming out of secure units. Because they had not committed a crime or caused any problems, there was nothing that the state could do to keep them in a secure environment to protect them or, even more importantly, the public.
In one case in particular, social services from the relevant local authority, the police, the consultants dealing with the individual and, for some odd reason, the Prison Service begged us to find a way to keep the young lady in a secure environment. It was only a question of time, in their professional judgment, before she would harm someone because of her illness, which was untreatable. It was deeply frustrating that there was nothing that the Department of Health could do. The law was the law, and because she had not offended, she was to leave the secure unit and return to the community. Ironically, in that case, the Home Office, to put it crudely, got everyone off the hook and managed to find some way within the law by which the lady could move from the medium secure unit to Rampton.
I accept that human rights and individual civil liberties are relevant and I should be the last person to say that we should brush aside an individual's civil liberties to satisfy the tabloid press or public opinion. However, we must never lose sight either of the civil liberties of the public or their right to be protected from people who are untreatable and particularly dangerous.
Mr Hammond: My hon. Friend used the term "untreatable" several times. Considering the Select Committee's recommendation that further research be done into the treatability or otherwise of personality disorder, and on examining the White Paper, that seems to be a key area that needs further exploration. Is my hon. Friend using the term "untreatable" after careful consideration? Has he reached the conclusion that people with this condition are untreatable, or does he have an open mind on that?
Mr. Burns: Rightly or wrongly, I use the term. As my hon. Friend knows, I am not medically qualified to answer his question. However, as someone who has had limited experience of dealing with these individuals, I have come to the conclusion that whatever research one conducts, there is a category of people in the country who are totally untreatable. Unless dramatic breakthroughs in medical science occur, there is no chance—in the short term—of finding treatment for such people. It is an unfortunate quirk of fate or of circumstance.
In conclusion, we must all—Ministers and Members of Parliament—work together to break down the stigma associated with mental health problems and ensure that raw prejudice, which in many cases is rather unpleasant, is tackled. That must be done, but not simply through education. The Government have a role, not in a nanny state way, but through trying to solve problems of employment, housing, insurance and so on. The state also has a role in dealing with community feeling, ensuring that fears are broken down and that people are better protected from those individuals who have done so much to undermine the basically correct policy of care in the community.
3.16 pm
Mr. John Gunnell: I rise to speak on the use of electro-convulsive therapy in the national health service, about which I have been concerned for a long time and which comes within the framework of the Select Committee's activities. In view of my impending retirement, this is probably my last opportunity to make this particular point, which is another reason for my wishing to speak.
The Minister will be aware that I made proposals for changes in the rules on ECT in a ten-minute Bill entitled the Electro-convulsive Therapy (Restrictions on Use) Bill, which I presented in December 1997. I subsequently withdrew the Bill, following discussions with the then Minister with responsibility for mental health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). He felt that it would not be appropriate to tinker with the Mental Health Act 1983, and that my concerns would be better raised when consideration was given to reforming the 1983 Act as a whole. We have now reached that stage, and I am well aware that Ministers have given consideration to the position of ECT in the range of treatments available or required for patients under the Act.
During Health Committee hearings and visits, ECT was not often raised as an issue. However, I recall one meeting with patients at a south London hospital in which an 18-year old woman spoke of the devastating effect of compulsory ECT treatment on her mental health. The use of ECT has now declined, but I am uncertain whether there are still patients who receive ECT without their consent and without another doctor being asked for a second opinion. That doctor should, of course, be independent of the doctor who requested the treatment. I believe that another professional opinion is required before treatment.
I am unaware whether exact records are now kept of all those who receive ECT, including whether they consented to such treatment and the outcome of the treatment in the short and long term—or at least in the medium term. It is important to have exact information on the effects of ECT to justify its continuing use. I am not alone in having such worries. A number of hon. Members, whose constituents had received ECT and who subsequently raised the matter with their MP, have talked to me about their concerns, most notably my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley).
I want to raise a completely separate issue that arose after the Health Committee visit to Broadmoor. The Committee was impressed with the positive approach of the chief executive and of many of the staff whom we met. I was, therefore, concerned to receive a letter dated 31 January 2001 from Len Dunn, the honorary secretary of the Broadmoor hospital staff recreation club. He wrote about the threatened closure of the club. The letter has not been widely circulated, which is why I bring it to the attention of the House today. Mr. Dunn wrote:
"I should like to draw your attention to the planned closure by the Broadmoor Hospital Authority of our Staff Recreation Club which has been in existence for nearly 140 years and is currently enjoyed by some 1,400 employees and their families.

313WH
Broadmoor Hospital Authority wants to demolish the club to make way for the relocation of its Training and Education Centre as part of its Hospitals' Estate's Disposal Strategy and has now issued proceedings against the Club. We are urging the Authority to reconsider its options.
We believe that the closure will be highly detrimental to the recruitment and retention of staff, exacerbating an already severe shortage. It is a popular facility where hospital staff can unwind after the stress of a highly challenging job. It appears to 'fly in the face' of current government initiatives which advocate 'supportive family-friendly' practices. Furthermore it will be a considerable loss to the community as the club regularly hosts local charitable events.
We maintain that there is ample room within the Broadmoor Hospital Authority to house both the Training and Education Centre and the Club. We are prepared to look at ways of contributing financially to assist with an alternative plan, and would welcome consultation and the opportunity to participate in meaningful negotiation."
That letter spells out the concerns of staff working at Broadmoor—concerns that I share. The staff are important and have a highly challenging job; not many of us would want to do it. I imagine that the Minister has a copy of the letter, but if not, I can let him have one. What is his response to the letter? I am sure that the Minister appreciates the staff as much as we do and that he is as concerned about their well being as we are. I hope that he will respond to the request for consultation.
3.24 pm
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), on his speech. He spoke for us all about the unanimous report and covered all the issues, but that will not stop me from making my own points.
I was moved by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) about stigma and I entirely agree with what he said. I also agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds, West and Morley (Mr Gunnell) about electro-convulsive therapy. I have one such case at the moment: someone, not in my constituency, was given the treatment and asked to sign for it when he or she were not in the right frame of mind to know precisely what he or she were doing. Eighteen doses of the treatment were given, and a relative of the patient involved is extremely upset about it.
The hon. Member for Wakefield and I share an interest in mental health because of our constituency experiences. Members of Parliament know that often the inspiration behind the many groups that are formed is someone with a loved one affected by an illness or trying to cope with a problem. Mental health groups are no different.
There are not huge numbers of votes for parliamentarians in discussing the state of our prisons, but we should discuss such a matter, even if it is not of great interest to our constituents. Mental health is like that, too: people do not want to get too involved in the issues. As a newly elected Member of Parliament I vividly recall visiting South Ockendon hospital, where I saw sights for which I was unprepared. I had gone along to a hospital event, where I bought bird baths, nesting boxes and so on, which all looked lovely, and then I saw how some of the people were cared for, which was pretty grim. I had not realised that people really were put in straitjackets and restrained.
314WH
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford that in some cases it is difficult to know what is best for people, but restraining them in the way that used to be done at South Ockendon hospital is not acceptable. We must not forget that these patients are human beings, too.
We have all met people with mental health problems. Tragically, four weeks ago a friend of mine, a deputy head who was highly intelligent, committed suicide during school hours. I had no idea of his state of health. His wife told me that on the day he committed suicide he had received a letter telling him that he had been awarded the MBE. For whatever reason, he had a tremendous feeling of inadequacy. The 2,000 mourners at his funeral said it all: he was a fantastic chap.
At our constituency surgeries, hon. Members meet many people—I choose my words carefully—who seem a little unusual in the way that they present their case. One of our colleagues was nearly killed as a result of what happened at a constituency surgery.
Members of Parliament get depressed. I occasionally get depressed when I look at Labour Members, and when I look at the opinion polls, I feel even worse, but I am an optimist. I salute all the Committee Members for their efforts in producing the report. I agreed to be a member of a Select Committee because I felt that our debates on the Floor of the House had become a bit of a blunt instrument, and Select Committees were a sharper way of dealing with matters.
There is no point in our spending three hours in Westminster Hall debating these matters, and the Select Committee interviewing wonderful experts and having the help of the support staff—I went all round the country looking at all the different facilities—if a few weeks after our report is issued, the Government send us a nice reply and the whole thing is forgotten. That has always gone on, so I am not making a point about this Government. The Health Committee has dealt with these matters calmly and its recommendations are excellent, but I suppose that I would say that.
I should just like to highlight five of the recommendations in the summary. Point (f) states:
"There have been undeniable failures in service since the policy of care in the community was first launched. But we feel that it is both misleading and unhelpful to state that the policy of care in the community has failed"—
this is a unanimous report agreed by all members of the Committee—
"as the Government has done on a number of occasions. We urge the Government to make clear in the language it uses … that care in the community is a positive policy and one which it supports."
When the Conservative Government delivered care in the community, I thought that it would cost a huge amount of money and I wondered whether we had thought it through. It has indeed cost a huge amount of money but the Health Committee certainly supports the policy.
Paragraph (h) refers to joined-up government. I hate that expression. It means everyone working together. Sadly, not everyone in the mental health services in south-east Essex is working together. I sought the opinion of a number of individuals in the area. A consultant psychiatrist said:
"reducing suicide rates is a very important issue. Southend…needs…semi-informal services…which can really rise to the challenges of the mental health problem in the community."

315WH
A patient who harms himself says:
"The day I left hospital I felt really alone. I couldn't phone the ward for support and felt alone. Instead I had to phone the Samaritans who told me to take up knitting."
The Samaritans do a splendid job, and it is unfortunate if someone said that. I received a letter from a constituent who said:
"I have no idea where my husband could go for help now, as every door seems to be closing in his face and his mental state is becoming more fragile as a consequence".
A general practitioner said:
"David, there is a lack of consultants and conditions in the wards at Rochford are pathetic and I strongly feel that it needs urgent attention."
There are gaps in the services in south-east Essex and the various agencies clearly have a problem talking to each other. I do not have a magic wand but if the Minister and his officials care to look at our recommendations and can deliver some of them, it would make a huge difference.
I recently received a letter from a constituent who said:
"In 1999 I had problems and because I could not talk about them I was taken to Runwell hospital".
I know that at least three hon. Members know that hospital. It is an old asylum that has been threatened with closure for 10 years. Nothing happens. Most of the buildings are a disgrace to the modern national health service. I do not suggest that there are huge pots of money, but someone needs to come up with a solution to the problems at Runwell. My constituent continues:
"I hated it in there. In December 1999 I was allowed to return home on the condition I accepted help from a Mental Health Team Co-Ordinator and, that I had a CPN give me an injection monthly. I didn't want someone from Mental Health to visit."
My constituent now learns that she is no longer to receive help from her splendid support team.
Opposition Members talk endlessly about point (p), which deals with staff shortages. All hon. Members have received a briefing note from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which underpins that recommendation. The Royal College said:
"The proposals, if implemented fully, would have significant implications in terms of personnel and training. In the light of the 14 per cent. vacancy rate for consultant psychiatrists there is much work to do in attracting people to the mental health professions;
The proposals would also be extremely costly financially—we are concerned that care and treatment will be based not on the needs of patients but on what can be 'afforded'."
Point (s) of our recommendations states:
"We are aware that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence… is currently considering guidelines on the management of schizophrenia".
Hon. Members have also received the briefing note from the Zito Trust, which tells us that NICE has recently announced the details of its inquiries into the treatment of schizophrenia. The Zito Trust believes that it is an opportune moment for that debate—perhaps the Minister will confirm whether that is right. The Zito Trust states:
"NICE will be appraising atypical anti-psychotics. Atypical drugs for the treatment of schizophrenia dramatically improve patient outcomes, have fewer debilitating side effects and result in
316WH
better compliance for patients. In nearly two thirds of patients, older typical medicines are associated with some terrible side-effects (including muscle tremors, rigidity, uncontrollable movements and restlessness which in many cases continue even after the treatment has ended). These side effects are one of several causative factors leading to patient non-compliance that can have serious consequences for both patients and the general public."
The trust is concerned that
"pending NICE's guidance being launched many patients will be denied the effective, newer treatment they deserve. It is our view that this will put at risk patients who will have a lower quality of life because of inappropriate treatment and it is our deep concern that they may fail to take their medication as a result."
The final point is point (t), in which the Committee talks about a range of suitable accommodation—an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford touched on. The Health Committee report is very worth while, but if it ends up covered with dust and with no one taking a blind bit of notice of it, we will have wasted our time.
Dealing with people with mental health problems is a huge challenge. All the time one meets people who are in a deep depression; their carers are in despair that they cannot get the right help. Such help and support may not exist. I am sure that the Minister and his team will meet positively the challenges raised and the solutions recommended by the Health Committee's report.
3.39 pm
Mrs. Eileen Gordon: I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) in thanking all the witnesses who took the time to give us evidence and the special advisers and Clerks who worked with us on the report. They did a great job.
I was proud to be a member of the inquiry. Hon. Members will probably share my heartening experience that whenever the issues are discussed, I find that people welcome the report as an advance in the dialogue on mental health issues. That has been recognised by the Government, health professionals and, perhaps most importantly, by user groups, which very much welcome the report's recommendations. I suppose that every member of the Committee who took part in that long inquiry had different impressions of, or headlines for, the things that they saw and the people to whom they spoke. I shall highlight some of the impressions that were left with me.
Many changes are taking place in the national health service, both in the structure of mental health facilities and in provision. With my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), I met representatives of the North East London Mental Health trust on Tuesday. After April, it will be responsible for providing mental health care for more than 1 million people. I was impressed by the trust's values and by what it intends to do, which echoes the work that we did and the Government's response.
Perhaps I can digress for a moment to pay tribute to Sandra Knowles, the chief executive of the Barking, Havering and Brentwood Community Health Care NHS trust. Despite the fact that she is doing away with her job by handing it over to the North East London Mental Health trust, she has worked tirelessly to ensure a seamless transition for staff and service users. Her team has worked incredibly hard and I hope that, on 1 April, the users of the services will not notice a difference.

317WH
I reiterate what the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said—for too long, mental health services have been a Cinderella service. It is a case of "out of sight, out of mind." We had a huge institution in Brentwood to serve the local constituencies—Warley hospital. Thankfully, it is on its last legs and new provision is being made. It was the most awful place and had an impact on the whole community. Even as children, we were warned about Warley hospital. If we went to Brentwood, we would run past it. As the hon. Gentleman said, a stigma has been attached to mental health and is still prevalent.
Much has happened since the start of our inquiry. I very much welcome the national service framework that has been established by the Government, because we are all trying to move towards a holistic approach to people who need mental health care. That can only be good for them and the rest of society. A major issue to emerge from the report was the way in which we involve the users of the services. For too long, professionals have been telling people what is good for them. Increasingly, however, users have a strong voice and make their views known. They are being heard, and I hope that they will be listened to and have an input into policy.
I was shocked that the holistic approach had not been used up to now, which is shown by employment and housing issues. People with a mental illness may have episodes of illness. They may be well and, with a little help, find a job. They may be in work, paying rent and making their way in life, but then have an episode of illness, which means that they have to stop working. That has an impact on housing and disability benefits, for example, and they have to go through a cycle of reapplying for benefit each time. It should be recognised that these people have been there before, that it will be a pattern, that they will not work permanently, and that circumstances are difficult for them. People who are ill and have to go through this process are at their most vulnerable and are often unable to cope.
I hope that the advocacy service will take off, so that people will have someone to help guide them through the process. Through the Government's initiatives on one-stop shops, people can have their benefits sorted out in one place rather than having to trudge from one office to another, each time having to explain what is wrong with them over and over again, which is obviously distressing.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady has spoken about people who are able to go back to work but subsequently have another period of mental illness. It also works on the other side of the equation. One of my constituents is a severe schizophrenic and a double amputee as a result of an accident that occurred while she was in the care of the mental health trust. She is an in-patient sometimes, but lives in the community at other times. Every time she comes out of hospital, she has to go through the whole bureaucratic process again, filling in enormously long forms. The system does not seem to recognise that such people are unable, by definition, to cope with that problem every time they return to the community.
Mrs. Gordon: As I said, it is a real problem that has not yet been solved. It seems common sense to get to know and understand each individual as a person. It is
318WH
sensible to have someone at the one-stop shop who recognises a person and knows what help might be required. It should not be necessary to go through the process over and over again. Carers also have to go through the process with the people they care for and it is extremely distressing.
The role of primary care in mental health issues is important. We know about special hospitals and prisons, and the statistics are interesting. One in four GP consultations has a mental health element and 90 per cent. Of mental health problems are cared for in the primary care sector. We must therefore ensure that GPs and any specialists who work with them are aware of the issues. We do not want people told to go away and take up knitting, as the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) mentioned. Some GPs truly understand the issues and can deal with mental health within their surgeries, but many others do not.
With the formation of primary care groups and primary care trusts, GPs are able to work together and share information on best practice. The new mental health trust in our area will mean that mental health issues and care will move up the agenda. If one in four people has mental health aspects to their problem—stress, for example—it should be picked up at the primary care stage. We all know that the earlier a problem is diagnosed, the easier it is to deal with.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford, West has already dealt well with stigma, but I want to discuss one example. Someone told me at a local MIND meeting that, while waiting at a bus stop, she got chatting to the person next to her. After they had exchanged views about weather or the lateness of the bus, she mentioned that she had not been well, and when asked what the problem had been said, "I have been in Warley hospital," which as I have explained is a local mental health facility. The other woman immediately turned her back and moved away. Such unfounded fear of mental illness still exists. It was unnecessary and cruel for the woman I met to have had to suffer that. We must do more to educate the public about mental health problems. In my locality, MIND does an excellent job of informing people of the facts about mental health.
Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to get the public to distinguish between the great majority of people who suffer from mental illness and the tiny minority of them who are potentially dangerous? Does she think that the Government's proposal to create a new definition of mental disorder that embraces not only people with mental illness but people with a learning disability will be helpful in reducing the stigmatisation of the whole group?
Mrs. Gordon: I hope that any measures that the Government take will focus on reducing stigma and educating people. That is so important. As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford said, we must start early in schools to provide information. People suffer from stress; we have enough stress in this job and it is the same for many people in other jobs.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I did not intend to interrupt my hon. Friend's remarks but it is important to put the record straight. I hope that she is aware that the definition of

319WH
people who are to be treated compulsorily that we propose in the White Paper "Reforming the Mental Health Act" will not include people simply because they are learning disabled. The idea that it will is completely wrong.
Mrs. Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that point.
The voluntary sector has already been discussed, but I want to mention its important work. It emerged in the evidence that the Select Committee heard that voluntary bodies are always walking a funding tightrope. They may have annual funding and every year—or, for a three-year project, every three years—they must undergo the same process, wondering whether they will be given the money. Local groups live on a knife edge most of the time, worrying about the following year's grant and what services they will be able to provide. I hope that the Government will examine that issue and give voluntary groups some security with respect to the future. They make an invaluable contribution to patients' care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield mentioned the women's services. I visited the services at Broadmoor and Ashworth. The staff there were doing their best and working hard. Much good work was being done, but it was repeatedly highlighted that most of the women patients should not have been there—it was inappropriate for them. It is so sad that people should be in Broadmoor—however caring the staff are—when they do not need to be. Indeed, some women are moved to medium-secure units but because those facilities are also inappropriate they eventually end up back at Broadmoor. There is nowhere else to go.
Many of the women in special hospitals have been abused sexually or physically for most of their lives. However, women form only a small part of the population in medium secure units, so when they are moved there, they tend to be put in mixed units or even on the same wards as men. They find that threatening. The units are debating whether to have women-only accommodation or a mixed structure with separate facilities for women, so that they can retreat into a comfortable and safe environment. That needs to be sorted out, because the director of women's services at Broadmoor told us that 60 per cent. Of the women in her care could be looked after in the community or on assertive outreach. It is shocking that those women can be locked away when they could be in medium or low-security facilities.
As there are so few women in that sector, they are put in special hospitals and, as we know from the three cases that were mentioned, they can end up far from their communities and sometimes from their children. When we were at Broadmoor, we heard that, after the Fallon report, heavy restrictions were placed on the men because of the various incidents that had occurred there, with visiting children being abused. Obviously, the staff had to tighten things up and put in more security. However, the women in the women's unit suffered the same security despite there being no evidence that they would have harmed the children. Indeed, it would have helped their rehabilitation and their prognosis for better health if their children and friends with children could
320WH
have visited. Those restrictions were inappropriate. A separate strategy is needed for women in special prisons and secure units. Women's groups have the necessary knowledge to help decide the best way forward.
I wish that we had had time to cover other areas. It is an intense report and we covered much ground. We dealt with the problems of the transfer from child services to adult services, caused by the fact that adolescents are kept in fairly small units but when they suddenly reach the cut-off date they are sent to somewhere harsh like Broadmoor. I hope that we can revisit that aspect, because we need to take a more intensive look at it. Nevertheless, I am pleased with the report and the Government's response and I am glad to have been a part of it.
3.58 pm
Mr. John Austin: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell) has had to leave us, because he said that today's speech may be his last contribution in the House. I hope that it is not. I knew the hon. Gentleman before I became a Member. We all recognise the enormous contribution that he has made not only in the House but for the benefit of the people of west Yorkshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) knows.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to our hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell). His contribution to the Committee's work was remarkable. He has had a great deal of experience in health and social services matters. He chaired a social services committee and served on the Health Committee, and his contribution was positive in every inquiry.
Mr. Austin: I welcome the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield introduced the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for his balanced and rounded speech, and for his concentration on the border issues of mental ill health, especially stigma. Public safety issues are important, and no one wants to underestimate the tragedy of homicides and suicides, but all members of the Committee share concern at the fact that media focus on such events prevents a rational discussion of issues such as the location of hostels for people who present no real risk to anyone in the community. Those people are probably vulnerable individuals themselves. That focus also makes it more difficult to tackle the stigma problem.
The Committee is concluding its major inquiry on public health issues. The most important determinants of health are economic, social and environmental. Access to employment, training, housing, security and social interaction are key elements for the promotion of good health. Those who lack them are more likely to suffer physical and mental ill health. However, those who suffer mental ill health have more difficulty in accessing them. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and our report said, such people face difficulties in re-accessing the benefit system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred to unequal or inappropriate treatment on grounds of race and ethnicity, and my hon. Friend the Member for

321WH
Romford (Mrs. Gordon) referred to the same problem in terms of gender. Witness after witness gave evidence of the fact that health services, especially mental health services, suffer from institutional racism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield pointed out, patients from ethnic minorities tend to access services later than their white counterparts although they may be more severely ill. They are more likely to be detained than treated as informal patients, are over-represented in the secure system and are often provided with inappropriate or insensitive services. They are more likely to receive physical treatments, and less likely to be offered counselling and other non-physical treatments.
That is not news. Our inquiry has not suddenly uncovered that information, as it was well documented 10 or 15 years ago by people such as Roland Littlewood, Maurice Lipsedge and Aggrey Burke. We met Roland Littlewood during the course of our inquiry when we visited NAFSIYAT. Little seems to have changed for the better in terms of discrimination and institutional racism. I am glad that the Government have begun to consider the matter, especially in the wake of the Macpherson inquiry.
Our inquiry found that many of the most appropriate services for ethnic minority communities seemed to be provided by voluntary and community-based organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford pointed out the severe difficulty in continuity of funding. We made a firm recommendation on that, and I am pleased that the Government have taken it on board in their response. I agree with her on gender issues, and ask why there are so many women in special hospitals whom even my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health admits should not be there. That is also recognised in the White Paper, which is pleasing. We have heard that the director of women's services at Broadmoor believes that 60 per cent. Of the women in her care could be looked after in a less secure environment.
As my hon. Friend pointed out so vividly, women who are difficult to manage but are not dangerous are spiralled up the system because of a lack of segregated facilities in medium secure units. The choice appears to be between a mixed ward with male sexual abusers in medium-secure units, or transfer to a special maximum-security hospital. That cannot be appropriate or right. My hon. Friend also referred to the gender-blind approach of the security directions on child visiting, following the Fallon inquiry into Ashworth. It was clearly aimed at men, yet women at Rampton and Broadmoor are now restricted in seeing their own children, without any consideration being given to the therapeutic implications. That cannot be right, and I hope that it is being dealt with.
The Committee also considered issues relating to caring for people in the community. There have been some reports, including a study at York university, on the success of assertive community treatment. They show that that form of treatment maintains contact with more patients, cuts hospital admissions, and reduces time spent in hospital with no evidence of clinical harm.
The Committee was impressed when it visited both north Birmingham and St. George's hospital in south-west London, where assertive outreach programmes are combined with the use of the newer atypical anti-psychotic drugs, which were referred to earlier, as well
322WH
as psycho-social interventions and home treatment. That combination is achieving real results. I welcome the commitment in the Government's recent White Paper to an additional 170 assertive outreach teams with 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week access to services. I recognise that performance varies across the country, and that more research must be carried out into which forms of assertive outreach work.
Questions have also been raised as to whether community care has failed, or whether it has gone too far. It was said earlier that, although care in the community has not failed, the absence of such care has often failed vulnerable people. The late development of the appropriate care in the community packages has led, unfortunately, to the question being raised as to whether the shift from hospital-based care to community-based care has gone too far, or whether tragic incidents such as the murder of Jonathan Zito in 1993 were the result of the closure of in-patient units before the development of adequate community provision.
Those widespread concerns in the 1990s contributed to the passing of the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Act 1995. That Act contained an element of compulsion since it created a new power of after-care and supervision. However, it stopped short of requiring patients to accept treatment. In practice, the power of conditional discharge has not been widely used, perhaps because of the absence of community support facilities rather than because of the absence of a power of compulsory treatment.
The passing of the recent human rights legislation will be an interesting challenge for the mental health services. Last summer, before the implementation of the human rights legislation, the Court of Appeal ruled that local councils should pay for after-care services for some categories of long-term psychiatric patients. The human rights legislation could, in certain circumstances, require local councils and health authorities to meet the conditions of mental health tribunal discharge orders.
Last year, a case was brought against a health authority by a woman who had been held in detention in hospital for more than a year after a mental health tribunal had directed her release because the health authority had failed to find a forensic psychiatrist to supervise her after care. In a similar case in 1997, a patient with schizophrenia took the United Kingdom to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. He had been detained for several years after the release date ordered by the tribunal because the local authority could not find a suitable supervised hostel. The council was found to be in breach of the European convention on human rights for its failure to fulfil the tribunal's conditions within a reasonable period.
Until recently, the only real remedy available to people was the long and arduous process of taking the United Kingdom to court in Strasbourg. Their only other form of redress was by way of judicial review, but ultimately, in judicial review, the court could decide only whether the authority had acted reasonably and had little power other than that of being able to encourage the authorities to explore alternative solutions. Mental health tribunals do not have the power to compel authorities to comply with the conditions of discharge.

323WH
Now that the human rights legislation has been incorporated into British law, any individual can apply to the British courts. That will have an impact on mental health services and their delivery and will, in some cases, ensure that services are available to meet discharge criteria and free up much needed in-patient beds. However, I fear that without additional resources, those authorities may end up having to rob Peter to pay Paul. The Government must therefore be aware of the resource implications of providing an adequate care in the community system.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and. St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the former Secretary of State, said in 1997 that community care had failed, his choice of words was not helpful. However, he was not asking for a return to the old system, with the reintroduction of the water-tower asylums—or the bins, as they are more appropriately known in the trade. He set up the independent reference group's review of community services and recognised, as do the Government, that locking up patients in long-stay institutions is often harsh and harmful. He said that he was looking for a third way. That was perhaps the only time that the right hon. Member for St. Pancras and I looked for a third way; a way that comprised the provision of acute beds, more secure facilities, more 24-hour crisis teams, hostels—as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford said—supported accommodation, home treatment teams and assertive outreach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred to the evidence that we received on people with dual diagnosis. That is of real concern to the Committee and I hope to all hon. Members present. My hon. Friend referred to people with a dual diagnosis of mental disorder and substance misuse or mental disorder and learning disability. Despite their different circumstances, both groups face the common problem of what is known as "pass the parcel"—it is someone else's problem. Young Minds told the inquiry that
"the division between drug and alcohol services and mental health services creates widespread problems throughout the mental health system".
As the National Schizophrenia Fellowship put it:
"they are deemed too 'mad' to go into an alcohol or drugs unit or too 'high' to go into a mental health service".
Turning Point gave us evidence that people with alcohol or drug and mental health problems also find it difficult to access primary care services so that their physical health needs are not addressed.
It is not an easy issue with simple solutions. One NHS trust put it bluntly when, referring to the problem of patients with dual diagnosis on a general ward, it said:
"you have people with other conditions who do not want young men out of their heads on wards."
Those who misuse drugs or alcohol also have a right to treatment. Since some may be the people for whom compulsory treatment is considered, a human rights issue arises if they were previously denied access to appropriate services. Substance misuse is often implicated in acts of violence, both homicide and suicide.
4.13 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.28 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Austin: I was referring to the problems faced by people with a dual diagnosis. The Health Committee received two studies, one from Maudsley, the other from Lewisham. The first showed that 40 per cent. of alcohol-dependent patients had some form of mental illness, and the second that 58 per cent. Of people accessing mental health services had a dual diagnosis of substance misuse. Although the national service framework acknowledges problems of co-morbidity, it provides little guidance, which led the Committee to recommend that the Department of Health should require joint working and co-ordination between mental health and substance misuse agencies. It also recommended that working with people with a dual diagnosis should be made a requirement within the remit of assertive outreach services and that the duty of partnership imposed on the NHS and local authorities under section 27 of the Health Act 1999 should include substance misuse and housing services.
I want to say more about drug treatment. In delivering a unanimous, cross-party report, the Committee called upon the National Institute for Clinical Excellence seriously to consider the outcome of treatment from a user's perspective, including the benefits of making compliance with drug treatment less onerous. Our report was published at the same time as the publication of a survey by the Zito Trust, showing severe gaps and weaknesses in the provision of services, with patients being denied access to the most effective treatment—21 per cent. Of United Kingdom health authorities restricted the use of atypical anti-psychotic drugs that are known to have fewer side effects and result in better compliance.
Notwithstanding the outcome of the NICE investigation, I share Jayne Zito's concern that patients who are non-compliant, often because of the horrendous side effects of typical medicines, are denied access to atypical medicines, which, as Jayne Zito said, improve compliance lead to reintegration into society and can result in significant savings.
The Government believe that independent advocacy services are important—it is a subject dear to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield—as shown in the White Paper, which was published before the passing of the Health and Social Care Bill. The White Paper refers to the patient advisory liaison service as the gateway to specialist advocacy services.
The Minister knows the importance that hon. Members attach to the assurance that the advocacy services should be independent, and be seen to be so. In view of the amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill on the location and provision of advocacy services, which the Government accepted, the matter will have to be addressed before we consider a mental health Bill.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Health and Social Care Bill as if it were a fait accompli. The Bill is still under consideration in the other place and, depending on the timing of the dissolution of Parliament, may not make it to the statute book.
Mr. Austin: Whether or not the Bill reaches the statute book in this or a future Parliament, I hope that the

325WH
Minister will acknowledge the commitment to the important principles of independent and available advocacy services in the Health and Social Care Bill.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) drew an analogy between the Prison Service and mental health services in terms of community interest. That may be valid, but there is a clear distinction: most of us know something about prisons, but few hon. Members have a loved one, a friend or a relative, who has been in the nick. However, I suspect that every one of us has someone close to them with personal experience of the mental health services. It is not only our constituents who have such experience.
I have two prisons in one in my constituency, and there are prisons in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr Brand). Many people are in Belmarsh prison in my constituency because of the failure and inadequacy of the mental health services to address their needs.
I have been a critic for many years of the inadequacy of the psychiatric and forensic services in prisons, but the new regime at Belmarsh prison which I visit, is a beacon of light in the development of services, and the Committee was very positive about it.
The media have concentrated on the small number of difficult-to-manage patients but that should not divert us from the need to raise the standards of mental health services generally. The Government's NHS frameworks may need even more resources than they have already generously made available, but if they are implemented, we may at last see the tag "Cinderella service" removed from mental health.
4.34 pm
Dr. Peter Brand: It is always a great privilege to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on Health Committee reports. It is rare that I do not fully endorse a report, but then I have also had the privilege to serve as a Committee member. I must congratulate the members, staff and advisers on the excellent way in which the Committee works. Our chairman, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), keeps us in order and gives his own opinion, but at the end of the day allows consensus to emerge, which is right. Our recommendations are based on evidence. That is why it is important that we look at the areas in which the evidence clearly points to a recommendation that is not always picked up by the Government in the way that we would like.
The timing of the report is excellent. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr Burns) and others have talked about the continuing stigmatisation of people with mental health problems. I suppose that it is a step forward from being totally excluded and marginalised, but it is still awful that we cannot accept that mental illness is not the fault of the person who has it—we should not have a blame culture—not is it an infectious illness. It is a condition brought on either acutely, like any other acute illness or chronically, due to the pressures created by society and social conditions.
Also, it is timely to talk about mental health because we can do so much more to support people and prevent illness, as well as to treat them. I strongly endorse the report's recommendation that our service to people with
326WH

mental illness, and those recovering from or at risk from it, should be better integrated. I am slightly concerned that we should not move too much into a medical model for doing that important work. Of course, treatment often involves pharmaceuticals, but they should be an adjunct to everything else that we do.
Sometimes the war against mental illness seems to be seen as a form of chemical warfare—it seems that, provided that one drugs people into quietude and submission, there are no problems. A number of hon. Members have talked about the use of up-to-date drugs. It is wrong to describe the new anti-schizophrenic drugs as atypical drugs. They should be described as modern drugs that allow people to function as well as be in control. The points made by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell) on electro-convulsive therapy were extremely valuable in that context. ECT can be extremely helpful in certain limited conditions. It can be life saving; it can also be a means of blasting out people's anxieties and memories and making them extremely quiet, so that they are no longer a nuisance.
There must be a way to ensure that people have a say in their proposed treatment—not only in the context of compulsory treatment orders, but perhaps more importantly, in the context of having uncertain competence about giving permission. It is too easy for clinicians to persuade people who are not admitted under a section that a certain form of treatment is best for them without giving them an option to consider alternatives. The issue of competence is extremely important in that context. I am glad that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) picked up the point when the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell was talking about ECT because it applies just as much to drug treatment.
Just as drug treatment can be appropriate, it is also important that other quality-of-life issues are properly addressed. I am pleased that at least four of this afternoon's contributors made strong reference to the need to consider social support. There is a need for cross-government thinking on how the benefits system delivers its services. At my surgery on Friday, I saw someone who must go to a tribunal because his benefit is being cut from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. or something similar. That man is agoraphobic. He worked himself up for a month to go to the mainland for a medical examination by the benefits system. When he arrived, he was told, "Well, we're overbooked this afternoon. Here's some money for your ferry fare. Come back in two weeks' time." That service is being run on behalf of the service provider, not the people who need it.
I hear far too often that the medical branch of the Benefits Agency is totally insensitive to the people whom it serves. As individuals, the people in that agency may be perfectly nice, but the systems that they employ are like the ones that we had in general practice 30 years ago, which are rightly not acceptable now. If the Government employ an agency, they should consider the way in which it delivers services.
It is important that rules and regulations are not too restrictive. For example, before housing benefit is paid, it must be verified by a housing officer. If someone in the community struggles hard to be able to meet anyone but has developed a degree of trust with his community psychiatric nurse and psychiatric social worker, either of

327WH
them, who often make the placement in the first place, could do the verification job well. It is now done by yet another body. There is no doubt that red tape and a jobsworth attitude are sometimes involved. I cannot blame the people concerned, because they work to a strict set of rules, but that reduces the amount of social and supportive housing that is available.
Two weeks ago, I received a letter from Dr. Ram Seth, who is a wonderful psychiatrist on the island. He is despairing at the situation of two of his patients. They are in-patients, but should no longer be in hospital and he cannot find anywhere for them to go or anyone who will have them. I regularly meet social landlord providers who say that they would like to continue doing that business but they need a little more support. Somehow, the joined-up thinking by Government has not been worked out properly.
While I am talking about joined-up government, I also make a plea for the Minister to talk to his colleagues with responsibility for employment, especially the therapeutic earnings arrangements and the current limit. The hon. Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) mentioned the difficulties of moving in and out of employment. It is not in anyone's interest for someone to take a job unless he knows that he can continue to do it for a time. If a psychiatric patient or recovering patient is very vulnerable, the last thing that we want is an on-going set of disasters. Someone may try hard and take on a job. After two or three weeks, however, he may find that the judgment was not right and he should not have tried it. It is not merely a question of his going back to the day centre and getting his support. The person is also without funds until that is sorted out. It may be six weeks before he has anything to live on, which is an enormous disincentive for people to go forward.
I am also concerned that we do not see day centres entirely as places for the acute or severely chronically ill. I must declare an interest. My older brother runs a day centre. It is successful and it allows people to keep in touch with a supportive facility even when they have gone back to work. With our new arrangements, which try to target help towards those who are more severely ill, his case load is being studied to see who can be thrown out. Where do vulnerable people go when they are thrown out? I have a problem with this. The medical model for allocating resources does not cut across the social support, which is not always as easy to define as some of the medical support. The medical profession does not have a good record on defining things. Psychiatry is full of diagnoses and opinions about the meaning of diagnoses. I will touch on that issue with reference to personality disorders and treatability.
On co-conditions, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) described drug dependency and alcoholism well. An enormous opportunity is missed within the Prison Service to tackle people with those problems. Community psychiatric nurses travel all day to find out whether they can provide help to a person through assertive outreach, yet at the same time, people with just such needs rot in our prisons without the support that they should have. Enlightened—and some extremely good—prison regimes exist. There are good prisons on the island. However, it is not reasonable to expect the job in question—running therapy groups
328WH
for people with drug or alcohol problems, or with sexual deviations—to be taken on largely by prison officers in addition to their custodial and occupational therapy work. That approach cannot be sustained.
I now find that prison officers are breaking down because they cannot cope with the strain. They provide a service that should be resourced through the national health service—and properly. I am glad that the report mentions the present arrangement, which is difficult for health authorities in areas where there is a substantial prison population. It is impossible to contribute the resources that are needed. Even for something relatively simple and accessible, such as counselling services for which people are available in the job market, the money simply is not there. I hope that the Minister will suggest what progress the review on the funding of prison medical services has made. That matter is of great concern, not only on the Isle of Wight but generally in areas with substantial prison contacts.
In prisons, there are many mentally ill people who are not treated. Prisons are also the waiting list for secure hospitals. The bizarre situation is that people who, if treated, could return to the community are in prison with people who should be not there but in secure units and who make the lives of other prisoners and prison officers extremely difficult. On our special hospital visits we saw that there is a waiting list to discharge people and a waiting list to admit people—although the waiting list to admit is not created until there is a vacancy.
Mr. Austin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems that he has identified has been tackled at Belmarsh to a large extent by forensic psychiatric services being provided for the prison on a commission basis by the local medium-secure unit?
Dr. Brand: That is an extremely valuable point. It is one of the models that we have to work through. It is vital that the prison medical services, the special units and the secure hospitals all work to the same regime and that they have clear financial accountability for the jobs that they take on. I am afraid that rigidly separated budgets will result in a lot of defensive fencing before decisions are made.
What progress is being made on the extra beds in secure units that the Minister spoke about in Committee—and, indeed, on specialist units for women? The points made by the hon. Member for Romford were so telling. We are putting women in an impossible situation by allowing Broadmoor to become a haven or asylum. I am not against asylums—in the true sense of the word as places of safety—but they need not be places in a secure hospital.
Two difficult human rights issues are tackled in the Health and Social Care Bill. One is the compulsory treatment order in the community, which is an extension of the present powers. At the moment, people can be compulsorily detained but not necessarily treated; they can refuse treatment until a tribunal has heard the case. At the moment, that does not extend to the community. Those who are in the community can be taken into hospital, but treatment cannot be forced upon them.
If treatment is to be forced on people in the community, it is important that the patients, if competent, should have a choice of what that treatment

329WH
should be. They should have the opportunity, before an episode of illness, of saying what that treatment might be. Patients' carers should have an input, as should those support organisations to which patients belong. That is why the advocacy service is important. In this instance, I would not like the advocacy service simply to deal with complaints. It should help people expertly to make choices that they may find difficult to understand. If we are to deny people the liberty to say no, it is important that proper checks and balances are put in place. That is even more important if we are talking about denying people their freedom.
I am uneasy about locking people up because of their personality. As has been said, a severe personality disorder does not necessarily relate to the dangerousness that a person presents to society. I am glad to say that a body of medical opinion believes that treatments can help people come to terms with their personality disorders and allow them to interact better with society. More work needs to be done with what are normally described as talking therapies—I believe that they should be called listening therapies—including the psychotherapeutic approach that allows people's behaviour to be moulded over a long period of time to reduce risk. In that sense, using hospital psychiatric facilities is appropriate, but I would be unhappy if people were put in prison, or a quasi-facility—as if it were an oubliette—because we do not like their opinions or thinking patterns. That is dangerous.
I fully support the Fallon concept of reviewable sentences. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister has talked to his Home Office colleagues and whether he can think of an individual who has not committed some offence, no matter how minor, and presents a major risk in line with the descriptions of people with dangerous personality disorders. Such individuals must be extremely rare. They may have committed offences as juveniles. Something will have happened to have brought them to the attention of the authorities.
Some people may be so unfortunate that they cannot cope and need to be imprisoned or put somewhere secure. From that location, they can be reviewed, and they should have the right to go back to court to say that they do not represent the risk that they used to and want to be let out. Reviewable sentences are a much better way forward than putting someone in jail.
Mr. Hammond: I am slightly confused, but perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick. I thought that reviewable sentences related to offenders who might subsequently have their incarceration period extended because of the threat that they presented. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting a form of reviewable sentence for someone who has not committed an offence, or have I misunderstood him?
Dr. Brand: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I am saying that some people commit offences that may be relatively minor, but those people may present a clear threat and so would be given indeterminate sentences. An arson attack that does not do enormous damage, for instance, might suggest a disturbed personality. In such circumstances, a reviewable sentence may be appropriate if the cases are not deemed a priori for the mental health services. I hope that there are not many
330WH

such cases. The Government estimate a figure of, I think, 2,300, and it might be interesting to know how many of those people have some court record.
I must pay tribute to successive Governments for making enormous progress on the way in which mental health is regarded. It is important that we do not simply say that mental health has to come into the mainstream, as we must also resource it. Much is now being done to work more closely with patients. I single out my friend Roger Fordham, who runs a patients' group on the Isle of Wight. He is a terrific worker for his patients and colleagues in the day centre. Such people are an enormous resource, but we should not over-use them. It is important that we do not narrow our horizons too much to one willing individual. We must ensure that we use everyone who has a contribution to make.
I have also been impressed with the work of the Zito Trust. The report comments on the mandatory homicide inquiries and their effect, and makes the sound recommendation that they be sent to a specialist branch of the Commission for Health Improvement. I cannot think of any lasting positive outcome of such an inquiry other than the Zito Trust—it is an unofficial body, but it has done excellent work. It is a forward-looking organisation that is not centred only on victims, as it considers the needs of the people who committed the dreadful offences and other people in the same category.
No such improvements can be achieved without adequate resources. As has been said, we are short not only of psychiatrists but of psychologists and psychiatric nurses. The idea that general practitioners could be trained to be more skilful and do more mental health work is no solution as GPs are already over-burdened with work.

More time is necessary to bring more people on, but I hope that in the interim, the Minister will recognise the enormous contribution that can be made by lay counsellors, social workers, carers and other people in supporting roles. It is wrong that units are still being shut down or restricted because we cannot afford the people to run them. Those are the units that support people and keep them out of hospital and out of our prisons.
5 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: As perhaps the only Member speaking today, apart from the Minister, who was not a member of the Committee, I should like to congratulate it on tackling a difficult and complex subject and producing a report that, as I am sure its readers will agree, is an extremely useful reference document covering a wide area. I am also grateful for the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). All hon. Members have adopted a constructive tone, acknowledging that it is a matter of building on the efforts of successive Governments and that society has come a long way during the past 30 or 40 years in terms of how we deal with people who suffer from mental illness. We still have a long way to go, but we have come a long way, and the issue is not primarily party political.
Since the publication of the Committee report, a lot of water has passed under the bridge in terms of Government documents. The NHS plan came out

331WH
shortly after the report, and the Government's response to the report, the Health and Social Care Bill and the consultation responses to the Green Paper "Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983" have all been published, as was the White Paper, in December. We must consider the Committee's recommendations in the light of what has taken place since the publication of its report.
We have, as yet, seen no sign of legislation. The Government have stated on many occasions and reiterated in all the documents that I have listed, that mental health is a high priority for them. Since there is potentially still a year of this Parliament left to run, I hope that that high level of commitment and the importance that the Government attach to mental health will be expressed in the form of a Bill. There is broad consensus that new legislation is needed. There is also a fairly broad consensus that such legislation is more important than some of the other legislation that has filled the legislative programme. I hope that the Minister will have something reassuring to say about that.
The title of the report is "Provision of NHS Mental Health Services", and although I do not want to be picky, it is probably appropriate to mention at the outset the independent sector. The Government have stated that they wish to work more closely with the sector in future to ensure effective provision of NHS services to NHS patients. The independent sector plays a significant role in the delivery of mental health services, particularly medium-secure services. In London, I understand that one independent organisation provides more NHS in-patient psychiatry than any NHS trust in the London region.
Without wishing to be churlish, I detected in recommendation (uu) of the report a tinge of hostility to the involvement of the private sector and what seemed like an aspiration to reduce private sector involvement. Will the Minister say something about the future of private and independent sector providers of mental health services? Do they have a future in mental health provision in the NHS? If they were to receive a negative signal, it could have unfortunate consequences, so I hope that the Minister can say something reassuring about that. What proportion of the additional beds and facilities that the Government have announced are expected to be provided directly by the NHS and what proportion will be NHS-funded facilities provided by the private sector?
Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman knows my general views on the private sector, which I shall therefore not need to discuss. When we produced the report, the Committee was concerned that some of the private establishments that we examined were offering a service, but their existence obstructed the development of a better service in the NHS. Earlier, I referred to a private hospital in York that offered secure facilities that were full of young black men from London. My personal view, which was shared by the cross-party Committee, is that we must place those men in appropriate facilities in their communities, which is a point made in the report.
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know his views on the private sector generally, so I
332WH
understand why he does not feel the need to discuss them today because you, Mr O'Hara, would certainly rule the language out of order. I have heard what he had to say and I look forward to the Minister's comments.
There is a capacity issue. We have all seen what is happening in the care homes sector, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want anything similar to happen in the medium secure mental health sector by virtue of careless talk. I hope that the Minister will want to reassure quality providers that there will be a role for them because I would not want to spoil the tone of consensus on the issues that we have discussed today.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) responded to the presentation of the White Paper by the Secretary of State in the House, he welcomed the general thrust of Government policy. More care delivered in more appropriate settings must equal better outcomes. We also welcome the Government's determination to address the question of stigma, about which my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and the hon. Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) have spoken eloquently today.
The Committee noted that the focus of attention on high-risk patients—the bulk of the White Paper deals with such patients, which inevitably focuses press attention—conveys a highly misleading impression of mental health services. Earlier, I intervened on the hon. Lady to ask about the Government's proposed new definition of mental disorder that covers any disability or disorder of mind or brain, whether permanent or temporary, which results in an impairment or disturbance of mental functioning. Perhaps the Minister will want to clarify the position because I took his earlier comments to mean that that definition would not include people with a learning disability. However, my understanding is that it will include people with a learning disability, although that alone will not make them vulnerable to compulsion.
The point that I raised with the hon. Lady related to stigma. I have raised the issue before, but I perceive that many people in the community do not distinguish between either learning disability and mental illness or the vast majority of mental illnesses and the tiny number of patients who may be a threat to themselves or to others. I raised this question with the hon. Lady, and I shall address it again to the Minister: does broadening the definition of mental disorders help to de-stigmatise this area? How can it be managed to ensure that the effect will be positive in terms of reducing stigma?
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring welcomed the proposed reform and simplification of sectioning procedures, although he raised some practical concerns. If and when we see a Bill, we shall examine carefully how the Government intend to overcome them. We also welcome the proposal for community treatment orders, subject, as always, to the establishment of the appropriate safeguards. Doubtless there will be much devil in the detail that will need scrutiny. It is clear that community treatment orders are building on the success of care in the community and must constitute the way forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the Select Committee itself concluded that it would be unhelpful for the Government to give the impression that care in the community has been a failure. I should point out that the Minister has gone out of his way to emphasise

333WH
that he does not consider care in the community a failure, but in a press release dated 29 July 1998 the current Secretary of State's predecessor said:
"Care in the community has failed."
One cannot express oneself much clearer than that, and the Government and the mental health community might have to work hard for some time to repair the damage done by that brief statement.
We support much of the thrust of the Government's White Paper and their response to the Select Committee report, but in due course I shall raise some specific issues about which we are not quite so happy. Like hon. Members in this Chamber, who are all experts on this subject, I hope that others will keep in mind the proper balance between general mental health services and issues relating to high-risk patients. The hon. Member for Romford said that approximately one in four GP consultations involve a mental health element. Ninety per cent. of patients with mental health problems are cared for entirely within the primary care system, which points strongly to the need to focus resources on early intervention and identification of problems.
We also know that four in every 1,000 people have a severe mental health condition, such as schizophrenia, and some 11,500 people are detained in hospitals and homes under the Mental Health Act 1983. In the light of those figures, if the proposals in the White Paper are implemented and legislation is enacted, how many people are expected to be treated under compulsion in the new regime that the Minister envisages? Concern has been expressed that numbers might increase significantly. On the question of moving people to units with lower security levels where possible and in the light of recommendation (xx) and the Government's response to it, what reduction in the population of high-security mental health units does the Minister expect? In the Government's response to recommendation (r), reference is made to 1,000 new "workers" in mental health at primary care level. What does that mean? What type of people and level of qualification are we talking about?
The Select Committee has rightly recognised that funding and resourcing is a principal area of concern. Although it welcomed the ring-fenced funds that have been drawn from the modernisation fund, it recognised that the overall level of funding is of the greatest importance. It also noted variations in the percentages of health authority allocations that are spent on mental health, and herein lies one of the problems. The Government say loud and clear that they regard mental health as a top priority, but they have set targets for health authorities and NHS trusts that have a somewhat headline-grabbing potential. The inevitable result is that health authorities are tempted to divert their resources towards meeting those targets that, in their view, the Government believe should be addressed first. The worry is that mental health will remain the Cinderella service while it must compete with other, high priority, high-profile, life and death, blue-light issues that the Government, rightly, have raised. The Government say that mental health is a priority, but most of the electorate, if asked what are the principal objectives in the health service, would probably say cancer and coronary heart disease if they have been listening to the Government. I should be surprised if many of them would say mental health.
334WH
I want to refer to one or two specific matters and then to speak briefly about dangerous severe personality disorder. We all recognise that staffing is the main constraint in implementing the Government's mental health plans and the NHS national plan. The Committee identified precisely the concerns in relation to psychologists and occupational therapists. The Government's response to the Committee's recommendations (p) and (r) was inadequate and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Wakefield did not mention that. It referred to the total number of nurses and other health professionals whom the Government hope to have in place by 2004 under the NHS plan. It did not refer to the specific requirements for staffing our mental health services.
I have some questions for the Minister. First, can those NHS plans be met? We have seen the reports of the Audit Commission and National Audit Office, which refer to the difficulty of meeting those plans with the current high drop-out level among trainee nurses. Secondly, what proportion of those people will be directed towards mental health services? If the NHS plan is not achieved on staffing, what reassurance can the Minister give that mental health services will not suffer the brunt of under-availability of qualified staff? Pay is often said to be the main grouse that causes problems with recruitment, particularly to mental health services, but job satisfaction, morale, conditions and, above all, being allowed to get on with the job are also important.
I want to leave the Minister plenty of time to reply, so I shall omit several important matters and say a few words about the Government's proposals on compulsion. I referred to the Bournewood judgment during an intervention and I should be grateful if the Minister would elaborate on how the new regime will deal with patients who have not objected to treatment but who are deemed not to have the mental capacity to consent to treatment. The Select Committee suggested that it might be a good idea if we had a better definition of capacity. I am slightly concerned that in practical terms those people are treated compulsorily. If they are correctly assessed not to have the ability to consent, the regime that will control them when they are inside the system should be more akin to the regime of a voluntary patient than to that of a compulsory patient. The Minister knows that I have a particular interest in that matter because the Bournewood mental health trust is in my constituency.
Turning to patients with dangerous severe personality disorder, I must say at the outset that the Opposition recognise that it is a very difficult problem and that part of the challenge, if we are to de-stigmatise mental illness, is to identify those who are a danger to the public and to assure the public that they are being appropriately dealt with. We can then re-educate the public about the way in which they think about the 99.9 per cent. of mentally ill people who are not a danger to anyone, except perhaps themselves occasionally.
After much consideration and a lot of soul-searching, the Opposition have concluded that we simply cannot support a regime that locks people up, not for the purpose of treating them in a therapeutic environment, but as a form of preventive detention. There is presently inadequate evidence to suggest that the predictive power of diagnosis is sound enough to contemplate the

335WH
enormity of incarcerating someone without treatment and without any realistic possibility of being released back into the community. The Opposition are extremely wary of the Government's proposals for dealing with dangerous severe personality disorder patients.
To conclude, I emphasise that what unites us is much greater than what divides us. There is a considerable sphere of consensus. I have explained some of our concerns. If a Bill is introduced before the end of the Parliament, we look forward to engaging constructively with the Government on the practical issues that it will raise. I hope that we can proceed as we have hitherto—in a consensual way to ensure that the progress made over the past 30 or 40 years continues in future.
5.21 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): First, may I say that I am glad that a doctor is in the House this afternoon? I may need to ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) to help me with the problems affecting my voice.
I hope to respond fully to all the issues that hon. Members have raised. We have had an excellent debate about the future of mental health services and I agree with virtually everything that has been said. Anyone listening to today's proceedings would conclude that a substantial consensus exists about what needs to be done to ensure that all our constituents have access to the first-class mental health services that we would want for ourselves if we ever suffered from a mental health problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who has a close interest in these matters, made an excellent speech. He and I agree on many aspects of the problem, particularly on the need to improve community mental health services. We have made that a priority for investment, reform and modernisation during the past three years and I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that that will continue.
I also welcome the speech of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who did my job in the previous Conservative Government. I agree with him about the need to tackle discrimination, stigma and ill-informed prejudice. I pay tribute to him for the stance that he has adopted on this issue, which is not always easy. The hon. Gentleman was on more dangerous ground in respect of jumping on political bandwagons, but I respect his courage in raising that matter as well.
I greatly enjoyed the brief contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell). This may be the last opportunity to hear my hon. Friend speak in the House. I hope not, because he is an outstanding Member of Parliament and a distinguished member of the Health Committee who brings personal integrity and compassion to these subjects. I pay an enormous tribute to him as an individual. I hope that I will have the chance to hear more from him in the future.
I can assure the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) that we intend to improve mental health services. We responded positively to the Health Committee's report, which is a mark of our continuing
336WH
contribution to this issue. We have no intention of producing a response to the report and then forgetting about mental health services. The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the National Institute of Clinical Excellence and the use of atypical anti-psychotics, if he will forgive me for using that expression. NICE is reviewing the whole treatment of schizophrenia and has not yet produced its final appraisal. The Government will examine it carefully when it is produced, which I hope will be as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) is actively involved in mental health issues in her constituency and has a special concern to ensure that patients and users are effectively involved in planning their care and treatment. We share that commitment. It is strongly and fully reflected throughout the national service framework, which has been well received not just in the NHS but outside with user and patient groups and in local authorities. She was right to stress, as did the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), the need to improve our investment in care. Anyone who has read the NHS plan and looked at what Ministers have been saying will know of our strong commitment to improve front-line primary care services. As has been widely remarked, that is where the majority of patients can be safely and appropriately treated. It is where they want to be treated. It is the responsibility of us in the NHS and our partners in local authorities to ensure that those services are available.
I congratulate the Health Committee on an excellent report into mental health services and I welcome its close interest in the subject. Like all members of the Committee, the Government want to see those vital NHS services improve and expand so that we can begin to meet more effectively the mental health needs of millions of people in our country. As hon. Members have rightly pointed out, this is a big challenge and much needs to be done, but with the Committee's encouragement, we have made a good beginning to that long overdue programme of investment and modernisation.
In 1997, when the Government took office, we made improving mental health services one of the top three clinical priorities for the NHS. Given the condition of mental health services and their importance to the health and well-being of the nation, that was absolutely the right thing to do. Our programme of modernisation—[Interruption.] That crack in my voice reminds me of the time when my voice used to go up and down.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Many years ago.
Mr. Hutton: Yes, many years ago. I thank my hon. Friend for that generous observation.
Our programme of modernisation has involved three distinct elements. First, we needed to improve investment in mental health services and in doing so, to focus on the immediate priorities. Those included new and improved community-based services and secure beds. I will try to respond to questions about the numbers of secure beds in a moment. Secondly, we needed to set clear national standards in relation to

337WH
service provision and access to services that have quite often depended on where a person happened to live. The first of the national service frameworks has, I believe, begun to tackle this unacceptable state of affairs and has been widely welcomed. Finally, we needed to bring the mental health legislation up to date, and we have now set out in the White Paper how we intend to do that.
This is clearly a major programme of reform that will take years to complete. I know that the Committee has strong views on those three issues as well as on other matters, with which I will deal in a few moments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) wisely pointed out, it is important that we recognise, as I am sure that the Committee does, that good mental health is not just the preserve of the NHS. The NHS has a crucial role to play, given the expertise and specialist care services that we provide, but wider issues have a key bearing too. The Government's successful economic Policy of creating new jobs and securing economic stability positive will make a positive impact on promoting good will the extra investment that we are making in other front-line public services such as services.
Mental health services have often been described as the Cinderella service of the NHS. We all know why. The proper range of services has not always been available to provide the care and support that people need when and where they need it. There has been inadequate care, poor management of resources and under funding.
The Department of Health's memorandum to the Health Committee on public expenditure demonstrated those problems clearly. From 1991–92 to 1995–96, expenditure on mental health services fell in real terms by £69 million. Given the pressure on mental health services throughout that period, it was clearly not helpful. More worryingly, the memorandum showed that NHS in-patient provision had fallen by almost 18,000 beds between 1987 and 1996. I accept that 15,000 of those were long stay NHS beds and we welcome the progress that has been made in those areas, but 3,000 of those beds were acute in-patient psychiatric beds and we could not afford to lose them. That is why we decided that the first national service framework should cover mental health services. The NSF published in 1999 will, we hope, help to drive up quality and remove the wide and unacceptable variations in provision that we inherited.
Mr. Hammond: The Select Committee report drew attention to health authorities' different spending levels on mental health from their general allocations. Does the Minister have a view on that? Does he intend to issue directions or give guidance on the appropriate percentage to health authorities or does he think that it is different in every case?
Mr. Hutton: I will certainly not give guidance or instructions to health authorities that identifies the percentage that they should spend on mental health. That would not be right. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to criticise me if I did so, I because he is always complaining about Ministers' alleged micro-management of the NHS. Those issues must be resolved locally. Local priorities and local patients' needs must
338WH
be reflected. We expect spending on mental health services to continue to improve and to reflect the national priorities that we have set.
Since 1997, expenditure on mental health services has increased by £466 million. For those who like to number crunch, that is a 16 per cent. increase. The NHS plan, to which I shall come later, will invest more than £300 million over the next few years in new community and primary care based mental health services. It sets out our plans to recruit a further 8,000 staff for mental health services over the next few years—more nurses, doctors, primary care workers and other support staff.
I think that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked about the extra 1,000 primary care workers identified by the NHS plan. They will be largely graduate psychologists. We hope to be able to provide brief, psychologically based therapies in primary care settings, which will certainly take a lot of pressure off many hard-pressed local GPs. All those measures will help to ensure that mental health services are no longer the Cinderella service of the NHS.
Our response to the Select Committee report attempts to highlight the extensive amount of work that is under way. The Committee's decision to launch an inquiry into mental health services stemmed from the strong impression that patients often ended up in the wrong part of the mental health care system or sometimes could not get treatment where and when they needed it. That is also our view. Over the past three years, therefore, the Government have set in train developments substantially to increase the range of local provision, so that by next April an extra 500 local secure beds and 320 extra 24-hour staffed beds will be available.
In addition, regions—particularly London, whose mental health services are under severe pressure—are using their own capital resources to develop schemes to provide locally based NHS services for the large number of people in private-sector secure provision, which is often far away from their homes. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked me to comment on the provision of secure accommodation in the private sector. We will continue to use it; we want to develop strong and continuing relationships with the private sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield made clear, however, the problem with much private-sector provision is that it is in the wrong place and is therefore of little use to patients. The inner cities and conurbations, such as London, need more locally based services. We certainly intend to increase the provision of long-term secure beds and community staffing. There will be more investment in services for dangerous people with severe personality disorder. Those developments should help to ease the pressure on various parts of the system and enable people to be treated in the most appropriate setting.
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful for what the Minister has said, but will he elaborate on the increase in secure facilities? Will that be done by direct NHS investment or by contracting with private sector partners under the terms of the concordat?
Mr. Hutton: The numbers to which I have referred are for NHS beds, but we look forward to close

339WH
relationships and partnerships with the private sector, which provides 30 per cent. of all secure beds. We must use that resource and will continue to get good value for money in doing so.
In response to particular comments made by the Committee, the Department has stressed to all chief executives of mental health services the importance of ensuring that all patients discharged from specialist services should receive clear information on how to re-access them in the event of a further onset of illness. We have set up a new national working group to develop guidance on good practice on dual diagnosis, which was a concern of the Committee. A further investment of £1.25 million will be available next year to provide a range of training in substance misuse for those who work in mental health services.
We have ensured that the needs of people with mental health problems and learning disabilities will be covered in the forthcoming learning disability White Paper. We have developed new model service specifications that reflect best evidenced-based practice for crisis resolution teams, assertive outreach teams and early intervention services. They will be launched at a conference for chief executive officers and directors of social services later in March.
We have started to address long-standing concern about the quality of in-patient care, which will be a major focus of our work in future. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and other members of the Select Committee will be aware, the Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee recently made several wide-ranging recommendations relating to the experience of users of acute in-patient facilities. NHS trusts and health authorities are expected to respond to the recommendations as part of their health improvement plans and national service framework implementation arrangements.
The acute in-patient care collaborative recently launched by the NHS executive offices of the Trent region and the northern and Yorkshire region will be a seminal piece of work that will, I hope, bring about real service improvement in other parts of the NHS. The purpose of the work is to improve user experience of mental health acute in-patient care and achieve better outcomes through the process of assessment, admission, stay and discharge by sharing good practice. There is plenty of good practice in the NHS, so we have another opportunity to learn from and share that experience. I believe strongly that there is nothing wrong with the NHS that cannot be put right through the use of its best qualities. I want to see such progress made in all regions, not only the two that I have named.
As the Committee knows, the Government are committed to removing mixed-sex accommodation, and ward sisters and charge nurses have been given new resources for improving the general environment on their wards. That will certainly include acute in-patient psychiatric wards. We now need to consider carefully the general ward environment and the physical conditions of all such wards as part of our continuing work to modernise and improve the NHS.
340WH
We take mental health promotion seriously, which is why we have brought it centre stage by including two new standards in the national service framework that will require health and local authorities to develop and implement coherent mental health promotion strategies. We shall support them in that endeavour by developing a mental health promotion framework that will draw together the evidence base for effective practice and highlight examples of good practice elsewhere.
The Department continues to work in collaboration with users of mental health services, the voluntary sector and professional bodies with a view to reducing discrimination. That relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I have recently approved the appointment of a communications consultancy to develop a new national campaign that will be launched later this month. It will be aimed at tackling stigma and discrimination faced by people with mental health problems and supporting their social inclusion. I hope that the campaign will have an innovative and exciting new style that will involve employers in a central role. I should be happy to share the details of the campaign with the Select Committee further, and would welcome its members to the launch. I shall ensure that they are invited to it.
As part of the NHS plan implementation arrangements, local services from next year will be required to include occupation, housing and benefits in care plans for the most severely disabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford was especially concerned about such issues. An employment group has been set up to consider ways to promote greater opportunities for people with mental health problems to access suitable employment. With the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security, we are planning new job retention and rehabilitation pilots this year to test the effectiveness of different health and employment strategies in reducing the number of people forced to give up work through prolonged illness or disability. The mental health pilots will take place in north and south Cheshire and the Wirral, and we will look for early lessons during the next two years in how we can take the initiative forward.
The mental health taskforce will shortly consider a wide-ranging report on ethnicity and mental health services provision. Many hon. Members have raised the subject of ethnicity today, and we take it seriously. NHS services must serve the whole community, not only sections of it, so people from black and ethnic minority communities must and will have better access to more effective services in future. A work force action team has been established to set a programme of work in several key areas with the aim of producing a national picture of the work force, education and training issues to support the implementation of the NHS plan. We have set up a new national working group on early intervention that involves clinicians from both adult and adolescent services. The new early intervention services will have no age barrier and will target children as young as 14.
On some issues, however, we have taken a different view from that of the Committee. There would be no point in pretending that we agreed with every recommendation in the report, as we did not. We have not accepted the recommendation to close the high-

341WH
secure hospitals and replace them with smaller regionally based units. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield will be aware of the difference of opinion between us on that matter. Our policy for high-secure services is to secure the safety of the public, staff and patients and to ensure that the best possible services are offered to patients who need to receive care and treatment in a high-secure setting.
The three high-secure hospitals provide a unique service for people with the most severe types of mental illness, personality disorders and learning disabilities. We need to maintain those facilities and the valuable expertise of their staff in dealing with a challenging group of patients with complex mental health disorders and the opportunities for therapy and activity that are available on the existing large sites. I do not share the view of the Committee that the service provided by those hospitals cannot be improved. I believe that it can. Ending the professional isolation of the three high-secure hospitals from the wider NHS will be one way to bring those changes about.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I speak with some experience when I use the term bins. I spend much of my working life in the bins. My view of the three remaining special hospitals is that they are the three remaining bins of our psychiatric system. I should like the Minister, in the short time left to him, to demonstrate how, under the current institutional framework within which the special hospitals operate, we can move from those establishments remaining bins.
Mr. Hutton: I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on that subject, and I respect him for it. The existing organisational arrangements that he described are now being changed. He will be aware that later this year, Rampton and Broadmoor will form part of new NHS trusts. That is an important move. Other changes are under way that will support that reform.
Many hon. Members spoke today about the inappropriate use of those high-secure services and the consequential increase in waiting lists for those who need that type of specialist service. We have allocated £25 million of new resources to transfer people who need lower levels of security. I was asked how many people I thought were inappropriately housed in the high-secure hospitals. As many as 300 or 400 people are in high-secure hospitals who should not be there. The money that we are making available will ensure that more appropriate provision is made for them.
These are difficult issues. Everyone knows that the high-secure hospitals have had a difficult history, but I do not believe that the way to resolve the problem is to close them. That would be a serious mistake. We have
342WH
the opportunity to develop the expertise necessary to end their professional isolation and to improve the pattern of services that are provided to people in those hospitals.
I am conscious of the fact that I have only two or three minutes left to respond to an extremely wide-ranging debate. I suspect that my officials will soon start to get concerned, because I shall no longer refer to my notes. I shall try instead to draw upon one or two themes and concerns that hon. Members have expressed during our well-informed debate.
Much concern was expressed about the mental health reforms that we propose in the White Paper. We heard the rather surprising confession that the Opposition now oppose our plans to improve public safety and patient services for people with severe forms of personality disorder. I am genuinely surprised that the Opposition have taken that view. I dare say that, in the weeks and months ahead, we shall be given further clarification. It is my humble opinion that few Conservative policies last more than a couple of weeks. Perhaps that is another policy that will be refined and changed as the mistakes become apparent.
We—not only Members of Parliament, but our community and society as a whole—must address the fundamental problem, which is that those services often let people down and there are no effective treatment or services available for them. We have to put that right. I believe that we can.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge who suggested that we cannot treat those people and that we propose to warehouse them indefinitely or detain them in facilities where they would be denied effective treatment and services. That is not so. The hon. Gentleman should consider what has been happening in Holland for many years, where effective treatment opportunities are available for people with severe forms of personality disorder. We believe that people in this country should have access to such services.
An equally pressing public protection issue must be addressed. It will not go away. Difficult though those matters are, we are conscious of the civil liberties issues involved. However, it is absolutely right to provide new forms of public safety and public protection while at the same time—it is important that the hon. Gentleman understands this—offering better levels of service and direct intervention treatment, that will modify behaviour which will allow those people to—
Mr. Eddie O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. Time is up.
It being fifteen minutes to Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Adult Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to improve adult literacy and numeracy skills in England. [152260]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The standard of literacy and numeracy skills in England has been too poor for too long. Claus Moser's report found that up to 7 million adults in England have weak literacy and numeracy skills. This is disastrous for the individuals concerned, weakens business competitiveness and places a huge burden on society.

  The Government will shortly launch their strategy to tackle this problem. Our priority is to improve the skills of those groups where literacy and numeracy needs are greatest and where we can make most impact. We will spend £1.5 billion over the next three years and focus the work of all relevant organisations on ensuring that 750,000 adults improve their literacy and numeracy by 2004, and that we reach the literacy and numeracy levels of our international competitors.

  Our strategy will deliver radical quality improvements. New national standards, a common core curriculum and National Tests will make sure that best teaching and learning practice is adopted across the country. And we are training teachers, establishing a research centre and introducing more rigorous national inspections so that standards remain high

  The Government themselves will be setting an example with my Department working with other Government Departments and agencies such is the MOD and the Prison Service to bring about radical improvements in standards of adult skills.

  Our literacy and numeracy strategy will mark a decisive step in addressing this country's poor literacy and numeracy skill levels and will give adults the opportunity to acquire the skills they need to participate in modern society.

  New Deal
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people have found employment through the New Dell in(a) the north-west region and (b) Lancashire. [150650]

  Ms Jowell
  Figures to the end of November 2000 show that the following numbers of young people have found employment through New Deal in the north-west region and Lancashire:718W

  North-west region

  Lancashire

  Total jobs

  39,666

  5,171

  of which are sustained

  30,132

  3,894

  Other

  9,534

  1,277

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his most recent estimate is of the take up of the New Deal for(a) young people, (b) lone parents, (c) people with disabilities and (d) older people in Copeland; and if he will make a statement on its operation. [150684]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: Latest figures, to the end of November 2000, for Copeland parliamentary constituency show the following take-up of the New Deal:

  Numbers starting New Deal

  New Deal for young people

  1,375

  New deal for lone parents

  234

  New deal for 25+

  1,103

  Statistics on New Deal for People with Disabilities are not available at constituency level. To date the New Deal for Disabled People has operated only in a limited number of locations, not including Copeland. 24 innovative schemes have been testing new ways of helping disabled people into work and 12 Personal Adviser pilots have helped disabled people to overcome their particular barriers to work.

  The New Deal for Disabled People will be extended on a national basis, with services for disabled clients beginning from July 2001.

  The approach which underpins the New Deal programmes is one which links equality of opportunity and investment in skills to economic prosperity and labour market expansion.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the IT projects currently undertaken in his Department; and if he will state the(a) expected completion date and (b) cost of each project. [151501]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The tables list IT projects currently undertaken within DETR(C) and its agencies where costs are estimated to be equal to or exceed £50,000.

  Small projects where the total cost falls below £50,000 have not been listed as the collection of information and collation of these projects could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  719W

  DETR IT projects where costs are equal to or greater than £50,000

  Projects

  Total forecast costs to completion (£)

  Projected completion date

  DETR(C)

  Data Communications Systems

  2,230,000

  March 2001

  Replacement PCs

  204,000

  March 2001

  High Speed LANS

  762,000

  March 2001

  Second GSI Gateway

  33,000

  March 2001

  Bristol HQ Infrastructure

  293,000

  March 2001

  Netware 5

  365,000

  March 2001

  Replacement ETHOS Servers

  225,000

  March 2001

  TAN21—a programme of business change involving the redesign of the business processes and the modernisation of IT/IS systems

  7,977,000

  September 2001

  Computerised Local Authority Statistics System

  245,000

  March 2001

  DETR Payroll Procurement Project

  480,000

  September 2001

  The Optimum Pensions System

  943,000

  March 2002

  Maps on Tap

  174,000

  June 2001

  Electronic Procurement Stages 2 and 3

  4,331,000

  March 2003

  Marine Incident Database—Phase 2

  241,000

  April 2001

  DETR Electronic Briefing System

  1,340,000

  February 2002

  DOC Project Management System

  133,000

  October 2001

  Videoconferencing System

  64,000

  April 2001

  Climate Change Levy

  113,000

  March 2001

  Research Management Database—Phase 1

  40,000

  June 2001

  Electronic Document and Record Management—Scoping Study

  40,000

  May 2001

  RIMNET Scoping Study

  200,000

  May 2001

  Next Generation Accounting System (procurement under way)

  1—

  —

  1Information commercially sensitive.

  Note:

  The information above relates to projects that have been approved and are still running. It should be noted that for some projects the costs only represent those related to scoping studies. The final cost of these projects is subject to the outcome of the scoping study and ITSD and BISD approval. It is therefore not possible to include total project costs for these projects.

  DETR IT projects where costs are equal to or greater than £50,000

  Projects

  Estimated total external project costs to completion (£)

  Projected completion date

  Highways Agency

  Computer Aided Facilities Management (CAFM)

  212,000

  July 2001

  Migration to MS Outlook and Office 2000

  1,639,000

  May 2002

  Electronic Document Management (EDMS)

  350,000

  March 2004

  Environmental Database

  375,000

  February 2002

  Extranet Project (Agent Access)

  621,000

  February 2001

  Geotechnical Data Management System (GDMS)

  355,000

  December 2002

  HA Corporate Intranet/Extranet Development

  1,199,000

  February 2002

  Highways Agency Management Information System (HAMIS)

  3,100,00

  March 2001

  Highways Agency Pavement Management System (HAPMS)

  11,238,000

  December 2003

  HA Supplier Database and Tender Support

  175,000

  August 2001

  Knowledge Management Pilot

  104,000

  July 2001

  Part 1 Claims Database

  80,000

  April 2001

  Remote Access—Service Improvements

  301,000

  July 2001

  Strategy for Financial Management (SFM)1

  25,000,000 to 30,000,000

  2004

  Structures Management Information System (SMIS)

  1,736,400

  March 2002

  Total (SFM minimum)

  46,485,400

  —

  Total (SFM maximum)

  51,485,400

  —

  1 The Agency also classifies the implementation of resource accounting and budgeting as an IT project. It is currently estimated to cost £25–30 million over a 10 year period ending in 2004.

  Note:

  The information above relates to projects that have been approved and are still running. It should be noted that for some projects the costs only represent those related to scoping studies. The final cost of these projects is subject to the outcome of the scoping study and ITSD and BISD approval. It is therefore not possible to include total project costs for these projects.

  DETR IT projects where costs are equal to or greater than £50.000

  Projects

  Total forecast costs to completion (£)

  Projected completion date

  Rent Service Agency

  VICTER

  3.000,000

  Pilot test May 2001

  Planning Inspectorate Agency

  Inspector Scheduling

  844,400

  September 2001

  Human Resource Information

  409,811

  March 2001

  Planning Portal Programme

  3,000,000

  April 2002

  Annual Refreshment of IT Hardware

  336,500

  April 2001

  720W 721W

  DETR IT projects where costs are equal to or greater than £50,000

  Projects

  Total forecast costs to completion (£)

  Projected completion date

  Marine and Coastguard Agency

  Incident Management System

  2,000,000

  End 2002

  Search and Rescue Information System

  80,000

  Mid 2001

  Driving Standards Agency

  Road Safety Information System

  650,000

  January 2002

  Internet Booking of Practical Tests

  500,000

  Early 2002

  Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Automated Number Plate Reader

  1,174,000

  June 2001

  Casework Project

  8,734,000

  November 2001

  Replacement/Modernisation OCR data capture equipment

  2,882,000

  June 2002

  Financial System (procurement under way)

  —

  April 2002

  IT Infrastructure Modernisation

  2,697,000

  March 2002

  New Vehicle Registration Mark Format

  1,802,000

  September 2001

  Replacement IT Services Contract (procurement under way)

  —

  September 2002

  Personnel Systems Enhancements

  372,000

  November 2001

  Smart Tachograph Cards

  8,155,000

  February 2003

  Web Vault

  550,000

  June 2001

  Changes to Vehicle Taxation System (Graduated VED—phase 2)

  25,303,000

  September 2001

  1 Information commercially sensitive.

  Note:

  The information above relates to projects that have been approved and are still running. It should be noted that for some projects the costs only represent those related to scoping studies. The final cost of these projects is subject to the outcome of the scoping study and ITSD and BISD approval. It is therefore not possible to include total project costs for these projects.

  DETR IT projects where costs are equal to or greater than £50,000

  projects

  Estimated operating cost per ennum(£)

  Contract due to commence

  Vehicle Inspectorate Agency

  MOT Computerisation

  22,000,000

  May 2002

  Replacement IT Services Contract (procurement under way)

  1—

  —

  1 Information commercially sensitive

  Note:

  The information above relates to projects that have been approved and are still running. It should be noted hat for some projects the costs only represent those related to scoping studies. The final cost of these projects is subject to the outcome of the scoping study and ITSD and BISD approval. It is therefore not possible to include total project costs for these projects.

  Local Transport Plans
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if local authorities can bid for additional funding to that in their full local transport plan in their first annual progress reports for(a) major road schemes, (b) major public transport schemes and (c) integrated transport packages. [151556]

  Mr. Hill
  Authorities may bid for additional major road, public transport or integrated transport schemes as part of the process of submitting their first annual progress reports (APRs) on their local transport plans. In certain circumstances, authorities will also be able to bid for additional funding for smaller-scale integrated transport schemes. Details will be provided in the guidance on APRs that we will issue to authorities shortly.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on reform of the planning 722W
  appeals process contained in DETR circular 05/200 relating to rights of third parties to see and comment on the submissions of others made to the Planning Inspectorate. [151607]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Five representations have been received.

  Following public consultation streamlined statutory procedures for handling planning appeals—on which guidance is given in DETR Circular 5/2000—were introduced last year. These require third parties to submit their comments or statements of case to the Secretary of State on the same timescale as that for local planning authorities and appellants. Thus third parties have the opportunity at both planning application stage and at planning appeal stage to comment on the proposed development.

  The operation of the new procedures is being monitored and we shall review them in the light of experience, taking account of representations received.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of waste was recycled in(a) Great Britain and (b) each local authority in 2000. [151299]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 27 February 2001]: Recycling levels in Scotland are a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Department collects information on waste management and recycling from local authorities in England and Wales on an annual basis through the Municipal Waste Management Survey. National and regional level information for the financial year 1998–99 was published in the Municipal Waste Management 1998– 99 Bulletin in September 2000. We expect to publish provisional results for 1999– 2000 in early April 2001 and a more detailed analysis later in the year. We intend to publish figures showing the

  723W
  percentage of household waste recycled by individual local authorities in England during the financial year 1998– 99 shortly in the "Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies".

  Telecommunications Masts
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made following the closure of consultation on the regulation of mobile telecommunications masts; and if he will make a statement. [151612]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to the planning laws relating to mobile phone masts and associated guidance ended on 31 October 2000. The Department is currently analysing the responses. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Home Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many grants have been awarded under the home energy efficiency scheme in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne since 2000– 01; and what was(a) the total and (b) the average value of such grants. [151835]

  Mr. Meacher
  The number of grants and their total value and average value for the City of Newcastle upon Tyne for 2000–01 is as shown.

  Period

  Number of grant

  Average value of grant (£)

  Total value of grants (£)

  April-May 20001

  597

  175

  104,523

  June 2000-February 2001

  1,455

  2439

  638.102

  March 20013

  168

  2297

  44,189

  Total for 2000–01

  2,220

  354

  786,814

  1 The previous HEES scheme (which started in 1991) continued to run for the first two months of 2000–01. Only one 'main' measure was offered up to a grant limit of £315.

  2 The average value of grant has increased substantially in the current year following the launch of the new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) for England on 1 June 2000. It replaced the more basic scheme that operated since 1991. HEES provides packages of insulation and heating measures, linked to the condition of the property and the type of householder. The grant maximum increased from £315 up to £2,000.

  3 Projection based on orders placed with installers.

  Halewick Lane Waste Transfer Station
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the inspector's report on the public inquiry into the Halewick Lane waste transfer station at Sompting, West Sussex. [151677]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will publish the inspector's report when he determines the planning application for a waste management centre at Halewick Lane, Sompting, West Sussex. This decision will be issued as soon as possible.

  Bog Sites
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to agree the request for the raised bog sites at(a) Hatfield Moor, (b) Thorne Moor, (c) Bolton Fell Moor, (d) Solway Moor and (e) Wedholme Flow to be designated special areas of conservation under the habitats and species directive. 1151382]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  In August 2000, English Nature began public consultations on proposals for new and amended Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). Those proposals included new SACs at Bolton Fell Moss, Solway Moss and Hatfield Moor, boundary amendments to the existing candidate SACs at Thorne Moor and South Solway Mosses, plus the addition of a new qualifying interest on the site encompassing Wedholme Flow. English Nature is currently considering the scientific justification for each new or amended site. The Government will consider their recommendations as soon as they are made.

  GM Sugarbeet
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the 24 GM sugarbeet trials scheduled for this year involve expenditure by the Government. [151543]

  Mr. Meacher
  There will be up to 26 fields of beet taking part in the Farm Scale Evaluations of herbicide tolerant GM crops this spring. As was the case last year, the Government will pay only for the ecological studies associated with the evaluations. It is expected that, for the beet sites, this will cost approximately £445,000 this year.

  Local Government Finance
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the analysis of responses to the local government finance Green Paper. [152126]

  Ms Armstrong
  An analysis of the 16,321 responses we received will be posted on the DETR website at www.local.detr.gov.uk/greenpap/analysis/index.htm on Monday 5 March. Copies of the analysis will also be placed in the Library.

  We were very pleased with the excellent response to consultation. We are carefully considering the responses and will publish our decisions in a White Paper later this year.

  SSSIs
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to ensure payments for management agreements on sites of special scientific interest are directed towards conservation and enhancement of the special features of these sites. [152127]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Tomorrow, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we shall be issuing new guidance on management agreement payments in England to replace
  725W
  that in DOE/MAFF Circular 4/83. English Nature will use the guidance to determine the amount of payment under a management agreement.

  The guidance reflects the substantially strengthened powers to protect and manage SSSIs introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It will emphasise the future priority for agreements to be directed at positive management designed to bring the special features of sites into favourable condition. It will also ensure that agreements are in line with the European Rural Development Regulation.

  Copies of the Guidelines will be freely available and will be placed in the House Libraries.

DEFENCE

  Defence Secondary Care Agency Unit (Organ Parts)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary A State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 523W, on organ parts, if he will list the specimens held; and for what purposes they are kept. [150814]

  Dr. Moonie
  Pursuant to my answer of 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 523W, further investigation has revealed that the Defence Secondary Care Agency holds approximately 60 pathological specimens relating to 26 patients, rather than "26 specimens '. These specimens are all held at the Royal Hospital Haslar and for each, patient consent has been given for organ retention for both diagnostic and medical research purposes. In total there are 14 organs and approximately 46 tissue samples:

  Number

  Brain

  4

  Heart

  0

  Lungs

  4

  Deaths of armed forces personnel in on duty due to injury: 1991 to 2000

  Navy death

  Navy married

  Army total

  Army married

  RAF total

  RAF married

  Tri-service total

  Tri-service married

  1991

  5

  3

  64

  23

  14

  1

  83

  27

  1992

  3

  2

  35

  9

  9

  2

  47

  13

  1993

  13

  6

  22

  5

  11

  3

  46

  14

  1994

  5

  2

  39

  19

  9

  2

  53

  23

  1995

  7

  1

  20

  8

  12

  5

  39

  14

  1996

  3

  2

  12

  5

  4

  1

  19

  8

  1997

  5

  2

  8

  2

  3

  0

  16

  4

  1998

  4

  1

  30

  7

  6

  2

  40

  10

  1999

  2

  1

  23

  8

  6

  0

  31

  9

  2000

  4

  1

  15

  8

  1

  1

  20

  10

  Note:

  Deaths on duty are defined as those personnel who have died as a result of injuries categorised as: Battle wounds or injuries; injuries inflicted internationally during peacekeeping and similar operations (e.g. Kosovo and Northern Ireland): injuries sustained from terrorist activity, and accidental injuries sustained while on duly.

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the terrorist threat to the Royal Ordnance sites at(a) Bridgwater, (b) Chorley, (c) Glascoed, (d) Nottingham and (e) Radway Green; and if he will make a statement. [151589]
  726W

  Number

  Other organs'

  5

  Body Parts

  0

  Stillbirths or pre-viable foetuses

  1

  Tissues2

  46

  Total

  60

  1 Not include above

  2 Approximate

  Notes:

  The data are recorded in the format provided to the Chief Medical Officer for his report in 2000 entitled "Retention of Organs at Post-Mortem: Census of Hospitals in England".

  Definition of terms:

  Tissues: samples of organs or body parts

  Organs: whole organs

  Body parts: limbs, heads or the entire contents of either the thorax or abdomen.

  Armed Forces (Death in Service)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women serving in (i) the Army, (ii) the Royal Navy and (iii) the Royal Air Force have died in active service in each month over the past 10 years; and how many of those listed were married at the time of death. [151011]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The term "active service" is used wildly in connection with the Services, with various meanings in different contexts. However the Service Discipline Act contains specific definitions for the purposes of that legislation. In order to avoid a more restrictive interpretation than may be intended by the question, we set out figures based on a wide range of deaths on duty. The circumstances covered by the figures are explained more fully immediately after the table.

  Between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 2000 there have been 394 service personnel who have died of injuries sustained on duty. Out of this total, 132 were married at the time of death. The table provides details of thasa deaths for each service;

  Dr. Moonie
  A comprehensive assessment of the threat to security at the Royal Ordnance sites was undertaken. It is not the practice to discuss threat assessments publicly for reasons of national security, but the threat assessment was taken fully into account in reaching the decision to withdraw Ministry of Defence police officers from Royal Ordnance sites.
  727W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost per annum to Royal Ordnance is of employing Ministry of Defence Police at(a) Bridgwater, (b) Chorley, (c) Glascoed, (d) Nottingham and (e) Radway Green; and if he will make a statement. [151590]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am withholding details of the sums paid by Royal Ordnance to the Ministry of Defence for the services of the MOD police under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information as they are a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence Police are deployed at the Royal Ordnance sites in(a) Bridgwater, (b) Chorley, (c) Glascoed, (d) Nottingham and (e) Radway Green; what plans there are to withdraw cover and on what dates; and if he will make a statement. [151591]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are 15 Ministry of Defence police (MDP) posts complemented at each of the five RO sites. MDP officers will be withdrawn from RO Bridgwater, Chorley, Glascoed and Radway Green on 31 May 2001. MDP officers will be withdrawn from RO Nottingham when the MOD weapons have been removed from the Pattern Room, which is currently expected to take place in February 2002.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the proposed withdrawal of Ministry of Defence police at Royal Ordnance sites will result in(a) compulsory and (b) voluntary redundancies within the Ministry of Defence police; and if he will make a statement. [151592]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is very unlikely that the withdrawal of the Ministry of Defence police (MDP) from the five RO sites will lead to any compulsory redundancies, unless officers substantiate a case for a Limited Mobility Waiver, and there are no other employment opportunities with the MDP in the local area. We anticipate that all will be offered alternative postings.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what powers private security companies will have to(a) patrol beyond perimeters and (b) carry weaponry at Royal Ordnance sites once Ministry of Defence police protection is withdrawn; and if he will make a statement. [151593]

  Dr. Moonie
  Once Ministry of Defence police protection is withdrawn, the deployment of company guards will be the responsibility of the Royal Ordnance. The guards will not have constabulary powers.

  Private security company guards will not be armed. Section 54 of the Firearms Act 1968 limits the authority to carry firearms on duty to Crown Servants (which includes Service personnel and the Ministry of Defence police). The Firearms Act Amendment 1997 lists pistols as prohibited items, the carriage of which requires a personal licence issued by the local Chief Constable; no such licences are issued to private security companies. Home Department police will provide an armed response force, as required, at the RO sites.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what obligations service units have to implement Child 728W
  Support Agency instructions for attachment of earnings in relation to Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel. [149480]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: Under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the two organisations, the Ministry of Defence will, at the request of the Child Support Agency, make appropriate deductions from pay to meet the maintenance obligations of Service personnel. Deductions are made in full, except in less than 1 per cent. of cases where this would breach minimum rates of pay set in Ministry of Defence legislation.

  Operation Palliser
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many members of the armed forces deployed on Operation Palliser are in a medically downgraded category; what percentage of forces deployed on Operation Palliser this represents; and if he will make a statement; [147562]

  (2) how many members of the armed forces who serviced on Operation Palliser are categorised as medically downgraded; and if he will make a statement. [148377]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: Some 4,500 armed forces personnel deployed to Sierra Leone on Operation Palliser. It is not possible to identify, from the information currently available, the number of Royal Navy personnel who deployed on any operation to Sierra Leone who are currently medically downgraded. However, of the approximate 2,100 Army and RAF personnel who deployed to Sierra Leone at the time of Operation Palliser, 54 are currently medically downgraded. This represents 2.5 per cent. of the Army/RAF personnel who deployed.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many widows of former Japanese prisoners of war have claimed their compensation entitlement. [150627]

  Mr. Bayley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available as at 19 February shows that 8,272 claims under the ex-gratia payments scheme had been received from widows and widowers of deceased ex-far east prisoners of war.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Tanzania
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to reassess her aid programme to Tanzania following recent unrest in Zanzibar. [151588]

  Clare Short
  The Government of Tanzania, as part of their qualification for HIPC debt relief, are pursuing a broad-based national poverty reduction strategy and are in receipt of UK development assistance. We do not believe that the poor of Tanzania should suffer because of the abuse of human rights in Zambia. However, Her Majesty's Government have made clear to the Government of Tanzania UK concerns following the recent unrest in
  729W
  Zanzibar. Sir John Vereker recently visited Dar es Salaam and discussed these concerns directly with President Mkapa.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with her EU counterparts regarding EU funding for aid programmes in Tanzania since the Zanzibar elections in 2000. [151587]

  Clare Short
  There have been no high-level discussions related to EU development assistance to Tanzania since the national elections last November although I have discussed the situation with my Utstein group colleagues.

  EU development assistance to Tanzania is under review following the conclusion of the Cotonou agreement last year.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects her Department supports in Tanzania. [151586]

  Clare Short
  Our development assistance to Tanzania last year was £65 million. This included £40 million to support pro-poor sectors of the national budget and reward the maintenance of continued macro economic stability. We are also funding projects in health, education, improved public sector management and public sector reform. In addition, we are undertaking initiatives to strengthen civil society and encourage pro-poor growth and private sector development.

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [151585]

  Clare Short
  Afghanistan is suffering its worst drought in 30 years, which has combined with continuing conflict to lead to a dramatic deterioration in the humanitarian situation. At least 12 million people are affected, 3–4 million of them seriously, and the number of displaced Afghans seeking relief from drought and conflict is now over 500,000. Winter weather conditions are reported to be severe, and a shortage of food, shelter and clothing has led to an increase in mortality rates.

  We remain extremely concerned about the situation in Afghanistan. This financial year, DFID has provided over £7.5 million of humanitarian assistance to Afghans through UN agencies, the Red Cross and NGOs. As well as drought relief assistance, this includes a regular programme of longer-term humanitarian assistance to the Afghan population—both in Afghanistan and to Afghan refugees in neighbouring countries.

  In addition, due to the severity of conditions in Afghanistan, DFID has recently agreed a further £3 million for the provision of drought relief and emergency relief goods to displaced people. This will be channelled through UN agencies and the Red Cross.

  Sub-Saharan Africa (School Fees)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the extent of fees being charged to pupils attending schools in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. [151665]
  730W
  Clare Short
  We believe that primary education should be free and that no child should be denied access to a basic education because the costs, direct or indirect, cannot be met by the household. School fees are an example of a direct cost, but there may be indirect charges for books, uniforms and exams which can make education unaffordable to many.

  The equitable financing of education is a key issue for achieving universal primary education by 2015. Accordingly, assessments are made by DFID at country level of the extent to which fees or indirect costs are charged to primary school pupils. Support for the planned transition to free primary education is a priority for us. We have seen some progress. In Zambia, the Government have recently announced the abolition of fees for primary school children, including those for examination entry. Tanzania has committed to abolishing primary school fees by 2001, but there are still significant challenges. In Malawi, for example, primary schooling is nominally free but there are still hidden costs which need to be addressed. In Kenya parents do not pay primary school fees, but instead must pay for books, school levy, uniforms and examination fees.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Policies (Tooting)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tooting parliamentary constituency, the effect of his Department's policies and actions since 1 May 1997. [149867]

  Mr. Caborn
  The parliamentary constituency of Tooting, Wandsworth has benefited from a range of initiatives since 1 May 1997. Direct business advice and support to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) has been provided by the DTI through core programmes and the Business Links. While my Department does not collect detailed statistical information on a constituency basis, over 5,800 requests for advice, information and support from SMEs in Tooting, Wandsworth have been handled by the Business Links since May 1997. During the same period, grants totalling over £300,000 have been awarded to SMEs for innovation and technology development under the Smart scheme.

  United Kingdom Accreditation Service
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent consideration he has given to the accreditation and the status of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service; and if he will make a statement. [151629]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 28 February 2001]: During the course of 2000, my noble Friend the Minister for Science reviewed the Department's existing policy on accreditation. He decided to re-confirm the existing policy of recognition for the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) as the sole national body for the accreditation, against the recognised international standards, of testing and calibration laboratories and certification and inspection bodies. He confirmed the terms of the memorandum of understanding which my Department, on behalf of the Government as a whole, has

  731W
  with UKAS and which sets out the activities for which UKAS is recognised along with a number of rights and obligations on both parties.

  While my noble Friend concluded that no major structural changes to the UK accreditation system were desirable, he did agree that there would be benefit in a well-targeted, UKAS-driven publicity campaign to raise the profile of UKAS accredited conformity assessment to ensure that the benefits of using UKAS accredited conformity assessment services are properly understood.

  Accreditation by UKAS ensures that conformity assessment bodies have been independently assessed to agreed international standards of competence and impartiality by a body which is itself subject to regular assessment and to oversight by Government. For these reasons, while there is no legal requirement for the providers of conformity assessment services to be accredited, the Government recommend the use of UKAS accredited conformity assessment wherever this is an option. The Government also advise purchasers to look for the National Accreditation Marks, which UKAS and UKAS accredited organisations are able to use under a licensing agreement with my Department, as a sign of Government recognition.

  My Department and a number of other Government Departments are therefore supporting the UKAS Accreditation Awareness Campaign which was launched by my noble Friend on 27 November 2000. The campaign is expected to run for the next 18 months and is aimed at increasing the understanding of accreditation within Government itself and, through a series of briefings aimed at business support agencies, within the business community in general and SMEs in particular.

  Steel Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the decision by Corus to cut jobs and close plants in the UK; what estimate his Department has made of the effect on local employment that the closures will have; and what measures he is taking to support the steel industry in the UK. [151673]

  Summary of notifications of withdrawals from safeguards (January 2000 to February 2001)

  Number of withdrawal notifications (by type of nuclear material involved1)

  Reason for withdrawal

  Two notifications involving plutonium (Pu), mg quantities

  Material to be used for analytical purposes (eg samples, standards/tracers and/or in instrument calibration)2 (from NPL Teddington)

  One notification involving depleted natural and low enriched uranium (DNLEU), mg quantities

  Three notifications involving thorium (Th), mg quantities

  1 The tabulated information covers advance notifications of withdrawal approved by DTI and which resulted in the eventual withdrawal of nuclear material from safeguards.

  2 There are no facilities outside safeguards which manufacture material in such quantities and forms, and defence establishment requirements for these specialist materials have therefore been met by supply from civil organisations.

  British Association for Shooting and Conservation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to determine the accuracy of the annual returns made in
  732W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have received representations from a variety of sources, including from many Members of Parliament, trade unions and members of the public about the implications of Corus's announcement on 1 February.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has urged Corus to reconsider its decision and pressed the company to engage in a constructive dialogue to identify a better way forward. I am pleased to say that Corus is now talking to the trade unions about their plans.

  If Corus proceed with the job cuts announced on 1 February then the Government and the National Assembly for Wales will not walk away from the innocent victims. We are assessing the possible consequences on a contingency basis and will provide help to any individual affected and to the communities in which they live. This will include new job opportunities, retraining and economic regeneration.

  The steel industry is a vital part of UK manufacturing and the Government will continue to work closely with all parts of the industry to help ensure its future competitiveness. We and the National Assembly for Wales stand ready to work alongside Corus, other steel companies and the trade unions to identify a way forward that builds on the strengths of the industry and secures its long-term future in the UK.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many withdrawals of nuclear materials from safeguards applied under the tripartite UK-Euratom-IAEA Voluntary Safeguards Agreement there have been since 1 February 2000; and if he will indicate the number which were permanent. [151600]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information on advance notifications of withdrawals from safeguards made since the start of 2000 is contained in the following table. Data are shown in the same format as in the paper provided on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1094W. The withdrawals involved only very small quantities of material to be used for analytical purposes and are all regarded as permanent. Annual updates of information on withdrawals in future years will be made available on the non-proliferation section of the DTI website www.dti.gov.uk/non-proliferation.

  each of the last six years by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation Ltd., Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 Registration No. 28488 R. [151267]

  Ms Hewitt
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of Companies House. I have asked him to reply direct to the hon. Gentleman.
  733W
  Letter from J. S. Holden to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 1 March 2001 I have been asked to reply to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect of Companies House Executive Agency.
  The British Association for Shooting and Conservation Ltd is an industrial and provident society, and therefore is not required by law to file annual return and accounts with Companies House but instead with The Registry of Friendly Societies. The only entry with Companies House is on the index of names as required by the legislation.
  The Registry of Friendly Societies, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HS, is the government department which has responsibility under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts for the registration of industrial and provident societies.

  Credit Company Blacklists
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Lord Chancellor about re-examining the role of the courts in relation to the black-listing of in individuals by credit companies. [150853]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have not had any discussion with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

  Serco Contracts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the contracts that exist between Serco and the Department, its executive agencies and associated public bodies; and if he will list those which have existed in the last three years. [151346]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department has a contract with NPL Management Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Serco, to operate the National Physical Laboratory. Serco is also a partner in Laser (Teddington II) Ltd., the consortium who will be providing serviced accommodation for the National Physical Laboratory, under a PFI arrangement.

  Information on contracts with suppliers is not held centrally, and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  I have asked the Chief Executives of our Executive Agencies and associated public bodies to reply separately to this question.

  Ceramic Products Imports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will undertake an inquiry into the practice of companies importing manufactured ceramic products from outside the EU, decorating such products and adding to them a made in England back stamp; and if he will make a statement. [151544]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is already a criminal offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 for a person in the course of a trade or business to apply false or misleading statements to goods, including statements about the origin of those goods. For the purposes of the Act goods are deemed to have been manufactured or produced in the country in which they last underwent a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change. The Act is enforced by the local authorities' trading standards service and any instances of false or misleading back-stamping should be brought to their attention.

  Combined Heat and Power Stations
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decisions on the proposals by Dalkia Services plc to build combined heat and power stations at the Zeneca Agrochemicals works at Huddersfield and the AstraZeneca works at Macclesfield. [152259]

  Mr. Hain
  I have today given clearance under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976 to Dalkia Utilities Services plc to build a 20 megawatt gas-fired combined heat and power station at the Zeneca Agrochemicals works at Huddersfield and a 13 megawatt gas-fired combined heat and power station at the AstraZeneca works at Macclesfield.

  Combined heat and power plants are designed to produce both electricity and usable heat. They have environmental benefits due to their high levels of energy efficiency.

  The decision demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to promote CHP, wherever practicable, and our commitment to reduced emissions of carbon to fulfil the promises we gave at Kyoto.

  Copies of the Press Notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Trans-Balkan Oil Pipeline
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has provided export credits for the Trans-Balkan oil pipeline. [151583]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD has not been approached for support and no export credits have been provided for this project.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Southern Africa (Peacekeeping)
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom support for regional peacekeeping training in Southern Africa. [152324]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  In view of the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe, the British Military Advisory and Training Team (BMATT) for Southern Africa will relocate from Harare to the UK at the end of March 2001. The team has played an important role in enhancing the capacity of the countries of the Southern Africa Development Community to contribute to international peace support operations. We will continue to look for alternative locations from which the team can carry on this work with the countries of the region.

  Trans-Balkan Oil Pipeline
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts concerning the Trans-Balkan oil pipeline; and if he will make a statement. [151584]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign Secretary has had no discussions on this matter with EU or other colleagues.

  Arms Exports (Western Sahara)
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions took place between his Department and the United Nations in New York concerning the granting of UK arms export licences for the refurbishment of guns situated in Western Sahara; on what date; and who took part in the discussions; [148691]

  (2) if the mandate of MINURSO includes a duty to oversee the refurbishment of Moroccan guns in Western Sahara; and what discussions his Department has had on this subject with (a) the United Nations and (b) other interested parties; [148690]

  (3) what reports he has received concerning direct approaches from UK arms manufacturers to the United Nations concerning (a) Her Majesty's Government's refusal to permit the sale of spare parts for the refurbishment of Moroccan guns on Western Sahara and (b) the subsequent appeal against this refusal; [148687]

  (4) what correspondence has passed between his Department and the United Nations staff in (a) New York,
  (b) Morocco and (c) Tindouf concerning UK arms export licences for the provision of spare parts to refurbish Moroccan guns for use in Western Sahara; [148693]

  (5) what discussions have taken place between his Department and the United Nations, including MINURSO, in (a) Morocco, (b) Western Sahara and (c) Tindouf concerning the granting of UK arms export licences for the refurbishment of guns situated in Western Sahara; on what dates; and who was involved in the discussions; [148692]

  (6) what (a) discussions have taken place and (b) correspondence been exchanged between his Department and the United Nations concerning the capability of MINURSO to oversee the refurbishment of Moroccan guns situated in Western Sahara; [148688]

  (7) what objections have been made by the United Nations to the Government concerning the Government's refusal of arms export licences for spare parts to refurbish Moroccan guns situated in Western Sahara; on what date; what the nature of the representations was; and what his Department's response was. [148689]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: Foreign and Commonwealth Office and United Nations officials routinely discuss a wide range of issues relating to Western Sahara in New York and the region.

  As set out in the Secretary of State's evidence to the Quadripartite Committee on 30 January, in 1998 a British company applied for an export licence in order, inter alia, to refurbish Moroccan guns in Western Sahara.

  In late 1998, as a result of contacts between Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and MINURSO in the region, Ministers came to the preliminary view that, if Moroccan guns were refurbished, this would not violate the terms of the UN-sponsored cease-fire between Morocco and the Polisario Front which has been in place since 1991. The UN told FCO officials in April 1999 that refurbishment could be considered as neutral. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials also understand that, under the terms of the Military Agreement signed between
  736W
  MINURSO and Morocco and MINURSO and Polisario, MINURSO would play a role in monitoring the process of refurbishing the guns.

  In discussions between Foreign and Commonwealth Office and United Nations officials in New York this subject was referred to on 1 February 1999, 16 February 1999, 23 February 1999, 3 March 1999, 21 and 28 May 1999 and 21 June 1999.

  On 21 June 1999, the United Nations Department for Peace Keeping Operations in New York confirmed that refurbishment of the guns would not be in breach of the existing military arrangements between MINURSO and the two parties; and that, in accordance with these arrangements, MINURSO would be in a position to monitor the procedure of the refurbishment of the Moroccan guns on the ground. This is set out in Military Agreement between the two parties and MINURSO of 1997.

  It is not for the United Nations to object or not to any refusal by HMG of an arms export licence. The United Nations role is to monitor the cease-fire between the two parties.

  We are not aware of any direct approaches from the UK arms manufacturers to the United Nations concerning refurbishment of Moroccan guns in Western Sahara. However, in their letter of appeal of 1 October 1998, the applicant asserted that refurbishment did not contravene the cease-fire and that MINURSO could monitor any refurbishment.

  "Bridges into the Future"
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what events were organised as part of the "Bridges into the Future" strategy in 2000; and what events are planned for 2001. [148885]

  Mr. Wilson
  The FCO organised over 20 promotional events around the country in 2000 targeted on visible minority ethnic communities as part of its Minority Ethnic Strategy, "Bridges into the Future". We also hosted events in the Foreign Office main building, took part in careers fairs and organised a work shadowing scheme targeted on young members of minority ethnic communities. A similar programme of events is being organised this year.

  Sathya Sai Movement
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to publicise the UNESCO Clarification of 15 September 2000 relating to allegations of sexual abuse involving youths and children at the ashram of the Sathya Sai movement in Puttaparthi, India. [51562]

  Mr. Wilson
  The text of the UNESCO Clarification can be found on the UNESCO website at: http://unesco.org/education/highlights/media—advisory.htm, and can be made available to Members through the Library of the House.

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates representations were made by the European Union to the Government of
  737W
  Israel in the context of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, on human rights related issues since the start of the Al Aqsa intifada; and what responses have been received. [151136]

  Mr. Wilson
  The European Union delivered demarches to the Government of Israel on Israeli obstacles to humanitarian assistance (5 February) and on the Israeli policy of targeted physical eliminations (21 January). The EU made a further statement on 13 February which deplored the practice of eliminations or extra judicial killings of Palestinians by the Israeli security forces. The General Affairs Council has repeatedly called for closures to be lifted, most recently on 26 February. Within the framework of the EU-Israel dialogue on the Palestinian economy, the EU has also urged Israel to lift the closures and resume the payment of revenues withheld from the Palestinian Authority.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for the period between the commencement of the Home Detention Curfew scheme and 31 January 2001 inclusive(a) the total number of prisoners released on the scheme, (b) the number of prisoners convicted of each specific offence who were released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, including specific offences committed by prisoners normally classified under the categories (i) other homicide and attempted homicide, (ii) other violence against the person, (iii) drug offence, (iv) assaults and (v) other offences, including a breakdown of the prisoners normally classified in the sub-category of other offences called other offences, (c) the average sentence (i) received and (ii) served, and the average period spent on the scheme, in respect of each specific offence, (d) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, who (i) breached the conditions of the curfew, (ii) disappeared and were recaptured, (iii) disappeared and remain unlawfully at large and (iv) had their licences revoked, and for what reasons, (e) a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme while on the scheme, including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence and (f) a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme that was similar in character to that for which they were originally convicted, including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence; and if he will make a statement. [148089]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 1 February 2001]: I have written to the right hon. Member, and placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

  South Yorkshire Police Authority
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the value was of(a) the Government's financial settlement for the South Yorkshire
  738W
  Police Authority and (b) additional Government support for crime reduction in the Doncaster borough in each year since 1995–96. [149065]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Central Government supported funding for South Yorkshire Police Authority in each year since 1995–96 is shown in the table.

  £ million (cash terms)

  1995–96

  147.2

  1996–97

  154.7

  1997–98

  158.8

  1998–99

  165.4

  1999–2000

  171.3

  2000–01

  177.2

  2001–02

  184.8

  In addition in 2000–01 South Yorkshire will receive a total of £984,978 from the Crime Fighting Fund. For 2001–02, the Authority will receive a total of £2,538,000. (All Crime Fighting Fund allocations are provisional and dependent on forces meeting recruitment targets).

  Projects to the value of £2,050,997 are currently being funded under the Government's Crime Reduction Programme. Three types of project are being funded, Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and Reducing Burglary schemes (over the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02) and a Neighbourhood Wardens Scheme (for the period 2001–02 to 2002–03). £1.395 million is being invested in CCTV, £0.607 million in Reducing Burglary and £0.049 million in the Neighbourhood Warden Scheme.

  Several smaller sums have been provided for the Doncaster Community Safety Partnership and the New Deal for Communities Partnership. Doncaster Regeneration Partnership has also invested in crime reduction projects via its Single Regeneration Budget Schemes.

  Records are not maintained of funding which has contributed specifically to crime reduction in Doncaster prior to the launch of the Crime Reduction Programme in 1999.

  Police Grant
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 72W, to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) if he will express the percentage change in funding allocation to each police authority per head of resident population in each police authority. [149180]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The percentage change in funding allocation for 2001–02 compared with 2000–01 to each police authority per head of resident population is given in the table.

  Funding per head

  2000–01 (£)

  2001–02 (£)

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset Police

  116.69

  120,84

  3.56

  Bedfordshire Police

  114.98

  120.95

  5.19

  Cambridgeshire Police

  107.26

  112.15

  4.57

  Cheshire Police

  113.69

  120.71

  6.18

  City of London

  10,825.34

  9,555.52

  -11.73

  739W

  Funding per head

  2000–01 (£)

  2001–02 (£)

  Percentage change

  Cleveland Police

  152.24

  159.73

  4.92

  Cumbria Police

  126.20

  131.76

  4.41

  Derbyshire Police

  108.65

  114.06

  4.98

  Devon and Cornwall Police

  114.77

  119.71

  4.30

  Dorset Police

  104.74

  108.30

  3.39

  Durham Police

  138.05

  144.21

  4.47

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  110.98

  117.13

  5.54

  Essex Police

  108.87

  114.55

  5.22

  Gloucestershire Police

  113.95

  119.23

  4.63

  Greater Manchester Police

  149.80

  156.96

  4.78

  Gwent Police

  129.03

  134.92

  4.56

  Hampshire Police

  114.46

  120.10

  4.93

  Hertfordshire Police

  113.39

  117.83

  3.92

  Humberside Police

  132.37

  137.37

  3.77

  Kent Police

  121.43

  128.71

  6.00

  Lancashire Police

  129.87

  135.39

  4.25

  Leicestershire Police

  113.71

  118.44

  4.16

  Lincolnshire Police

  104.95

  109.13

  3.98

  Merseyside Police

  171.92

  179.96

  4.68

  Metropolitan Police

  241.04

  250.42

  3.89

  Norfolk Police

  109.46

  114.88

  4.96

  North Wales Police

  117.88

  125.13

  6.15

  North Yorkshire Police

  107.35

  112.36

  4.66

  Northamptonshire Police

  109.94

  114.14

  3.82

  Northumbria Police

  153.21

  160.44

  4.72

  Nottinghamshire Police

  126.02

  131.79

  4.58

  South Wales Police

  135.24

  141.79

  4.84

  South Yorkshire Police

  135.88

  141.89

  4.43

  Staffordshire Police

  110.06

  114.65

  4.18

  Suffolk Police

  105.65

  111.17

  5.23

  Street crime in Wandsworth

  Number of offences

  Period

  Street crime1 in Wandsworth involving the theft of telephone equipment (including mobile phones)

  Other street crime in Wandsworth

  Total street crime1 in Wandsworth

  January to March 1999

  57

  182

  239

  April to June 1999

  70

  224

  294

  July to September 1999

  79

  255

  334

  October to December 1999

  90

  288

  378

  January to March 2000

  151

  231

  382

  April to June 2000

  149

  236

  385

  July to September 2000

  162

  214

  376

  October to December 2000

  165

  200

  365

  1 The Metropolitan police define street crime as robberies and thefts from the person.

  Armenian Massacre
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide for a memorial day in recognition of the Armenian massacre in the early 20th century. [151438]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Government have always condemned the appalling massacre of Armenians in 1915–16. Armenians already commemorate that tragic episode in their history on 24 April each year. This is not a national memorial day throughout Britain and we have no plans to make it one but this should not be seen as failing to acknowledge and sympathise with the victims and descendants of that atrocity.

  Prison Visiting Regulations
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will re-classify grandchildren as family members for the purposes of the regulations governing visits to prisoners. [151442]740W

  Funding per head

  2000–01 (£)

  2001–02 (£)

  Percentage change

  Surrey Police

  106.36

  102.96

  -3.20

  Sussex Police

  115.01

  120.00

  4.34

  Thames Valley Police

  110.40

  115.82

  4.91

  Warwickshire Police

  107.16

  112.22

  4.73

  West Mercia Police

  103.14

  108.98

  5.66

  West Midlands Police

  149.42

  155.99

  4.40

  West Yorkshire Policy

  140.59

  146.83

  4.44

  Wiltshire Police

  110.15

  113.71

  3.23

  Resident population is one of a number of indicators used in the calculation of the police funding formula. Details of the indicators and their value in determining the allocation for individual forces are set out in The Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2001–02, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Street Robberies
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of street robberies which(a) involved and (b) did not involve the theft of a mobile phone for every quarter since 1999 in Battersea; and if he will make a statement. [151150]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information in the table has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and represents the details for Wandsworth borough of which area Battersea forms a part.

  Mr. Boateng
  Prison Service guidance on visits does not define the term "family member", although it lists family members who should be regarded as "close relatives", whose visits to a prisoner should be refused only in exceptional circumstances. The position of grandchildren and grandparents, who do not currently fall within this definition, is being considered as part of the Prison Service's current review of visits policy.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the amounts of annual payments for 2000–01 made to police authorities will be published. [150686]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: I understand that the hon. Member's question relates to the payments made to police authorities for the additional policing costs incurred by forces as a result of the fuel distribution emergency last year.
  741W
  Where details of actual expenditure incurred by forces were submitted by 31 January, grant covering 90 per cent. of the approved cost will be paid by the end of this financial year. The balance will be paid on receipt of a statement certified by the police authority's external auditor. Grant payments in 2000–01 are likely to be of the order of £5.3 million. I will place details of the payments made to individual police authorities in the Library once they have been finalised following audit.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, dated 27 December 2000, with regard to Mrs. Vida Obiri (Vida Obiri Yeboah-Burgess). [151278]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 16 February.

  Passport Fraud
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 606W, on passport fraud, in how many cases of fraudulent issuing of British passports his Department's staff were involved. [151357]

  Mrs. Roche
  The statistics provided in my answer of 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 606W, on passport fraud related to customer frauds only and did not include cases in which members of staff were complicit.

  From 1991 to 2000, eight members of Passport Agency staff were convicted for fraudulently issuing passports. A further five members of staff were subject to internal disciplinary procedures as a result of their involvement in passport fraud. The Passport Agency's records indicate that these cases involved the fraudulent issue of 117 passports in total.

  Community Relations Councils
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the future funding of the community relations councils in Scotland. [151555]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Race Equality Councils (REC's) are co-funded by the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), local authorities and other bodies. I understand that the CRE is consulting with REC's in Scotland as elsewhere about how to improve delivery of race equality.

  Departmental Policies (Norwich, North)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Norwich, North constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [151142]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed 742W
  information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office annual reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000, is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. 'Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000' and 'Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000' can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Norwich, North constituency or the immediate locality:

  Targeted Policing

  One scheme for £600,000 joining the Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire police forces will cover the Fenlands area. The scheme will address rural crime and burglary.

  Close Circuit Television (CCTV)

  One scheme, an extension to the existing Norwich city centre system, has been submitted under round two of the CCTV initiative. The bid for £200,000 covering Norwich, North and Norwich, South is currently under consideration.

  Reducing Burglary Initiative

  One scheme for £38,000 covering Coslany ward, Norwich, has been received under round three of the Reducing Burglary Initiative.

  Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)

  The Norfolk YOT covers the constituency of Norwich, North. The YOT is making a full contribution to reducing delays within the court process for young offenders by producing 80 per cent. of all courts reports within agreed timescales. The YOT is also working in partnership with Youth Court Panels in order to establish a joint approach to tackling youth crime.

  To ensure that the needs of victims of youth crime are met through restorative justice measures, the YOT is working in partnership with the Norfolk Victim Support Charitable Trust. A joint working protocol has been agreed and implemented benefiting victims and 70 per cent. of all intervention work with young offenders includes a focus on victim issues. The YOT is also working in partnership with the National Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Children in the delivery of programmes for parents of young offenders to assist them to manage difficult behaviour with confidence, consistency and reliability. Links have also been established by the YOT with the local Drug Action Team in order to commission services for young substance misusers. The YOT is already having a significant impact on youth crime in Norfolk as a whole: 60 per cent. of all young people referred to the YOT have completed court orders without reoffending, while 80 per cent. of all young offenders released from prison have not reoffended.

  Norfolk (including the Norwich area) is benefiting from the Youth Justice Board's development fund which has awarded grants of approximately £1.1 million over three years for one bail support scheme and four intervention programmes across the county.
  743W
  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Norwich, North to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000;
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk).

  Number of persons prosecuted at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for offences relating to animal cruelty, England and Wales 1997–99

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Offence

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (as amended)

  1,051

  867

  1,104

  887

  1,046

  825

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec 8

  8

  8

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Protection of Animals Act, 1934

  6

  4

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Docking and Necking of Horses Act, 1949

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Pet Animals Act, 1951

  4

  4

  7

  6

  10

  9

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954

  34

  30

  22

  19

  25

  21

  Animal Health Act, 1981, Sees 40–42, 46 and 49 and

  62

  Orders made under Sees 8, 9, 37, 38, 39 and 43

  65

  57

  76

  39

  34

  Slaughterhouses Act, 1874

  —

  —

  2

  2

  4

  4

  Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960, Sec 1

  26

  21

  36

  26

  17

  12

  Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act, 1962

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Animal Boarding Establishments Act, 1963

  2

  2

  5

  5

  8

  6

  Riding Establishments Acts, 1964 and 1970

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Slaughter of Poultry Act, 1967

  6

  3

  18

  15

  8

  7

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968,

  5

  Secs 1, 2 and 6

  9

  8

  5

  15

  11

  Protection of Badgers Act, 1992 (except Sec 13)

  44

  25

  18

  4

  30

  10

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec 9

  5

  3

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Sec 11

  2

  —

  3

  3

  4

  3

  Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1995

  7

  3

  8

  7

  —

  —

  Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991

  5

  4

  5

  4

  5

  4

  Diseases of Animals Act

  89

  74

  85

  65

  58

  39

  Wild Birds Protection Acts

  84

  63

  68

  42

  157

  118

  Total

  1,449

  1,177

  1,470

  1,159

  1,432

  1,104

  Smoking (Prisons)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish the rules which operate within prisons with regard to smoking by(a) prisoners and (b) prison officers on duty; [151163]

  (2) what arrangements are made to prevent prisoners from being exposed to tobacco smoke against their will. [151162]

  Mr. Boateng
  The policy on smoking in Prison Service premises is set out in "Instruction to Governors 16/1996", issued on 21 March 1996 (a copy of which can be found in the Library). It seeks to ensure that prisoners are not exposed to tobacco smoke against their will.

  In particular, smoking is banned in all visits areas and governors are asked to consider bans in other communal areas and make arrangements to prevent smoking in consulting rooms in health care centres. There should also be provision for prisoners who smoke to smoke away from non-smoking prisoners within patient areas. So far as is reasonably practicable, non-smoking prisoners are not expected to share a cell with smokers.

  Animal Cruelty
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were charged with cruelty to animals in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [151015]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the number of persons charged with an offence is not collected centrally.

  However, information taken from the Home Office's Court Proceedings Database showing the number of persons prosecuted and convicted of offences relating to animal cruelty during the period 1997–99 is given in the table.

  The policy is under review and it is expected to follow that of health authorities which are required to operate a smoking cessation service to support those who want to give up.

  New Prison (Peterborough)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the economic benefits to Peterborough from the siting of a new prison in the city in terms of(a) direct and (b) indirect employment. [151567]

  Mr. Boateng
  The assessment made in 1997 and reiterated at the public inquiry into the new prison in 1998 was that it would create an estimated 400 direct and 440 indirect jobs during construction and 350 direct and 190 indirect jobs once the prison opens. However, these can only be indicative estimates and precise staffing figures will be dependent on the design and operational policies of the contractor selected to design, build and run the prison.

  Police Constables (Benefits)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of serving police constables who are in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit. [151238]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: I have made no such estimate.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on agreeing Service Level Agreement standards for Prison Service establishments; and if he will make a statement. [151623]

  Mr. Boateng
  Service Level Agreements (SDAs) have been developed and piloted during this financial year. The purpose of the SDA is to provide three year business plan agreements between the Area Manager and Governor of a prison, and to integrate Prison Service Performance Standards into the business planning process.

  SDAs covering all prison establishments are scheduled to be agreed by the end March for 2001–02.

  Reconvictions
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reconviction rates were for(a) all prisoners, (b) male prisoners and (c) young offenders for each year from 1992 to 2000; and if he will make a statement. [151762]

  Mr. Boateng
  Two year reconviction rates for standard list offences following release from prison between 1992 and 1997 are shown in the tables. Figures for subsequent years are not yet available. Changes in the standard list of offences recorded are estimated to have increased the 1994 figure by about 1 per cent., the 1995 figure by about 1.4 per cent. and the 1996 and 1997 figures by about 1.9 per cent.

  Table 1—two year reconviction rates for all prisoners

  Year of discharge from prison

  Percentage reconvicted

  1992

  51

  1993

  53

  1994

  56

  1995

  58

  1996

  57

  19971

  57

  1 First quarter

  Table 2—two year reconviction rates for male prisoners

  Year of discharge from prison

  Percentage reconvicted

  1992

  52

  1993

  54

  1994

  56

  1995

  58

  1996

  58

  19971

  57

  1 First quarter

  746W

  Table 3—two year reconviction rates for young offenders (aged 20 or under at time of sentence)

  Year of discharge from prison

  Percentage reconvicted

  1992

  71

  1993

  74

  1994

  75

  1995

  76

  1996

  75

  19971

  74

  1 First quarter

  Immigration Officers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration officers there were for each function in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [151763]

  Mrs. Roche
  The numbers of immigration officers for each function (Ports and Enforcement) are set out in the table.

  Immigration officers involved in enforcement activities

  Immigration officers involved in activities at ports locations

  Total immigration officers

  April

  1992

  116

  1,670

  1,786

  1993

  177

  1,625.5

  1,802.5

  1994

  248.5

  1,869

  2,117.5

  1995

  272

  1,831

  2,103

  1996

  257.5

  1,834.5

  2,092

  1997

  240

  1,836.4

  2,076.4

  1998

  233

  1,758.8

  1,991.2

  1999

  219.7

  1,640.5

  1,860.2

  2000

  248.2

  1,657.5

  1,905.7

  2001

  425.7

  1,971.6

  2,397.3

  Safe Cells
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many safe cells have been installed since 7 July 2000; [151825]

  (2) how many people have committed suicide since 7 July 2000; how many of them were (a) female, (b) male, (c) remand prisoners and (d) aged under 21 years; and how many suicides took place in safe cells. [151824]

  Mr. Boateng
  No safer cells have been installed since 7 July 2000, but 1,000 are planned in the three years from April 2001. Rye Hill prison which opened in January this year and Dovegate prison (which will open later this year) will have over 1,000 cells in which elements of the safer cell are incorporated.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 5 February a new three-year strategy to reduce prisoner suicide and self-harm in prisons. One strand of the strategy will be physical improvements to reception and induction areas, including the creation of more safer cells, crisis suites and gated cells that enable staff to watch closely at-risk prisoners.

  There have been the following numbers of self-inflicted deaths since 7 July 2000: (a) female—3; (b) male—46; (c) remand prisoners—28; and (d) aged under 21 years—11. There have been no self-inflicted deaths in safer cells.

  DNA Testing
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirements he sets for the accurate monitoring of DNA testing. [151681]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The DNA database is a national database which currently holds details of individuals suspected, cautioned and convicted of a recordable offence, together with their DNA profiles.

  The Home Office Circular 16/95: National DNA Database sets out the general conditions relating to the establishment and use of the National DNA database.

  DNA profiling technologies have developed rapidly over the last 10 years. Significant advances have been made resulting in improved sensitivity and these enable DNA to be extracted from increasingly smaller crime scene stains. The current technique, FSS SGMplusTM, analyses 11 areas on the DNA molecule. FSS SGMplusTM has been in use since September 1999 and has a discriminatory power of 1 in a billion. This has a considerable advantage over the SGM technique previously used, which had a discriminatory power of 1 in 50 million.

  The reliability of DNA evidence is assured through the internal quality assurance measures adopted by the Forensic Science Service and through their external accreditation by the British Standards Institute and the United Kingdom Accreditation Service to the BS EN ISO 9000 and M10 National Standards. This independent accreditation of the DNA process involves regular audit to ensure the standards are maintained.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what communications related to the immigration and nationality status of the Hinduja family the Home Office has received from(a) Conservative and (b) Liberal Democrat Members of either House as well as other (i) elected representatives and (ii) office holders of each party; and if he will make a statement. [149114]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 7 February 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 24 January that he had asked former Treasury Solicitor, Sir Anthony Hammond QC, to review the full circumstance surrounding approaches to the Home Office in connection with the possibility of an application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja in 1998. Sir Anthony started his review on Thursday 25 January. After an initial reading of the papers, Sir Anthony decided that, in order to fulfil the terms of reference of his review of the application for naturalisation of S. P. Hinduja, it is appropriate for him to look at the circumstances of the granting of naturalisation in respect of G. P. Hinduja because the circumstances of both applications are closely related. For the same reason, he also decided that it is appropriate for him to look at the circumstances surrounding the inquiries about naturalisation in respect of Prakesh Hinduja. I understand that Sir Anthony hopes to complete his review shortly. The report will be published and copies will be placed in the Vote Office and the Library. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of this review.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the granting of exceptional leave to remain for asylum seekers from the Democratic Republic of Congo. [151268]

  Mrs. Roche
  Each asylum application is considered individually on its merits. In cases where asylum has been refused, exceptional leave to remain may be granted on a discretionary basis in individual cases. Exceptional leave may be granted to a person for a wide number of reasons, but it is most usually granted for compassionate or humanitarian reasons, or to protect from ill treatment a person who does not otherwise qualify for asylum under the terms of the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention.

  Postal Votes
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that electoral registration officers will use only new postal and proxy voting forms which accord with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 2000. [150726]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: There is no prescribed form for making absent vote applications. My Department has provided a specimen postal vote application form to electoral registration officers but it is for them to determine whether absent vote applications meet the requirements as set out in the Representation of the People Regulations 2001.

  The Home Office will, however, be writing to these officers encouraging them to consider making their forms available to all political parties and to be proactive in bringing absent voting arrangements to the attention of voters locally.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Veterans
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the procedures for granting tribunals to disabled war veterans claiming a war pension. [151595]

  Mr. Bayley
  Most decisions concerning entitlement to or the assessment of a war pension can be appealed to an independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal. The notification of a decision tells war pensioners if there is a right of appeal and the procedure for doing so.

  Regulations laid on 26 February will, additionally, ensure that war pensioners have appeal rights which are similar to those provided for in the Social Security scheme. They provide for war pensioners to be able to appeal, from 9 April 2001, against the majority of decisions that affect their war pension, including for the first time, most decisions in respect of supplementary allowances.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many widows and widowers
  749W
  will lose benefits due to the receipt of compensation payable to former Japanese prisoners of war and their families. [151294]

  Mr. Bayley
  No widow or widower of a former Japanese prisoner of war should lose benefit as a result of their or their late partner's receipt of this special payment. The Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit, and Council Tax Benefit Regulations were amended from 1 February 2001 to ensure the payments are disregarded in the calculation of benefit entitlement.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new Severe Disablement Allowance awards were made each month since March 2000. [151166]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Severe Disablement Allowance awards

  Number

  2000

  April

  1,100

  May

  800

  June

  1,300

  July

  1,200

  August

  900

  Note:

  Figures are taken from a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system and exclude a small number of cases held clerically. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the average nominal increase in pensioners' incomes since 1990(a) in total and (b) by source of income. [151640]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Medical Malpractice
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what investigations have been conducted over the past two years into allegations of malpractice by doctors involved with certifying benefit claims. [150530]

  Mr. Bayley
  Medical Services have identified six cases of alleged malpractice by doctors involved in providing medical reports for benefit claims in the past two years. The Medical Services' Serious Complaints Investigations Team is currently investigating all six cases.

  National Insurance Rebates
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the primary and secondary contracted-out National Insurance rebates will be in the financial year starting in April 2002. [151765]

  Mr. Rooker
  Reports by the Government Actuary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the proposed level of contracted-out National Insurance rebates for the five years from 6 April 2002 have been laid before both Houses today, together with draft Rebate Orders.

  New Deal (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the New Deal for(a) older people, (b) lone parents and (c) disabled people in the Jarrow constituency. [150465]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The New Deals benefit the labour market because participants leave the programme better equipped, motivated and skilled for the rest of their working lives. For the period ending November 2000, 824 people have joined the New Deal 25+ programme, resulting in 122 jobs. Also, 47 people have started work with the New Deal 50+ employment credit. 540 people have started New Deal for Lone Parents in Jarrow, resulting in 275 jobs. We know that many other people will have left the New Deal for employment without telling the Employment Service—these people are not included in the figures. Figures for New Deal for Disabled People are not yet available at constituency level. The South Tyneside pilot area of the New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) includes the constituency of Jarrow. All the NDDP pilots are making a valuable contribution to our learning and experience of which forms of extra help and support work best.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prime Ministerial Apartments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the public expenditure incurred on refurbishment of the Prime Minister's private apartments at Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street in each of the last 10 years. [151430]

  The Prime Minister
  Figures are only available since 1993.

  For the years 1993–98, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on 26 January 1998, Official Report, column 66W. For 1998–99 I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 28 July 2000, Official Report, columns 969–70W. For 1999–2000 I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes on 5 June 2000, Official Report, columns 49–50W.

  The cost of works in the No. 11 flat (expenditure paid or committed) to date this financial year is £44,063 including recoverable VAT. No further work is planned for this financial year.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on(a) renovation, (b) repair, (c) improvements and (d) additions to the residential flats for his occupation at Nos. 10 or 11 Downing street in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000; and what his estimate is for 2000–01. [151373]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 February 2001]: It is not possible to disaggregate expenditure in the manner requested as no distinction is made between maintaining, decorating and otherwise improving residential accommodation at Nos. 10 or 11 Downing street as projects frequently cover two or more of these categories of work. For details of expenditure on

  751W
  refurbishment of the flat at No. 11 Downing street, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) today.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the potential savings arising from the Community Legal Service receiving a portion of the damages awarded in civil cases funded by legal aid. [151548]

  Mr. Lock
  A contingency fund was considered during the passage of the Access to Justice Act 1999, and the Act contains a power to create one. However, the Government have no plans to do so.

  It would be virtually impossible to operate a contingency fund in relation to family litigation or cases where victims are seeking injunctions to prevent domestic violence. Costs are often not awarded at the end of these cases, or they are unlikely to be enforced, or there may be no damages out of which costs could be recovered from the funded client. Such a fund cannot operate where funding is provided for some Children Act cases, since funding is granted without a merits test. It would also be impossible to operate Legal Help (formerly Green Form advice) on a contingency fund basis, since cases rarely become formal proceedings where costs or damages would become recoverable.

  The Government believe that, as far as possible, litigants should receive the full amount of compensation to which they are entitled. That would not be the case with a contingency fund.

  The Government also doubt the practicality of operating a contingency fund where the private funding of litigation through conditional fee agreements and after-the-event insurance is possible. Adverse selection would result in cases with higher prospects of success funded privately on a conditional fee basis, leaving cases with weaker prospects of success to be supported by the contingency fund. That would leave the fund vulnerable to significant financial problems.

  Accordingly, and while not ruling out the possibility of operating a contingency fund in any circumstances, the Government have no plans to introduce such a fund in England and Wales.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his estimate is of the total financial awards from successful civil cases funded by legal aid in the latest financial year for which figures are available. [151549]

  Mr. Lock
  Due to changes to the Legal Services Commission's computer systems the latest available figures are for 1997–98. The total amount of moneys awarded or agreed in publicly funded civil cases was £1.37 billion. This information relates principally to one-off payments, and excludes most payments by instalment, whether in matrimonial or non-matrimonial cases.

  Jury Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) men and (b) women were selected for jury service at courts covering the Greater London area during the last 12 months. [150442]

  Jane Kennedy
  Jurors are selected on a random basis from among those people who are registered on the electoral rolls for England and Wales. The total number of people summoned for jury service at courts covering the Greater London area in the last 12 months was 135,858. The breakdown of how many men and how many women were summoned is not recorded, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Deputy Stipendiary Magistrates (General Election)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what instructions(a) she and (b) her Department have given to deputy stipendiary magistrates concerning the avoidance of party political activity during the next General Election; and if she will make a statement. [151771]

  Jane Kennedy
  Neither I nor my officials have given any instructions to Deputy District Judges (Magistrates Courts), as they are now called, specifically in relation to political activity during the next General Election. However, the memorandum on conditions of appointment and terms of service issued to every Deputy District Judge (Magistrates Courts) states plainly that they are expected to refrain from any activity, political or otherwise, which would conflict with their judicial office or be seen to compromise their impartiality. They are advised that in the event of any doubt they should contact my officials in the Judicial Group for advice.

CABINET OFFICE

  GM Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the assessment was by MISC6 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food report on separation for GM field trials; which Ministers were given it; and if she will make MISC6's assessment of the report publicly available. [151538]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  It is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

HEALTH

  Flu Vaccine
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the take-up rates for flu vaccine as at(a) 1 November and (b) 1 December for each health authority. [141403]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is in the table.
  753W
  These figures are based on returns sent by health authorities to the Department and represent data collected to 30 November 2000. Uptake on 1 November in several health authorities was affected by delays in supplies from one manufacturer. Nevertheless the data before 30 November do not reflect the work done by HAs and in primary care to promote uptake.

  Percentage

  Region/HA

  65 and over uptake

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  58

  Cambridgeshire

  64

  East and North Hertfordshire

  60

  Norfolk

  64

  North Essex

  62

  South Essex

  62

  Suffolk

  58

  West Hertfordshire

  56

  Total

  61

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Bradford

  60

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  64

  County Durham

  61

  East Riding

  64

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  63

  Leeds

  67

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  58

  North Cumbria

  54

  North Yorkshire

  68

  Northumberland

  66

  Sunderland

  64

  Tees

  62

  Wakefield

  65

  Total

  63

  South East

  Berkshire

  61

  Buckinghamshire

  59

  East Kent

  59

  East Surrey

  55

  East Sussex, Brighton/Hove

  62

  Isle of Wight

  64

  North and Mid Hants

  62

  Northamptonshire

  68

  Oxfordshire

  65

  Portsmouth and South East Hants

  66

  Southampton and South West Hants

  67

  West Kent

  67

  West Surrey

  54

  West Sussex

  49

  Total

  61

  North West

  Bury and Rochdale

  58

  East Lancashire

  60

  Liverpool

  60

  Manchester

  49

  Morecambe Bay

  62

  North Cheshire

  62

  North West Lancashire

  60

  Salford and Trafford

  53

  Sefton

  66

  South Cheshire

  66

  South Lancashire

  61

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  59

  Stockport

  60

  West Pennine

  56

  Wigan and Bolton

  49

  Wirral

  60

  Total

  59

  754W

  Percentage

  Region/HA

  65 and over uptake

  London

  Barking and Havering

  63

  Barnet

  67

  Bexley and Greenwich

  60

  Brent and Harrow

  48

  Bromley

  62

  Camden and Islington

  34

  Croydon

  53

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  52

  East London and City

  54

  Enfield and Haringey

  51

  Hillingdon

  55

  Kensington, Chelsea, Westminster

  46

  Kingston and Richmond

  61

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  50

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  59

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  60

  Total

  55

  South and West

  Avon

  67

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  62

  Dorset

  62

  Gloucestershire

  63

  North and East Devon

  64

  Somerset

  64

  South and West Devon

  63

  Wiltshire

  59

  Total

  63

  Trent

  Barnsley

  62

  Doncaster

  65

  Leicestershire

  54

  Lincolnshire

  69

  North Derbyshire

  67

  North Nottinghamshire

  61

  Nottingham

  55

  Rotherham

  68

  Sheffield

  76

  South Derbyshire

  67

  South Humber

  71

  Total

  64

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  61

  Coventry

  64

  Dudley

  59

  Herefordshire

  65

  North Staffordshire

  66

  Sandwell

  51

  62

  Solihull

  64

  South Staffordshire

  66

  Walsall

  54

  Warwickshire

  66

  Wolverhampton

  61

  Worcester

  67

  Total

  63

  England average

  61

  Flu Vaccine

    NHS Trusts (Borrowing Costs)
    Mr. Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each NHS trust has paid for the cost of borrowing in each year since its inception; and if he will make a statement. [149348]
    755W
    Mr. Denham
    The information has been placed in the Library.

    The vast majority of National Health Services trust borrowing is internal to the public sector.

    Ambulance Services
    Dr. Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funding is being made available to Oxfordshire Ambulance NHS Trust and surrounding trusts to facilitate mergers with neighbouring trusts; [151569]

    (2) when he received the South East Region ambulance review; and when he made a decision on it. [151571]

    Ms Stuart
    No decision has yet been taken about merging ambulance trusts in the south-east.

    The ambulance trusts have been reviewing the way in which ambulance services in the south-east are provided to ensure that they are delivered in a way which is consistent with the modernisation of the National Health Service and which ensures they can play a full role in the delivery of emergency and pre-hospital care. Proposals for the future of the service have been produced which will require public consultation. I will be meeting the chairs and chief executives of the ambulance trusts shortly to discuss these proposals.

    Dr. Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding will be provided to Oxfordshire Ambulance NHS Trust for paramedic training and the enhancement of skill levels of paramedics. [151570]

    Ms Stuart
    Funding for paramedic training, both new recruits and refresher training for qualified paramedics, is incorporated in the total budget for providing emergency ambulance services. For 2000–01 the total budget for Oxfordshire Ambulance National Health Service Trust was £10 million.

    General Surgery Waiting Lists
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been waiting for general surgery in(a) England, (b) the Southend, West parliamentary constituency and (c) South Essex health authority area for eight weeks or more in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [151254]

    Mr. Denham
    The information requested is in the tables.

    Number of patients on in-patient waiting list for general surgery in England

    Quarter

    Total

    Less than 3 months

    More than 3 months

    1999–2000

    1

    201,533

    107,259

    94,274

    1999–2000

    2

    202,349

    109,929

    92,420

    1999–2000

    3

    208,965

    112,089

    96,876

    1999–2000

    4

    194,010

    101,192

    92,818

    2000–01

    1

    191,216

    98,605

    92,611

    2000–01

    2

    187,977

    100,376

    87,601

    2000–01

    3

    189,203

    101,525

    87,678

    Source:

    KHO7 quarterly return
    756W

    Number of patients on in-patient waiting list for general surgery in South Essex health authority

    Quarter

    Total

    Less than 3 months

    More than 3 months

    1999–2000

    1

    2,039

    1,115

    924

    1999–2000

    2

    2,075

    1,102

    973

    1999–2000

    3

    2,252

    1,270

    982

    1999–2000

    4

    2,214

    990

    1,224

    2000–01

    1

    2,129

    1,029

    1,100

    2000–01

    2

    2,160

    1,153

    1,007

    2000–01

    3

    2,391

    1,340

    1,051

    Source:

    QF01 quarterly return

    Data are not available on the number of people waiting longer than eight weeks. Data are collected in time-bands of three months. The Department does not collect data by parliamentary constituencies, so data has been given on England and South Essex health authority.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage of gross domestic product that Britain spent on health expenditure was in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [151525]

    Mr. Denham
    [holding answer 27 February 2001]: Table one shows gross National Health Service expenditure for the United Kingdom as a percentage of gross domestic product from 1979–80 to 2003–04. This shows that, based on latest forecasts, public expenditure on health as a percentage of GDP is set to rise to 6.6 per cent. by 2003–04.

    The Department does not produce figures for expenditure on private healthcare. According to Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data, private healthcare represents about 1 per cent. of GDP. Table two shows total healthcare expenditure as a percentage of GDP from 1979–99, using information from OECD. The OECD does not produce forecast data, but assuming that private healthcare spend as a proportion of GDP remains stable at around 1 per cent., then this percentage will rise to 7.6 per cent. by 2003–04.

    Table one

    Year

    Gross public expenditure as percentage of GDP

    1979–80

    4.6

    1980–81

    5.3

    1981–82

    5.4

    1982–83

    5.4

    1983–84

    5.3

    1984–85

    5.3

    1985–86

    5.1

    1986–87

    5.1

    1987–88

    5.1

    1988–89

    5.1

    1989–90

    5.0

    1990–91

    5.2

    1991–92

    5.6

    1992–93

    5.9

    1993–94

    5.9

    1994–95

    5.9

    1995–96

    5.8

    1996–97

    5.7

    1997–98

    5.7

    1998–99

    5.7

    1999–2000

    5.9

    757W

    Table one

    Year

    Gross public expenditure as percentage of GDP

    2000–01

    6.1

    2001–02

    6.2

    2002–03

    6.4

    2003–04

    6.6

    Notes:

    1. Figures are based on UK gross NHS expenditure date and GDP data produced by HMT.

    2. Figures for years 1999–2000 to 2003–04 are subject to change.

    Table one

    Year

    Total healthcare expenditure as percentage of GDP

    1979

    5.3

    1980

    5.7

    1981

    6.0

    1982

    5.8

    1983

    6.0

    1984

    6.0

    1985

    5.9

    1986

    5.9

    1987

    6.0

    1988

    5.9

    1989

    5.9

    1990

    6.0

    1991

    6.4

    1992

    6.9

    1993

    6.9

    1994

    7.0

    1995

    7.0

    1996

    7.0

    1997

    6.7

    1998

    6.7

    1999

    7.0

    Notes:

    1. Information is produced by calendar year.

    2. OECD does not produce forecast information.

    Source:

    OECD health databank 2000

    Patient Referrals
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health since the publication of the NHS Plan in July 2000, how many health trusts have refused to accept referrals from adjacent primary care groups. [151008]

    National health service hospital and community health services: Nursing, midwifery, health visiting staff and practice nurses in England as at 30 September each year

    Headcount

    Year

    Total nursing qualified staff

    Total HCHS

    Qualified nurses

    Practice (qualified)

    Unqualified

    Learners

    Unknown

    1979

    1—

    1—

    1,810

    1—

    1—

    1—

    0

    1980

    1—

    1—

    1—

    1,960

    1—

    1—

    0

    1981

    1—

    1—

    1—

    2,270

    1—

    1—

    0

    1982

    450,180

    253,880

    251,240

    2,640

    117,390

    78,910

    0

    1983

    455,400

    259,360

    256,340

    3,020

    117,060

    78,980

    0

    1984

    455,960

    266,420

    262,910

    3,510

    113,580

    75,960

    0

    1985

    462,450

    275,420

    271,380

    4,030

    115,680

    71,350

    0

    1986

    463,640

    279,230

    274,670

    4,560

    116,110

    68,300

    0

    1987

    468,360

    284,780

    279,730

    5,050

    118,930

    64,650

    0

    1988

    470,950

    290,270

    283,920

    6,350

    117,600

    63,080

    0

    1989

    476,340

    296,940

    288,140

    8,800

    117,110

    62,290

    0

    1990

    477,400

    298,970

    285,360

    13,610

    115,260

    59,080

    4,090

    1991

    489,220

    309,780

    293,770

    16,010

    119,740

    47,720

    11,980

    1992

    476,820

    313,990

    297,350

    16,640

    120,310

    35,020

    7,500

    1993

    462,690

    310,900

    293,380

    17,520

    122,590

    21,360

    7,840

    1994

    447,790

    305,780

    289,280

    16,500

    123,070

    11,330

    7,610

    758W
    Mr. Denham
    Details on referrals that are not accepted by National Health Service Trusts are not collected centrally and are a matter for local commissioners and the National Health Service Trust concerned.

    Medical Mistakes
    Mr. David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the adverse events in NHS hospitals involving the use of(a) an anaesthetic and (b) nitrous oxide in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2000; [151604]

    (2) if he will list adverse events in NHS hospitals involving (a) erroneous intrathecal injections that should have been given intravenously, (b) erroneous intravenous injections that should have been given intrathecally and (c) other injection errors in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2000. [151605]

    Ms Stuart
    [holding answer 27 February 2001]: The information requested is not currently collected centrally.

    An expert group, which Ministers asked the Chief Medical Officer to chair, has examined how the National Health Service could more effectively learn from and prevent adverse events in health care. The group's report, "An Organisation with a Memory" was published last year and is available at: www.doh.gov.uk/orgmemreport.

    Ministers agreed all 10 recommendations, including the four key categories of serious recurring adverse events initially identified for action. The NHS Plan includes the establishment of a national reporting system for adverse events as a key initiative intended to help protect patients and improve health care.

    Detailed proposals are now being developed to establish a national reporting system, which we aim to establish by the end of 2001.

    Staff Numbers
    Mr. Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) ancillary workers there were in each year from 1979 to 1997; and if he will make a statement. [151526]

    Mr. Denham
    [holding answer 27 February 2001]: The data requested are in the tables.
    759W

    National health service hospital and community health services: Nursing, midwifery, health visiting staff and practice nurses in England as at 30 September each year

    Headcount

    Year

    Total nursing qualified staff

    Total HCHS

    Qualified nurses

    Practice (qualified)

    Unqualified

    Learners

    Unknown

    1995

    434,860

    316,890

    298,650

    18,240

    112,350

    4,780

    840

    1996

    436,560

    319,150

    301,250

    17,900

    113,330

    2,910

    1,170

    1997

    438,300

    318,860

    300,470

    18,390

    116,430

    2,340

    670

    1998

    442,780

    323,450

    304,560

    18,890

    116,580

    2,140

    610

    1999

    452,540

    329,640

    310,140

    19,500

    119,680

    1,940

    1,280

    2000

    462,050

    335,950

    316,750

    19,200

    123,850

    2,040

    210

    1 Headcount data not available for these years.

    Notes:

    Figures are rounded to the nearest ten. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts. Figures exclude agency staff. A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years. Decrease in learners due to transition from traditional learners to Project 2000 students from 1990.

    Source:

    Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

    Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

    NHS hospital and community health services: Staff within the ancillary area of work in England as to 30 September each year

    Year

    Headcount

    1979

    219,430

    1980

    220,600

    1981

    221,450

    1982

    219,160

    1983

    215,330

    1984

    198,970

    1985

    184,150

    1986

    167,580

    1987

    157,320

    1988

    148,440

    1989

    141,540

    1990

    132,650

    1991

    121,180

    1992

    110,500

    1993

    108,440

    1994

    102,790

    Notes:

    Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

    Source:

    Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

    NHScat
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce a decision on the creation of NHScat. [151577]

    Mr. Denham
    The project to create NHScat has been under way since June last year.

    NHScat will be available to use by the National Health Service from 1 October 2001.

    Norfolk Area Health Authority
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that targeted moneys from Government to the Norfolk area health authority are not diverted from such targets. [151680]

    Mr. Denham
    Norfolk health authority's allocation for 2001–02 is £550 million of which £15 million has been designated for policy programmes to support the implementation of the NHS Plan.
    760W
    This will all be used to support NHS Plan initiatives. Negotiations about exactly how this money will be allocated will form part of the discussions surrounding the Norfolk health economy service and financial framework for 2001–02.

    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Norfolk area health authority on(a) the running costs of and (b) the purchase of equipment for the neav PFI hospital in Norwich. [151682]

    Mr. Denham
    The Eastern Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive is in discussion with the Norfolk health system regarding the funding of the increased running costs of the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital as part of the 2001–02 service and financial framework negotiations.

    In addition a package of funding has already been agreed with the Norfolk health system for new and replacement equipment. This will be funded from a combination of trust block allocation, regional strategic capital, equipment leasing and a proportion of the sales proceeds from the old hospital site.

    Primary Care Groups (Norfolk)
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that primary care groups in Norfolk are not disadvantaged by the development of the new PFI hospital in Norwich. [151764]

    Mr. Denham
    The decision to proceed with the private initiative scheme was a health economy decision that all relevant health organisations were involved in.

    Although primary care groups had not been established when the first business case for the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital was agreed, they subsequently ratified their support for the new hospital by approving the supplementary business case for 144 extra beds, and its financial consequences.

    The National Health Service Executive is providing smoothing and transitional support for the higher initial costs of the new hospital. This is in accordance with the undertakings given at the time of approval to ensure other local services would not suffer.

    Barnet General Hospital
    Sir Sydney Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what annual interest is paid by the Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS trust to the consortium developing Barnet general hospital's phase lb project. [151772]

    Mr. Denham
    The Barnet hospital phase lb private finance initiative project will not be completed and brought into use until April 2002. There is no payment made to the consortium in respect of phase 1b until the facilities are available for use, and therefore no annual interest is being paid.

    NHS Recruitment
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual(a) salary and (b) support costs are of his Department's Director of International Recruitment for Health Services. [151791]

    Mr. Denham
    The Director of International Recruitment is on detachment from her post as executive nurse director at Hammersmith Hospitals National Health Service Trust. The trust publishes salary details of its senior staff in its annual report. A budget of £37,000 has been secured this year to fund salary, travel and subsistence, support and conference costs.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets have been set for the Director of International Recruitment for Health Services for the number of foreign recruited nurses working in the NHS [151790]

    Mr. Denham
    The level of international nurse recruitment required will be assessed in the light of the impact on staffing levels of the increased training places since 1997, and the success of the retention and returner initiatives already in place.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to ensure that nurses are not recruited by the NHS from developing countries where there are shortages of trained nursing staff. [151789]

    Mr. Denham
    The Department issued guidance on the recruitment of nurses from developing countries in the international nurse recruitment guidance published in November 1999. A copy was placed in the Library. The guidance will be reinforced for all healthcare professions in the Code of Practice for International Recruitment which is due to be published shortly.

    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the representations he has received from foreign Governments about recruitment for the NHS of(a) nurses and (b) doctors in their countries. [148276]

    Mr. Denham
    Over the last year we have received representations from the Spanish Government with regards to the possibility of recruiting both doctors and nurses from Spain to work in the National Health Service.

    A Government to Government agreement was signed with Spain in November 2000 to promote closer working between the two countries. As part of this agreement, the first 63 nurses arrived in the north-west from Spain on 19 January 2000 to work in four NHS trusts. Following
    762W
    this successful recruitment, the initiative is being extended to medical staff through a pilot project also being led by North West Region.

    I am also aware that the Department has received representations over the last year from:

    Latvia

    Philippines

    Russia

    China

    Tunisia

    Caribbean

    South Africa

    Zimbabwe.

    Representations made by South Africa and Zimbabwe stipulated that both health sectors need the services of nurses and stressed that their recruitment outside of the country could not be supported.

    Guidance was issued by the Department on international recruitment stressing how essential it is that all NHS employers ensure that they do not actively recruit from developing countries who are experiencing nursing shortages of their own.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Dr. Naysmith
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received on his plans to create a new CAP paying agency; and if he will make a statement. [150866]

    Ms Quin
    We have received no recent representations on the Ministry's plans to create a new CAP paying agency. A summary of the responses to the consultation exercise which we carried out last summer is available on the MAFF website.

    Plans for creating the new CAP paying agency are progressing well. We are providing monthly updates to staff affected by the creation of the new agency, and will shortly be inviting key external stakeholders to the first meeting of a CAPPA users' group. This group will provide a forum to help us to ensure that the new agency takes full account of the needs of its customers.

    We will be writing to all our customers next months with details of how the restructuring of MAFF's presence in the regions will affect them.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Public Relations (Expenditure)
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure was in his Department for the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000, and what the planned expenditure and breakdown of expenditure for 2000–01 is on (i) public opinion research, (ii) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (iii) direct mail. [149267]
    763W
    Dr. Reid
    The total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure for the Department for the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000 can be obtained from the Northern Ireland Office 2000 Departmental Report (CM 4621).

    The planned expenditure for 2000–01 is as follows:

    (i) £340,000

    (ii) £1,378,000

    (iii) £169,0001

    1 Figure relates to the total budget for postage. A provision for direct mail is covered within this figure.

    Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
    Mr. McGrady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about current powers; what problems they have encountered; and what action is being taken to address such problems; [150652]

    (2) if the review to be undertaken into the powers of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will (a) be independent, (b) assess the work of the Commission against the United Nations agreed principles and (c) seek views from the public and interested parties; [150654]

    (3) what plans have been made to review the powers of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. [150653]

    Mr. George Howarth
    The Northern Ireland Office is in regular contact with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on a range of issues, including the extent of its powers under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 69(2) of the Act requires the Commission to submit to the Secretary of State at the end of its first two years of operation recommendations for improving the adequacy and effectiveness of its functions. We have not yet received these recommendations, but expect to do so shortly. We have made clear that we will give full consideration to the Commission's recommendations at that stage. Any subsequent proposals for change will be subject to consultation in the normal way.

    Mr. McGrady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what resources have been provided to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for the public consultation about the scope of the Bill of Rights. [150645]

    Mr. George Howarth
    The annual budget of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was initially set at £750,000, three times that of the Commission's predecessor, to reflect its increased powers and functions. The consultation on the scope for a Bill of Rights was envisaged as an integral part of the Commission's functions and resources for the consultation have therefore been provided within the Commission's core budget. However, we made clear from the outset that we would be prepared to consider bids for increased funding, provided they were accompanied by a properly costed business case. The Commission's first bid for additional funds—including for the consultation on the scope for a Bill of Rights—was received during the Christmas break. It is currently under consideration, and we hope to meet the Commission shortly to discuss their bid more fully.

  TREASURY

    New Deal (Young People)
    Mr. Joyce
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the New Deal on the employment prospects of young people. [150148]

    Mr. Timms
    By last November, nearly 270,000 young people had moved from welfare to work through New Deal, already well ahead of the manifesto target of 250,000 in the lifetime of this Parliament. Recent independent evaluation has found that long term youth unemployment is about 40 per cent. lower than it would have been without New Deal.

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. Hilary Benn
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the impact of the Working Families Tax Credit on reducing child poverty. [150149]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, along with other changes to the tax and benefit system made during this Parliament, will lift more than a million children out of poverty.

    Mr. Miller
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what average weekly payment is received by those in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit. [150173]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Estimates are contained in the Working Families Tax Credit Quarterly Enquiries, copies of which are in the Library.

    Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the monitoring of the performance of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions by the Treasury. [150150]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The performance of the DETR is of course the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. It is regularly monitored against PSA targets and an assessment is published in the Departmental Annual Report.

    Children's Tax Credit
    Ms Drown
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in South Swindon will benefit from the children's tax credit. [150151]

    Dawn Primarolo
    An estimate of the number of families in South Swindon who could benefit from the Children's Tax Credit is not available, but an estimated 475,000 families in the South West area could do so.

    Ms Keeble
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage take-up of the Children's Tax Credit. [150156]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) on 5 February 2001,Official Report, column 412W.
    765W
    Ms Bridget Prentice
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the impact of the Children's Tax Credit on family incomes. [150167]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) on 14 December 2000,Official Report, column 247W.

    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families will benefit from the Children's Tax Credit in Chorley. [150122]

    Dawn Primarolo
    An estimate of the number of families in Chorley who will be eligible to claim the Children's Tax Credit (CTC) is unavailable, but an estimate of the number of families in the north-west who will be eligible to claim CTC is 625,000.

    Single Parents (Employment Prospects)
    Mrs. Ann Cryer
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the Government's policies on the employment prospects of single parents. [150152]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Improving the employment prospects of lone parents is a key priority for the Government. The lone parent employment rate has risen from 44 per cent. in 1997 to over 50 per cent. now—the highest rate for 20 years. Many more lone parents say that they would like to work and so the Government has set a new objective: that 70 per cent. of lone parents are in employment by the end of the decade. Policies such as the New Deal for lone parents, the Working Families Tax Credit and the National Childcare Strategy are already helping the Government to achieve this aim.

    Public Service Investment
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what real terms increases he plans in investment in public services relating to health and education in each of the next three years. [150153]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The Chancellor announced in last year's Budget real terms growth in UK NHS expenditure of 5.6 per cent, 5.5 per cent. and 5.6 per cent. respectively over the three years to 2003–04.

    For UK education expenditure the Chancellor has provided for real terms growth of 4.8 per cent, 5.3 per cent. and 5.4 per cent. for the three years to 2003–04.

    Occupational Pension Schemes
    Mr. Baldry
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the purchase of annuities for occupational pension schemes. [150155]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Government keep all areas of the tax system under review.

    Euro
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the number of retailers planning to accept the euro in advance of any decision to make it legal tender in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [150158]
    766W
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    It is entirely a commercial decision for UK businesses to determine whether or not they wish to accept euro, or any foreign currency. The fourth Report on Euro Preparations provides updated information on help available to UK businesses preparing for the introduction of euro cash in the euro area on 1 January 2002.

    Mr. Syms
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the timing of British participation in the European single currency. [150165]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on 25 January 2001,Official Report, column 702W.

    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on economic policy formulation of membership of the European single currency. [150169]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Government have said they will only recommend joining a successful single currency if it is in our national economic interest to do so, and if the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous.

    Working Families Tax Credit (Wales)
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in(a) Wales and (b) Bridgend receive Working Families Tax Credit; and how much has been paid to date from public funds. [150159]

    Dawn Primarolo
    For the number of families in Wales and Bridgend receiving the Working Families Tax Credit, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 425W.

    Estimates of national expenditure on the WFTC and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC) are contained in Table B20 on page 190 of the pre-Budget report, published in November 2000. It is estimated that almost 6 per cent. of total WFTC and DPTC expenditure is paid to recipients in Wales. There are too few cases in the 5 per cent. sample used for analyses of the WFTC to yield a reliable separate estimate for Bridgend.

    Disadvantaged Areas
    Dr. Iddon
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage investment in enterprises in disadvantaged areas. [150160]

    Mr. Colman
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage investment in enterprises in disadvantaged areas. [150166]

    Mr. Timms
    The Government have set up the Phoenix Fund, under the Small Business Service, to encourage and stimulate enterprise and business creation in disadvantaged areas. The Government are also taking forward the recommendations of the Social Investment Task Force, for example the proposal for a community investment tax credit. The Government are also supporting the Inner City 100, which celebrates the fastest-growing companies in the most disadvantaged areas of 15 inner cities.

    Child Poverty
    Mrs. Lawrence
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards achieving the target of halving child poverty in 10 years. [150161]

    Dawn Primarolo
    As a result of tax and benefit measures introduced in this Parliament it is estimated that more than a million children will be lifted out of poverty.

    Over 1.1 million families are now receiving the Working Families Tax Credit, nearly 300,000 more than its predecessor, Family Credit, at its peak. Families receiving the WFTC are receiving on average £30 a week more than under Family Credit. A lone parent on Income Support with two children under 11 will be over £25 a week better-off in real terms than in 1997, and a couple nearly £30 a week better-off. In addition, there are now over 300,000 fewer children living in workless households compared to 1997.

    Child poverty is a complex problem that requires a multi-dimensional approach. The Government's second annual report on poverty and social exclusions, "Opportunity for All" published in September last year, sets out a further range of child poverty indicators and progress to date. These indicators include the number of children living in low-income households, living in workless households and living in housing below the set standard of adequacy, as well as indicators on education and on health inequalities.

    Savings Ratio
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the ratio of savings to income over the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [150162]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The November 2000 pre-Budget report gave an assessment of developments in household saving and borrowing in Box A4, page 155.

    Taxation
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the level of taxation. [150163]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The Chancellor receives a large number of representations on tax policy.

    VAT (Church Repairs)
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has completed his consultation about the relief from VAT for repairs to places of worship. [150164]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 662W.

    Departmental Performance Targets
    Mr. Fallon
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of the Treasury in setting performance targets for other Departments. [150168]
    768W
    Mr. Andrew Smith
    Performance management is integral to the management of every Government Department and public sector body. Most Departments will set performance targets at a range of levels within the organisation.

    As part of the spending review process the discussion of allocation of resources (inputs) is now accompanied by discussion of the level of service that can be achieved (outcomes). Departments set strategic objectives and targets in the form of public service agreements (PSAs). These are discussed at the Cabinet Committee on Public Services and Public Expenditure (PSX) and with the Treasury.

    Interest Rates and Mortgages
    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the effect of the Government's economic policies has been on the level of interest rates and the average cost of mortgages; and if he will make a statement. [150170]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Government policies have delivered economic stability and historically low interest rates. Payments on the average mortgage are over £1,000 a year lower than on average between 1979 and 1997.

    World Recession
    Sir Peter Tapsell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is preparing to guard the UK from the effects on the economy of a possible world recession. [150171]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Under the Government's macroeconomic framework, policy-makers are able to react proactively to global developments in a manner that will promote economic stability. The forthcoming Budget, on March 7, will provide an updated assessment of domestic and international developments.

    Self-Assessment
    Tony Wright
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what savings have been made as a result of the introduction of self-assessment by the Inland Revenue. [150172]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The introduction of self-assessment was a long-term investment involving significant costs for the Inland Revenue and savings will emerge by 2005. By the year 2000–01, however, cash savings of £145 million have already been deducted from the Revenue baseline.

    Renewal Technologies
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on fiscal incentives for renewal technologies. [150174]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The Government have a range of policies to support renewable energy, including exemption for most renewables from the Climate Change Levy, the proposed Renewables Obligation and £100 million of grants over the next three years to support offshore wind and energy crops.

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional cost to manufacturing industry of the introduction of the climate change levy, broken down sector by sector. [150121]

    Mr. Timms
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 18 December 2000.Official Report, columns 81–82W.

    Unemployment
    Mrs. Anne Campbell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of his measures designed to reduce youth and long term unemployment. [150154]

    Mr. Timms
    Through the New Deal for Young People we have helped nearly 270,000 young unemployed people into jobs, further building upon the Government's manifesto commitment to help 250,000 into jobs this Parliament. In addition, over 60,000 long-term unemployed people have been helped to move from welfare and into work through the New Deal for the Long-Term Unemployed.

    Recent independent evaluation of the New Deal for Young People has shown that over 200,000 young people left unemployment earlier than they would have done without the programme, with 60,000 entering into employment.

    The. New Deal helps the young and long-term unemployed to secure jobs as the most effective way of enhancing their earnings, increasing their skills and securing their future economic independence. Furthermore, New Deal is just part of the Government's package of measures aimed at providing employment opportunity for all, by helping people to compete effectively for jobs, increasing work incentives and addressing the specific labour market problems of particular groups of people or local areas.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many workers were being paid less than £3.70 per hour in real terms in each of the last 20 years. [141681]
    770W
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 11 February 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 28 February 2001:
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question about the number of workers being paid less than £3.70 per hour in real terms in the past 20 years (141681).
    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than specific hourly low pay thresholds, in 10p bands, for all workers in the United Kingdom for 1998, 1999 and 2000. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds.
    The equivalent value of £3.70 in real terms has been calculated, using the all items Retail Price Index, as £3.50 for April 1998 and £3.60 for April 1999 to the nearest 10p pay band. The table below gives the number of jobs for workers aged 22 and over paid at less than £3.50, £3.60 and £3.70 for 1998, 1999 and 2000.

    Table 1: Number of jobs in the United Kingdom for workers aged 22 and over paid at less than £3.50, £3.60 and £3.70 per hour

    Number of jobs (thousands)

    Hourly paid less than

    Spring 1998

    Spring 1999

    Spring 2000

    £3.50

    1,150

    430

    180

    £3.60

    1,400

    540

    250

    £3.70

    1.640

    1,290

    850

    This improved methodology cannot be used to produce estimates before spring 1998 because it makes use of an LFS variable that is not available for earlier years. The introduction of the National Minimum Wage (NMW) has changed the distribution of pay rates across the lower pay bands. The NMW was introduced in April 1999 with an adult rate for workers aged 22 and over of £3.60 per hour. The rate was increased to £3.70 per hour in October 2000. The impact of this increase is not reflected in figures for spring 2000 as they relate to an earlier period.
    The estimates cannot be used as a measure of non-compliance with the NMW legislation because it is not possible from either the LFS or the NES to identify whether an individual is eligible for NMW rates. For example, it is not possible to identify people such as apprentices, those undergoing accredited training or those with accommodation supplied who are exempt from the NMW or are entitled to lower rates.

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

Methane Gas
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why methane gas derived from landfill sites counts as part of the renewables obligation for electricity producers while methane gas from abandoned mines does not.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, coalmine methane is a fossil fuel produced in rock strata over millions of years. Methane at landfill sites is produced from recently deposited biodegradable material, and is replaceable within a generation. The statutory definitions of "fossil fuel" and "renewable sources" in the Utilities Act reflect this, and preclude the inclusion of fossil fuel in the renewables obligation.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, at present, out of about 900 abandoned mines, there are only five where operators are harnessing and burning methane gas? As this is a waste product which is over 20 times more damaging to the environment in terms of global warming than carbon dioxide, is there not an overwhelming case for giving operators more incentives to harness and use this noxious and dangerous gas, which at present escapes into the atmosphere?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the harmful effects of coalmine methane. It is some 21 times worse than carbon dioxide. However, it cannot be said to be a renewable source of energy; I agree, therefore, that it cannot come under that category. There is an environmental case for seeing whether there are ways of encouraging greater use of methane by the industry. Indeed, my department and the DETR are examining, with the Association of Coal Mine Methane Operators, ways in which the Government might encourage industry to develop more sites. It may be an area in which the Coalfields Task Force and the Carbon Trust could be helpful.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, would it not be most consistent in terms of energy production, and environmentally sensible, if methane from closed collieries were treated in a similarly advantageous way to methane from landfill sites? It is the same gas; and, as the noble Lord said, it is very noxious.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I must disagree: it is not the same kind of gas. Both come from
1274
the bacterial breakdown of organic material, but coalmine methane is produced through carbonisation over millions of years and therefore cannot be treated in terms of renewable energy. If we were to do that, it would be difficult to argue that either coal or natural gas should also not be included as renewable energy. That would clearly be a farcical situation. However, as I said, there are good environmental reasons for examining this area, and that is what we are doing.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the coalfield areas. Are the Government giving special consideration in connection with this issue to stimulating the exploitation of methane from disused mines as a way of bringing more investment and employment into the coalfield areas?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is exactly what my department and the DETR are doing. We are examining possible ways of encouraging greater use of methane. The main argument is environmental. At present, there are five plants. The number would have to rise to 300 before it began to make any difference at all in terms of electricity generation.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, has any work been done on recovering methane from farm slurry tanks?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not aware of any. I shall look into the matter and find out whether such work is being done.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, there is world-wide interest in the technology for using methane from coalmines. Will the Minister accept that if the Government are seen to support that industry in this country it would bring great benefits to the industry as a whole? Therefore, I should be relieved to hear that he is considering the creation of a new category for this operation.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is not a question of a different category. We should look at whether there are appropriate incentives for this product. We have major programmes relating to clean coal technology, encouraging its exportation to other parts of the world.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, on rigorous scientific criteria about which there is no question, methane from coalmines is a fossil fuel. Accepting that, is the Minister aware that this gas is steadily and continuously diffusing through the ground and leaking into the atmosphere by natural processes'? Is he further aware that methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases, but that during the chemical reactions involved in combustion—in burning it and extracting energy from it—it is converted into carbon dioxide and water vapour, which are much less harmful greenhouse gases? Does the Minister agree that this is a rare opportunity both to extract energy and to help the environment, and that it would be desirable to extend favourable tax treatment to endeavours to extract methane from mines?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am indeed aware that methane is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas. One way of dealing with its harmful effects is to use it for the generation of energy. Therefore, as I said, there are strong environmental reasons for doing this, even if in terms of diversity of energy generation the arguments are not very strong.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Germany changed its legislation on 28th March last year to ensure that methane gas from mines could be used towards the renewable objectives of the electricity producers; and that under those circumstances his Answer does not make sense?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, any country is perfectly entitled to do something which is illogical and stupid. That is no reason for this country to follow that particular path.

Lorries: Law Enforcement
3.7 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken to strengthen resources directed to law enforcement in the road haulage industry as part of a package concurrent with the introduction of 44-tonne lorries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government have been working on a package of additional lorry enforcement measures in consultation with industry and unions in the Road Haulage Forum and its subgroup on compliance and enforcement. The package, which will cost £6 million over three years, includes projects: to increase the number of examiners available for roadside and other checks; to provide equipment to increase the scope and mobility of roadside checks, including weighing machines; to augment advice and education initiatives to prevent offending; to enhance data collection and analysis for targeting purposes; and to improve roadside inspection facilities.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I declare an interest as a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport, which recommended to the Government that 44-tonne lorries should be introduced—which I believe is happening this month. At the same time, the commission said that enforcement measures should be enhanced. Can the Minister confirm that the receipts from O-licences are running ahead of expenditure on enforcement?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct: 44-tonne lorries have been allowed on roads since 1st February, in line with the recommendations from the Commission for Integrated Transport. So far as concerns income and expenditure for Vehicle
1276
Inspectorate enforcement, the VI operates on a basis of revenue equalling costs. It is intended that, following consultation, the full cost of the additional enforcement to which I referred will fall on the O-licence income after a transitional period.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I welcome the extra enforcement measures that my noble friend the Minister just announced. Can he tell the House who will pay this £6 billion over three years—will it be the industry or the Government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend misheard me rather grossly arithmetically: I said £6 million, not £6 billion. The figure is for the administration of the various enforcement enhancement measures to which I referred for extra examiners and equipment, as well as more adequate road-side facilities and their administration. The cost, which will eventually be an ongoing cost, will be covered by the income from the O-licences. We shall obviously have to have a fee review in order to achieve that aim. Such a review will take place later this year.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Home Office consultation paper on road traffic offences is not very encouraging, as it concentrates on penalties rather than the prevention of accidents in the first place? Why is the Minister not paying greater attention to the compulsory re-training of errant drivers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is possible that the noble Earl has not read the Home Office consultation paper as carefully as he normally reads such documents. It deals largely with penalties, but included in the latter are options for requiring retraining or the retaking of the driving licence for substantial offences. I agree with the thinking behind the noble Earl's question that, clearly, the whole point of deterrents as regards road traffic management and road safety issues is to ensure that we have better drivers on the road. Therefore, those options are included in the Home Office paper to that end.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister mentioned inspection in the package outlined in his Answer. We have recently seen what astonishing damage can be done by a Land-Rover and trailer getting on to a railway track through a crash barrier. Can the noble Lord say whether there is any programme for inspection of crash barriers to ascertain whether they are up to the standard required as regards the 44-tonne weight to which this Question refers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I should, first, stress that anything that I, or anyone else, may say in this respect has no bearing on the tragic accident that took place yesterday. As my noble friend Lord Macdonald made clear last night, the facts of that accident will be subject to some very detailed inquiries. Until we receive the results of those inquiries, any conclusions on that particular incident are matters only of speculation.

1277
In relation to crash barriers, I can tell the House that there are standards relating to barriers over railways, as applies to bridges in other areas. The Highways Agency and the local highway authorities meet those standards. Clearly there is a continuous upgrading of those standards. Continuous assessments are also made to ascertain whether or not those standards are adequate in relation not only to normal traffic but also to larger lorries. The possibility of a major incident involving a 44-tonne lorry must be taken into account in terms of all road safety measures, including barriers and others.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in terms of vehicle miles travelled, does the Minister agree that, in general, heavy goods vehicles are probably less likely to be involved in accidents but more likely to be involved in serious accidents? Further, can the noble Lord say whether anything is being done by way of this new supervisory package about driver practices such as, for example, tailgating on motorways, and so on?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct to suggest that driving of HGVs is relatively safe. Nevertheless, because of the nature of the vehicle, when there is an accident it can have very serious consequences. The question of professional drivers was addressed in the road safety strategy that we produced last year. A working party investigating that issue has just produced an interim report relating to the management of professional drivers, including HGV drivers, van drivers and those who drive company cars. It recommended that those concerned should take more responsibility for the way in which their drivers operate on the road, and that, in effect, the kind of requirements on health and safety that are evident in factories and offices should also apply to the management and the practices of employed drivers who are using the road. The statistics for company car drivers are the opposite of that which applies to lorries. Therefore, those findings make the report very important.

Factortame Litigation
3.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that their continuing failure to publish the documents disclosed for the purpose of the Factortame litigation and referred to in the English courts' decisions to be compatible with the principles contained in the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and in the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government are firmly committed to the principles contained in the code of practice and in the Act to which the noble Lord refers. This particular request
1278
has raised several complex issues, which have taken longer than anticipated to resolve. However, we expect to be in a position to release the documents referred to in the Question before the end of next week.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, not only for her reply but also for being here today to deliver it in view of the other matters of pressing concern to both her and her department. Can the Minister confirm the dismal background to this matter? Is not the position as follows: that the documents in question cover the period 1973–91 and are of historic interest; that they relate to the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988; that the Government waived legal, professional privilege in respect of them in 1997 in the English proceedings; that all of the documents were before the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in the Factortame litigation and were, in some cases, read out; and that most of them are government documents and not EC Commission documents? Can the Minister explain why the government documents have not been released since I first asked for them in 1999, and why the EU documents were not requested from the Commission many months ago?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, when I looked at the chronology of this particular case, I undoubtedly had some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, because it has taken a long time to resolve. I have to point out to the noble Lord that there were a number of unusual and complex issues that had to be resolved. They include whether, aside from the code, the disclosures that had taken place in the Factortame litigation had placed the Government under a legal duty of disclosure; how the policy and the code should be applied in the case of requests for publication of those documents, given that the code expressly excludes a commitment to provide documents; how the code should be applied in the case of documents recording the deliberations of a previous administration; which documents were covered by legal, professional privilege and whether that privilege still existed after so much detail, as the noble Lord suggests, had been given out in the hearings and in the judgments; what were the key principles for deciding where the balance of public interest lay for the elements of the documents; and which documents required the agreement of other parties as regards disclosure. All that has taken time, but it is all now virtually resolved. I hope that all the documents will be disclosed within the next week.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, it is possible that I am the only person who does not understand what this Question is all about. However, bearing in mind that there may be more than a handful of us who do not understand it, could the Minister in future liaise beforehand with the questioner, like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, so that we can appreciate the "dismal background" to such matters, and, therefore, take more part in the proceedings?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, to put it in simple language: the noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked for these

1279
documents a long time ago, and it has taken an awful long time to get them released to him. Perhaps that explains the situation to my noble friend. I was trying to explain that the issues were not quite as clear-cut as being a case of anyone trying to be obstructive or deliberately dilatory. It was necessary to resolve a number of issues, some of which were novel. Having resolved the process issues in this case, I hope that the resolution of any future issues will not prove to be such a long, drawn-out process.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the Minister did not mention the EC Commission. Can I take it that the problem did not involve the secretiveness of the Commission as regards its documents?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord may take it that way. In the case of at least one of the documents, the EC Commission has been one of the bodies with which we have had to consult. However, there is no way in which it has been obstructive in this respect.

Student Loans Repayment for Teachers
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
From which date the recently announced repayment of student loans by the Government on behalf of teachers of shortage subjects will come into operation.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we said in the Green Paper, Schools: Building on Success, that we would explore a scheme to pay off the student loans of new teachers who begin teaching shortage subjects in the state education sector. We are still considering details but we currently plan that a scheme should be in place for those who enter teaching in September 2002. This is one of a package of measures which we believe will significantly enhance schools' ability to recruit and retain teachers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the scheme does nothing to solve the immediate crisis which we thought was the aim of its introduction? Would the scheme require legislation? Is it right that a teacher of one of the listed subjects for the scheme would have a student loan repaid but a student teacher of a subject for which there is an equal shortage, for example, religious education and/or music, would not? Is that position consistent with the Human Rights Act?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the immediate crisis, but this is a case of the Government thinking ahead and considering various different ways to try to ensure that we retain teachers once they start to teach. There are a lot of schemes, of which I think the noble Baroness is aware, to try to
1280
solve the immediate crisis, including paying a salary to student teachers on PGCE courses and the "golden hello" scheme for teachers of shortage subjects. So far, they are having an impact on the immediate situation. In paying off the student loans of teachers of shortage subjects the scheme would not in any way contravene the Human Rights Act. It constitutes the kind of retention measure that any employer might institute when desperately short of people with particular skills.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this measure has the potential to be divisive within the profession and to demoralise young teachers already in post who may be heavily burdened with student debt and who will not have the help we are discussing? Does the Minister further accept that it would be much more effective in terms of bringing into the profession the high-quality graduates that we seek to pay a substantial training salary equivalent to point zero on the teachers' pay scale rather than the small training grant which the Government currently pay?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Liberal Democrats have previously raised the issue of paying teachers a large training salary before they are qualified. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, suggested a training salary of £ 15,000. As I have said before, I believe that that is unrealistic and that it would not be right to pay a salary at that level before someone is qualified. In any case, the current practice of paying a salary of £6,000 is having a substantial impact.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, can my noble friend give an indication of applications for teacher training? Has she any idea of the numbers for this autumn compared with previous years?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there is a substantial increase in the number applying for teacher training. I said that only last week when we debated the whole issue of the supply of teachers. Of course, it is a little early to say what the final figure will be. More figures are due to be released next week. However, the latest figures show that PGCE applications are up by 12 per cent on the same time last year. It is particularly pleasing to note that applications for science are up by 20 per cent and for technology by 53 per cent. Those are two key shortage areas.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, speaking as a former secondary school teacher who enjoyed the odd free period, does the proposal to award privileges to teachers of shortage subjects not reflect badly on hard working junior schoolteachers who have to teach from nine in the morning until four and who will not obtain any of the privileges to be offered to teachers of shortage subjects? Junior school teachers are as important as people who teach physics and mathematics. Has a sense of proportion been applied in this matter?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course it has. As the noble Lord knows, we do not have the same

1281
shortages in primary schools as in secondary schools. However, we are considering whether primary school teachers who specialise in providing mathematics across the curriculum should be included in the scheme to repay the student loans of those teachers who remain in the profession once they have joined it.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, why is it inappropriate to pay a training salary to those entering the teaching profession as graduates when that technique is widely used in the accountancy and the legal professions, which are extremely successful in recruiting new graduates?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not want to comment on what other professions do. As regards teaching, it is important that we pay those who are qualified a decent salary. The Government have substantially increased the pay for teachers. Each year they have had an above inflation pay rise. Moreover, the introduction of performance related pay will mean substantial increases for those teachers who have passed the threshold and who have demonstrated the quality of their work in the classroom.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would the Minister agree that passing all the way through this problem is the basic fact that teacher salaries are grossly uncompetitive as compared with those in commerce or industry? Given that gap, there seems little point in continuing to agonise as to why one cannot get highly qualified teachers.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this Government have raised teacher salaries by a great deal more than our predecessor. Of course there is a gap between the salaries of people in the private sector and those of many people in the public sector, not just teachers. However, fortunately, large numbers of people see teaching as an honourable profession. They want to be teachers and are coming forward. Although we must not be complacent, I do not think that we should exaggerate the degree of the problem. The vacancy rate is still below 1 per cent.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is not one way of tackling teacher shortages to encourage recently retired teachers to come back to the classroom? Does not my noble friend agree that that would be helpful and constructive?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I certainly do. There are people who have retired early and there are some who may have retired at the normal retirement age who would like to teach part-time or on a supply basis. We have made a number of changes to the teachers' pension scheme to make it more financially attractive for retired teachers to come back into the classroom. Currently there are some 7,000 recently retired teachers who are back in teaching, mainly on a supply basis or in a part-time capacity.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Government suggested the scheme to repay the student
1282
loans of some teachers they must have thought carefully about its possibilities. I presume that it is not just "spin". First, can the noble Baroness answer the question of my noble friend on the Front Bench; namely, does the scheme require legislation? Secondly, is a student loan a formal contract which would have to be broken?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the scheme would require legislation. However, I do not believe that a student loan constitutes a formal contract that would have to be broken if it were decided that the employer would write off the loan by repaying it on behalf of the employee.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, have the Government considered extending the scheme for the repayment of student loans to people entering university teaching in view of the considerable shortages in some key subjects in universities?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord always speaks up on behalf of university teachers. The answer to his question is no, because there are not the same shortages of people coming forward to teach in universities as there are for certain key subjects in secondary education.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the figures for science and technology are good news. That is a beam of light on the horizon. This year, starting in September, is science year. Does the Minister see a prospect of being able to encourage more young people to study science this year and to ensure that they view a career teaching science as an extremely attractive one?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I very much hope that science year will encourage more young people who take degrees in science to consider teaching as a profession. The numbers coming forward to do science degrees is still buoyant in the UK. Indeed, we have a higher proportion of undergraduate students in science and technology than in many other OECD countries. We should build on that and make it clear and apparent to young people when they are making these decisions that it is a popular area to study.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister say that she was not complacent. Will she confirm that the percentage of GDP spent on education is now 4.6 per cent? On the day that John Major went off to watch the cricket at The Oval the figure was 5 per cent. Will the noble Baroness confirm that that gives her good reason not to be complacent?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, when John Major went off to watch cricket at The Oval, the economic position of this country was considerably less favourable than it is today. As a result, the GDP was far lower, so the proportion spent on education appeared to be somewhat higher. But as the noble Lord knows well, this Government have invested very substantially in education. Huge additional sums of

1283
money have gone into it and we will succeed in reaching the pledge we made about overall educational expenditure at the time we said we would reach it.

Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Education in mainstream schools of children with special educational needs]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 17. after ("parent,") insert—
("( ) the best interests of the child,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to amend Clause 1 of the Bill. The objective of Clause 1 is to secure that as far as possible all children with special educational needs or disabilities are educated in mainstream schools. I acknowledge and respect the Government's commitment to greater inclusion of disabled children. I acknowledge, respect and welcome the commitment they are making to include more disabled children in mainstream schools. There is no difference between us on that issue. But if inclusion is to be worth while and a success, it must be a positive experience for the child. If it proves to be yet another experience of rejection and failure, it will be worse than useless.
Other clauses of the Bill, and Section 317 of the 1996 Act, make provision for mainstream schools to move towards being able to provide the equipment and trained staff that they will need to cope effectively with children with special educational needs. That is a wholly desirable objective, but it will inevitably take time to achieve. In the mean time, there is a danger that children who are sent to mainstream schools which do not yet have the facilities may suffer. Sadly, the children who will suffer are likely to be the most vulnerable children. I shall return to that issue later.
Clause 1 of the Bill is very prescriptive. In effect it states that from the date on which the Bill comes into force schools and local education authorities will have less scope to place a child in the best available school for the child's needs. The proposed subsections are extremely inflexible. New Section 316(2) lays down in primary legislation that all children who do not have a statement must go to a mainstream school. There is no option. The only flexibility is that the local authority can start the process of assessment and statementing of that child and that it can be in a special school. I am not happy about the inflexibility of the clause but I reluctantly accept it and have not retabled my amendments on it.
Amendment No. 1 relates to new Section 316(3) which I believe contains the seeds of considerably greater potential damage. It lays down that even in the case of a child with a statement, he must go to a mainstream school. There are only two exceptions:
1284
unless it would be incompatible with his parents' wishes or with the satisfactory education of other children in the school. This subsection imposes a new and inflexible restriction on schools and LEAs. It prevents them taking into account local considerations or the welfare of the child when making a decision about his placement. If, as a result of professional and local knowledge, they were convinced that the child needed a special school, they could not send him to one unless his parents agreed or unless he were disruptive and therefore fell into the second category. I suggest that parents are not always the best judge of their children's needs. Some parents are humiliated by having a child at a special school. Some do not want to believe that their child has the degree of disability that he has.
There is a further problem about new Section 316(3). I am advised by a noble and learned friend on these Benches that the proposed new Section 316(3) would even prevent an LEA sending a statemented child to the special school mentioned in his statement unless the parents agree or he is disruptive.
I am grateful to the Minister for her two letters and for the full answers she gave on Report on these issues. However, the noble Baroness has not convinced me. There is nothing between us on the ultimate objective. However, I do not believe that this clause is the best way to achieve that objective.
The noble Baroness made the point that LEAs will have discretion under Schedule 27 to the 1996 Act. I am advised that if the new Section 316(3) were in place, there would be a conflict between it and Schedule 27: LEAs would no longer have that flexibility under Schedule 27.
The noble Baroness has stated repeatedly in debates that in the past LEAs have misused their discretion in relation to the "best interests of the child" to frustrate the Government's policy of inclusion. I know this to be a concern of the Special Educational Consortium. The dangers of this happening in the future are greatly exaggerated. The Government are preparing new guidelines: Ofsted will inspect the inclusion policies of schools. It does not seem likely that LEAs will be able to get away with cheating under those circumstances. We have to balance that risk against the risk of damage to vulnerable children arising from the Bill as drafted.
The children who will be hurt will not be the middle-class children with articulate and well-informed parents. The children who will suffer will be vulnerable children who do not have articulate and supportive parents who understand their needs and are able to argue their case. Those children are likely to be most in need of help. They will be damaged by being plunged into a large school that is not yet able to give them the support they need.
In many cases, such a child will end up sitting at the back of the class, not understanding what is being taught because he has fallen too far behind and traumatised by the social demands of a large and perhaps unfriendly group. He will experience failure and rejection yet again in his life—the failure and rejection to which he has learned to become

1285
accustomed in the family since he was born. That experience leads on almost automatically to truanting, exclusion, drugs, crime, unemployability and social exclusion.
If the proposed Section 316(3) proves to be a disaster, it will take primary legislation to change it. If those provisions were in guidelines, it would be a different matter. The amendment would introduce some flexibility, which could be regulated by guidelines or a code of conduct that would be checked by Ofsted. That is the route that the Government should take, in the best interests of all children. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has made a powerful case, delivered emotionally and passionately. I support him wholeheartedly.
The primary aim of the Bill is to serve the best interests of the child with special educational needs. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against that from the Government. We have had this debate at each stage of the Bill and Members of all parties have argued in favour of serving the best interests of the child.
The amendment was included in a large group on Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, had some reservations about some of the amendments in that group, particularly the reference to adequate support in mainstream education to provide effectively for the special educational needs of the child, but there are no amendments to that effect today. However, she was unequivocal in support of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and his wish to include a reference to the best interests of the child in the Bill. She said:
"There are three reasons why the Bill would be improved if some move were made in the direction of taking account of the needs or best interests of the child. First, the words, 'the best interests of the child' are used in the Children Act. Those interests should be paramount".—[Official Report, 20/2/01: col. 615.]
The noble Baroness has not tabled amendments on Third Reading, as she suggested she might, but the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has deservedly received support from all who have been involved in the Bill.
The best interests of the child should not be compromised in any way. Clause 1 has created confusion. The Minister has been hugely helpful since Report and has written a number of letters, copying them to all interested parties, but the issue of making a fundamental statement in the Bill of its main objective that the interests of the child should be served has not been addressed. That is the rationale for the Bill, even if there is no other. I wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his attempt to get the words on the face of the Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. It is obviously necessary and desirable. The trouble with Clause l is that subsection (3)(a) ignores the interests of the child by assuming that parents will always make the right decision. I speak as
1286
the parent of a severely mentally and physically handicapped child. Parents do not always make the right decision and cannot be relied on to do so. Some parents may even assume that their child with learning difficulties is normal. That is wishful thinking, on their part. Some personal pride may be involved sometimes. They may want people to think that their child is fully normal when that is not the case.
Subsection (3)(b) should not be overlooked. It says that a child must be educated in a mainstream school unless that is incompatible with,
"the provision of efficient education for other children".
That incompatibility is rightly to be avoided, but the interests of the child should be considered as a separate issue when the decision has to be made.
On Report, I said that the needs of the child were paramount. Strangely, the Minister told me that I was out of touch. I was a little surprised, but not offended by her comment. The needs and the interests of the child are virtually synonymous. The interests of the child are paramount.
The proposition that I have put before your Lordships, following the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is reinforced by the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is a massive document, but I need only trouble your Lordships with one or two brief references. Article 3 says:
"In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions. courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration".
That is another way of saying that the interests of the child are paramount. The Government are committed to that proposition because their predecessors, with the approval of Parliament, very properly supported the convention.
Article 18.1 says:
"State parties"
that means governments—
"shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child".
That includes education. It then says:
"The best interests of the child will be their basic concern".
I hope that they will be the basic concern of the Government, too.
I could refer in detail to Articles 28 and 29, which deal with education, but there is no need to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friend Lady Blatch have put forward strong arguments. I hope that the Government will bear them in mind.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps the House will allow me to make a short intervention. I introduced the Private Member's Bill which was concerned with the amendments of the 1991 Act in the context of special educational needs. It was withdrawn on Report at the request of my noble friend Lady Blatch and subsumed in the 1996 Act. As it stands, this

1287
clause derogates from the spirit of the Private Member's Bill and from what was put into the 1996 Act.
From a practical point of view, as a lawyer who was concerned, as I was then, in many such cases, I can tell your Lordships that very often the best interests of the child are in conflict with the evidence given as to the wishes of parents or as to the provision of efficient education for other children. It is idle to pretend that that is not the case. In effect, that is what this draft asserts, and it is an inhumane nonsense.
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me, but I have been involved in three other Bills in the Chamber and could not attend to this one. However, my noble friend Lady Blatch will tell the House that I took up this point with her at the outset. It stands out immediately as one of the most important defects in the Bill.
One has only to think of the position in which one found oneself when dealing with these cases in practice at the Bar. The LEA must consider the evidence of the experts—the educational psychologists and educational "this and that". If reports are produced which support A and B but a report from an expert states that certain recommendations are not in the interests of the child, that puts the local education authority in an impossible position and it also puts the courts in an impossible position because of the Children Act. The whole thing is an errant nonsense. I beg the Government to attend to this matter and to do the right thing by the children.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name has already been used in support of this amendment but it has been noted that it has not been added to the list of those who support the amendment. In Committee I argued strongly that we should include an extra caveat in Clause 1(3)(b). Having read the Bill, and taking what I consider to be a commonsense view of it, it seemed to me that the issue at the centre of this matter—that of inclusion—required that the best interests of the child should be considered.
After I had spoken out so clearly in Committee, I was somewhat disconcerted to discover that that was not the view of the consortium. Indeed, the consortium lobbied hard and put it to me that the phrase "the best interests of the child" had been abused by local education authorities, which pushed children into education that was not suitable for them.
I listened to what they had to say. Nevertheless, I returned on Report and argued that we should support the concept of "the best interests of the child". On that occasion I put forward three arguments. First, I said that I was, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, mentioned, concerned that the two caveats that were included could be diametrically opposed. I said that we needed what one might call an "intermediating" caveat and that "the best interests of the child" was the appropriate one.
Secondly, I argued—here I picked up the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Baker; I was, and still am, in agreement with him—that we do not believe that
1288
sufficient resources are being put into financing special needs in schools. Therefore, if resources were insufficient, it was again necessary for the best interests of the child to be considered.
Lastly, I was worried by the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in relation to vulnerable children, many of whom would perhaps benefit from a special education. If there were to be a presumption in favour of mainstream schools, such children would be overwhelmed in those schools.
Yes, we have shifted our position, and there are three reasons why we have done so. First, we have received assurances from the Minister, which I hope she will repeat today, that the agenda behind these subsections is not to shut down special schools and special support units for those who need them. The interests of vulnerable children, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, are best served by a more sheltered educational environment.
Secondly, from the discussions that I have had with lawyers, I understand that this Bill is overridden by the Children Act and by Schedule 27 to the Education Act 1996, which deals with the statementing process and puts the best interests of the child at the forefront. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the issue of the best interests of the child to be included on the face of this Bill because—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should be obliged if the noble Baroness would give way for a moment. Yes, technically it is overridden. But cannot the noble Baroness see that a conflict arises and that that conflict creates a practical problem to which I rather ineffectively sought to refer? That is the difficulty.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the advice that I have received is that there is no conflict. As I said, this Bill is overridden. We should also take into account the fact that this issue is overridden by the implications for the interests of the child as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. Given the weight of legislation which points in this direction, from a totally practical point of view I still find it somewhat illogical that we cannot have the issue set out on the face of the Bill. However—this brings me to the final, and, so far as I am concerned, clinching, point—the advice that I have been given from the consortium and from the disabilities lobby is that this clause has been used as a let-out time and again by local education authorities and has been abused—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she agree that some parts of the disability sector, particularly the RNIB, have supported quite strongly, and have appealed to us all to support so far as possible this afternoon, the best interests of the child and have urged us to ensure that that is included on the face of the Bill?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I agree that the RNIB is anxious that we support this amendment. However, that is not the case in respect of other parts of the disability lobby.
A considerable majority of those who were consulted in the consultation process that the Government undertook felt that the "needs of the child" caveat should be dropped. I cannot say that the decision to shift our ground has been easy because there are strong arguments on both sides that have to be balanced. The balance that we reached is that we are not going to support the amendment because the Government have given appropriate assurances—the relevant provision is already in place to ensure that the best interests of the child will be taken account of; that will be the paramount consideration when decisions are taken. There is not an unwritten agenda in the provisions to get rid of special schools.
4 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I had intended not to take part in this debate but I sat through the first part of it. I will not comment on the merits of the case because I have insufficient knowledge of it but I am bound to say that having spent 20 years in this place, I have never heard such a total recantation from a Front Bench spokesman in relation to an issue as important as this between Committee stage and Third Reading. Frankly, the complete change of view is bewildering.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for tabling the amendment and congratulate him on moving it so eloquently. I also thank the Minister for the letter that she sent me after the Bill's Report stage. Her letter dealt with some of the anxieties that I had raised in Committee and on Report.
I wish that I could be as grateful to the Liberal party. Few noble Lords spoke more eloquently in Committee about the best interests of the child than the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. On Report, she surpassed herself and spoke with even greater eloquence about the best interests of the child. Why this sudden change? She said that she met some lobbyists who said that the proposal would be a major source of abuse and that if the amendment were agreed to, local education authorities would resist inclusion in schools. What evidence does she have to support that claim? I was a Member of Parliament for 30 years and in all of the cases involving special educational needs that I dealt with, the situation was always the other way round. Parents used to come to me and say, "I have not got my child into a special school". I did not come across one case in more than 30 years in the three constituencies that I represented in which the situation was the other way round; parents did not ask, "Could I please have my child sent to a mainstream school?".
I do not know what evidence persuaded the noble Baroness or how many cases she came across that convinced her that a major area of abuse was involved. I can only echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. The House inevitably has the impression that the Government have whistled and that the Liberals
1290
have come to heel. We expected them to support this amendment on Third Reading. Was not it Lloyd George who referred to a person who had sat for so long on the fence that the iron had entered the soul? Such leadership on the part of the Liberal party is simply dither and wither. The noble Baroness has not shifted her position slightly; she has totally reversed it.
I want to explain why it is important to agree to the amendment. Those of us who raised this matter in Committee and on Report are particularly concerned about seriously disabled children; that is, those who, in the jargon, suffer from low-incidence disability. That refers to those who are hard of hearing to the extent of being deaf, those who are visually impaired to the extent of being blind, those who suffer from congenital diseases such as cerebral palsy or Asperger's syndrome and those who are very severely physically disabled. By any standard, those children need special education of one sort or another. In Committee and on Report, I set out the degree of support that such children need. It involves very expensive education. Those children tend to be statemented—nearly all of them are—and about half of them are provided for by special schools. It is the other half—those who are provided for by LEAs—with whom we are concerned.
I am not against inclusion so long as LEAs provide the support and help that those children need. Some LEAs can provide that, but I say to the Minister that there is a mass of evidence to show that many do not do so. She knows that that is the case. I suspect that the Minister will resist that consideration on two grounds. First, she will say that it is unnecessary to include in the Bill the phrase,
"the best interests of the child".
She is nodding, so I anticipate that that will be one of her arguments. She will point to the code, which is infused with the phrase. In that case, why cannot it be in the Bill? Page after page of the code is about the best interests of the child. However, the code is only a code, and it does not have a statutory obligation attached to it. Our approach—we have argued this before—is to give a statutory entitlement to the parents of a severely disabled child to take into account the best interests of that child. I cannot see why the Minister does not want to agree to the amendment. I hope that she will jump up and say, "Of course I accept the proposal", but I doubt whether she will. Her failure to do so conflicts with the rest of her policy.
We must secure a statutory obligation in the Bill to support the code. The Minister knows perfectly well that a code is only a code and that LEAs are expected to observe it. If they fail to do so, there is an elaborate procedure—it amounts to a great palaver—which eventually involves complaining to the Secretary of State. Most parents of disabled children would not want to take that on. The amendment would be an added protection to severely disabled children and their parents.
The second argument that the Minister will use is that used by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp; namely, that abuse of the Bill will be involved. I do not think that that will happen. The procedures that the Minister

1291
will set up under the code, which has no statutory significance, will give parents the right to appeal and complain and to go to a "newer" person—an IPS or parental support adviser.
I fail to understand why the Minister cannot agree to the amendment. It is clear to many people in the disability lobby that it contains a necessary right that all children should have. I hope that we shall win today and that the Government will have a change of heart in this regard. I fail to see why they object to the proposal. The Minister knows as well as I do that we share the same interests; we both want to secure the best interests of the child. However, we want the amendment to be added to the Bill.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I want to make one or two brief points about the position that we on these Benches are adopting.
We entered into discussions with the rest of the educational needs consortium about our position with an open mind and we did not expect to emerge in the position that we have adopted. Our minds were changed by open discussion. To be perfectly honest, that was rather tougher than what we are going through today. It is not pleasant to be told that you have got it wrong, even if one is told that by a knowledgeable group of people.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, said that he had not come across people who said, "I do not want my child to be entered into a special school". My experience is the other way round. I do not claim to have had that experience for as long a period as the noble Lord mentioned and it may have been in relation to other disabilities. However, I suggest to him that we are arguing over inches; but such fights are always some of the dirtiest and nastiest, because one is in close, using elbows and teeth.
The fact is that we adopted our position in response to the arguments. My noble friend said that there were reservations and doubts in this context. This is probably one of the most honest positions that we have ever found ourselves adopting. It is uncomfortable. I hope that noble Lords appreciate that we did not adopt this position to get a short-term political advantage.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, has the noble Lord the Minister or one of his Front Bench colleagues had a meeting since Report with the Minister?
Lord Addington: My Lords, I am not sure about being promoted to Minister at such short notice!
We have had meetings but not on this subject; I certainly have not.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, "The best interests of the child count for nothing"; that is a pretty extraordinary statement to make, but that is exactly what the Bill currently maintains. If a local authority and an army of wonderful, well qualified and well intentioned advisers say that the best thing for a child is to go to a
1292
particular special school but the parents say no, the best interests of that child will count for nothing. This Bill is absolutely explicit about that. There can be as much as one wants in the code but it cannot stand against Section 316(3). There can be as much as one wants in Schedule 27 but Section 316(3) stands in its way. I find it an astonishing proposition that a piece of legislation allows the parent to say, "No, that is absolute", whatever the best interests of the child may be.
Complaint has been made that local authorities abused the earlier provision. Perhaps they did. If the best interests of the child are abused, then the tribunal is there to set it right. There are mechanisms in this Bill beyond the tribunal for settling such things by calm discussion. There are plenty of ways in which the best interests of the child can be enforced by someone other than the local education authority which may be dragging its heels because of financial interests.
To put ourselves in the position where the best interests of the child count for nothing and where a parental whim stands in the way of proper education of a child is breathtaking. I am not astonished that the Liberal Party espouses it. I have been involved in Bills before where the Liberal Party has sold its principles, such as they are, extremely cheaply to the Government. I suspect that we will see many other occasions when that happens.
I am saddened that the Government are taking this attitude. I had a greater regard for the attitude and sincerity of the Government in respect of educational needs and their care for the child. I know that they are plagued by the bad behaviour of local education authorities from time to time. We should not take that out on the child. What we do for the child should come first. If local education authorities behave badly, there must be a mechanism—and there is a mechanism in this Bill—for things to be set right. To provide no way out if parents behave badly and choose some course other than what is clearly best for their child—just in case authorities behave badly or because it may take a month or two to set things right through the tribunal—is truly regrettable. I hope that the noble Baroness has reconsidered and will find herself able to support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I have not spoken on Clause 1 before. My excuse for speaking now is that, having been in at the birth of Section 2 of the 1981 Act, I feel a certain concern about its progress.
The 1981 Act was to ensure that, where possible, a child with special educational needs should be educated in a mainstream school. I acknowledge that my noble friend Lord Northbourne has said that he is totally supportive of the principle of inclusion. The caveats in Section 2 were that a child, where possible, should be educated in a mainstream school provided that this was compatible with the efficient education of that child, the efficient education of other children and the efficient use of resources.

1293
It was in the 1993 Act—piloted through by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in response to the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—that the wishes of the parents were introduced. When the noble Baroness, Lady Young, explained Clause 2 at the Second Reading of what became the 1981 Act, she said:
"The pace of integration will continue to be gradual but I have every hope that the provisions in this clause will give it added impetus, for in the longer term it is only through educating children together that society's attitudes towards the handicapped will be fundamentally changed". [Official Report 23/6/81; cols 980–981.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has already spoken about the views of the Special Educational Consortium, which feels that there has been 20 years' experience rather than impetus. This caveat relating to the needs of the child has been a significant obstacle in obtaining a mainstream place. It has been used by LEAs as an excuse. Equally, it has been used by LEAs as an excuse to send children to special schools when parents preferred a mainstream placement. It contributes to the postcode lottery whereby it is much easier for a child in one LEA area to attend a mainstream school when their parents so wish it than in another. We all feel that the postcode lottery is very wrong. I stress that in no way is the Special Educational Consortium against special schools where appropriate and where the parents wish it. We all want the individual needs of children to be met more closely within the educational system.
Many large organisations are part of the Special Educational Consortium. Many of those organisations, for example Barnardo's, are concerned with the welfare of the child primarily even before education. They are convinced that the legal framework is already in place; that it is sufficiently clear; and that the caveat provides a sticking point. The raison d'être of those organisations, surely, is the needs of the child.
I respect my noble friend Lord Northbourne and his knowledge and commitment. The problem is that special educational needs cover a hugely disparate group of people. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, knows more than anyone about special educational law. So do the noble Lords, Lord Baker of Dorking and Lord Campbell of Alloway. I hope that the Minister can convince my noble friend that his amendment is not necessary; that putting the needs of the child in that particular place is not a good thing; and that there is provision elsewhere. I hope that my noble friend will not insist upon his amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that if there is a legal obligation on the face of the Bill to meet the best interests of the child, and that that can be challenged at the tribunal if there were abuse, there would be no scope for abuse? It would be a legal obligation to do no more or no less than meet the best interests of the child.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, as I understand it, that is provided for elsewhere in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, we have heard some strong language and a great deal of laughter. I suggest that we pause for thought before we accept the strong words and the laughter at face value. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke extremely well. The purpose of his amendment is admirable. I congratulate him and those who have made such an outstanding contribution to this Bill—the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lords, Lord Baker of Dorking and Lord Renton. There have been significant contributions from people who know what they are talking about. Those contributions have been very helpful. I have not always agreed with them and I have often disagreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The easy phrase,
"the best interests of the child",
sounds great. Is it necessarily so? There has been incredulity expressed about how people can change their minds. In a democracy people can change their minds. How can one argue with the phrase,
"the best interests of the child"?
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, made a very brave speech. I disagree with all the mockery. It takes a lot of courage to come to this Chamber and say, "I have been persuaded. I was wrong. I have changed my mind". I admire what the noble Baroness said and what she has done.
The noble Baroness was persuaded by the Special Educational Consortium. The consortium consists of a group of people who have practically devoted their lives to disability. They know the problems intimately and are deeply concerned. They have briefed Members on both sides of the House in order to help with this Bill. If the consortium, in its considered view, believes that this amendment is not the right way forward, we should at least consider that view carefully, without the laughter, the mockery and the derision.
If the phrase,
"the best interests of the child",
has been abused by local authorities and others, we should be extremely careful and pause for thought on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, more or less said, "so be it". But if children are discriminated against by local authorities through the abuse of that phrase, then that should be a matter of serious concern to this House.
My conclusion is that there is no point in being upset and indignant about an amendment, attacking the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, as though they are doing something wrong. The whole thrust of this Bill is to help disabled children. It is an admirable Bill. It has been welcomed on all sides of the House. So those allegations that the Bill attacks disabled children are preposterous. I shall give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He talks about abuse of the phrase,
"in the interests of the child".

1295
But if that happens, the courts have jurisdiction and have exercised that jurisdiction in many cases in which I have been concerned. If the phrase appears on the face of the Bill, parents have the prerogative to take the matter to the courts. That is why we want it on the face of the Bill.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a fine technical legal point. Trust a barrister or solicitor to bring up such a point. In fact, when children's rights are abused, the parents are afraid of the law. They often do not go to the law and the abuse stands. It does not help to point out the fine legal definitions. The fact is that abuse takes place and it is up to us to stop it. If this amendment helps that abuse to take place, we should not accept it.
I do not condemn the amendment. I admire the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. But I suggest that we should pause for thought and not mock the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for changing her mind.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I want to begin by reiterating what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke said. I greatly admire the contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, makes to this House generally on this kind of issue, and in particular the contribution that he has made to the passage of this Bill through this House. I hugely respect the passion and conviction with which he spoke on this amendment. However, I am afraid that I shall disappoint both him and noble Lords on the Conservative Benches.
The Government will resist this amendment. We have given a huge amount of thought to this issue. It is not a matter we have simply entered into without considering the pros and cons. It is deeply unfair of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to suggest that the best interests of the child can go for nothing. Of course they cannot and of course they should not; nor do they.
The whole of this Bill is about the best interests of the child and meeting them. It is about making special educational needs provision better. It is about improving the tribunal system. It is about ensuring that more resources are available in our schools for children with disabilities or special educational needs.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely accept that. I totally agree with the Minister. I admire this Bill and this Government for introducing it. But why, in that case, is the phrase,
"the best interests of the child",
specifically excluded from this part of the Bill?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, let me try to explain. It will be helpful if I can go through the issues without too many interruptions; it will make for a clearer exposition.
Amendment No. I is presented as a measure to ensure the right response for children who have statements. As I have already said, that is what we all
1296
want and I respect the motivation behind it. But it suggests by implication that the Government are not concerned about the interests of children with statements. Perhaps I can say to the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Lucas, that I can understand that superficially it might appear contradictory for the Government, who have campaigned ceaselessly to raise standards for all children and especially those with special educational needs, to oppose this amendment. But the amendment reinstates a provision equivalent to the first caveat of the existing Section 316.
As was said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Darcy de Knayth, that particular caveat has been gravely abused. If we accepted the amendment, we believe that the practical impact on the ground would be that children who should and could benefit from inclusion will be prevented from gaining a mainstream place. My noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke was absolutely right in making that clear.
Perhaps I can also say at this stage of the debate that I support my noble friend Lord Ashley in what he said on the Liberal Democrat position. It is grossly unfair when we go through debates in this House—it is a courteous institution—we listen to each other, we consider the arguments and we sometimes change our position, and then are derided for so doing. I have changed my position on a number of matters in relation to this Bill and brought forward concessions. That is how we operate in this House. It is unfortunate that a political party which changes its mind should be derided for so doing.
It is wrong to suggest that we are pursuing an aggressive inclusion policy that fails to safeguard children with SEN. Our proposals provide for both excellence and choice; they ensure that inclusion is based on sound foundations; they protect the interests of individual children with SEN and all pupils.
Perhaps I can reiterate what I have said on several earlier occasions during the passage of this Bill. Inclusion is not an agenda to close all special schools, or indeed special schools in general. We have signalled a vital and continuing role for that sector. Its overall size has remained more or less static since January 1996. It continues to take around 1.2 per cent of pupils who have special educational needs.
The needs of children who have statements are not jeopardised by dropping the first caveat of the existing Section 316. I explained on Report that it would be wrong for Section 316(3) to refer directly to the needs or best interests of the child because that could be abused. Equally, we firmly believe that safeguards exist elsewhere to protect children with statements.
Let me take one example of how the caveat has been abused. The Special Educational Consortium highlighted the case of a girl with Down's syndrome. Her inclusion at a primary school was extremely successful. But when she came to transfer to secondary school, the LEA directed her towards a special school, one which happened to be miles away. It claimed that the mainstream school could not cope with the needs of that child. The LEA did not consider what could be

1297
done to facilitate a mainstream case. That child's parents had to battle for a whole year to persuade the LEA that a mainstream school could cope. Eventually the child was welcomed into a mainstream school.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that that makes our point that the LEA did not meet the best interests of that child? At the end of the day the best interests of the child were met. If the provision was on the face of the Bill it would be unequivocal and there as a statement in support of the best interests of the child.
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords, I do not agree with that because the LEA sheltered behind this caveat. It took the wrong position about the best interests of the child against the primary school experience of that child and against the parents' wishes. I believe that everyone concerned now agrees that the mainstream can provide for some children's needs effectively. If the amendment were accepted, an LEA would be able to use it to argue—I return to the girl with Down's syndrome—that it was not in the best interests of the girl to attend a mainstream school because it could not cope with her. That was its claim. Not all parents are well placed to challenge such judgments. Vulnerable parents are often intimidated by professionals. That is a fact we should always bear in mind.
Our proposals require maintained schools and LEAs to justify why a child cannot be included. In future they will have to demonstrate that reasonable steps could not be taken to prevent inclusion being incompatible with the efficient education of others. When parents object to mainstream provision or want a special school place, the duty imposed by Section 316 to educate their child in the mainstream is immediately lifted. Clause 1 does not make it harder to gain a place in a special school, whether maintained or non-maintained.
I return to the position mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Darcy de Knayth, of the Special Educational Consortium. The position is clear. As my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke stated, the SEC believes that the amendment is unnecessary. It feels that the retention of a provision similar to the existing first caveat would be open to further misuse. In Committee the Opposition were keen to highlight what the NUT had to say. Perhaps I may draw the attention of noble Lords to the NUT's briefing for Report, which stated:
"The Union believes that the proposal to strengthen the right of a child with special educational needs to a place in mainstream education strikes the right balance … The Union believes that if these proposals are weakened or removed the process of inclusion could he set in reverse".
Reference has been made to the RNIB. The RNIB has been alone among all the disability groups in being concerned about this matter. I understand that it has now also changed its position. As I understand it, it wants reassurances, which I have repeatedly given,
1298
that the needs of the child are considered, but it no longer seeks reinstatement of that phrase on the face of the Bill. I hope that that is helpful.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could give me chapter and verse of that piece of information. I have been in touch with the RNIB only today and have been wished well in my attempts to support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in getting that phrase on to the face of the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I received that information from the Special Educational Consortium, which I understand has been in touch with the RNIB about that matter. It is again unfortunate that notes of derision should enter into a debate on an important matter, and one which we can all discuss.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may continue, otherwise we shall never get through what is an important day of discussion. Let me he absolutely clear and review again the safeguards that protect the interests of individual children who have statements. The whole point of the statementing process is to ensure that children receive the provision which their learning difficulties call for.
Statements specify the provision to be made. LEAs are then under a duty to arrange for provision to be made. We intend to enhance the guidance in the revised SEN code of practice to make clear that a statement could describe clearly all a child's special educational needs in full; set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet; specify clearly the provision required to meet each of the child's needs and describe the arrangements for setting short-term objectives for the child and any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement.
It is important that we look at the 1996 Act, which the Bill seeks to amend. That Act has, at its heart, the needs of the child. Section 1 sits alongside the rest of Part IV and should not be read in isolation. Perhaps at this point I should mention to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, something which I said at Second Reading, as I do not think he was able to be present. The noble Lord mentioned the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We believe that the changes to the SEN framework, of which the Bill forms a part, will ensure that the framework fully complies with the convention. Indeed, that is the legal advice we have been given. The noble Lord shakes his head. However, I want to give him that reassurance. Lawyers with expertise in this area have provided us with that reassurance.
I return to Schedule 27 to the 1996 Act, which ensures that the individual needs of the child are taken into account in deciding whether to name a parent's choice of maintained school. Section 9 sets out the general principle that pupils are to be educated in

1299
accordance with the wishes of their parents so far as that is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training. It enables local education authorities to safeguard a child's interest if they consider the provision suggested by a child's parents is incompatible with their efficient education or training.
Where parents believe that an authority is providing inappropriate or insufficient provision or have not named a school that can meet the needs of their child, they have the right of redress to the SEN tribunal. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools has been asked to monitor the new inclusion framework. Once confirmed, that will help prevent any potential abuses and ensure that the needs of the child are safeguarded. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that I thought he was being unduly pessimistic about the matter.
I also indicated on Report that the statutory guidance on the new inclusion framework will underline the need to ensure that the interests of individual children with SEN are protected and will set out the safeguards I have again explained today. We believe that our proposals strike the right balance and protect the interests of children. We therefore do not believe that it would be right to reinsert provisions that might be seen as equivalent to the old first caveat. I very much hope—
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. The nub of her argument is that this could be a loophole for local education authorities to abuse the purpose of the Act. She quoted one example of Down's syndrome. With all the resources available to her department, perhaps I may ask how many other cases she or her department know about. Every Member of Parliament, including her ministerial colleague who was a Member of Parliament, will assure her that they know of dozens if not scores of cases in which LEAs have denied the best interests of the child by insisting that the child should go to a mainstream school where the provision is inadequate and when they should have gone to a special school. The abuse is mostly the other way.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, are not consistent with the consultation process and its outcome. We have consulted widely. We consulted those who represent the parents of children with special educational needs and statements. I cannot give a specific number; I do not know precisely how many cases there are. However, I know that those who have expertise in this area, those who have been affected by the previous legislation, take a different view from the Conservative Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, also referred to my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham. He did say that he had had letters in the past from parents who wanted a special school place, but he has also said to me on more than one occasion that he believes that there is a change in what many parents want; that more and more parents want their children to be educated in a mainstream school if possible, and if the child can get a decent education.
1300
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, provided some examples of children sitting at the back of the class, not benefiting, being excluded and getting into trouble with the law, and so on. The whole statementing process is designed to ensure that children get the support that their SEN calls for.
Section 317 requires governors at maintained schools to use their best endeavours to provide the special educational provision that children need. That means that children with SEN certainly should not be sitting at the back of the class, Ianguishing and having their needs overlooked. I should be as concerned as he is if that happened. I do not believe that that will happen. Everything that we are putting in place, including substantial additional funding and extra training for teachers, should prevent that happening.
In the light of the reassurance that I have been able to give, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I have a short but important question. I want to ask the noble Baroness, as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, whether it is her understanding that if the LEA makes a wrong decision in the interest of the child, the tribunal may set it aside and quash it. If that is her understanding, what is the objection to including it on the face of the statute? It is a very simple question: I do not understand the objection.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have already said that there are many parents who do not have the skills and knowledge of the law of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. To be put in a position where they have to fight an LEA in this way is very difficult. Let me end by reiterating yet again that the Bill has at its centre—just as the 1996 Act did—the needs of the child. That is why the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, but, with the greatest of respect, she has not said anything new. I should like to try to be positive. We all want to achieve the same benefits for children. The problem is that many of us believe that the Bill does not say what we want to achieve. It is a badly drafted Bill, or, if it is not badly drafted, something is wrong with it. Sections 316(2) and (3) use the word "must". Several noble Lords have said, "But that is overruled by this and that is overruled by Section 27". I do not understand how the word "must" can be overruled in law. Perhaps someone can explain that to me.
The Bill must be made to say what we all want; the Bill must be made to say what the Government want. I accept that the Government want what the Minister has said they want, but the Bill does not say so. I recognise that my amendment is by no means the only way in which the problem could be solved, but my amendment is before the House. I believe that there are a number of your Lordships who would like to express their feelings on this subject by voting. I want to test the opinion of the House.
4.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 146.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kirkham, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Astor, V.

Laird, L.

Attlee, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Blaker, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Boardman, L.

Luke, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Burnham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Byford, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Caithness, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montrose, D.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moynihan, L.

Chadlington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chalfont, L.

Noakes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Northbourne, L. [Teller]

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Courtown, E.

Northesk, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denham, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elles, B.

Rawlings, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Fookes, B.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Freeman, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Geddes, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Glentoran, L.

Sandwich, E.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Hanham, B.

Selborne, E.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Higgins, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Trumpington, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Waddington, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Warnock, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hylton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Kingsland, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bach, L.

Addington, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Alli, L.

Berkeley, L.

Amos, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Andrews, B.

Billingham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Borrie, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Avebury, L.

Bragg, L.

1302

Brett, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brookman, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Burlison, L.

Mitchell, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Molloy, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morgan, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Newby, L.

Crawley, B.

Nicol, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Northover, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Peston, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Elder, L.

Razzall, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rea, L.

Ezra, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rennard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Filkin, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Russell, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sandberg, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goudie, B.

Serota, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grabiner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Greaves, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Hamwee, B.

Slim, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Haskel, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hayman, B.

Strange, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hollisof Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Tenby, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thornton, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Tomlinson, L.

Tope, L.

Jacobs, L.

Tordoff, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Turnberg, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Turner of Camden, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L

Jeger, B.

Walmsley, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Judd, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Whitaker, B.

Layard, L.

Whitty, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wilkins, B.

Levy, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lipsey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Listowel, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Winston, L.

Maddock, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this section, a child is educated in a mainstream school if he is registered at, and regularly attends, such a school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to one that I moved on Report. All I wanted then and all I want now from the Minister is a simple dictionary definition of the phrase, "education in a mainstream school". I did not receive a reply at the previous stage, but I hope to receive one now. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to define what constitutes mainstream schooling to ensure that dual placements are permitted. I have given many assurances that the existing arrangements, and indeed Clause 1 of the Bill, do allow for dual placements. The flexibility is there for children to be educated at a mainstream school, but to receive part of their education at another school.
I do not know whether I can give the noble Lord a dictionary definition of the term, but I believe that a mainstream school is any school which does not have special provisions for those with special educational needs. However, this amendment states that a child should be considered to be receiving education in a mainstream school if he is registered at that school and attends regularly. In return, perhaps the noble Lord could say what "regularly" means. The problem is that that term is awfully imprecise. It could be said that a child attends a school regularly if he does so only once a term, so long as he does that on a regular basis. This could be abused and could provide a significant loophole to block real inclusion. As the noble Lord knows, we are trying to encourage greater inclusion where parents want it.
Noble Lords will remember the discussion we had on Report concerning the term "registered". We oppose the use of the term "registered" because it would allow a child to be registered at one school but taught at a totally different school. That is not inclusion. As we argued then, we believe that it is right for the vast majority of children with special educational needs to be educated in mainstream schools. We also believe that it is common sense for a child normally only to be considered as being educated in a mainstream school if he spends the majority of his time in that mainstream school.
I have already promised that we shall provide further advice on the use of dual placements—both for children who have statements and for those who do not—within the guidance that will back up the new inclusion framework. I should like now, again, to give an assurance that this Bill, as it stands, allows for dual placements. I hope that, having heard those assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is clear that I am not going to be given what I want. It has never disturbed me if I cannot explain the exact meaning of my amendments, but if the Government cannot explain the exact meaning of their own Bill, that is not to be encouraged. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out lines 9 and 10.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has been called away and thus is not able to move the amendment. As my name has been added to it, I shall do so on his behalf. I have given notice that I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 5.
I have brought back Amendment No. 5 for two reasons but, first, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for the way in which her staff have made themselves available to talk to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has expressed concern about this matter. Unfortunately, he is out of the country. My noble friend sought a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, which has been forthcoming. In the absence of my noble friend, I should now like to record formally the contents of that letter in Hansard for Pepper v. Hart purposes in the future.
Secondly, and more disturbing, is the legal advice I have received as a result of our previous debate in which we argued that the interests of the child should be made paramount in the wording of the Bill. We believe that, despite what the noble Baroness said about this clause and how it interacts with section 316 of the 1996 Act, the conflict has not been resolved. That is why my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch said that he would be grateful to receive a letter from the noble Baroness to confirm that, while the Bill will make it easier for children with special needs to attend a mainstream school, it will also not make it any more difficult for statemented children with special educational needs to be supported by local education authorities at independent schools, if that is what their parents want and, of course, if that would meet appropriately the special educational needs of the child.
The noble Baroness sent a letter confirming that. For the purposes of expressing my aims in these amendments, I shall repeat the main body of the letter. It states:
"Clause 1 of the Bill makes it clear that section 316 does not affect the requirement in section 348 of the Education Act 1996 that local education authorities should fund the placement of children with special educational needs at non-maintained schools if those schools are named in their statements, or if the authority believe that provision in a non-maintained school is necessary and the particular school is appropriate."
"If a parent wants their child to attend an independent school, the duty to educate that child in a mainstream school imposed by section 316(3) is immediately lifted. If the LEA agrees that the child should be educated in a non-maintained school and name that school in the child's statement, the LEA will, under section 348, have to pay for that school. Nothing in section 316A is capable of affecting this. Section 316A qualifies section 316. It does not impose 'independent' rights or duties to the effect that a child can only be educated in a non-maintained school if the LEA is not funding that placement. It does not affect the operation of section 348 and there is therefore no need to make provision to that effect."
My Lords, it is important that that is put on the record and that it is confirmed by the Minister as the Government's view.

1305
I want to move on to the more disturbing advice that I have. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is not in his place, has come to the same view, and he has more legal qualifications than I do. I am very much in the hands of others to advise me. If, as the noble Baroness has said, Section 348 will not be affected, why is Section 316A part of it, if the cost will be met otherwise than by a local education authority? What are the conditions under which that provision would apply if the local authority believes that it is in the best interests of the child, it is consistent with the wishes of the parent and the educational needs of the child, that an independent place is sought and the LEA is free to pay for that place? There is no getting away from the words in the Bill. They are either not necessary, or they are necessary because of the situation that the Government envisage, and the LEA would like to send a child to an independent school. Clause 1 states that
"'mainstream school' means any school other than … a special school, or … an independent school which is not … a city technology college … a city college for the technology of the arts. or … a city academy…. Section 316 does not prevent a child from being educated in … an independent school which is not a mainstream school. or … a school approved under section 342, if the cost is met otherwise than by a local education authority."
In other words, the local education authority is not permitted to spend money on a place in an independent special school. What will prevent a local authority from paying for a place in an independent school, especially if that is what the LEA wishes to do? The position is totally baffling. I sought advice from an eminent QC who said that the Government have it wrong and that my interpretation of the Bill and that of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is right. There is a serious conflict. The noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches will almost certainly hold the Government's hand in the Division Lobby, so the chances of beginning to resolve the matter in favour of the legal advice that I have is pretty remote. At least we could have the fall-back position of including these words in the Bill, so that a legal challenge could be successful in court. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I can be reasonably brief in response to Amendment No. 3 because the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, read out the letter accurately, which has now been put on the record. That was largely the substance of the reply that I would have given, so she has already extracted that from the letter, dated 27 February.
We have visited these matters before, and she will know our anxiety about the amendment and why we oppose it. Amendment No. 3 would fatally undermine Clause 1 and new Section 316. The amendment would have virtually the same effect as including independent schools, including those approved to cater for children with SEN and non-maintained special schools in the definition of mainstream schools. Clearly, they are far from what we mean by mainstream school in the context of Clause 1. How can we say that a child is being educated in a mainstream school as part of the general inclusive perspective of the legislation, if he is
1306
sent to a non-maintained special school? Clearly, that would not be inclusion. The reason that we are resisting the amendment is because it would produce that effect.
The rest of the issues raised by the noble Baroness were largely answered by her when she quoted the letter from my noble friend the Minister. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that if parents want their child to attend an independent school, the duty to educate that child in a mainstream school imposed by Section 316(3) is immediately lifted. If the LEA agrees that the child should be educated in a non-maintained school and names the school in the child statement, under Section 348, the LEA will have to pay for that school. Nothing in Section 316A can affect that. That section qualifies Section 316. It does not impose independent rights or duties to the effect that a child can be educated only in a non-maintained school if the LEA is not funding that placement. The provision does not affect the operation of Section 348.
I hope that I have succeeded in clarifying the issues raised by Amendment No. 3, which was grouped with Amendment No. 5 by the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 5 has rather more substance. I know the intention behind the amendment because we have had these debates before. I shall touch briefly on its technical deficiencies, not that that is the main thrust of my argument. The amendment refers to "disproportionate expenditure", which is a phrase that does not have much meaning in legislation relevant to SEN. When it deals with financial matters, it is generally phrased in terms of "efficient use of resources" and "unreasonable public expenditure". Even if we were to accept the amendment, it would be of doubtful use in construing provisions couched in those terms.
When looking at what the amendment is designed to achieve, I believe that LEAs must be allowed t o decide what would be most suitable for each child. Less costly provision can often serve the child as well as, and sometimes even better than, a more expensive alternative. Provided that the LEA can meet the child's needs in full at a more reasonable cost, surely it should be free to do so. LEAs are not required to 'make Utopian provision for some children but are obliged to make suitable provision for all children with SEN who need it.
If the amendment's intention is to ensure that LEAs do not simply refuse a parental preference on the grounds that the place was more expensive than comparable provision, it is not needed. Under Section 27 of the Education Act 1996, which the noble Baroness knows very well indeed, a parent is free to express a preference for any maintained school, including a special school. Parents can also make representations for any non-maintained school to be named in their child's statement. LEAs must comply with a parental preference unless the school is unsuitable to the child's age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs, or the placement would be incompatible with the efficient education of the other children with whom the child would be educated, or with the efficient use of resources.

1307
So cost is clearly not the only factor. The cost of an individual placement, compared with other appropriate placements, will be one of the elements when considering whether the placement represents an efficient use of resources—but only one. That ensures that an LEA does not simply refuse a parent's preferred choice of school because it is more expensive than other types of provision. If a school is unsuitable for a child, an LEA could not make it suitable by demonstrating that it was cheaper than the other options.
Where a child's needs can be appropriately and effectively supported in more than one type of provision—for example, either in a mainstream school or in a maintained or non-maintained special school—it is important that we listen to what parents want.
It is important also that the cost implications are considered. We believe that it is right that LEAs should seek to use their resources efficiently. Whether determining a parental preference made in accordance with Schedule 27 or the representations made by parents for an independent school, cost must be considered. If it were not, the interests of all children could be jeopardised. Excessive or inappropriate expenditure on one child could come only at the expense of the learning opportunities of other children.
I should point out also that LEAs seeking to make an efficient use of resources do not necessarily have to settle on the least expensive provision available for a child. The one does not always equate to the other; for example, it might be an efficient use of resources to opt for more expensive provision in the short term so that a child needs less help, and therefore, of course, less funding, in the longer term. It is right that LEAs should be able to consider each case on its merits.
There are safeguards where parents feel that a local education authority may be abusing the system and refusing even to consider a more expensive option. Where they consider the content of a statement of special educational needs to be unacceptable, then they may appeal to the SEN tribunal. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment may investigate other complaints about possible unreasonableness or failure to act in accordance with a statutory duty. We would hope, however, that the new arrangements for resolving disputes between parents and local authorities will help to ensure that practical solutions acceptable to all parties are reached informally and quickly.
This amendment, therefore, would impose a quite unnecessary straitjacket on LEAs and I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is difficult to come back on this amendment without reminding the House that we have just voted against including, as a primary aim of the Bill, the best interests of the child. The whole import behind my amendment and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is to say that local
1308
education authorities should be entirely free—with the criteria in the Bill that it must be consistent with the educational needs of the child and the wishes of the parent—to make appropriate provision, whether in the independent or mainstream sector.
Teachers and head teachers have already said that they want to achieve the Government's aim in this Bill. In moving these amendments, my intention is that we should not give way to the dogmatists one way or the other—those people who believe that there should be more specialist, special schools in the independent sector or those who believe that there should be more inclusion in mainstream schools. We should always be interested in what is consistent with the educational needs of the child.
The noble Lord did not answer the specific question which I asked him to address. What is the purpose of the words,
"if the cost is met otherwise than by a local education authority"?
What situation is that intended to address?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the point of that is to allow parents to send their children to an independent or a non-maintained specialist school when the LEA does not agree that they should go there. It leaves that position clear and that is the point of it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is nothing in law that prevents parents from sending their children, with or without special needs, to an independent school. We do not live in that kind of state. In this country, parents are allowed to make a free choice. There is absolutely nothing in the law, past or present, to prevent parents, trustees or third parties, if they are paying, from doing that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I need to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that we are at Third Reading. The Minister has answered the questions which were put. The noble Baroness appears to be waiting and I believe that the Minister feels that the reply has been given.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the reply was not complete. I was hoping that the Minister would complete his reply.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, first, we are in danger of going back to a Committee discussion on this Bill. The point that I was seeking to make is that without Section 316A(1), Section 316 would prevent that. So Section 316A is needed to ensure that it does not obstruct the rights of parents, which is exactly the point which the noble Baroness was seeking to make.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that has cleared in my mind what I should do. We live in a country which allows any parents in the land to send their child to any school they wish. If that school is not in the maintained sector, they are free to pay for an independent place without an LEA preventing that. Trustees and third

1309
parties are also free to do that. The Government appear to have included in the statute a provision which prevents parents from doing that and they are now devising another caveat which allows parents to do that. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hylton, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor, V.

Kingsland, L.

Attlee, E.

Kirkham, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Beaument of Whitley, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Biffen, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Marlesford, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Byford, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Caithness, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montrose, D.

Chadlington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Noakes, B.

Courtown, E.

Northbrook, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Northesk, E.

Craigavon, V.

Norton of Louth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Patten, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denham, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elton, L.

Reay, L.

Fookes, B.

Renton, L.

Freeman, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Geddes, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Glentoran, L.

St John of Fawsley, L

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Hanham, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Strathclyde, L.

Higgins, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Wilcox, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Addington, L.

Avebury, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bach, L.

Alli, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Amos, B.

Berkeley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Billingham, B.

1310

Blackstone, B.

Layard, L.

Borrie, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Levy, L.

Bragg, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B

Brett, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Listowel, E.

Brookman, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

McNally, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Maddock, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Crawley, B.

Marsh, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Molloy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morgan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Elder, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Razzall, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Goudie, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Grabiner, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Greaves, L.

Shepherd, L,

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Hamwee, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Strange, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Tenby, V.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hayman, B.

Thornton, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tope, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Turnberg, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Walmsley, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Watson of Richmond, L.

Weatherill, L.

Jacobs, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Whitaker, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Whitty, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilkins, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) That guidance shall, in particular, relate to steps which may, or may not, be regarded as reasonable for the purposes of subsections (5) and (6).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 12, 13, 43 and 45 to 68. They respond to commitments that we gave on Report.
Amendment No. 4 responds to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on Report. The noble Lord sought to ensure that the guidance referred to at Section 316A(8) includes advice on the reasonable steps referred to at Section 316A (5) and (6). The guidance will explain the kinds of reasonable steps that maintained schools and LEAs could need to consider in order to prevent inclusion being incompatible with the efficient education of others.
Amendments Nos. 6, 43 and 45 to 68 all relate to changes to Schedule 27 to the 1996 Education Act brought about by Amendment No. 152 tabled in my name on Report. Amendments Nos. 6, 43 and 65 to 68 are technical and consequential. Amendments Nos. 45 to 64 respond positively to further discussions that we have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, about the consequences of the changes made on Report.
The amendments require LEAs to follow the procedures in Schedule 27 to the 1996 Act, as amended by Schedule 1 of the Bill, whenever they propose changes to a child's statement. This will ensure that changes cannot be made without parents first having a right to a meeting with an officer of the LEA or, in cases where changes are proposed to Part 4 of their child's statement, typically in relation to the school named in the statement, to express a preference for a maintained school. They also cut down on the paperwork that would have been involved for LEAs, by not requiring them to issue a proposed amended statement following a periodic review.
Amendment No. 8 responds to an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It amends Clause 5 to make clear that where an LEA concedes the parents' wishes on an appeal to the SEN tribunal, this should not be classed as a withdrawn case but as a case "resolved in the parent's favour". As I indicated on Report, we were considering how the clause might be amended to give this effect. I hope that we have fully met that request. The government amendment now being put forward will replace the word "withdrawn" with,
"determined in favour of the appellant".
The tribunal will not be required to make an order to this effect.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 fulfil the commitments that I gave on Report to extend the ability to request an assessment of a child's special educational needs to providers of relevant nursery education covered by the early years development plans. The responsible body for such providers will be whoever is responsible for the management of the provider in question. Nursery education at maintained nursery schools is not covered by the amendment, as it is already covered under Clause 8.
Amendment No. 13 also fulfils the commitment that I made on Report to add head teachers to the list of responsible bodies who can request assessments on behalf of schools.
These amendments will ensure that all those who make provision for children with special educational needs will have a common right to request an assessment where they believe a child to require it and LEAs will have a duty to consider all such requests. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for reacting to the amendments that we moved. Amendment No. 4 relates to being able to find out exactly where guidance is required. The same is true in relation to nursery education and access to information.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for responding so positively to some of our concerns. Perhaps she will be able clarify some outstanding questions on the early years provisions. I hope that my understanding is right and that the points are covered.
The first point relates to bodies in receipt of a grant. Will a provider of relevant nursery education be able to request a statutory assessment for a child under three, although a nursery education grant has not been received for a particular child? For example, child minders are not in receipt of a nursery education grant and may not all receive finance under an LEA's early years childcare development plan. Will the amendment allow them to request a statutory assessment of needs? If early years settings have been excluded, it would be good to know the rationale behind that. My understanding is that all early years settings are included. Is that with or without receipt of a government grant?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, Amendment No. 48 seems to have been included for the sole purpose of infuriating me. Its only other function is to make the legislation less clear. Under the schedule as presently drafted, sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of new paragraph 2 contain the reference:
"Before making a statement, a local education authority shall",
do various things,
"If, following a statutory review, a local education authority propose to amend",
etc; and sub-paragraph (3) reads:
"But sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) are subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).
That is not the most beautiful of drafting, but it is clear. Sub-paragraph (3) is now to be amended to exclude the reference to sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and to read: "That is subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5)".
But what is "that"? "That" is usually taken to apply to a singular object, but we have two sub-paragraphs immediately preceding sub-paragraph (3). Does "that" mean sub-paragraph (2); or does it mean subparagraph (1)? Or does it mean both? It is inexact. It does not say what it means. I do not know how anyone interpreting the Bill is to begin to find out what "that" is.

1313
The purpose of drafting, although it may not be in the ordinary English that we use, is to be exact. It is meant to be clear to someone reading the Bill exactly what is intended. All Amendment No. 48 does is make the intent unclear. I hope that the Minister can justify this change. I do not really see how she can. If the intention of the amendment is "But sub-paragraph (2) is subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5)", why not say so? If it means something else, how is anyone supposed to know that?
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I do not know whether to welcome the amendments before the noble Baroness explains that point. I warmly welcome Amendments Nos. 45 to 64, including, for the moment, Amendment No. 48. The Independent Panel for Special Education Advice (IPSEA), of which I am a member, will be delighted with them. I thank the Minister for listening and for reflecting further on the points raised and for coming up with even more. I should particularly like to thank the officials in her department for the extraordinary amount of help and co-operation that they have given on these amendments. It is an immensely complex web of amendments. According to IPSEA's original suggestion, the provision for amending a statement and the provision for amending a statement following a fresh assessment would have been set out separately in the Bill. Possibly, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would have been happier. However, I look forward to the Minister's explanation and I thank her and her department very much indeed.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, for their remarks. We have tried to reflect their concerns in the amendments. I am glad that they are able to welcome them.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, yes, the provision will apply to all early settings, regardless of whether they have a grant.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the last thing I want to do is to infuriate him. That would be a great mistake. I want to try to please him wherever possible. I agree with his remark that drafting should always be exact.
As I understand it, Amendment No. 48 simply removes the reference to statutory reviews, leaving new paragraph 2 to concentrate on the proposed first statements. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question and that he will accept that we are only doing a bit of tidying up here and that we are not attempting in any way to irritate him or to make the provision less easy to follow.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Advice and information for parents]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 2, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Resolution of disputes]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) "Independent persons", as required in subsection (3) above, means persons with no previous connection with the parents and the child, nor of any of the authorities involved in the dispute, but shall include persons of knowledge and experience relevant to the special educational needs of the child").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to a theme that has been discussed previously, but one about which feel strongly; namely, the independence of anyone who is to hear an appeal. It should not be accepted as read that a person hearing an appeal would be independent in terms of their connections with both sides of the appeal, those prosecuting and those hearing it. It is important that the person should not only be deemed to be independent, but that there is a requirement on the face of the Bill to that effect. The wording of my amendment may not be perfect, but there should be an obligation in law, on the face of the statute, for a person in that situation to be independent. I beg to move.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I should like to make a few points about this amendment. I very much support what my noble friend Lady Blatch said about the importance of an independent supporter. The interesting passages on the parent partnership services on pages 10 and 11 of the code of practice refer to the fact that a new arrangement is due to be introduced. I should be grateful to know when the Minister envisages that sort of arrangement will be established.
Part and parcel of that arrangement will be the appointment of an "independent parental supporter". There is a small section on this in the code of practice at page 12. I fully support the appointment of this sort of person; it is, indeed, a very interesting appointrnent. It means that access to an independent parental supporter should be made available to all families who need one; for example, to support parents meetings or reviews and to provide a wide range of information on special educational needs—an aim that I fully support. It also says that the role of the independent parental supporter may be particularly helpful in enabling parents to make their contribution to the assessment in the statement and that it will help them understand the implications of any objective set within the assessment process.
So here we have an independent person who will have no connection with the LEA or the child's school, someone who will in fact act as a sort of parent's friend. I am sure that that is welcomed on all sides of the House. The code goes on to say that that person should be fully informed about local and national policies. Can the Minister tell us how many people are likely to be appointed to this role? Clearly, it will have to involve more than one LEA, because 20 per cent of children are now registered as having special educational needs. That is an enormous proportion, but it is the average for LEAs. I imagine that there would have to be a team of independent parental

1315
supporters. Can the noble Baroness give me some idea of how many she envisages will be needed after the system comes into operation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have to confess that I am a little disappointed that we have returned yet again to this issue. I believe that our proposals to set up informal arrangements to resolve disputes have received widespread support. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for his support for this set of new arrangements. I should point out to him that the statutory parent partnerships will be started in September 2001, which is quite soon. However, there are already a great many informal, non-statutory systems in existence.
The amendment calls for the independent person to have,
"no previous connection with the parents and the child, nor of any of the authorities involved in the dispute".
This means that LEAs will have continually to seek out and train new independent persons, which I do not believe would be terribly desirable. The role of the independent person is to try to move discussion along and help those in dispute to reach an agreement that is acceptable to everyone. It is the parties, not the facilitator, who decide on the terms of the agreement.
Facilitating dispute resolution is all about chairing a meeting, managing the process, not the content, and encouraging people to express their views, as well as ensuring that everyone has his or her say in the matter. The facilitator does not determine who is right or wrong. Although many parents see these skills as being more important than the independence of the individual or his or her expertise in SEN, independent research carried out by the department indicated that they also want an independent third party involved. So parents want independence. We believe that our proposals will deliver that aim.
The minimum standards in the revised code of practice will set out that the independent person must have no role in the decision taken about a particular child's case; and that he or she is unbiased and has the appropriate skills, knowledge and expertise, including an understanding of SEN. Guidance will also emphasise that the independent persons must be acceptable to all the parties involved. I believe that that is the real thinking behind the amendment, and that that is what the noble Baroness is seeking.
However, if the noble Baroness looks at Clause 3 carefully, she will see that it places a duty on LEAs to make arrangements for avoiding or resolving disputes. That means that LEAs do not have to carry out dispute resolution themselves. We are encouraging them to work with other organisations in providing this sort of dispute resolution. We know that many LEAs are actively thinking about this in anticipation of the new duty. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, asked how many people we thought would need to be appointed. At present, the average number of independent parental supporters per LEA is about 10.
1316
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, also argued that independence will not be a defence against partiality. I argue that no one can legislate against an individual's partiality. We are all entitled to our own views; but what we must not do in these circumstances is to allow our personal prejudices to influence our professional roles. That is what we expect from anyone in public service. Should we now assume, from what the noble Baroness has said, that all these people bring their personal views to work with them? I do not believe that they do. They are professional people. I am sure that they leave those views behind. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel—
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, I should like to thank her for what she has just said and for giving us such helpful information. I require some further information, but perhaps the noble Baroness could respond to me in writing. We are talking about important people. I should like further information as to who appoints them, who will employ them, and so on.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness was helpful with that response. Again, it was slightly more unequivocal this time than it was previously. The noble Baroness picked up a point from what I said during the last stage of the Bill. I refer to the issue of partiality. You can have someone who is independent but you can also have someone who is partial. The example that I should like to put forward is that you could have someone who is publicly known as a fiercely strong supporter of integration at all costs. I have certainly received at least one missive from a part of the special needs sector saying, "Please support the eventual abolition of independence of specialist schools". Therefore, someone could be on record as holding that view: conversely, you could have someone who holds entirely the opposite view and who believes that all children should be in special schools and not in mainstream schools.
The idea is to ensure that the independence goes a little further than someone who has the material contact, or a conflict of interest, with the local authority and/or a child. It is a matter of making sure that the partiality—the philosophical view that that person holds—is a case in point. I should point out to the Minister that some people who have been appointed by the Government over the past three years have very publicly known philosophical views about education and are in positions of judgment on local authorities. That creates an atmosphere of mistrust among people receiving those services. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Unopposed appeals]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("withdrawn") and insert ("determined in favour of the appellant.
( ) If an appeal is treated as determined in favour of the appellant as a result of subsection (2), the Tribunal is not required to make any order.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Duty to inform parent where special educational provision made]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 5, at beginning insert—
(""Special educational provision: dispute resolution,
317ZA.—(l) The parent of a child for whom no statement is maintained under section 324 shall be informed before special educational provision is made for him.
(2) If the parent objects to such provision being made as being unnecessary or inappropriate, the dispute shall be resolved as provided for in section 3 of this Act, and until it is resolved, the special educational provision shall not be made.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment now before us deals with something about which I feel most strongly. In fact, after re-reading what was said during the last stage of the Bill, I believe that my point has been overlooked. The main thrust of the Government's argument was that it would cause delay and, therefore, provision for a child would be delayed.
I believe that it would be very much a minority of parents who find themselves in this position. However, I have in mind a situation where the actual drafting of a statement has taken so long, or is taking so long, that the parent scrapes together enough resources and manages to find a third party who will make special provision for the child in an independent school in the interim. However, the parents have, all along, wanted a mainstream place for the child. Finally, when the decision is made, the mainstream place has not been kept open because the authority wishes to fill it and because provision has been made in the independent sector, albeit that the parents can barely afford it or are making enormous sacrifices in order to sustain it. But nevertheless they would still like a place in a mainstream school. The LEA may disregard that. I am speaking to the wrong amendments. I am speaking to my next group of amendments.
I shall now address Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 which concern giving information to parents of children for whom no statement is made. We all know—many of us have had children in this position—of cases where a school identifies that a child has special educational needs which fall short of needing a statement. A typical example is a child who is having real difficulties learning to read. The school may decide that, given the difficulties that the child is experiencing, the child will be withdrawn from mainstream classes on a regular basis. Help is brought in from outside to help that child in special classes and the child is later fed back into the mainstream class.
If special provision is to be made by a school for a child for whom no statement is maintained, the parent has a right to be told that that provision will be made. Often children who have difficulties learning to read are sensitive. It is important to discuss the fact that a child is to be withdrawn for special provision. I should have thought it goes without saying that the parent should be informed of that. If the parent has an objection to that, it is right that that objection should be heard. That process does not have to take a long time. A school can inform a parent that it is worried about a child and plans to make special provision for
1318
that child and would like to discuss the matter. If a parent disagrees with that, at least the informal resolution procedures can be used to establish what is in the best interests of the child. It is important to have that information. I should like to see that measure on the face of the Bill. I do not believe—as the noble Lord claimed at the previous stage of the Bill—that such a process would cause unnecessary delays for the child. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I said on Report, we would expect schools to inform parents at the time they begin making SEN provision so that if parents have concerns they can make them known early in that process. In that respect we are at one with the noble Baroness. I recall that on Report the phrase "Stalinist" was used with regard to our approach to these issues. I sought to rebut that remark on that occasion. I emphasise again today that, of course, we take seriously the interest of parents in the education of their children. The whole purpose of Clause 7 is to ensure that parents are aware that special provision is being made for their children so that they can contribute to that process and raise any concerns that they may have. However, our approach differs from that of the noble Baroness in that we believe that there has to be a sensible balance between parents' rights to express a view on their children's education and the obligations of schools to meet children's special educational needs.
Parents of course have an important role to play in the education of all children, not just those with special educational needs. But except in particular circumstances—for example, in relation to sex education—parents do not have a statutory right to exempt their children from provision. Teachers do not have to agree their lesson plans with parents before taking classes. Were this group of amendments to be accepted, parents of children with SEN but without statements would be given exceptional responsibility in deciding the provision made for their children.
To point that out is not to be dismissive of the role parents can and should play in the education of their children. However, I cannot agree with the way in which the noble Baroness emphasised—as she did on Report—that the parent
"should be entitled to challenge and, if necessary, object to such provision if, for whatever reason, the parent disapproves".
That is not a balanced approach. The noble Baroness referred to abusing or neglectful parents who would be debarred from objecting to such provision. However, the amendments make no provision for that. Nevertheless, she suggests that all other parents affected by the provisions of Clause 7 should be able to object to the SEN provision for their children if they consider that provision—as she said—
"to be unnecessary, unhelpful or just plain wrong".
The amendments would not only allow parents to object but would also allow them to prevent the provision being made until their objections are resolved. Unfortunately it is not just abusing or neglectful parents who can misjudge their children's best interests. What would a school be expected to do

1319
in such a circumstance, sit on its hands and leave a child's special needs unaddressed because "for whatever reason" a parent disapproves of the special provision that the school proposes?
Of course, where parents have special concerns—
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that is exactly what the Government are doing in new Section 316(3). They are saying that if the parent does not want the special provision to be made it shall not be made. If the Government think that that is how the matter should be dealt with, why not be consistent?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, contrary to what the noble Lord asserts, I maintain that the Government are being consistent. We are considering the identification of special needs and the way in which a school responds to that. The group of amendments that we are discussing concern that early phase of the process. I merely contend that at that stage it is important that a school should be able to consider the interests and views of parents. However, the decision to be taken on the provision of special educational needs should not be delayed unnecessarily, if only because—as I think the noble Lord would recognise—some special educational needs may require substantial provision. We also seek to ensure that there is adequate provision in schools for those whose special educational needs are fairly minor. Yet these amendments would establish a substantial degree of bureaucracy in cases where a school was taking relatively minor decisions on a child's educational needs.
We are discussing the provision of education within a school. The noble Lord discussed the type of school, not the provision being made within a school. We are now discussing the education being provided within a school. We contend that the amendments, if accepted, would introduce an imbalance into a situation where one has to balance the needs of parents with the proper provision of education. A school, of course, also has considerable obligations in that regard.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, the Government cannot have it both ways. When we have asked for time-scales to be tightened, the Government have always argued that they are realistic and sufficiently tight for LEAs to meet their obligation to children with special educational needs. Therefore, delay cannot be an issue. The Government are satisfied that those who are charged with resolving disputes can do so within a short time-scale.
Secondly, the noble Lord ascribes to my amendments powers that are simply not there. We say that parents have a right to information about their child. I believe that in the case of any child who receives education which is different from that of the average child in a school, a parent has an absolute right to be informed that his or her child is receiving different provision. A parent also should have a right to ask why that is being done and, if they object to it, to challenge that provision. Some parents may find
1320
another way to resolve the issue. When they know the problem, after amicable discussion they may seek another solution. That may take the pressure off the school to provide additional resources for special provision for the child. There are sensible reasons for parents to have the right to know that their child is being treated differently and to be given the opportunity to make other provision.
Thirdly, the noble Lord spoke as though the parent has a veto. The parent does not have a veto. There will be a delay if the matter goes as far as the resolution procedure. However, the resolution procedure set out in Clause 3 is the informal in-house LEA resolution procedure, rather than the tribunal procedure, which could be completed within a week. The parents, school and/or the advisory service from the LEA could discuss the best interests of the child. The dispute can be discussed, the objections of the parents heard, and any alternative provision that the parents wish to make put forward. The notion that parents have a veto is not true. It is not the first time that the noble Lord has ascribed to amendments in my name on the Order Paper powers which are not contained within them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Clause 8 [Review or assessment of educational needs at request of responsible body]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) This section applies to a child for whom relevant nursery education is provided as it applies to a child who is a registered pupil at a relevant school.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 8, line 21, at end insert ("or head teacher, and
(c) in relation to a provider of relevant nursery education, the person or body of persons responsible for the management of the provision of that nursery education.
( ) "Relevant nursery education" has the same meaning as in section 123 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, except that it does not include nursery education provided by a local education authority at a maintained nursery school.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Duty to specify named school]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 26, leave out ("not").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is with profuse apologies that I speak now to Amendment No. 14. It is the group of amendments to which I spoke earlier by mistake. The group includes Amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
On Report I referred to the catch-22 situation for parents. They wait so long for procedures to be completed which provide a statement for a child that at great expense, or having begged and borrowed from third parties, they make provision in the independent sector while awaiting a place in a maintained school.

1321
Those parents have a preference for a mainstream place. My amendments are modest. They recognise the LEA's difficulty in keeping a place open indefinitely or until the process is completed. The time limit proposed is that the LEA keep a place open for one half of a school term.
After huge expense to the parents, great distress to the family, and perhaps to a third party which started to pay for the provision and cannot sustain such payment, the parents are placed in a difficult position if the LEA decides that the parents have chosen independent provision and it no longer feels an obligation to make provision. The amendment covers a situation which occurs only rarely; but when it does it causes distress.
When a statement is made which illustrates that the child's needs are severe, provision should be made as quickly as possible. If the process takes a long time and the parent makes provision in the independent sector but wishes for a place in the mainstream school, some accommodation should be made. I beg to move.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, on these Benches we failed to enshrine in the Bill a statutory entitlement for a child to a specific degree of provision. It is only fair to say that the Government are trying to gain that end, possibly by other means. I have received two helpful letters from the Minister since Report stage which are pertinent to this group and the previous grouping. They are inter-linked.
Much of the detail is in the code of practice which is not debated. I do not suggest that we should do so now because there will be an opportunity to debate the code later although not to amend it, as Ministers know. We at least know the Minister's intentions. In her letter of 26th February, the noble Baroness said:
"You asked particularly about what the final version would say on specifying the special educational provision for a child with a statement of special educational needs. I can confirm … that the guidance will make clear that a statement should describe clearly all of the child's special educational needs in full"—
it does so now; we accept that—
"set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet, specify clearly and in detail the provision required to meet each of the child's needs and describe the arrangements for setting shorter-term objectives for the child and any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement".
I had written to the noble Baroness, so I received another letter the following day. One has quick ministerial replies when the Bill is before the House. The letter of 27th February took us a little further and should also be on the record. It states:
"On the question of provision for children with special educational needs, Bryan Davies was, of course, responding to the particular circumstances you described. Decisions about the provision to be made for each child must always relate to their individual needs. I hope I explained in my earlier letter how we aim to develop the guidance in the final version of the revised SEN Code of Practice on specifying provision in children's statements".
This is important. These are the obligations which will be placed upon an LEA. The letter continues:
"The provision of specialised equipment and educational material appropriate to an individual child's needs would be determined as part of the process of assessment and producing a
1322
statement for the child. For children without statements this can take place through the school based stages set out in the SEN Code of Practice. All children identified as having SEN, whether they have a statement or not, are expected"—
officials might note for the final version of the code that that should be "must", not "expected"—
"to have individual Education Plans. These are drawn up by the child's school and record the nature of the child's learning difficulties, the action to be taken to help the child and the strategies employed to enable them to make progress. Individual Education Plans"—
that is the plan per child per term—
"[must] include, for example, the staff involved and any specific programmes, activities, materials and equipment and arrangements for reviewing and monitoring progress with the child and their parents".
I am glad to see that the noble Lord the Minister nods. This will be a considerable obligation in future on education authorities.
"Individual Education Plans are generally reviewed each term".
That should read "must be reviewed each term". The special school with which I am involved, and others, do so automatically. That should be strengthened in that regard.
I have read out those consequences. They are now available to a wider audience. We cannot amend the code but anyone interested in special education now knows what the Minister has in mind. The implications are interesting. We on this side of the House, or those interested in special schools, are not against inclusion provided that the facilities, teachers and teacher support services are available. For children with acute physical and mental disabilities, this is a very expensive process. I know that the Government's mantra is that they will provide £220 million over the next three years. I think that I have the correct figure. It has been stated enough times by the Minister. It sounds an enormous sum of money. There are over 30,000 schools. That sum represents £7,300 per school spread over three years: £2,000 a year for all that I have just read out—special education for hard-of-hearing, blind or physically disabled children.
We wish to flag up, without making it a matter of controversy, that we consider the Government have totally underestimated the financial consequences of this measure. It will be an enormous time bomb under any future Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer who will have to meet the obligations implicit in the Bill. I am not against that, because I believe that our society should give disadvantaged children the, best education available, but the Government have not faced up to the issue.
We now have on the record in Hansard what the Government are going to do. We shall make sure that they live up to it.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall reply to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. However, following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, it is an interesting constitutional point whether one can amend a ministerial letter to change the law. He seemed to be doing that in part of his

1323
contribution. He will recognise that the aim of the letter was to explain as clearly as we can the obligations that we expect to put on schools. The issue of resources came up many times in Committee and on Report. We all know that the ideal world is never arrived at, because none of us has the resources required to bring it about, but we shall do the best that we can against the resources that need to be made available. As the noble Lord said, significant resources have already been made available. The noble Lord takes considerable pleasure in having received letters about that from us. I do not remember receiving a letter in such a short space of time under previous Conservative administrations. The noble Lord may have more persuasive techniques than I have, or we may be a more efficient and competent Government. I leave the House to judge.
We continue to view the amendments as unnecessary. Clause 9 relieves LEAs of the duty to name a school in a statement only if parents have made suitable alternative arrangements. The intention is to make available to children who need them places that LEAs might otherwise have to hold open indefinitely, even though the children concerned may never take them up. As I have explained in previous debates, nothing in Clause 9 changes the fact that if parents cease to make suitable alternative arrangements for their children, the LEA will continue to be responsible for arranging special educational provision for the child.
Nothing in the clause is intended to reduce the availability of maintained sector places for children with SEN. The noble Baroness has repeated the argument that she made on Report that parents may be in a catch-22 situation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on a matter of factual information, the amendments would not require places to be kept open indefinitely. I have specified half a school term.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I withdraw the word, "indefinitely", but for a period of time the place would not be available to another child who might need it. The burden of the case that we have presented in Committee and on Report is that local authorities are under an obligation to use their resources efficiently. Part of that must be to make available places for children with those needs and to ensure that, as far as possible, places are not kept open unnecessarily, although I accept the point that the noble Baroness has just made about the change from her previous suggestion.
If parents disagree with the provision or school proposed by the LEA, they will make either stopgap arrangements or alternative suitable arrangements. Case law indicates that suitable arrangements must be intended to continue and be capable of continuing for a reasonable period. LEAs will be able to rely on the provision in the clause only if parents have made suitable arrangements. Otherwise the arrangements will be considered stopgap arrangements and the responsibility will remain on the local authority.
1324
If parents in that situation disagree with the provision or school proposed by the LEA and place their child in another school—as the noble Baroness said, it might be an independent school at their own cost—and then appeal to the tribunal to try to have that school named, they may be worried that any school place proposed by the LEA would be lost. However, if the tribunal agrees with the parents' choice of school, the LEA will be obliged to include that school formally in the statement. If the parents lose, the tribunal will be able to order the name of a different school proposed by the LEA or parent, including the original school, to be included in the statement. The original school may not be available, but requiring an LEA not to fill that place just in case, even for a short period—if the case went to the tribunal it would be a longer period—would be unfair to other parents who might want and need the place for their child.
We do not accept that the amendments are necessary or desirable. As we have said before, the LEA will be under a statutory duty to make suitable provision in all cases if the parents are not making suitable arrangements of their own. By definition, stopgap arrangements do not count as suitable arrangements.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. We shall have to agree to disagree about this issue. I have two points. First, the department has been incredibly good about answering letters since Report. I record my thanks for that. However, I have had a request in for 18 months for information about education action zones. I am still waiting for the evaluation report.
Secondly, like my noble friend Lord Baker, I am pleased that there is something on the record about resources that gives some reassurance. However, my noble friend had a Written Question printed in yesterday's Hansard asking for an estimate of the number of extra teachers and teacher assistants trained in special educational needs skills that will be needed to implement the Bill. There is a very long Answer, but it does not give the number of teachers that will be needed, or even an estimate. That may well link with the fact that a parent could be denied a place in a mainstream school simply because the financial appraisal of the Bill says that no extra staff will be required. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Disabled pupils not to be substantially disadvantaged]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 11, line 9, leave out ("That") and insert ("Subsection (1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we dealt with the same amendment on Report, when I thought that the Government were simply being lazy. Since then they have done the same again. The grammatical construction that the amendment refers to should not

1325
be permitted in statute. The purpose of statute is to be clear. The use of the word "that" to link two clauses is perfectly good conversational English if there are two reasonably short clauses fairly close together. For example, one might say, "Noble Lords on the red Benches may have their eyes closed. That does not mean that they are asleep". Everyone understands that. However, if there is a larger or more complex clause in front, the only way to handle it in conversational English and still be understood is to repeat the subject of the clause rather than to use "that".
In statute, the convention has largely been to refer to a subsection by name. Indeed, in Clause 13, subsection (1) is referred to on two subsequent occasions. On both occasions, the word "that" could be substituted and, with much thought, someone could work out that "that" meant subsection (1). If someone applies a lot of thought and care to the matter, no exactness will be lost, but it causes people to stop and think about why the word "that" is being used rather than "subsection (1)", which is the way in which statutes are usually written.
We employ a rather unusual version of English in statute. There may be something to be said for trying to write statutes in more ordinary English, but the Government have randomly decided that "subsection (1)" should be substituted by "that" if it appears at the beginning of subsection (2)—and only then—and that otherwise it is called subsection (1). That merely causes confusion. If the word "that" means "subsection (1)" and "subsection (1)" is the usual way in which such a reference would be made in statute, we should call it subsection (1) so that everyone knows that that is what is meant. Using the word "That", as is proposed, merely makes one pause and wonder whether it could mean anything else. After much thought, one decides that it must mean subsection (1). However, everyone could have been saved live minutes' work if the words "Subsection (1)" had been used in the first place. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am rather surprised that the noble Lord has chosen to bring back this amendment yet again at Third Reading. As I explained on Report, "That" in new Section 28C(2) under Clause 13 refers to the duty on schools to take reasonable steps to ensure that disabled pupils are not placed at a substantial disadvantage. That is perfectly clear.
I could take up the time of the House by giving other examples of where this drafting style has been used in recent legislation, but I shall not do so. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall withdraw it, but I shall continue to protest whenever I notice that that style of drafting has been used. I hope that at some stage, in order to save time in the House, if nothing else, the Government will relent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 28, leave out from ("(1),") to end of line 44 and insert ("a responsible body must have regard to any relevant provisions of a code of practice issued under section 53A").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I shall speak also to Amenclment No. 35. These two amendments relate to the reasonable steps that need to be taken either by a school or, in relation to Amendment No. 35, by a further or higher education institution in order to comply with their obligations under Part II of the Bill.
We argued this issue both in Committee and on Report, and I do not want to repeat the arguments that I made then. However, I shall summarise them briefly. First, I have argued previously that it is unnecessary to have on the face of the Bill this detailed listing of the factors which underlie what "reasonable steps" will be. I have argued that the wording, and in particular that in subsection (4)(a), which relates to Amendment No. 19 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is objectionable. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in Committee, it provides, a "cop out" for both schools and further education institutions in relation to their obligations here.
On Report, the Minister responded to my request by quoting a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, which dealt with the position of universities and encouraged her to keep the wording on the face of the Bill. My response to that was, "Well, she would do that, wouldn't she?". Coming, as I do, from the university sector, I know how poorly universities are placed in relation to disability. They need to do a great deal and I do not believe that they should be let off the hook in terms of those obligations. I fear that subsection (4)(a) does let them off the hook. Similarly, we argue that subsection (4)(g) is unnecessary because it duplicates the caveat which already appears in Clause 1(3)(b).
Finally, we argue that, in so far as it is necessary to spell out these matters, it is much better that they are put into the code of practice. That is what these two amendments seek to achieve. That is done in the case of the SEN part of the Bill. I am delighted that the amendment that we put forward in that respect, which suggested that there should be explicit mention of the guidance, is now incorporated into the Bill.
The Minister said that one reason for wanting the guidance to appear at that stage and for rejecting the amendments that we put forward in Committee, where there might be an illustration of what "reasonable steps" were, was that any illustration would become out of date and that one needed flexibility. Again, we argue that putting the wording into the code of practice provides a degree of flexibility. Therefore., I repeat that this detailed guidance should not be on the face of the Bill but should appear in the code of practice. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may mention that the expression

1327
"must have regard to" can have various legal effects, depending upon the circumstances. However, when she says,
"must have regard to any relevant provisions of a code of practice issued under section 53A",
does that mean that it will have a binding legal effect or does it mean that it is something that merely must be considered?
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, many amendments have been moved today. The question that arises from them is whether the requirements should be on the face of the Bill or in the code of practice. Throughout the Bill, sometimes the Government have favoured one option; sometimes they have favoured the other. I can quite understand that.
My noble friend's opposition to Amendment No. 1 concerning whether the needs of the child should be placed on the face of the Bill was that it provided an excuse for local education authorities to abuse it. We all know that that abuse has taken place. However, that argument applies equally to these amendments—at least, I believe that to be the case. The duties on local education authorities and schools should not be prescribed rigidly on the face of the Bill. I believe that it is far better that they appear in a code of practice. That will encourage rather than discourage action and will provide the essential flexibility.
I believe that the provision for disabled children in mainstream schools will improve enormously after this Bill is enacted, thanks to my noble friend and her many efforts. What is inappropriate or unreasonable today will become routine tomorrow. I believe that we need to allow for changes in the expectation of both schools and parents. We should not conceal the difficulties of the future but neither should we highlight them on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I believe that the best means are those spelt out in the amendment.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, argued so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and added to by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. It seems that the right place for the guidance is in the code of practice. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I, too, briefly give my warm support to the amendment. In particular, I support Amendment No. 35 because SKILL, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, of which I am president, was particularly keen that the guidance should appear in the code of practice rather than on the face of the Bill.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I gather from those paeons of praise that this is the coin for which the Liberal Democrats sold Amendment No. 1. If so, at least they have a real coin. I believe that their amendment is well worth supporting. It will make a positive difference to the Bill and will enable my amendment, Amendment
1328
No. 19, to be dealt with in another, and perhaps better, way. Therefore, my gloom will be lightened slightly if this amendment is agreed to by the Government.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, for once I shall be able to please everyone who has spoken in this debate. When considering whether it is reasonable to have to make a particular adjustment, we firmly believe that it is right that a school or post-16 institution should have regard to any of the factors currently set out in new Sections 28C(4) and 28T(2) respectively.
However, although we believe that there is no problem in those factors appearing on the face of the Bill, I accept that there has been much debate on the issue. We have listened very carefully to the points raised both in Committee and on Report. Given the strength of feeling and the fact that the DRC has confirmed that all those factors will be covered in the code of practice, we have decided that we can accept Amendments Nos. 18 and 35 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Of course, that will have the effect of incorporating Amendment No. 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may pose one question. I do not object to such a meeting, but why was time found to have a meeting with the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrat Party when a meeting was denied to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to discuss matters in relation to this Bill?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the reason was that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, had already held a number of discussions on the issue that he raised on Clause 1. There have been no discussions either with officials or with Ministers about the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. Therefore, it seemed perfectly reasonable to agree to a meeting on that issue.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much indeed. We are obviously extremely grateful to her for conceding these amendments. I believe that the Bill will be the better for them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 12, leave out lines 1 to 6.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be brief. The amendment relates to proposed new Section 28C(6), which makes no sense whatever. It is entirely otiose and the Bill would not lose anything if it were removed; in fact, throughout our deliberations on the Bill no Minister has given any explanation of the provision's importance. For the last time, I shall read it out. It states:
"In determining whether it is reasonable for the responsible body to have to take a particular step in relation to that person in order to comply with its duty under subsection (1), regard shall be had to the extent to which taking the step in question is consistent with compliance with that request".
That provision should be taken out of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend explained in a letter that she sent to the noble Baroness that removing proposed new Section 28C(6), as Amendment No. 20 proposes, would nullify the effects of Amendment No. 21, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend and which I know the noble Baroness supports.
It may be helpful to noble Lords if I make it clear that new subsections (5) to (7) of new Section 28C should be read together, as should subsections (3) to (5) of new Section 28T. When they are read together, the subsection to which the noble Baroness objects becomes much clearer. She insists on looking at such provisions in isolation; I am not sure why she does so.
In addition, I reiterate to noble Lords what was said on Report. We want to make it completely clear to schools and institutions that, in discharging their duties under Clauses 13 and 28 to make reasonable adjustments, they should take into account any request that has been made to maintain confidentiality. The provisions in question—that is, new subsections (5) to (7) of new Section 28C and new subsections (3) to (5) of new Section 28T—will deliver that effect.
For the two reasons that I have highlighted, we cannot agree to the amendment. We hope that the noble Baroness will agree that it is not necessary.
I shall also speak to the government amendments that are grouped with Amendment No. 20. Government Amendment No. 21, which appears on the Marshalled List in the name of my noble friend, takes forward the commitment that we made on Report to introduce an amendment to ensure that schools take account of requests that are made by disabled children to keep their disability confidential when considering whether it is reasonable to make a particular adjustment. The amendment takes forward the commitment that we made to noble Lords on Report.
Government Amendment No. 21 will ensure that when considering a reasonable adjustment schools take account of a disabled child's confidentiality request, provided that the school reasonably believes that the child has sufficient understanding of the nature of the request and its effect.
Government Amendment No. 37 mirrors for the post-16 sector the wording of Amendment No. 21. As noble Lords will recognise, that is being done purely to achieve consistency in the drafting of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when I moved the amendment, I should have said how much I welcome Amendments Nos. 21 and 37. I did not regard them as being connected with Amendment No. 20 because confidentiality is a different issue. I am grateful to the Government for tabling them; they are much welcomed. Many noble Lords have spoken in favour of such amendments during the Bill's passage through the House.
1330
I have read the Bill and Clause 13 very carefully. Subsection (1) states:
"The responsible body for a school must take such steps as it is reasonable for it to have to ensure that—
various duties, which are set out in the clause, are complied with. However, subsection (4) states:
"In considering whether it is reasonable for it to have to take a particular step in order to comply with its duty under subsection (1), the factors to which a responsible body may have regard include"—
a whole list of provisions, which are set out in the Bill. The degree to which a body has complied or been seen to comply is implicit in subsection (4).
I continue to believe that subsection (6) is a gobbledegook passage. No doubt the Government's arm would be strengthened by the support of the Liberals if I tested the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 12, line 7, leave out from second ("request") to end of line 9 and insert ("which asks for the nature, or asks for the existence, of a disabled person's disability to be treated as confidential and which satisfies either of the following conditions—

(a) it is made by that person's parent; or

(b) it is made by that person himself and the responsible body reasonably believes that he has sufficient understanding of the nature of the request and of its effect.').

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Accessibility strategies and plans]:
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 12, leave out lines 16 to 25 and insert ("must prepare, in relation to schools for which they are the responsible body—

(a) an accessibility strategy;

(b) further such strategies at such times as may be prescribed.

( ) An accessibility strategy is a strategy for, over a prescribed period—

(a) increasing the extent to which disabled pupils can participate in the schools' curriculums;

(b) improving the physical environment of the schools for the purpose of increasing the extent to which disabled pupils are able to take advantage of education and associated services provided or offered by the schools: and

(c) improving the delivery to disabled pupils—

(i) within a reasonable time, and

(ii) in ways which are determined after taking account of their disabilities and any preferences expressed by them or their parents, of information which is provided in writing for pupils who are not disabled.

( ) An accessibility strategy must be in writing.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment and those grouped with it are largely technical, with the exception of Amendments Nos. 22 and 24, which fulfil commitments that we made on Report to extend the planning duty.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 24 will widen the planning duty and help to meet the needs of all disabled children. The planning duty will now have three elements. First, LEAs and schools will have to plan to increase the extent to which disabled pupils can

1331
participate in the curriculum. That will go beyond teaching and learning arrangements to include classroom organisation, timetabling and staff training. That is our response to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on Report. I understand that unfortunately he cannot be here today, but he has let my noble friend know that he is more than happy with the amendments.
Secondly, LEAs and schools will have to plan to improve the physical environment of the school for the purpose of increasing the extent to which disabled pupils can take advantage of education and associated services that are provided or offered by the school. I have already explained that that duty involves much more than providing ramps and lifts.
Thirdly, and in response to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, on Report, LEAs and schools will have to plan to improve the extent to which disabled pupils receive written information in an accessible way. Some noble Lords had concerns about the extension of the planning duty in that way. Let me make it clear that the new planning duty will not be burdensome. It reflects best practice on the part of some schools. For individual children who have statements of SEN, LEAs will have to arrange provision to meet their special educational needs. Under the reasonable adjustments duty, LEAs and schools will be required to think about the needs of individual disabled children. The planning duty will ensure that LEAs and schools take a strategic look at their provision for disabled pupils in general and will also cover matters which are not covered by the reasonable adjustments duty. We will produce guidance that will explain further what we expect LEAs and schools to do.
Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 are in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on Report. They relate to the enforcement of the planning duty by the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales. They will remove unnecessary references to "powers" in proposed new Section 28M(1) and (4).
Amendment No. 32 is simply a technical amendment to Clause 25; it relates to the "Interpretation of Chapter I". It provides a definition of the term "parent" in Scotland, to mirror that which is already provided for England and Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I find this situation rather strange. A strategy is normally a plan for fighting a battle but the word is being used differently in this context. Amendment No. 22 uses the phrase, "an accessibility strategy", which one would expect, on first sight, to be a method of approaching a particular building or place. However, the amendment goes on to state:
"An accessibility strategy is a strategy for, over a prescribed period … increasing the extent to which disabled pupils can participate in the schools' curriculums"—
1332
and in other matters involving education. It goes on to state that such a strategy is for,
"improving the delivery to disabled pupils … of information which is provided in writing for pupils who are not disabled … An accessibility strategy must be in writing".
That is fair enough.
I find this very unusual. I wonder if the noble Lord could tell us whether there is a precedent for using the concept of strategies that can be found in other statutes.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the Minister most warmly for Amendments Nos. 22 and 24 responding to an amendment moved and withdrawn by my noble friend Lord Rix in Committee and on Report. My noble friend is in Morocco and he trailed me as a most elegant and effective understudy at column 765 on 20th February—I am not sure that your Lordships are getting that. He also said that I would graciously accept the amendment as proffered by the Government. I am delighted to do so.
I can say that the Special Educational Consortium warmly welcomes the fact that the planning duty has now been widened to cover planning for access to the curriculum, to the physical environment and for access to information. This will benefit schools and LEAs by consolidating and building upon existing requirements, notably the inclusion statement in the national curriculum. The re-drafting of the clause by the Government creates a positive new emphasis placing a primary focus on access to the curriculum. I hope that the guidance will explain that this might include changes to teaching and learning arrangements, pupil groupings, arrangements for classroom support, curriculum organisation and adaptation, timetabling, staff training, school organisations and materials. This will allow LEAs and schools to plan to welcome children with a diverse range of disabilities. We also recognise the fact that there is significant funding via the Standards Fund and the Schools Access Initiative to support schools in welcoming young people with disabilities.
I pay tribute to the persistence of my noble friend and thank the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the Minister in another place for having listened and reacted so positively to these extremely useful and welcome amendments.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the Government's amendment to Clause 14. The inclusion of provision for accessibility strategies and plans to include improvement of the delivery of information in alternative formats to disabled children within a reasonable time and taking into account their preferences is extremely welcome. It will achieve everything that the RNIB had hoped the accessible information policies would do.
The combination of physical access, curriculum access in the widest sense and explicit reference to accessible information is a major step forward. Indirectly, the duties to plan to improve accessible

1333
information for children will mean LEAs and schools are in a better position to meet the needs of parents for accessible information.
I am grateful to the Government for this amendment that will help thousands of visually impaired and other print-impaired children. It will be a great support to teachers.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we endorsed both sets of amendments in Committee and at Report stage. I add my thanks to the Minister for responding so ably to them.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I were discussing our respective amendments before Report stage I told him that he would be lucky; that the Government would never go that far. The Government have gone further. I am delighted. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on his achievement. I am thankful for the small changes the Government have made at my prompting.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is never unhallowed joy, is there? I delight in the commendations from the House for the amendments we have brought forward. I am utterly and totally stumped by the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as to whether the word "strategy" appears in any other statute. I do not know the answer. I shall write to the noble Lord if our researches prove positive. I assure him—and he will have heard from noble Lords who have contributed to our intensive debates over a substantial period of time—that the amendments I propose are in response to widespread needs outside, well articulated at various stages of the Bill. We are responding to those needs and expressions of opinion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 12, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) In preparing their accessibility strategy, each local education authority must include the estimated costs, at current prices, of the implementation of such improvements, and must if the cost cannot be found locally, forward to the Secretary of State these estimated costs with a request for capital grant to cover those costs for the years in question.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 23 and 25. This is still on the issue of planning for planning authorities. At Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said he feared that the effect of my amendments would be to erect barriers to increased accessibility to schools for pupils with disabilities. I asked him what that meant and I did not receive an answer. It would be helpful to know what are the barriers. If one is to plan and validate the plan—in other words, for the plan to materialise, and it requires resources to do that—the only way in which it will happen is to have a realistic view about what those resources are and at the end of the day to have those resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, went on to say:
"The duty is to plan within the resources available to the responsible body".—[Official Report, 20/2/2001; col. 771.]
The very meaning of the word "plan" is that one is engaging in a planning duty to effect activity on into the future. It is not about the here and now. I know from my local authority experience and from colleagues who are still there grappling with so many issues that they do not know what their resources will be in the future. The noble Lord says that they do know. He went on to say that they have to plan within the resources available—although they do not know what they are—and that that is implicit in the Bill. It is not implicit in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill that spells that out. The noble Lord said it did not need to be spelt out. To those who will have to implement the Bill in local authorities it does need to be spelled out.
The noble Lord also said that what was proposed would delay things and would be bureaucratic. That is not so. If the local authorities have to prepare plans and produce an accessibility strategy it is right that they should have some knowledge in order to be able to let parents know that this is what they intend over time. They ought to have some view as to what the costs are. If they do not know what the costs are, it becomes an aspirational plan only. If it is to be a realistic plan with a view to implementation, they ought to have a view about the costs. The noble Lord gives the game away by saying that they have to plan within the resources available. I believe the noble Lord is wrong. However, if he is right and is about to say it again, then the resources are known and they should be part of the information set out in the plan.
Finally, the noble Lord said at col. 771 that I had suggested in Committee that we were raising the hopes of people only to dash them. If we are only indulging in planning; if we disregard the actual costing of those plans; and if, at the end of the day, because they were not costed, they are not capable of being delivered because the resources are not there—I know we will have a reiteration of how much money is being made available but I am talking about the LEA's ability to plan and to deliver a plan—then hopes will be raised only to be dashed. I should like to think that it is consistent with what the noble Lord is saying; that what we are doing is creating a new duty and applying it in a commonsense way that reflects the reality of the schools. The reality of the schools is that they need to know that their local authorities are planning in such a way that they, as schools, can deliver. That means knowing the cost of what it is they are planning to do. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, clearly I did not persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in Committee or on Report of the Government's case on this important issue. I will strive to do so today by indicating that she upbraided me for saying that the amendments would create a barrier.

1335
Our problem with the amendments is straightforward. We were concerned that the amendments would offer an excuse to some LEAs and schools not to act. They could blame their lack of action or will on the fact that the Government had not made a direct payment to them to carry out the work. That would undercut the planning duty and work against the inclusion of disabled children in schools, which is the whole basis of the Bill before the House.
We have said a number of times that we want LEAs and schools to plan for increasing access to schools for disabled children and to implement those plans. But we have been realistic. We require LEAs and schools to plan to improve access over time and from within the resources available to them. That is surely the best way of securing access to schools for disabled children in a way which meets the recommendation of the Disability Rights Task Force.
LEAs and schools have a number of sources of funding available to them and it is from within the total funding available to them that they should plan. As was said on Report, and as has been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, who graphically recounted the precise sum, we are making available £220 million through the Schools Access Initiative for improving access to maintained schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, seemed somewhat unimpressed by that sum. But we had no complaints from schools, LEAs, the lobby or their representatives. In fact, the level of our commitment has been warmly welcomed by all in the field. I must point out also that this money will be used strategically by LEAs in partnership with their schools—the burden of part of the noble Baroness's representation was that schools needed to know that the local authority was planning intelligently, sensibly and creating the opportunities for them to meet requirements.
It is not the case that every school will receive a share of the money, regardless of need; it will depend on the plans that they put forward. For example, LEAs might plan each year to adapt another school in a particular area to allow children with a range of disabilities to attend; or they might adapt all their schools for a particular disability; or they might choose one of those approaches and also give themselves the flexibility to respond to emergencies; for example, when a child becomes disabled while at school and wishes to remain at their present school. They may decide to carry out access work on the back of other refurbishment at a school. That is a matter for each area and not for prescription.
It is wrong to say that LEAs cannot plan without first having the money in the bank. The Government are the first to have given LEAs notice of their future allocations. When we announce the breakdown of the £50 million School Access Initiative for 2001–02 later this month, we will give LEAs information about how we will allocate the grant for the subsequent two years when £70 million and £100 million become available. That will give LEAs an unprecedented forward view of the resources that they have to spend on access to their schools.
1336
I understand that some will regard that amount as being inadequate. It cannot be adequate because the needs are enormous, and we all recognise that. But it is a clear basis upon which local authorities and schools can intelligently plan their improved access. We believe our planning duty will improve access by disabled children in every sector of schools education, and it will do so in a manageable way. That is the basis on which I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not the first time, either today or on other occasions when we have been discussing this Bill, that the noble Lord ascribes to my amendments something which is not there.
First, in answer to my question on barriers, it was said that it would give the LEAs an excuse not to act. But they have no excuse not to act; they have a legal obligation to act. This Bill puts the LEAs under an obligation in law to produce plans. In fact Clause 14(4) also says that those plans will be inspected to monitor the degree to which they meet that obligation under the law. So there is no hiding place for LEAs in that respect and nothing in my amendment which will allow them to ignore their duty to provide an accessibility plan.
Secondly, accessibility is not only about ramps and means of accessing a building; if we accept the previous amendments, it is also about access to the curriculum and support staff. I have two points to make on that. The first is that paragraph 141 of the financial appraisal actually says that the special educational needs provisions of this Bill will have few manpower implications. So the Government already envisage that there will be practically no manpower implications.
I would argue that for children to be moved into mainstream schools they will need physical as well as financial support; they will need support staff; but there is no mention of that in the Bill. My noble friend asked the question in written form. He received a Written Answer. But the question still has not been fully answered. I ask formally at this Dispatch Box for the Minister to write to me, as the Opposition spokesman, with an estimate of the manpower implications of implementing the Bill. The plans will have to include the manpower implications.
The other point raised by the noble Lord is that LEAs will be given a period of time over which to achieve the plans. I accept that. That is what the Bill proposes. But the time is prescribed. At this moment LEAs have no idea what that prescription will be. I imagine that it will come from Whitehall and will therefore be Whitehall's view as to how long a school and an LEA will need to plan.
The noble Lord said that I am not impressed by additional resources. I have not said that at any stage of this Bill. I simply say that the noble Lord continually uses the extra finance as a defence. But he says it will not be spent on manpower because there are no manpower implications for meeting the special educational needs provisions in the Bill.

1337
The noble Lord also talks about forward information to local authorities so that they will know on a school by school basis the precise sums of money they are to receive over the next two years. This is money that has been announced a number of times already and I have read all the information that went with each announcement. My understanding is that those announcements refer to physical alterations to buildings which will allow more access to people with special educational needs, particularly those with physical disabilities. So again I return to the point on manpower.
It was not a satisfactory answer. The plans should be costed in the interests of the LEAs themselves and certainly in the interests of the schools. It is in the interests of government to know what they want to happen at the community level for young people with special educational needs. Because the Government have set their face against the plans being costed, I believe that they are in the business of raising the hopes of young people, possibly only to be dashed because they cannot be realised. But I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 12, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 13 and insert ("must prepare—

(a) an accessibility plan;

(b) further such plans at such times as may be prescribed.

( ) An accessibility plan is a plan for, over a prescribed period—

(a) increasing the extent to which disabled pupils can participate in the school's curriculum;

(b) improving the physical environment of the school for the purpose of increasing the extent to which disabled pupils are able to take advantage of education and associated services provided or offered by the school; and

(c) improving the delivery to disabled pupils—

(i) within a reasonable time, and

(ii) in ways which are determined after taking account of their disabilities and any preferences expressed by them or their parents, of information which is provided in writing for pupils who are not disabled.

( ) An accessibility plan must be in writing.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 17, line 22, leave out from ("relates;") to end of line 24 and insert—
("(b) includes the ability to order appropriate compensation in relation to the scale and type of discrimination proven."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be brief. The idea was put forward that the ultimate form of compensation should not be allowed to those who are discriminated against within the school system. I do not agree.
When looking at the amendments on the Marshalled List I feel that Amendment No. 27 is slightly more appropriate to this point than my Amendment No. 26. I shall therefore give the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, my full support and curtail my remarks at this time. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who has been helpful on this issue. Perhaps I may remind the House that the original amendment was for financial compensation in addition to the educational remedy. Because I always try to oblige my noble friend the Minister, and lean over backwards to oblige her, I have narrowed it down so that now it merely asks for financial compensation to be paid in exceptional circumstances; in other words, when there is no educational remedy available.
My noble friend's response on Report was uncharacteristically feeble. I was astonished that she put it forward. I am hoping for a different response this evening. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Wilkins for moving my amendment, as I was unwell at that time. However, I am not grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who exaggerated some points and ignored others. She said that allowing for financial compensation would fatally undermine the ability of the tribunal to continue successfully. That is a tremendous charge. To fatally undermine a tribunal means to destroy it. That is what my noble friend claimed on Report.
Here we have a case where the tribunal awards a few thousand pounds to a disabled child because it suffered discrimination. The self-destruct button is pressed and the tribunal goes up in flames because it is fatally undermined, according to my noble friend. That is the end of the tribunal system. Does my noble friend really believe that payments or financial compensation in exceptional circumstances, a limited number, would fatally undermine the tribunals I do not believe that. If she does, she should tell us what she thinks about the other tribunals which give awards without fatal consequences.
She put forward another argument on Report, in that there would be a tendency to focus on the financial remedy, rather than the educational one, But in virtually all the cases, it is only when the educational remedy is not possible that financial compensation will be considered. So that point has no real substance. Surely, the focus should be on the discrimination or the alleged discrimination. If that is proved, it is up to the tribunal to decide the appropriate remedy. If my noble friend really envisages parents rejecting an educational remedy and wanting cash, I put it to her that it would be bizarre for them to debate the type of remedy that they want. 'That is a matter entirely for the tribunal.

1339
As to my noble friend ignoring some of the points, nowhere has she responded to repeated questions from noble Lords as to why there should be different policies for students and schoolchildren. I shall listen eagerly tonight in case she has simply forgotten those questions. But she also ignored the question of human rights. She claims that there would be few cases where the educational remedy is not possible for individual children. So, my noble friend acknowledges that there will be some cases. That is an important admission. We have been saying all along that there will be a number of cases where it is not possible to prescribe the educational remedy. Although that will concern only a few children, what about their human rights? Is my noble friend seriously suggesting that because there are only a few of them, we flout their human rights? If she is on that tack, I am afraid that she is sadly mistaken.
It is probable that there will be human rights cases concerning some of those children. If a case is brought in future, as it will be, and is lost by the Government, what will my noble friend do then? She is ignoring those questions but she cannot ignore a judge's ruling. I think that new legislation will be urgently required when that human rights decision is made because the current wording is specific. That leaves the Government up a gum tree. If they do not accept the amendment, they will be in trouble in future. As usual, I am trying to help my noble friend and save a lot of trouble. I hope that she appreciates that.
I apologise for speaking for so long. My final point is made in the interests of flexibility. I suggest that the ability to pay financial compensation in the few cases I mention should be a matter for regulation and not on the face of the Bill. That degree of flexibility would help the Government and the children. I therefore commend the amendment.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke put the argument comprehensively. I warmly support the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 28, which is a slightly different amendment. I do so on behalf of the Special Educational Consortium, which put it forward. On the last occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, spoke to the amendment. However, on Tuesday afternoon when time was getting late she could not be found and I was asked to table it at the behest of the SEC.
The aim of tabling the amendment again is to try to tease out further the response given by the Minister on Report. The remedy available under the SEN and Disability Rights Tribunal could include taking account of personal hurt or experiences denied to a child who has been discriminated against or deciding on any changes that may be needed in the accessibility strategies and plans. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the discrimination does not happen again.
1340
On Report, the Minister gave further reassurances that although the SEN and Disability Rights Tribunal had no power to order alterations to accessibility strategies and plans, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales would have the power to call in an LEA's strategy or a school's plan and ultimately direct it to take the necessary action if it were acting unreasonably and had not carried out its duties. If necessary, it would be able to apply to the court for a mandatory order to enforce its directions. She also made it clear that Ofsted and the DRC would have a role in that.
The Special Educational Consortium welcomed the reassurances but was concerned as to how the Secretary of State would come to hear of the inadequacies in the plans and strategies that would rectify individual instances of unlawful discrimination. Would it be left to individual parents to write to the Secretary of State or to the National Assembly following a successful appeal to the SEN and Disability Tribunal?
How would such a referral from the tribunal be made where it considers that there is an instance of unlawful discrimination? Would that be a referral to the Secretary of State? Would the Secretary of State refer it on to Ofsted and the Disability Rights Commission? In sum, how would the communication work between the different parties with responsibility and oversight for those actions? We would be grateful for further clarification.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly return to the subject of compensation. I need to persist in my fear that one exceptional circumstance can only possibly be dealt with financially. I refer to the situation in which a child has already been removed from a school. In that circumstance there is no educational remedy. I believe that a financial remedy is probably the only one available.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall disappoint my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke. We still believe that practical and educational remedies are the best form of redress for disability discrimination in schools. School-based education is the bedrock of what we do in later life, so it is vital that any educational problems are put right. Disabled pupils in schools are not being offered a second-best form of redress, and they are not being treated worse than disabled pupils and students in further, higher or adult education; they are just being treated differently.
My noble friend asked for the reasons for that different treatment. We have taken an institutional approach to disability duties. The nature of the relationship between a pupil and his or her school and that of a student and his or her college are rather different. Schools have a SEN framework that provides for special educational needs. Colleges have no such formal framework. Therefore, the disability provisions must provide relatively greater protection. There is no SEN tribunal operating as far as the post-school sector is concerned.

1341
As I explained on Report, we believe that allowing for the possibility of financial compensation, even in exceptional circumstances, would undermine the ability of the tribunal to operate as successfully in disability cases as it has done in SEN cases. My noble friend Lord Ashley will perhaps note that I am not using the word "fatally" this time; I am simply saying that it would undermine it. Perhaps I went a little too far on the previous occasion. If financial compensation were available in addition to other remedies, the tendency would be to focus on the financial rather than the educational remedy and make less likely any positive change to the child's educational experience.
Where discrimination occurs in a school setting, we agree that there must be an appropriate remedy which takes account of the discriminatory behaviour. But there is another consideration—how best to ensure that people will seek that remedy. The importance of school education is such that the forum in which the remedy is to be sought must be one in which parents feel empowered to exercise their rights to challenge discrimination. Discrimination is destructive whenever it happens, but the repercussions of discrimination suffered whilst at school may last a lifetime. We must ensure that parents feel able to seek a remedy for their child. That is a necessary precursor to obtaining the remedy.
As I have said before, we want to make sure that the informality and user-friendliness of the tribunal is preserved. Giving the tribunal the power to award any kind of financial compensation would threaten to overturn the concept of the tribunal being user-friendly and being informal. Educational remedies will ensure that the money spent by LEAs and schools will go to benefit the child in the best possible way by directly improving his or her educational experience.
There will be very few cases where no educational remedy for the individual child is possible. But even in these cases, the tribunal can acknowledge their experience by making a declaration that unlawful discrimination has occurred—I hope that responds to the noble Earl—and direct an apology and a change to policies, practices and procedures to ensure that the school or the LEA does not discriminate in that way again. Children who have been discriminated against have said to me and to others that they want two things: first, an apology, and the Bill allows for that; and, secondly, they are concerned that the discrimination should not happen again. The Bill also allows for that.
I turn to Amendment No. 28. The first two factors that the amendment seeks to insert are matters for which the Bill already provides. The third factor is different. The tribunal will not have the power to order LEAs or schools to make changes to their strategies and plans. The tribunal operates in a child-centred and informal way, and asking it to review the operation of a strategic duty, such as the duty to plan, would sit badly with this.
1342
There are three mechanisms that relate either to the enforcement or to the monitoring of the planning duty. I hope this answers the question of the noble Baroness. First, enforcement of the duty to plan will, in the first instance, be by the Secretary of State in relation to England, and the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Wales. The Secretary of State or the National Assembly will have the power to call in an LEA's strategy or a school's plan and will ultimately direct it to take the necessary action if it is acting unreasonably or has not carried out its duties. If necessary, they will be able to apply to the court for a mandatory order to enforce their directions.
The noble Baroness wondered who might refer cases to the Secretary of State. Parents and others can look at the plan and complain directly to the Secretary of State. The DRC could decide to carry out an investigation. Plans will be monitored by the department. Therefore, the Secretary of State's attention could also be drawn to deficient plans by officials.
Secondly, the Ofsted and other relevant inspection frameworks for LEAs and schools will form another layer of monitoring the duty.
Thirdly, the DRC will have a role in monitoring the duty too. As I have just mentioned, it could, if it thought fit, conduct a general investigation in to the operation of the duty which could lead to recommendations for change.
I hope that what I have said will persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps she could comment on the human rights point.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the legal advice I have had is that there is no human rights problem here.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, when I was brought up as a beautiful innocent choir boy, I was always taught that only the good Lord was infallible. Tonight my noble friend has proved that she is as fallible as the rest of us. I am sorry that she has not seen fit to accept this very constructive amendment. However, I am glad that she has seen the error of her ways and removed the word "fatally". That was very wise indeed. I am sorry that my noble friend opposed the amendment. I wish her God's speed with the clause and, indeed, with the Bill.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Clause 22 [Roles of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 31:
Page 20, line 35, leave out ("in the exercise of a power conferred, or").
Page 20, line 41, leave out ("the exercise of the power or").
Page 21, line 14, leave out ("the exercise of the power, or").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25 [Interpretation]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 24, line 2, at end insert ("; and
( ) in relation to Scotland, has the meaning given in section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Meaning of "discrimination"]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 26, line 41, after ("know") insert ("(and had allowed for disclosure by the student, parent or guardian)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to disclosure, a subject that we have dealt with on and off. Previously, when I moved the amendment, I agreed that there was an amendment regarding the school system which was getting in the way. That allowed for slightly different circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 allow for adults in the further and higher education sectors. We should look at these issues by themselves. The amendments refer to adults and to the situation where an opportunity has to be given to inform those sectors so that plans that help can be implemented. Before, we heard the Minister helpfully say that there will be implementation policies. Such policies will not extend to the support structures in the case of higher education. The plans have to be implemented for students, individuals and adults in their own right. I suggest that the Minister should look at the matter again. That will ultimately save time and save people running around and desperately trying to chase the right help and support. That is surely what it is all about. I beg to move.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, my noble friend will have heard my comments in Committee and on Report endorsing what the noble Lord has just said. He has been very constructive and helpful on the Bill and I hope that my noble friend will accept the argument this time.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has said.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the amendments seek to provide that an institution must have allowed disclosure before it can be deemed not to be liable under either the less favourable treatment duty or the reasonable adjustment duty because it does not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known
1344
of a person's disability. I am very sympathetic to the intention of the amendments, but I believe that they are unnecessary.
A post-16 provider would only be able to rely on the defence which the clause provides if it did what could reasonably be expected of it to acquaint itself with whether or not its students and prospective students have a disability.
Most colleges and universities should have, and indeed already do have, procedures in place to try and ascertain if a student or prospective student has any disabilities or requirements. In many instances there are opportunities on the admissions form, such as a tick-box or at the admissions interview, to declare a disability or the need for extra support. This self-identification can then form the basis for a discussion with a student as regards his or her needs and how they will be met.
I am happy to endorse such practices and to state our expectation that they should become universal. I accept the view expressed by the noble Lord that they are not universal at present and that more could be done. We would like the Disability Rights Commission to include relevant examples of good practice in the code. However, we should also look beyond the effects of this Act. To that end, I am now making a commitment that my department will commission good practice guidance to post-16 providers on what steps to take to ascertain the disabilities of their students. We shall involve bodies with expertise in this area in the drawing up of such guidance and seek to ensure that it is widely disseminated, including through relevant guidance produced by other appropriate bodies. I am convinced that we do not need to make a specific provision on the face of the Bill, although I should like to reiterate that we want institutions to take this responsibility seriously.
In the light of what I have proposed, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, although that response might not represent route A, route B can often get one to the destination. I believe that the noble Baroness has suggested route B, and that possibly even route C will be open to us. We shall have to monitor these procedures to ensure that they are undertaken properly but, realistically, we have progressed as far as we can as regards this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Disabled students not to be substantially disadvantaged]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 28, line 1, leave out from ("(1),") to end of line 20 and insert ("a responsible body must have regard to any relevant provisions of a code of practice issued under section 53A").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 28, line 30, leave out from ("disabled") to end of line and insert ("person, which asks for the nature, or asks for the existence. of his disability to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Right of redress]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No 38:
Page 29, line 35, leave out ("(as the case may be)") and insert ("(in Scotland)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall begin by saying that I am most grateful for the correspondence I have received from the Minister in connection with my amendments, generated in Scotland. I am always interested in the ways in which this Parliament legislates for Scotland within the reserved powers. To that end, I seek to improve the clarity surrounding such legislation.
Amendment No. 38 has been retabled in response to our debate in Grand Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, gave me some hope that it might be accepted. Since then, the noble Baroness has written to me explaining why the words, "as the case may be" are more appropriate than my amending words, "in Scotland". The noble Baroness stated that there will be "no ambiguity" about the powers of which courts are being described. She is correct, at least in the mind of a constitutionally well-informed reader. However, I would respond by insisting that it would be more helpful to general readers to insert the words "in Scotland".
It is likely that a Scottish reader would recognise the term "Court of Session" to describe the highest civil court in Scotland and would not confuse it with the High Court of Justiciary. However, although the use of the term, "High Court" is meaningful to English and Welsh readers, the use of "Court of Session" may not be so. Rather than use the unhelpful phrase, "as the case may be", why will not the Minister adopt the term, "in Scotland"? It would ensure absolute clarity.
The term has been used earlier in the Bill, specifically in Clause 30(1) at line 23. Here the words have been used to differentiate legal terminology used in the two distinct legal systems:
"claim in tort or (in Scotland) in reparation for breach of statutory duty".
I hope that the Minister will relent for the sake of clarity.
Further amendments tabled in my name have been grouped with Amendment No. 38. Amendments Nos. 40 and 42 return us to the question of how the codes of practice will be written. I fully accept that the Disability Rights Commission will write the codes of practice for schools and, separately, those for universities and colleges. At the end of our earlier debate, I expressed the view that there should be separate chapters for the three countries in both of the codes of practice for the purpose of ensuring that a
1346
coherent description of the new anti-discrimination procedures will be fully understood in the context and the terminology of the three systems of education.
I am anxious about the composition of the working groups charged with drawing up the codes within the DRC. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be a separate Scottish working group rather than merely a couple of Scots tacked on to the English and Welsh working group? Furthermore, I hope that the working group will be instructed to write in the codes separate chapters covering Scotland.
I shall not move Amendment No. 41, which has been included in this grouping.
Finally, I shall turn to Amendment No. 44. First, I must confess to an error in the text. The amendment should refer to Sections 14 and 15. I apologise to the House that this amendment was not correctly retabled, but I hope that we shall be able to discuss the principle.
The amendment returns us to an earlier debate in Grand Committee concerning whether it would be a good idea to make clear on the face of the Bill the fact that Sections 14 and 15, which impose a duty to plan ahead for accessibility, do not apply in Scotland. I contend that it makes good sense to ensure that the reader is absolutely clear about the status of Sections 14 and 15. At present they apply only to England and Wales, but they lie marooned in a sea of United Kingdom legislation.
When replying to this amendment in Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, was at pains to point out that it was clear from the content and context of the sections that they could apply only to England and Wales. I can accept that argument as being technically correct, but it is far too obscure. A similar argument was advanced as regards Part I of the Bill; that is, that it can apply only to England and Wales because it amends England and Wales education Acts. I can accept that explanation as being technically correct but, once again, it is obscure.
I have limited experience of the subtleties of legislation, but the position is now clear because the Minister has explained it to me. However, not only do most people not have much experience of reading legislation, the Bill is obscure as regards the legislative task that appears to await the Scottish Parliament, should it wish to legislate for such a planning duty—although so far the Scottish Executive has not committed itself. The only way that a citizen would know that Sections 14 and 15 do not apply to Scotland would be by having an in-depth knowledge of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 and thus being able to determine that education is not one of the many areas reserved for the United Kingdom Parliament. Furthermore, an in-depth knowledge of education Acts would also be necessary.
Why do not Ministers want people in Scotland to be able to understand easily and accurately this piece of United Kingdom legislation? What advantage could possibly be gained by denying this straightforward clarification? I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I say that I warmly support Amendment No. 38? The words "as the case may be" leaves the matter a little obscure. Obviously, Scotland should be referred to, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is correct in moving his amendment, which I hope the Government will accept. The noble Earl has also tabled Amendments Nos. 40 and 42, and I hope that the Government will consider them sympathetically.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, first, because he has made a powerful case and, secondly, because those who have to read the legalese are left in great confusion about what does and what does not apply to Scotland. As the noble Earl said, people need to have an acute knowledge of the small print of the schedules before the matter makes any sense. His points on Clauses 14 and 15 were well made, and would make explicit what does and what does not apply in Scotland.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for the considerate way in which he spoke to his amendments. I remember that he exercised a self-denying audience one early morning, for which all noble Lords were duly grateful. He certainly deserves as full a response to his amendments as I can give. My noble friend wrote to him about Amendment No. 38, following the Committee stage.
The phrase "as the case may be" is in the Disability Discrimination Act, which is why it has been replicated in the Bill. I understand the point made by the noble Earl that things could be made a little clearer by referring specifically to Scotland. We have been guided by the Disability Discrimination Act, and there is a general presumption in statutory construction that Acts passed by the United Kingdom Parliament are intended to extend to the whole of the UK, unless there is an express or implied provision that part of the UK is to be excluded. Clearly, Scotland is not intended to be excluded from this legislation, which is why the phrase appears in the Bill in that way. I respect the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the amendment. He may be suggesting that the phrase is perhaps a little less felicitous than it might be.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, may I say that the Disability Discrimination Act was passed in 1995, which preceded devolution.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, indeed it did, but we have followed the phraseology of the Disability Discrimination Act in this Bill because it relates to the main principles behind that Act, in so far as it refers to education.
Remedies in cases of alleged discrimination on grounds of disability should be available in the Court of Session in Scotland and in the High Court in England and Wales. The amendment is intended to remove a supposed ambiguity in the reference to the "High Court" on the grounds that such a court also
1348
exists in Scotland. However, we do not think that there is a possibility of confusion. The High Court in Scotland is the nation's supreme criminal court, and does not hear civil actions. On the other hand, the Court of Session is concerned only with civil proceedings, such as may arise out of the provisions of Clause 30 of the Bill. The term "Court of Session" is specific to the Scottish legal system, rendering the possibility of anyone being misled even more unlikely.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 40 and 42, the Bill already confers power on the Disability Rights Commission to produce either Great Britain-wide codes, separate codes for England and Wales and for Scotland, or Great Britain-wide codes with separate chapters for Scotland. Disability discrimination legislation in education is new, so we need flexibility to ensure that we can pursue the option that will give the most sensible and effective result. However, as I explained in Committee, our present intention is to have two Great Britain wide codes, with one covering schools duties and the other covering post-16 duties.
The codes will underpin Great Britain-wide legislation. While the education and legal systems in which the new duties apply are different, the duties themselves will be the same.
I do not think that there is a fundamental difference between us. We both want codes that are relevant and which can easily be understood by users. However, there is a difference as to the best starting point to enable us to achieve this. A separate Scottish code would not be substantively different in legal terms from an England and Wales code. Therefore, we think that the best way to ensure the necessary coherence is to begin with codes for Great Britain. I know that the Minister for Disabled People has recently met with the lobby group, Children in Scotland, and others to discuss that point and that they were reassured about our intentions. I understand that Children in Scotland was particularly attracted to the possibility of having Scottish chapters in a Great Britain code.
The noble Earl also asked about the preparation of these codes. The DRC is a Great Britain-wide body with a commissioner appointed specifically to represent Scottish interests. We have asked the DRC to consider how to ensure that the codes are made relevant to users in different educational systems. That might include the language used and the choice of examples. Experts in Scotland will certainly be on the drafting groups for both codes. My experience of Scottish contributions to any deliberations is that they are never sold short in their presentation of the needs of that country. There will be a Great Britain-wide consultation on the draft codes.
We do not rule out the possibility that the DRC might produce separate codes for Scotland, or that Great Britain codes might include separate chapters for Scotland. The need for that will emerge as part of the drafting process. We want to retain the flexibility that exists in the Bill to allow us to consider the most sensible option.

1349
Turning to Amendment No. 44, I fully understand its intention. The noble Earl was extremely articulate in Committee about the necessity for it, and I responded to his representations at the time. Of course, we considered his further representations very carefully, but we do not accept that the amendment is necessary. The extent of the various provisions in the Bill is entirely clear. On the basis of my explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full reply and the support given to my amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Renton and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
I received the answers that I expected, and I am sure that the Minister is technically correct. It is true that the term "Court of Session" is well known. It is not only pre-devolution, but pre-Union. I am weakly reassured about the Scottish element in the codes of practice. I fully take the point that the duties will be the same, but they need to be expressed in a Scottish context. Again, I am weakly reassured that there will be Scots in the drafting groups. These codes of practice will eventually come before us for approval, so we shall have the opportunity to say what we think about the handiwork of the DRC.
With regard to Amendment No. 44, I conclude by saying that the struggle for clarity in reserved powers legislation must go on. The Minister is undoubtedly technically correct but not clear. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Occupation of premises by educational institutions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 39:
Leave out Clause 31.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, government Ministers and noble Lords will know that I have some reservations about this clause. I was not involved in the detailed discussions on the Disability Discrimination Act nor the detailed discussions on this particular part of the Bill. Nevertheless, I remain concerned.
The clause allows for owners of buildings which are let for educational purposes to be compelled to make alterations to their buildings, even in situations where they disagree and, for one reason or another, do not want to make those alterations. Many defences are available but they are somewhat obscure as they are spelt out in legislation.
The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me on this issue and she even included some of the extracts from the Disability Discrimination Act code. I have one or two questions on that.
In the noble Baroness's letter, there is the following sentence:
"Guidance contained in the existing Code of Practice on Part II of the DDA makes it clear that it would almost certainly be reasonable for the landlord of a building to withhold his consent to a particular adjustment which was likely to result in a substantial permanent reduction in the value of the landlord's interest in the premises".
Some five years on, we should have some knowledge of the working of the Act. In the light of that, what is "substantial", how is it judged and who makes that judgment?
I turn to the code itself. Paragraph 4.37 deals with the need to obtain statutory consent for some building changes. It states:
"Employers might have to obtain statutory consent before making adjustments involving changes to premises. Such consents include planning permission, listed building consent, scheduled monument consent and lire regulations approval. The Act does not override the need to obtain such consents … Therefore, an employer does not have to make an adjustment if it requires a statutory consent which has not been given".
Is there a statutory obligation on the owner of the property to seek such consent?
My final point is on the final paragraph of the noble Baroness's letter. She said:
"You also asked whether the existing provisions of the DDA cover only minor alterations",
and then there is a full stop in the letter, which is the point of my question because the next sentence says:
"The answer is that these provisions are not so limited".
Does "these provisions" refer to the provisions of the DDA act or the provisions of this Bill'? In other words, was I right in my assumption that the DDA act deals with only minor alterations and the provisions of this legislation deal with both minor and major alterations? I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this Bill consists rnainly of legislation by reference to previous legislation. It is an amending Bill on a large scale. I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Blatch. However, I make an impassioned plea to the Government that when this Bill has reached the statute book, efforts will be made as soon as possible to consolidate all this important legislation.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness is still not quite satisfied with my responses. As I explained on Report and in my letters, Section 28W in Clause 31 is essential to ensure that a provider of post-16 education cannot use the fact that a building is leased as an excuse not to make reasonable adjustments. Without this clause, the physical adjustment duty really would be very much weaker. As regards leasehold premises, the provisions in new Section 28W mirror those contained in Parts II and III of the DDA.
During our discussions on Report, the noble Baroness was particularly concerned that the provisions in Clause 31 would allow a college to make major changes to the structure of a leased building; for example, the major strengthening of floors or the

1351
removal of Victorian architectural features. As I explained subsection (2)(c) of new Section 28W allows for a landlord to withhold his consent to the proposed alteration if it is reasonable for him to do so.
The existing code of practice on Part II of the DDA includes guidance which makes it clear that it would almost certainly be reasonable for the landlord of a building to withhold his consent where it was likely to result in a substantial permanent reduction in the value of the landlord's interest.
I know that the noble Baroness is concerned to know how that provision has operated under the DDA. I am afraid that I cannot provide her with very much information about that but I am happy to write to her about it.
The code also clearly states that where a particular adjustment would cause considerable disruption or inconvenience to other tenants, the landlord would be likely to be acting reasonably in withholding consent. We expect the DRC to want to follow the guidance which it has already given in the Part II code when preparing the new disability code of practice.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the existing provisions of the DDA cover only minor alterations. The existing provisions are not limited to minor alterations.
As I have tried to make clear, whether consent can be withheld or whether conditions can be imposed where consent is given are governed under the existing DDA provisions by the test of reasonableness. I hope that all the detailed information that I have provided here will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. However, I shall write to her about that issue to which I do not have an answer.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should be grateful for a fuller written response to those questions which have not been answered. But "these provisions" being more limited refers to the provisions of the DDA as opposed to those contained in this legislation. They are mirrored and there is no distinction between the two. Secondly, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness will also cover in the letter whether there is a statutory obligation to seek consent. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Codes of practice]:
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 42 not moved.]
Clause 43 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 36, line 2, leave out ("14") and insert ("14(3)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Amendment to Statement of Special Educational Needs]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 63:
Page 38, line 10. at end insert—
(""amendment notice" has the meaning given in paragraph 2A:").
Page 38, line 11, leave out from ("324") to end of line 13.
Page 38, leave out lines 21 to 23.
Page 38, line 24, leave out ("sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) are") and insert ("that is").
Page 38, line 26, leave out ("or amended statement").
Page 38, line 29, leave out from ("statement") to end of line 31.
Page 38, line 32, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("section 324(4)").
Page 38, line 33, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 34 and insert—
("Amendments to a statement
2A.—(1) A local education authority shall not amend a statement except—

(a) in compliance with an order of the Tribunal.

(b) as directed by the Secretary of State under section 442(4), or

(c) in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Schedule.

(2) If, following a re-assessment review, a local education authority propose to amend a statement, they shall serve on the parent of the child concerned a copy of the proposed amended statement.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) of paragraph 2 apply to a copy of a proposed amended statement served under sub-paragraph (2) as they apply to a copy of a proposed statement served under paragraph 2(1).
(4) If, following a periodic review, a local education authority propose to amend a statement, they shall serve on the parent of the child concerned—

(a) a copy of the existing statement: and

(b) an amendment notice.

(5) If, at any other time, a local education authority propose to amend a statement, they shall proceed as if the proposed amendment were an amendment proposed after a periodic review.
(6) An amendment notice is a notice in writing giving details of the amendments to the statement proposed by the authority.
Provision of additional information
2B.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies when a local education authority serve on a parent—

(a) a copy of a proposed statement under paragraph 2,

(b) a copy of a proposed amended statement under paragraph 2A, or

(c) an amendment notice under paragraph 2A. (2)").

Page 38, line 39, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(2)").
Page 39, line 2, leave out from ("under") to ("which") in line 4 and insert ("paragraph 2A, or
( ) on whom an amendment notice has been served under paragraph 2A").
Page 39, line 4, leave out ("the name of a school") and insert ("—

(i) the type or name of a school or institution, or

(ii) the provision made for the child concerned under arrangements made under section 319,").

Page 39, line 7, leave out ("2(6)") and insert ("2B").
Page 39, line 21, after second ("statement") and insert (", or of the existing statement and of the amendment notice,").
Page 39, line 31, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) after "paragraph 2" insert ", or on whom a proposed amended statement or an amendment notice has been served under paragraph 2A,";").
Page 39, line 33, leave out ("amended statement") and insert ("the statement as it will have effect if amended in the way proposed by the authority").
Page 39, line 39, leave out ("2(6)") and insert ("2B").
Page 39, line 44, after ("statement") insert ("following service of a proposed amended statement under paragraph 2A").
Page 39, line 46, at end insert—
("(2B) If a local education authority amend a statement following service of an amendment notice, the amendments may be those proposed in the notice or amendments modified in the light of the representations."").
Page 40, line 36, leave out ("2(2)") and insert ("2A").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 66:
Page 52, leave out line 2 and insert—
(" 14.—(1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 26 (manner and timing of assessments under section 323) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2), for "paragraph 10" substitute "paragraph 2A".
(3) For sub-paragraphs (3) and (4)").
Page 52, line 22, at end insert—
("School attendance orders: amendment of statement of special educational needs
.—(1) Section 441 (amendment of statement on service of school attendance order) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)(a), omit "in accordance with paragraph 10 of Schedule 27".
(3) After that subsection, insert—
"(3A) An amendment to a statement required to be made under subsection (3)(a) shall be treated for the purposes of Schedule 27 as if it were an amendment proposed following a periodic review (within the meaning of that Schedule)."").
Page 53, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) In Schedule 30 (minor and consequential amendments), omit paragraph 186(2)(b).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 67 and 68:
Page 54, line 9, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 441(3)(a), the words "in accordance with paragraph 10 of Schedule 27".")

Page 54, line 25. column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 30, paragraph 186(2)(b).")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

House of Commons (Removal of 'Clergy Disqualification) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Private Security Industry Bill [H.L.]
7.49 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Security Industry Authority]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("and to consult representatives of the security industry")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, with which it is suggested that we should discuss also Nos. 2, 2A and 12. These amendments seek in different ways to put into the Bill a requirement that the security industry authority, when set up, should have an obligation to consult the industry. They seek to insert the requirement into Clauses 1 and 6.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2A make it a general requirement, as one of the functions of the new authority, that it should consult. Amendment No. 2 provides specially for consultation when the authority is using its power to make representations and proposals for the improvement of standards in the industry and so on. Amendment No. 12 contains a specific requirement that it should consult when dealing with and publishing the licensing criteria. This is a vital matter, about which we have not heard very much so far.
In fact, the specific question of consultation has been the one that has been most raised, to us at any rate, by representatives of the industry. That is not surprising. The Bill is very complex and it covers an extremely wide area: the licensing of guards, night watchmen, commissionaires, night club bouncers, private detectives, investigators, wheel dampers and so on. Many different sorts of people will be covered by the licensing regime, and it is difficult to see how the

1355
authority will be able to have among its members representatives of each of these sections of the security industry, as well as independents. I think this is fully recognised. There is also a general assumption that it should have representatives of the police, who are much involved in all this. Local government also wants to be represented regarding its own responsibilities, and many people want consumers also to be represented.
On St. David's day I think it is appropriate to say that the Welsh will surely want to have some representatives on the authority because Wales is included as well as England. Fortunately, Scotland is not involved and so it would not be included in this particular matter. It is right for the authority to have as members all these representatives, which is why the various bodies concerned are keen to be consulted and feel that there should be this obligation written into the Bill.
There is a second point, which is that the Bill leaves an awful lot fairly vague. There is nothing in the Bill about the criteria. There are some general remarks about "fit and proper persons" and that sort of thing, but there is nothing at all that is specific. Many things are being left to regulations and future decisions, either by the Secretary of State, with order-making powers and so on to bring before Parliament, or for the authority to bring forward itself. Of course we are assuming that no criminals need apply, but there is not much to go on beyond that. We do not know what sorts of directions the Secretary of State will make; but we will touch on that matter in later amendments.
We do not know who the Secretary of State will leave out of these licensing requirements under Clause 4. He has the power to leave out whole varieties of people from these and other arrangements. The terms of the licence are also left to future decision. We do not know what fees will be charged, except that the suggested amount has already been trebled by the Government and there is nervousness on that account. Some of these matters will be for decision by the Secretary of State and incorporated into regulations and orders that will come before Parliament under the negative procedure. However, others will not; and so consultation will be required.
The British Security Industry Association is concerned about the consultation. Indeed, it is more than keen to ensure that there is consultation on the matters to be decided by the Secretary of State because it hopes to be represented on the authority, I suppose. Of course there are numerous other bodies but they cannot all be represented on the authority. There is a Joint Security Industry Council and there has recently been set up, with the blessing of the Minister concerned, Charles Clarke, a National Security Inspectorate.
We all know that there are people in the Civil Service who are very secretive about what they are doing. The fear is that if there is no statutory requirement to consult such as would be inserted by these amendments, they might advise that there is no need for consultation and that it would best be avoided.
1356
There is also nervousness on the part of some people who wonder whether they will be allowed to contribute to the consultation. I have had a note from the Association of British Investigators, a professional body, and also from the Institute of Professional Investigators, which is essentially a standard-setting body. They had attempted to feed in their thoughts on these matters and Mr. Clarke said that he was not prepared to talk to two bodies in this field. He said that they really ought to come together. Certainly there are strong links between them but they have slightly separate roles. They are now nervous about not being consulted in the future if they are not consulted now.
Amendment No. 2A is a slightly more elaborate formulation: it is really a variation of Amendment No. 1. It provides in the first place for regular consultation with the industry and its stakeholders: we are not thinking solely of the directors. The word "stakeholders" is not actually defined but we know what is meant. It includes others within the industry, and they believe this would help to achieve the maximum consensus in the work of the authority. That would include, of course, the matters covered by Amendment No. 2: that is to say, proposing amendments to the law and also conducting research within the industry.
Amendment No. 2A also provides that there should be a duty to promote the best practice within the industry. I believe everyone wants the authority to set the tone, as it were, for the industry and to work to improve standards within the industry as time goes on, particularly among the smaller and medium-sized enterprises.
Lastly, Amendment No. 12 is of particular importance because it refers to Clause 6, which lays upon the authority the duty to prepare and publish a document setting out the criteria it is going to use. The question of the criteria, after all, is fundamental to the standards, and it is also fundamental as to whether a business can continue to function. So it is very important to people, and that is why I am suggesting that consultation on the criteria to be used is of the first importance.
8 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the intent behind the amendments. It is right that the authority should consult on how it will carry out the functions set out in the Bill. However, I am not sure that such a requirement should be on the face of the Bill. I am not sure that consultation should be restricted to the functions set out in paragraphs (b), (f) and (g) of Clause 1(2). There should be a well understood and transparent mechanism for carrying out effective consultation.
There are three ways in which this could be achieved. First, the authority could consult itself by having as its members representatives of the industry. I do not think that that would be enough, or effective. This is a disparate industry. The second choice is to have a committee of the authority, under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1, to which representatives of the industry

1357
would be appointed. But it would be a committee of the authority. A third choice would be to set up a separate advisory committee which was representative of the industry but independent of the authority, and which would be seen as the mechanism through which the authority would consult the industry and the industry would make representations to the authority—a two-way traffic.
Will my noble friend the Minister agree to seek the views of the industry at an early stage as to what mechanism it would prefer? We can all make proposals, but at the end of the day it is for the industry to indicate to the Minister and to the authority the kind of mechanism that is needed. I should be against a loose, non-mechanistic way of consulting the industry. With this industry, it would mean that some people were left out. I believe that there should be a mechanism which is well understood and transparent so that people would know how to make their views felt to the authority; and there would be a requirement on the authority to consult the industry through an agreed mechanism.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendments relating to consultation. It is probably fair to say that the advent of governments consulting widely and fully has been one of the better developments in terms of open government and better regulation. Casting our minds back to the passage of the Regulatory Reform Bill through this House recently, we recall that a great deal of the debate related to the detail of how consultation exercises should be taken forward. Questions arose as to how detailed the provision on the face of the Bill should be as regards the mechanics of the consultation exercise, or whether it should simply occur.
My noble friend's amendments are helpful in not being overly prescriptive. Amendment No. 12, for example, would provide that before issuing any licences the authority should consult with representatives of the security industry. That leaves considerable latitude as to how the consultation process should be taken forward. During the passage of the Regulatory Reform Bill, the Minister was concerned not to set the process in stone too early; he felt that circumstances could change, the Government's guidance on how the wider consultation processes should be taken forward might change and, therefore, one might be locking into the Bill what might become an outdated set of procedures. My noble friend has not followed that route.
By including a duty on the authority to consult before it issues the criteria for licences—probably one of the most important decisions that it will make—it should consult with the industry. That much should be written on to the face of the Bill. It would make for stronger decisions—ones that would be less likely to be challenged, for example, in a court of law. Producing a document to indicate exactly what the criteria will be is of fundamental importance.
1358
Indeed, I would take the matter one step further. I suggest that if my noble friend receives a positive indication from the Minister, as I hope he will, he might also look at imposing a duty on the authority to consult before it issues revised criteria. If the amendment is good as regards the production of the original document, I am sure that the same arguments might well apply. There is often some resistance to consultation because of the effort and the burden that it places on those who have to perform the exercise. However, under these circumstances it is important that the authority gets the matter right.
Whether, and to what extent, there is industry representation on the board of the authority is an interesting and important issue. Whatever degree of representation the industry has, the board will never, and should never, consist entirely of members from the industry. The authority must perform its proper statutory duty as a regulator. Therefore, it needs to obtain information from those who are at the cutting edge of what is going on in the industry on a day-to-day basis. Yes, it will include the industry's interests, and the authority's job will be to weigh those against the duties that are imposed on it by the Bill and by the Secretary of State. I support my noble friend's amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion. It has been useful and will help us later on. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee has set out three ways in which he thinks consultation could take place. The noble Lord urges us to consult about consultation. That is helpful, as are the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, which in a sense indicate the areas about which we should consult.
Perhaps I may move through the constituent parts of the amendments. In Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 12 and the first part of Amendment No. 2A, the establishment of the security industry authority as the central and authoritative regulatory authority for the industry means that it will need to consult in any event probably with all sectors of the industry to enable it to do all of the things referred to in the amendments.
In preparing to introduce the licensing regime and the approved contractor scheme in an efficient and effective manner, it will be essential for the authority to pay due regard to what is both practicable and achievable; and the industry will, as ever, be one of the prime sources of the information, as it has been during the generation of this piece of legislation. We have arrived at where we are through consensus.
Similarly, the authority will be required to keep the work of the industry under review so that the Secretary of State can be advised on the effectiveness of regulation and make recommendations for improvements if and when they are necessary. Again, that would be absolutely impossible without an open line of dialogue with all parties of the industry. It has t o be said that the Secretary of State will also work very closely with the authority and consider any

1359
recommendations that it makes. We should certainly expect such recommendations to take appropriate account of the views of the industry.
It may be helpful if I also take this opportunity of reassuring your Lordships' House that the Secretary of State will not be making any regulations without considering the views of both the authority and the security industry as a whole. Indeed, to attempt to do so would run the risk of introducing unworkable proposals. I do not believe that any of us would wish to do so.
We have made clear on many occasions that we see it as important for the board of the security industry authority to have one representative—perhaps more—of the security industry sitting on it. That will allow the industry a direct input into the workings of the authority, and will also have the benefit of ensuring that appropriate consultations take place. I believe that that deals with one limb of the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Gladwin of Clee.
The authority may also create committees in order to help it in its work. The committee structure is another way in which the voice of the industry will, and can, be heard. It may also be through that channel that it is most appropriate for the authority to hear the voice of employees in the industry—an issue, which, again, my noble friend raised directly with myself and officials. As the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, observed, it will be important for the authority to ensure that it receives a balance of views now that its independence is not comprised or measured in any way.
In order to achieve all of its aims the security industry authority will naturally need to work closely with all sectors of industry and listen. The second part of Amendment No. 2A places a duty on the authority to promote best practice. The authority has already been given a duty under the provisions of Clause 1(2) to set and approve standards and to make recommendations for their improvement. As part of those functions, it is inevitable that the authority will be promoting best practice. I am afraid that I am not convinced that this part of Amendment No. 2A adds anything to what is already a significant function for the authority; in other words, we believe that it is already there.
The Government believe that adequate assurance already exists in the Bill as regards the points made in these amendments, in the way that I described. For those reasons, we do not consider it necessary to have such specific requirements spelt out on the face of the Bill, as suggested in the amendments.
One or two further points were raised during the debate in respect of which I should like to offer some reassurance. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested that the licence fee had trebled during our considerations on the Bill. I do not believe that it has. We made it clear during the consultations on the White
1360
Paper that the estimate would be £23 for a licence. The current estimate is somewhere between £35 and £40, so the figure has not trebled—
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It has doubled!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: No, my Lords; I do not believe that it has doubled. Even at the upper limit it has not quite doubled. It has perhaps been increased by one-third. It will depend very much on how expensive the SIA becomes. I should like to correct one other misimpression that I do not believe the noble Lord intentionally created. He referred to discussions that Charles Clarke had with the Association of British Investigators and the Institute of Professional Investigators. The suggestion was that he had only talked to them together. He certainly met them so that they could discuss these matters together, and thereby submit any views that they wished to express. He was not seeking to make them merge or bring their views together in one view. I am sure that that was just a slip, metaphorically, on the part of the noble Lord.
Again, I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Gladwin. He asked whether the views of industry would be sought at an early stage on the form of mechanism that it would prefer to see. The answer is yes. I believe that that is obvious from everything that I have said this evening. We should want to consult about the nature of future consultation. Although we cannot fix these matters in primary legislation—indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, made the point that that is, perhaps, less wise—Nye want to hear from the industry very plainly as to how it best sees consultation being established—
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am obliged. The Minister is correct. I said that we should not put overly-detailed descriptions of exactly how this should work into the legislation. However, as my noble friend Lord Cope said, I still believe that it should be written on the face of the Bill that the authority "shall" have a duty to consult before, for example, producing the document containing the criteria.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Viscount's clarification. However, the point remains that we do need to consult and discuss on how the various mechanisms might work, regardless of what that mechanism might then cover and the quality of its consultation.
I hope that I have answered the various points that were raised, and that I have given noble Lords sufficient reassurance. I trust that your Lordships' House will provide for the Bill to retain its current level of flexibility.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we have had a useful short debate. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, that I certainly value his experience, and the

1361
suggestions that he put forward as to how the consultation might be achieved. I do not seek in the amendments to lay down how it should be done. Indeed, for exactly the reasons that the noble Lord set out, I do not believe that the Bill should lay that down. However, I do suggest that there should be a duty to consult in some form. Such a form would obviously evolve as the authority got going. As my noble friend Lord Goschen said, it might change over time in the future, and should not, therefore, be nailed down absolutely in the Bill.
My noble friend said that he would go further and require consultation on revised criteria. I did not actually put that requirement in the amendments because I assumed that the criteria would be published, consulted upon and then revised criteria that took the consultation into account would be issued. If we make the industry consult on the revised criteria, it would become a circular process in which it would go on and on doing the same thing.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct. We would not want an endless circle of consultation. However, if in due course it was decided that the criteria were not working very well and that new ones should be considered, the authority could then consult on them. I did not mean that we should have further consultation immediately after the first criteria were introduced.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I believe that we are at one in that respect.
The Minister said that the authority will need to consult, and that it was essential that it should do so—with all of which I agree. However, he admitted that there was likely to be only one representative of the industry, or thereabouts, on the authority itself. It is an extremely diverse industry. It is not one industry: it is a whole series of different and smaller industries. The Minister also referred to the committee system that might solve the problem.
I should point out to the Minister that what I said about the Association of British Investigators and the Institute of Professional Investigators was not a slip; it was almost a direct quotation from the letter that I received from senior representatives of those two bodies. However, I take it from what the noble Lord said that it is not the intention to cut them out of consultations, which is a good thing. They are not the only bodies of that character. There are also other bodies involved; for example—EPIC (ex-police in industry and commerce), and so on. It is necessary to talk to all the bodies.
The Minister made clear that he regards it as essential for the authority to consult, and that is the main point. I am sorry that he is not prepared to put such a provision in the Bill. However, I shall not press the amendment, which I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 2A not moved.]
Clause 2 [Directions etc, by the Secretary of State]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any such directions before each House of Parliament.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it will be remembered that I moved this amendment in Committee. At that time, the Minister gave a reasonably helpful answer; but, unfortunately, he has had time to reconsider the thoughts that he expressed in Committee and has come forward with what I can only describe as an extremely unhelpful and rather retrograde step with regard to this clause and my amendments. I shall explain to your Lordships how and why.
Your Lordships are aware that Clause 2 gives the power to the Secretary of State to give general or specific directions in writing to the authority. It also gives him the power to request information about activities that he may require.
In Committee I asked the Minister why directions were required and whether they would be a matter of public record. He replied,
"I believe that the standard arrangement is for the Secretary of State to be able to give directions to non-departmental public bodies. If necessary, that could include the placing of a cap on fees. Therefore, they are general reserve powers … Directions are not statutory instruments; they are merely a mechanism for a more informal way of establishing priorities and registering concerns".—[Official Report, 30/1/01; col. 591.]
In Committee the Minister was helpful. He further stated at col. 592:
"I would hope that such directions would be a matter of public record because they would be helpful to all concerned. It is important that we are clear about what we are trying to do with orders and directions".
At that stage the Minister was kind enough to say that he would reflect on the matter. Unfortunately when the Minister went back to the Home Office all his natural inclinations for open and reasonable government and all his years of saying that the Labour Party wanted more openness in government deserted him. I am afraid that he was totally subverted by the system. He was kind enough to write to me, as he said he would. However, his letter was extraordinary as it seemed to be a total denial of what I thought he ever stood for. He reminded me that he had acknowledged the arguments in favour of a general presumption of openness. However, he further stated:
"I remain of the view that there may be very limited circumstances in which the use of a confidential direction may be necessary, for example, directions naming individuals or particular companies and consequently we should not place a requirement on the face of the Bill for all directions under Clause 2 to be published".
That is the most extraordinary statement, as the Minister said in Committee that the directions could include such matters as the placing of a cap on fees, how the authority should conduct itself, or what issues

1363
it should take into account. He said that those were the kind of matters on which the Home Secretary could give directions. But now we see that the Home Secretary has no confidence in the authority that he is creating, even before he has created it. He can say to the authority, "You are the authority. You will decide who gets a licence and who does not. But in certain circumstances I will direct you not to give someone a licence because I do not think that you should". Therefore, the Home Secretary and the Home Office will pre-empt the role of the authority even before it is created.
What is even worse, the directions will be secret. Apart from the Home Secretary and the authority, no one will know what the directions state or the names contained in them. We have a situation where the Home Secretary will by-pass the very authority he is creating. However, the position is worse than that because if one is denied a licence because the Home Secretary or someone in the Home Office considers that you should not have one, how do you appeal? There is a detailed appeal mechanism in Clause 10. Indeed, the Minister will move Amendment No. 19 to Clause 10 to make the appeal process clearer. If someone has been turned down for a licence not because the new authority says that he cannot have one, but because the authority has received a secret direction from the Home Secretary to that effect, how does that affect that person's rights of appeal? I am not a lawyer and I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will come to my aid and tell me whether an appellant's rights will be affected in such circumstances. How will the authority explain that that person cannot be given a licence when it has been given some secret direction from the Home Secretary to that effect? How does such a person appeal against that decision? It seems to me that there is a denial of basic rights here.
However, the position is yet worse. The Home Secretary may discover reasons why someone should not be given a licence, for example, because that person has a criminal record. Under the Bill the authority will have the right to acquire that information. It will be able to hold informal discussions with the Home Office and agree with the Home Secretary not to issue a licence. Central government have reserved the power to issue these directions.
The Minister tried to move an inch, but, I am afraid, only an inch. He stated:
"In the overwhelming majority of circumstances it would be right for directions to be a matter of public record. I am happy to place this on the record again at Report stage if you would find it helpful".
We always find the Minister helpful when he wants to be helpful. He further stated:
"I plan to establish an authority on the assumption that openness in this area would be a presumption unless sensitive circumstances (which I would expect to be extremely rare) suggest otherwise".
Those are helpful words but, as your Lordships know, they are only useful if some lawyer in court is able to quote Pepper v. Hart on some specific point of law with regard to how one interprets the Bill. A lawyer may be able to say, "We know what the Minister meant on Report and therefore this is how the measure should be interpreted". However, that does not help the person when the authority turns down his application for a licence. In those circumstances he can appeal only on the basis of his own perceived or actual personal circumstances. Pepper v. Hart concerns how someone defines the Bill and how the authority should act under the terms of the Bill.
I am extremely concerned by the directions. They seem to go against natural justice. The noble Lord referred to,
"directions naming individuals or particular companies".
This is not a case of stating that one person should have a licence but not another or stating the terms on which a licence should be given. It is a case of telling the authority whom not to give a licence to. Why would the Home Secretary ever use that power? There is only one reason; namely, to allow the Home Secretary to override the authority's decision to give someone a licence. He would only give a direction if he disputed a licence decision of the authority.
That seems to me an even more extraordinary state of affairs. This is an extremely important issue and one that is extremely worrying. It contravenes all the Government's pledges on openness and the Minister's comments on Second Reading and in Committee that the new authority would operate in an open and fair way. I hope that the Minister will think carefully about the matter and give a more helpful answer than he did in his letter. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we have to sympathise with the Minister that his natural liberal instincts are swallowed up in the Home Office by the Secretary of State who is proud not to be liberal but to be reactionary, as he demonstrates week in week out in the policies that he announces.
The Minister wrote to all noble Lords concerned with the Bill. However, I did not understand what was meant by the expression—the noble Viscount quoted it—that the Minister remains of the view that there may be very limited circumstances in which the use of a confidential direction may be necessary—for example, directions naming individuals or particular companies—and that consequently the Government should not place a requirement on the face of the Bill for all directions under Clause 2 to be published.
I could not understand what was meant by,
"directions naming individuals or particular companies".
Having listened to the noble Viscount, I begin to have some idea of the concept underlying it. It can mean only that the Secretary of State gives a direction to the

1365
authority not to grant a licence for a particular activity to a named individual or to a particular company. If that should happen without the named individual or particular company knowing that it has happened—if it is done "under the carpet", as it were—and reasons were not given, there would undoubtedly be a breach of natural justice. The first principle of natural justice is that a person against whom an adverse decision is made should know the reasons for it. If he does not know what the reasons are he cannot properly appeal.
I support fully the noble Viscount's argument. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister can resurrect those instincts which he so clearly displayed in Committee.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I, too, regret that the Minister was mugged on his way through the portals of the Home Office. He must be more careful next time.
I agree with all the points made by my noble friend Lord Astor. The most interesting relates to appeals and how the appeals process can work if a secret order has been given that someone should not receive a licence. Clause 10(1) states:
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the bringing of appeals".
I was not clear whether that meant that only the Secretary of State was able to do so. If he had made the original secret direction, presumably he would not bring such an appeal.
Clause 2(2) states:
"Before giving directions under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult the Authority".
The authority is trusted to consult without a duty on the face of the Bill to do so. However, the Secretary of State has to have his duty written on the face of the Bill. Does that imply that Parliament trusts the authority but not the Secretary of State? Some clarification from the Minister would be helpful.
I understand the natural desire of Home Office officials to issue the Minister with a "get out of gaol free card" to sew into the lining of the back pocket of his coat for some eventuality that may arise in the future which had not been considered. There seems a conflict between the Secretary of State and the authority; otherwise the Secretary of State, the Home Office, would be able to have informal discussions with the authority, saying, "It has come to our notice through our various agencies that intelligence (or whatever) has been gathered and such a person is an unfit person according to the criteria to hold a licence. Here is a summary of the information". The authority could act on that through its own investigative powers. If an appeal were brought it could rely on its own judgment. But for the Secretary of State to give a direction about a specific case can mean only that the authority has rejected informal advice and is now being told what to do.
1366
There are circumstances in which non-departmental public bodies are given directions. For example, the Rail Regulator is given directions on how he should exercise the powers of his office. They refer to general matters about the carrying out of his duty rather than specifics.
We need more information from the Minister. I, too, welcomed his 42-paragraph letter. From my experience, it is the all-time record for a communication from a Minister. Clearly he was saving on stamps. We need further explanation of the type of circumstances beyond those discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Astor which warrant this somewhat nuclear power.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am intrigued by this savaging of the Minister: the strange death of liberal Bassam! I shall attempt to dispel the idea. I am also much amused by the notion that my honourable friend the Home Secretary is not liberal. I understand that he has some concerns about liberals living in Hampstead. However, we put that to one side and I shall seek to reassure noble Lords who raise concerns about the matter. I thought that I had dealt with them in Committee.
The points raised in Committee revealed concerns to ensure that directions from the Secretary of State to the authority should always be made public. I remind the House that I indicated that there was no absolute obligation to make them public. I acknowledged the arguments in favour of a general presumption of openness. I abide by that. I remain of the view that there will be very limited circumstances in which these confidential directions might be necessary. Yes, they might relate to directions naming individuals or companies. For that reason, it would not be wise for us to place a requirement on the face of the Bill for all directions under Clause 2 to be laid before Parliament.
I do not think that that makes the Government illiberal. I do not think that it makes the legislation illiberal. It is not a back-door attempt to become more secretive. That is not the intention. This must be remembered. The licensing function belongs to the SIA. The Secretary of State cannot subvert that function by taking the decision himself that an individual may or may not have a licence and, therefore, directing the authority on what decision to take.
For those reasons, the directions will always be ancillary to the SIA's functions. They will not, and cannot, be used to take over the authority's functions. I hope that that clarifies the point. The noble Viscount seeks further clarification.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, can the Minister give an example of when the Home Secretary would give a direction relating to an individual? The circumstances pertaining to that individual could not be taken into account by the licensing authority in deciding whether the licence should be granted.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords that is the point to which I hope that I am moving inexorably. The direction would not be: "Thou"—the SIA—"shalt not give a licence to". In very limited circumstances the Secretary of State may ask for investigations to be made on sensitive issues with regard to companies about which there is concern. The Secretary of State may use that power to direct the SIA to carry out an investigation into a specific company where there is concern—perhaps a PSI equivalent of BCCI.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is that not a black spot?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: No, my Lords, I do not think that it is. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, has raised concerns about rogue companies. Concerns about a particular company may well come to the attention of the Secretary of State. It does not seem wrong that the Secretary of State may direct, if he thinks that it is appropriate.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am trying to help the Minister on this argument rather than to interfere with his train of thought. He is correct that I have concerns about rogue firms, but I cannot get my mind round why the Secretary of State would have to issue a direction. Surely he could simply tell the authority that there was a problem with a particular firm. Not every communication between the Secretary of State and the authority has to take the form of a direction. Can the Minister explain why I am wrong in saying that a direction can mean only that there is a conflict or disagreement between the Secretary of State and the authority because the authority is refusing to investigate or to do whatever the Secretary of State wants?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that raises another interesting question. I had the impression that the Conservatives wanted things to be plainly set out and understood and for there to be little confusion about the role of the Secretary of State or the ability of the SIA to consult. Everything that the Secretary of State can do should be set out in legislation. That is what the issue comes down to. There should be no confusion about whether the Secretary of State may issue a direction. In the majority of cases—probably 99 per cent—there will be transparency, but on some occasions, if a highly sensitive investigation is needed, the Secretary of State may have to give a direction.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the authority is a responsible authority, why would a direction be needed? Surely the Home Secretary could just write a letter setting out his concerns about a particular company and asking the SIA to investigate.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I suspect that that may well happen in most cases, but there may be one or two cases—it is difficult to estimate the effect of the legislation at this distance—in which the Secretary of State needs to give a direction because he has a particular concern. We are talking about those limited circumstances.
1368
I am convinced by the arguments put forward in Committee that in the majority of circumstances the directions should be a matter of public record. I am happy to make that plain on the record. We plan to establish the authority on the basis of a presumption of openness on the issue except in the limited and very sensitive circumstances that I have described.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 would require the authority to lay before Parliament the criteria that it draws up under Clause 6 before deciding on applications for individual licences and any draft revisions to those criteria. However, Clause 6(5) makes it clear that the authority's criteria and revised criteria shall not have effect unless the Secretary of State has approved them. The Bill already requires significant further parliamentary input to get the authority and its regimes up and running. The Government will need to ask Parliament to approve a number of regulations to give practical effect to the main provisions of the Bill. However, I am not persuaded that we need to ask Parliament to approve the level of detail that these two amendments would require.
The main purpose of the Bill is to establish the SIA and vest in it appropriate discretion to regulate the industry, backed up by specific parliamentary sanction in its most important aspects. I am confident that we should be able to rely on the sound sense of the authority's proposals and the Secretary of State's approval of detailed but necessary and important matters such as the precise licensing criteria to apply in each type of licence. To require the laying of draft criteria—and perhaps more importantly revised criteria—before Parliament would detract from the flexibility of approach in an evolving situation, which we believe is very important for the successful operation of the Bill. I am also not persuaded that Parliament would welcome a requirement to receive documents of the detail that may be suggested on a regular basis.
I understand the concerns that lie behind the amendments. We do not want to bring a large element of secrecy into the relationship between the Secretary of State and the SIA on the particular matter in the amendment. I remain a liberal—as it were—on these matters. We intend to have openness and transparency at the heart of that relationship and the way in which the legislation works.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the extraordinary thing about the directions is that not only do they give the Secretary of State the power to direct that someone should not be given a licence, but they give him the power to give a secret direction to the authority to give someone a licence. Someone could get a licence because, on a whim, the Secretary of State feels that it is necessary. We will never know. The authority might be against the decision, but there will be nothing that it can do about it. It will have to comply.
If the Labour Party were in opposition and we attempted to introduce such a measure, there would be the most unholy row. My noble friend Lord Goschen

1369
said that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was mugged. I am afraid that he was and he is still suffering dizzy spells. That is the only way to explain his attitude on the issue. He tried to be helpful. I asked why the Home Secretary could not just write a letter if he had concerns about a particular company. The authority would have to take account of such a letter. It could not just chuck it into the waste paper basket. It has to take account of all the evidence put to it. That is why it is there. It would have a duty to take account of the letter and could not dismiss it. The Minister said that there might be certain circumstances in which the Government wanted to make a direction. I have asked him to suggest such circumstances, but he cannot suggest anything beyond saying that the Government need the reserve power just in case.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that a direction implies that the Secretary of State disagrees with the decision that the authority wishes to make?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I must correct that point. The Secretary of State cannot interfere in the judgment of the SIA. That is not the point. The noble Viscount is assuming that the Secretary of State will simply tell the SIA not to give a licence. That is not what I am saying. I was very careful not to say that. That is the authority's judgment alone.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is a very helpful comment from the Minister, but the Bill does not say that. Clause 2 says:
"In carrying out its functions the Authority shall comply with any general or specific directions given to it in writing by the Secretary of State".
Perhaps the Minister would rather that the Bill did not say that, but that is what it says.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is entirely right. The only circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be forced to give a direction would be if there was a dispute with the authority. If there is a dispute, Parliament ought to know, because otherwise the Secretary of State will be able to give secret directions that nobody knows about. The public will not know about them, Parliament will not know about them and presumably the authority will not be allowed to publicise the situation.
That is an extraordinary state of affairs. The Minister has tried his best to defend the reserve powers, but he has failed to come up with any convincing reason why they are necessary or any convincing scenario in which they would be used. He has not proved his case. Unfortunately, the Minister has not even been able to say that he will take away the matter and reconsider it. In those circumstances, I must seek the opinion of the House.
8.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 53.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hanham, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Astor, V.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Blatch, B.

Kingsland, L.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Byford, B.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Ezra, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Goschen, V.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hamwee, B.

Tordoff, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Alli, L.

Haskel, L.

Amos, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Andrews, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Layard, L.

Billingham, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brookman, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Parekh, L.

Chandos, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L

Crawley, B.

Sawyer, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Dubs, L.

Simon, V.

Elder, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Thornton, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Warner, L.

Filkin, L.

Whitaker, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Whitty, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Wilkins, B.

Grenfell, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Barclay's Group Reorganisation Bill [H.L.]
The Examiner's certificate that the further Standing Orders had been complied with ordered to lie on the Table and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
Thursday, 1st March 2001.
The Committee met at four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Before we begin, I should remind your Lordships that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung, and then resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 71 [RTM companies: membership and regulations]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 109.
Page 30, line 34, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) The persons who are entitled to be holders of "A" shares in an RTM company shall be qualifying tenants of flats contained in the premises.

(1A) Any person being—

(a) the landlord of the whole or any part of the premises (including mesne landlords), or

(b) a management company party to any lease of the premises or any part thereof,
who prior to the acquisition date had the right to manage the premises shall be entitled to be holders of "B" shares in an RTM company.

(1B) The acquisition date shall be the date on which the RTM company acquired the right to manage.

(1C) The paid-up capital of a "B" share in an RTM company shall be one pound and no person shall be required to hold more than one "B" share in an RTM company.

(1D) The holders of "B" shares in an RTM company shall have the right to appoint two directors to the board of directors of the company and the right on a requisition signed by a majority of them to call extraordinary general meetings of the RTM company.

(1E) The Secretary of State, after consultation with the National Assembly for Wales, shall (subject to section 70(2) and the previous subsections hereof) make regulations about the form and content of the memorandum of association and articles of association of RTM companies.

(2) Such regulations shall be laid before Parliament and shall be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that the first group of amendments has already been debated. My memories of the final half hour of the Committee's proceedings on Tuesday are somewhat hazy, so I may be mistaken.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 110 to 111 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 111A:
Page 30, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) The appropriate national authority shall provide RTM companies with explanatory material setting ott, the responsibilities and risks associated with right to manage.'').
The noble Lord said: I can deal with this amendment very briefly. The decision to exercise the right to manage should not be taken lightly. It is vitally important that the tenants are fully aware of the responsibilities they face in forming an RTM company. The amendment would ensure that the appropriate national authority provides clear information about the RTM and the potential risks associated with it. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 111A moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 125A, 128 and 133A. I do not propose—and nor does the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—to speak to Amendment No. 116, which covers a rather different point. We will take that amendment in its place on the Marshalled List.
Members of the Committee will be aware that at Second Reading I raised the point that people should not go into the management of premises unaware of the problems involved. At a previous stage of the Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, explained that he personally had been involved in the management of premises. I can say that I personally have been involved in the management of premises. Many years ago, I and eight other leaseholders took over the freehold of our property in South Kensington, and we tried to run it. We were totally unaware of the problems of running a property of that nature. We had to be instructed by lawyers that we had responsibility for civil liability. If a slate fell off the roof onto someone in the street, it was our responsibility. None of us knew that, and in the end we decided to sell the freehold on to a trust which already had a managing agent, simply in order to get a proper managing agent in control of the premises.
This is a subject of fundamental importance. I have received many letters on it as I am sure have other Members of the Committee. People cannot go into the management of premises without being aware of the problems involved. Whether it should be through the formula of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, or the formula that I and the noble Earl suggest, is a matter for debate. I accept that there are disadvantages with both formulae.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would impose something of a burden on a national authority. As to my amendment, I recognise that there may be a chicken and egg situation in that you cannot have an invitation to participate without having a company, and you cannot have a company without an invitation to participate. Having said that, there are many ways around that chicken and egg problem. But

CWH 133
the principle must be right; anybody going into an RTM company and exercising the right to manage, must be aware of the problems involved.
Lord Goodhart: I support strongly what the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Kingsland, have said. The difficulties involved in the management of leasehold property are very considerable. It could be that many leaseholders who would be better off leaving things as they are now, could undertake management themselves and get their fingers badly burnt as a result. It is very important that the right-to-manage scheme, which in principle we wholly support, should start on a proper footing. This would undoubtedly involve making the leaseholders who are contemplating a right-to-manage scheme aware of both the problems they potentially face and the quite considerable amount of work they will have to undertake if they are to be successful. I hope that the Government will accept that there is a need for something of this kind without being in any way prescriptive about how it is to be achieved.
The Earl of Caithness: I rise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Kingsland and to speak to Amendment No. 128, to which I have added my name.
The noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Goodhart, have covered most of the points but, from my experience, I would re-iterate that the most difficult situations one was put into as an agent were those where leaseholders felt that they could run the property better than a landlord; that anybody could run it better than a landlord and his agents. They would say, "This is all terribly easy. Let us form our own management company". One then had to go in after the event to firelight; to try to put it on the right lines and manage it properly. They found it incredibly more difficult and complex and much more time consuming than they had originally bargained for. As I said, that is the stage where the leaseholders start to drift away and do not turn up for meetings—except for one or two who, if they are still willing, try to run the company and hold it together.
The purpose of Amendment No. 128 is not to frustrate the Government's efforts but to try to make the right to manage more practical and workable. It is therefore important that anyone who wants to participate in a right to manage scheme must be given the appropriate information in advance. They must be told what the assets and liabilities are, and what the potential downsides are, of running a right-to-manage company. I hope that the Minister will understand that this a serious and constructive way to improve the legislation and to make it better for all potential right-to-manage companies, which I thoroughly support.
Lord Kingsland: I apologise for rising again—I must have been suffering from advanced myopia because I had assumed, when the amendment was called, that Amendment No. 111A was on its own. In fact, I see that it is standing in a group with some other amendments of mine and with the very important
CWH 134
Amendment No. 116, which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend Lord Caithness.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has made it clear that that amendment will be debated separately.
Lord Kingsland: I am much obliged. Perhaps I may speak to my Amendment No. 125A. We on this side of the Committee are concerned that those who seek to exercise the right to manage should be fully aware of what they take on. Block management can be a difficult and complex task, particularly in larger buildings, and the RTM company will assume considerable responsibilities. It is important that prospective members of the company realise that from the outset.
A major concern in relation to the right to manage is that it will place the management of a building in the hands of those who may not have the necessary skills to perform the task. We are also concerned that, whereas a good professional landlord will regard a building as a long-term investment and seek to maintain the value and quality of that investment through a planned programme of maintenance, leaseholders may in certain circumstances take a more short-term view, not least because they are likely to hold a lease for a shorter period before moving on to another property.
Landlords, understandably, wish to have confidence that, if they are no longer responsible for the management, they are assured proper stewardship of their assets. The nightmare scenario for landlords is that the leaseholders acquire the right to manage in order to reduce to the minimum the level of service charges. The building consequently declines and, with it, the value of the landlord's investment and, ultimately, the value of the leaseholder's investment.
The Bill provides that anyone who is dissatisfied with the quality of management by an RTM company will be able to seek the appointment of a manager in its place, following the existing rights of leaseholders under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, we believe that it is more effective, and in the interests of all parties involved, to seek prevention by minimising the prospect of poor management from the start rather than to rely on the efficacy of the cure.
In discussions during the period leading up to the arrival of the Bill in your Lordships' House, the Government resisted the suggestion that the RTM company should demonstrate that it is competent to manage, not least because it wishes to minimise the potential for freeholders to obstruct a rightful claim by questioning whether the level of competence is adequate. We quite understand the position. Nevertheless, we would be much reassured if the RTM company was required to make some formal demonstration to indicate that it could be expected to manage competently, even if that was not subject to any greater test.

CWH 135
I turn to Amendment No. 128 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Is the noble Lord to speak to that amendment?
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Earl has spoken to it.
Lord Kingsland: I am happy to leave it at that.
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): We all recognise it is important that those who take on the responsibilities under the right to manage have access to expertise and properly understand the management responsibility of an RTM company. However, we do not believe that to prescribe exactly how they do that in the form of this group of amendments is the most sensible way to spell it out. For example, Amendment No. 125A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, refers to "principal responsibilities and obligations", but the Bill already provides an outline definition of the management functions of the RTM. As it stands the Bill also makes clear that the company needs to look beyond that definition and see what is provided for under the terms of the individual leases.
Broadly speaking, if the lease makes anyone other than the tenant responsible for doing something, the acquisition of the right to manage will make that the responsibility of the RTM company. The individual leases will therefore already spell out pretty clearly what the RTM company will be required to do, in addition to any requirements imposed by statute. It should, therefore, be sufficiently clear to anyone what the RTM company's principal responsibilities will be without introducing the quite burdensome requirement of having to detail all of them in every claim notice.
The problem of prescribing it in the legislation is evident. If we are required to spell out detailed requirements in the notices that the RTM company must serve we need to turn to our experience under the existing enfranchisement rights which regrettably shows that landlords are quick to look for any excuse to allege that the relevant procedures have not been complied with. We do not want to set out detailed and slightly unclear statutory provisions that afford landlords the opportunity to try to use them as a way to avoid the consequences of the Bill. That would need substantial adjudication and the process would undoubtedly be slowed down.
Having said that, it is not sensible to prescribe it on the face of the Bill. We recognise the importance of producing guidance to support the right to manage and inform those who are thinking of undertaking the right to manage. Our view is that such guidance would need to cover not only the basic mechanics of exercising the right but more general matters, which I believe to be the motivation behind the amendments, relating to good management of the property. There may well he merit in producing guidance on good leasehold management more generally than in this
CWH 136
situation, but we do not see any need for a statutory requirement such as that provided for in the amendments; indeed, it could be counter-productive.
Amendment No. 128, to which my noble friend Lord Williams has spoken, proposes that the RTM company be required to circulate a prospectus at the beginning of the process. We appreciate that sometimes leaseholders who enfranchise, or are members of a management company provided for in the lease, will inevitably fail to grasp the difficulties and complexities of the management task, lack the skills and resources needed to make a success of it and, therefore, fall down on the job. I understand why it is suggested that we should make a fledgling RTM face up to its responsibilities right at the outset, confront its difficulties and give to those whom it invites to participate some account of how it proposes to tackle the issues. Again, it is not sensible to set that down on the face of the Bill.
The idea of a statutory requirement on the RTM company to provide information on what it will do under the right to manage, alongside the invitation to participate, has some serious objections. It would be good practice for the company to give qualifying tenants, who had not yet decided whether to join, an indication of the way in which it proposed to manage the building. If it failed to do so it would be wise for tenants to question the company closely before deciding to join. Nevertheless, we should be wary of imposing formal procedural requisites on the acquisition of the right to manage on the face of the Bill. It would only open up for those who were trying to get a consensus within a particular block, or with the landlord, the possibility of challenge at an early stage of the process. It would give an ill-disposed landlord additional opportunities to trump up a challenge and to appeal to the LVT in the hope of delaying the acquisition or deterring the lessees from pursuing the matter further. That would itself lead to substantial scope for dispute as to whether the prospectus matched up to the detailed statutory requirements.
In practice, the nature of what is required to inform those who might participate needs to be simple and straightforward. The detail will vary from block to block and case to case. It is not suitable, therefore, for specification on the face of the Bill, as the amendments suggest. The message is best conveyed in a manual of guidance which will undoubtedly be needed for those leaseholders who think of embarking on RTM. We would prefer that way forward rather than the kind of statutory obligation set out in the amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: I found the Minister's answer rather disappointing. His first sentence was constructive and I thought we were going to get somewhere. But then he became very negative and was digging in deeper and deeper the more he spoke. Will the Minister think again and perhaps incorporate in regulations what we are trying to achieve? I understand his point about the difficulty of having the matter on the face of the Bill, but I should have thought that it could be included in some form of

CWH 137
documentation that people have to be aware of what they are going to go into and the complications and financial implications involved in that.
What we propose is certainly not a plank on which we want any objections to be raised by the landlord. That is not the point of what we propose. I am sure that the Minister and his advisers could construct something that does not allow the landlord to object to a right to manage. With regard to the guidance, will the Minister confirm that he will be consulting bodies such as the RICS so that a common format is issued by the professional bodies and by the department?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I support the noble Earl's contention. There are various forms of guidance, as I am sure my noble friend is aware. There is guidance that means you can take it or leave it but this is the sort of thing we like; there is rather more formal guidance saying that this is what you should be doing; and there is guidance that is introduced by law; in other words, X is required to pay attention to or have regard to the guidance. We have had that in many statutes in the past. Will my noble friend consider that third possibility of putting in statute that the RTM company and anyone who is involved should have regard to the guidance? There are plenty of examples of that in law. I hope that my noble friend will consider it as a possibility.
Lord Whitty: What my noble friend Lord Williams indicates is what normally in local government legislation is referred to as statutory guidance, which at first sight always appears a contradiction in terms, but which nevertheless does embody the code of practice or whatever with some degree of legal precision. I do not think that is particularly appropriate here.
To answer the noble Earl's point about regulation, there may be some aspects of what is covered by these amendments which it might be appropriate to put into regulations, but the degree of detail as to what is required in an invitation in a prospectus and in a statement of claim is more appropriate for a form of guidance that is relatively flexible but clearly gives an indication of the responsibilities and the kind of expertise on which the company will need to call. I do not think that that kind of guidance would be appropriate for statutory guidance in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
We are, however, considering a form of guidance which, if not complied with, could constitute grounds for appointment of a replacement manager under the legislation which already exists under the 1987 Act. In other words, if someone failed to take note of that guidance, that could be one of the grounds on which a replacement manager could be sought. However, the nature of these documents may vary from case to case, and what is appropriate may vary from case to case. Apart from the basic requirements on the face of the Bill, possibly enhanced slightly within the regulatory framework, the rest of it should be fairly broad but
CWH 138
directional guidance, if I may put it that way. That is what we have in mind for people taking on the RTM responsibilities in a variety of different situations.
Lord Kingsland: We acknowledge that the Government wish to avoid creating a situation where the claim for the right to manage is anything more than a formal demonstration of compliance with the requirements. I also appreciate that the Government are unwilling for the competence of management to be tested. Nevertheless, I still think it important to reassure freeholders that the RTM company should be expected to manage competently and that freeholders can feel secure in that.
I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend Lord Caithness have said about the importance of guidance. In the circumstances of the Bill, the right to manage can be initiated by leaseholders even though a freeholder is conducting himself or herself impeccably; even though the freeholder is faultless; and there may be circumstances in which the result will be a much less competent stewardship than existed before.
The Bill ought to have in mind the overall desirability of maintaining the fabric of our buildings as well as possible. If there are circumstances in which worse can replace better, then I submit that they ought to be addressed in the Bill now; we should not wait until it is enacted and have to learn by harsh experience.
I hope that between now and Report stage the Minister will give further thought to his reflections at the Dispatch Box and perhaps introduce a government amendment. Otherwise I suspect that Members of the Committee will wish to return to this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 115 not moved.]
Clause 71 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 116:
After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—
REGULATION OF MANAGING AGENTS
(".—(1) A person who wishes to practice as a managing agent and hold the service charge trust fund shall be required to—

(a) be subject to a code of practice,

(b) undergo yearly auditing of accounts,

(c) be covered by professional indemnity and fidelity insurance, and

(d) undergo a minimum quota of annual management training.

(2) Regulations shall make provision about the form and content of the above and make such other rules, requirements and restrictions as may be appropriate to ensure proper standards are maintained, and the interests of landlords. RTM companies and leaseholders are safeguarded.").
The noble Lord said: Let us suppose that we have an RTM company, successfully set up, and it has taken over the management of the premises. The company then states, after a while or immediately, "We need somebody to help us run this operation". If it has paid attention to the guidance which I have no doubt the wise government will produce, it will do that on day

CWH 139
one rather than on day 30. To whom does the company turn? Who is qualified, and how are they qualified, to run buildings of this nature?
There are various codes of practice, but I would suggest that an agent who is invited and required to run a property of this nature needs to be properly regulated, properly qualified and adhere to what I suggest in the amendment. They should be subject to a code of practice; undergo yearly auditing of accounts; be covered by professional indemnity and fidelity insurance; and undergo a minimum quota of annual management training. I believe that is the only way we will get sensible management of our property.
I know this idea has been floating around for some time—I believe it was in the Government's mind at one point—but it now seems to have got lost. This is an essential part of the jigsaw we are trying to create. I hope that the Minister will agree with me. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. There is a real risk that inexperienced leaseholders who find themselves running an RTM company and come to the realisation that they are not capable of managing it themselves, may be tempted to go to a cowboy managing agent who offers them agency services at a low price. Within a few months, they will realise that it is a very bad bargain. There is a need to protect leaseholders in circumstances of that kind, and something along the lines of this amendment would be highly desirable in that regard.
The Earl of Caithness: I rise to support the amendment, to which I have put my name. Sadly, there are still too many bad agents about. I am disappointed about that. I very much hope that my profession will get its act together. Indeed, good agents have got their act together, but there is no bar on the noble Lord, Lord Whitey, setting up as a managing agent this afternoon and taking over the management of a block of flats. Confident though he is, is he the right man for the job and has he had the training?
This is a vital amendment. We need to give confidence to the right-to-manage company that it has the right kind of managing agent. The competent agent has nothing to fear from the amendment. It will not be a panacea and there will still be difficulties. The solicitors who regulate these matters at the moment cause just as many problems in property deals as agents do, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lord Kingsland. We will come on to more about that when we come to the Homes Bill in due course. Agents should be subject to a code of practice and they should have to undergo regular training. A number of bodies, such as the RICS and the Association of Residential Letting Agents, do this already. I have been on refresher courses but I know a great many of agents who have not, and who
CWH 140
manage properties to a lesser standard than I would have hoped. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: I rise to support my noble friend's comments. I am still somewhat enchanted by the view of the Minister becoming a managing agent—the prospect of him managing property, as well as the money, leaves me highly intrigued. It is the aspect of the money, apart from everything else, that is so concerning here. There will be very substantial sums of leaseholders' money and it is absolutely vital that they are looked after properly.
It is not just the prospects of the future that one is concerned about; it is the actuality of the past and the present in terms of some managing agents, about whom a number of people who are living in blocks of flats already have considerable concerns. It is slightly surprising that this is not a part of the estate management process and that it is not regulated. Managing agents have been around for a long time and there does not seem to have been any regulation. The experience is that some are not as good as others, and some are downright shoddy. It is those from whom we must protect those seeking the right to manage.
Baroness Maddock: I strongly support the amendment. Indeed, I raised this issue at the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not understand why the Government have backtracked because, in the original Bill, they thought that this was an important point.
Today, many people expect best practice, wherever they are in life. If the Bill is to be successful, then we should promote best practice. Many people have written to us with stories about how they have suffered under leasehold. If we are to change that situation, what is proposed in the amendment seems absolutely fundamental.
I hope the Government can explain why they have changed their mind. It is not only in this area of housing that the Government seem to have cold feet in regulation; it is in other areas. The home is the most important part of a person's life and it is our duty to ensure that he or she can remain safely in that home and understand how to deal with the problem.
Lord Lea of Crondall: When the Minister responds to this important debate, can he clarify whether we are talking here about the regulation of managing agents in the context of RTM or the regulation of managing agents, period? If we are talking about the regulation of managing agents in the context solely of RTM, we could be in the position of making it more onerous to have responsibilities to be a managing agent vis-à-vis RTM than vis-à-vis a freeholder. This is a practical question, because the choice before people in a year's time will presumably be what are we going to take on, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams. has correctly identified with regard to RTM. Otherwise, we have the opportunity to carry on as we are where the managing agent is responsible solely to the freeholder. Many of the criticisms that have been made about what one

CWH 141
might call the unsatisfactory tail of the profession are in regard to the present scenario. I query whether what is proposed will touch that.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I rise briefly to support the amendment in principle. It has a great deal to commend it. Within the RTM company, one may have tension between the leaseholder and the freeholder. If one adds to that slightly explosive mixture an incompetent managing agent, one will have something quite difficult to handle. If we raise too high the levels which people have to achieve to become managing agents, we will shut off the supply of firms prepared to take it on. Only a small number of firms will be prepared to do it. While I can see that the outline of the regulations proposed in the amendment are thoroughly worthy, there are such things as professional indemnity and fidelity insurance which may prove extremely expensive and difficult to get. That needs to be given further thought before we wave it on its way. However, in principle, it is a worthwhile idea.
Lord Kingsland: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Williams, my noble friend Lord Caithness and, indeed, everyone else who has spoken in this debate so far.
The original consultation document on the reform of residential leasehold law regarded the regulation of managing agents as one of the key elements of successful reform. However, the Government have not brought forward proposals in the Bill and their absence is the greatest single gap in that part of the legislation which deals with leasehold.
The need for greater regulation of managing agents is recognised by everyone involved in the leasehold sector. Regulation is the most effective way of ensuring that managing agents meet acceptable standards of knowledge and practice and are required to act with both professionalism and integrity. Many landlords are concerned that they may lose control of their investment to right to manage not through any fault of theirs as owners but through the inadequacies and incompetence of their managing agents.
Is it because the Government have yet to resolve in their own mind how they can take forward the regulation of managing agents that they do not feel able to compel people to make use of them? If so, that weakens their overall proposals since, if people could be required to use professional property managers who were working to a recognised standard, freeholder landlords would be much less nervous of the implications of a right to manage for the management of their investments.
Lord Whitty: Once again I have some sympathy with the objectives behind the amendment. The reason the Government are not prepared to accept it was touched upon by the noble Lords, Lord Lea and Lord Hodgson. What we would be doing here, if we were to legislate in this context, would be to require a certain standard of managing agents for RTM companies but not for anyone else. There are managing agents all over
CWH 142
the place who work for freeholders, for leasehold companies and for various groups or organisations. There is a case for regulation—or certainly for higher professional standards—probably through a degree of registration and standard requirements for the profession as a whole.
Whether we are talking about landlords, leaseholders who have been enfranchised or RTM companies, we know that it is desirable to have a competent manager. We know also that all bodies under existing kinds of tenure have difficulties with management agents. We therefore indicated in the consultation paper, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, that we would look at the whole question of the quality of management agents and that we would produce a consultation paper on it across the board. We still intend to produce such a paper. The issue is complicated. I understand why people feel that they have had to wait a long time for the paper, but are working on the matter and we hope that its publication is not too distant.
The options that will be considered in the consultation paper may range from a full-scale licensing scheme, which was favoured by many people who responded to the original consultation paper, to something closer to a self-regulatory system. This will include obligations of the kind to be found in the clause, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, but will be imposed on those who employ management agents more generally.
Each of the options within that spectrum has its own advantages and disadvantages. The consultation period will allow us to address them not only for RTM companies but also for those who seek and need the services of management agents more generally. Were we, however, to legislate in this field and establish a register of management agents solely for RTM companies, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, said, that would of itself create a further threshold and barrier to the creation of RTM companies. The Government's view is that the issue should be addressed in the round. A consultation paper should be available within the next few months and the results of that would clearly be intended to apply right across the form of tenure for everybody employed as a managing agent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, although I find it disappointing. As I said, this is a piece of a jigsaw and Members of the Committee—with the exception, to a certain extent, of my noble friend Lord Lea and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—supported the idea that it is part of a jigsaw. It is no good giving people the right to manage property unless one controls the people who are going to manage that property.
The Government appear to have ducked a rather important issue. We have heard of consultation papers before; they take a long time. There is a consultation period and then, as a result, there is usually a White Paper. There then follows deliberation on the White Paper and, if we are lucky, there is then legislative

CWH 143
time—which will see us all out of this House and probably, if I may say so, see my noble friend promoted to a greater job in the future.
I am rather disappointed by my noble friend's reply. I shall not press the amendment at this stage but, nevertheless, I believe that we shall have to come back to this debate on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 [Long leases]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 117, I should point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 118 owing to pre-emption.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House front 4.44 to 4.54 p.m.]
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 31, line 17, at end insert (or is a registered social landlord, as defined by the Housing Act 1996, owning a long lease and whose tenant is an assured tenant under the terms of the Housing Act 1988').
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 117 and 120 deal with those who are in housing association accommodation. Amendment No. 117 deals with the situation of assured tenants in a housing association. As the Bill is drafted, it is my understanding that they would not be permitted to be members of a right-to-manage company. That being so, it would seem that they should get some rights somehow, and the amendments I have put forward would mean that the housing association under which they were assured tenants would take on that responsibility for them. That seemed to be the best way of ensuring that tenants' interests were represented in the management of the block. It may be that the Government think there is a better way of dealing with this, but it is a problem at the moment and it is something raised by housing associations. I hope that the Government can respond to that in a positive way.
Amendment No. 120 deals with a slightly different situation, and I know from having read the housing press that the Housing Minister in another place, Nick Raynsford, certainly does not agree with this. It deals with charitable housing associations where the leasehold schemes are for a particular group of people. That may be elderly people who have a professional background. Teachers, for example, often set up blocks of this type.
The purpose of the amendment is to put back something that was included in the original draft Bill, which will enable charitable housing trusts to be managed in the way that reflects whatever their purpose. It is fairly specific, and it would not allow all kinds of other groups to join the bandwagon. I hope that the Government will look positively at this, and if it is not the right way to do it they may be able to come forward with another way of dealing with it. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are two separate concerns with the amendments. I hope I can satisfy the
CWH 144
noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that there is no problem. The first is the fear that where there is a flat with a tenant who is not a qualifying tenant, such as one held by an assured tenant, no one could be counted as a qualifying tenant for that flat.
I can appreciate that it is difficult because the Bill is somewhat elliptical. The situation is that we do not require leaseholders to be resident to qualify for the right to manage, so any person or organisation who holds a long lease will qualify. When a long leaseholder sublets his flat on a short lease or an assured tenancy, the long leaseholder—in this case the housing association—will be considered by the Bill to be the qualifying tenant for the flat. A registered social landlord who sublets the flat on an assured tenancy will automatically be the qualifying tenant by virtue of the long lease and there is no need to make special provision.
The second proposal is that tenants of charitable housing trusts should not qualify for the right to manage. That would be consistent with the position under the right to enfranchise, but there is a very good reason why tenants of charitable housing trusts do not enjoy the right to enfranchise. They have acquired their leases on very favourable terms, designed to make home ownership affordable to those for whom it would not otherwise be a realistic option. It would be wrong to enable them to take advantage of enfranchisement and then sell on in the open market.
The right to manage, however, does not affect the ownership of the property or the owner's ability to sublet it as he or she chooses. It merely transfers management functions to the people who have purchased the majority share in the equity. So charitable housing trusts could continue to let out other properties to tenants of the appropriate kind after exercise of the right to manage. We have discussed this with most of the people concerned and nobody came forward with any sound reason for exempting charitable housing trusts from the right o manage, as distinct from the right to enfranchise. Indeed, both the housing corporation and the Charity Commission support the application of the right to manage to such properties.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. It will be helpful for those who have been concerned about this to be able to read quite clearly what the position is, particularly in respect of the first amendment.
On the second amendment, I would like to read more carefully what the Minister said and consult again as to whether it will be satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 31, line 17. at end insert—
("and is either—

(a) an individual residing in the flat or

CWH 145

(b) a company controlled directly or indirectly by an individual residing in the flat or jointly by individuals both or all residing in the flat.").

The noble Lord said: The remarks I want to make apply equally to Amendment No. 84A. This is a central issue. The effect of the amendment is to limit the right to manage blocks of flats where the residents want to manage. The Bill as presently drafted gives the right to manage to all leaseholders, including companies and people who hold leases solely for investment purposes. These are typically those living abroad who invest in residential property with a view to letting it out.
It does not seem right to give such investors these valuable rights to manage. The whole thrust of this legislation should be to enhance the rights of residents. Indeed, we find it strange to find such enthusiasm among the Government for the capitalist classes.
Let me deal with the proposal that a company should be entitled to the right to manage if it is controlled by an individual residing in a flat. I have heard reports that certain landlords are refusing to grant long leases, or refusing the assignments of long leases, unless the lessees buy through the medium of a limited company. The reason for this is that the landlords wish to avoid tenants having the various rights to enfranchise and to extend leases which they are given by legislation dating from 1967 onwards.
This is an abuse. The fact that an individual buys via the corporate vehicle of a limited company should be neither here nor there, so long as that individual is in truth a resident. Accordingly, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that residents—and only residents—have the right to manage, but that it is irrelevant whether the residents hold the lease in their own names or the names of companies. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: In introducing Amendment No. 84 on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested that removing the landlord's right to manage was tantamount to expropriation and might indeed fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights, if I understood him correctly—a point of view which is widely held in his party and elsewhere. Perhaps there may be an element of expropriation here, albeit not remotely in the same league as the expropriation inherent in Clauses 123 and 124 of the Bill as it stands.
Surely a landlord expects most of his profits to come from the ground rent, with perhaps a modest profit from managing the property as a little cream on top. If it is the other way around, with most of the landlord's net income arising from the management of the property, surely he must be abusing his monopoly position as sole provider of management services by overcharging. In this case, the Government are being neither unreasonable nor unfair in introducing an element of competition into the process, as the Bill effectively does, and as the previous administration started to do in their legislation.
Having said that, the ground landlord has a legitimate interest in ensuring that a property, whoever manages it, is properly maintained so that it does not
CWH 146
deteriorate. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, somebody who is a sub-tenant, who is there for only a few months, or somebody who may be the leaseholder but is perhaps a tax exile—as many leaseholders in Belgravia, for example, may be—and is abroad for nine months of the year or more is unlikely to have either the capability or, in many respects, the incentive to manage the property as efficiently as a landlord.
As the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said on Tuesday, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, hinted a few minutes ago, even those who have permanent residential status are likely to have management problems if they are inexperienced in the matter. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord Whitty: The amendment seeks to introduce a requirement that an individual must be resident in his flat in order to be a qualifying tenant for the right to manage. I understand why the amendment is moved and the noble Lord's indication that our main concern must be for those who are resident within the block. However, it would be extremely difficult to implement such a requirement. Issues of principle are involved here. The rationale behind the right is that if in effect a group of leaseholders owns the majority of the equity in the building it should have the right to exercise the right to manage it. The logic of that principle applies whether or not the owner of a lease, as an individual lessee, occupies the premises to which the lease applies.
In any case, even if one discards that principle and says that one is acting solely on behalf of people who are resident the definition of "resident" is extremely difficult to establish. Does one have to be resident for one week, a year, or three months a year? In the "company" test, does one literally need to be a company, or can the company actually bestow at least partial residence on someone else? Even if we accept the principle of the approach, there are great complexities of definition which are not addressed in this amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, indicates, practical experience of existing enfranchisement rights is that there is an abuse of the situation by recalcitrant landlords who wish to stop the rights being used. They can use it as an excuse to harry leaseholders and pry into their private lives in respect of where they reside and who resides there. We do not want to get into that area. The straightforward position is that the person who is the lessee is able to trigger the right to manage. However desirable may be the principle of looking after the residence, as a matter of principle and practicality this is not the way in which we should limit the right.
No doubt there are some strong feelings on this matter both inside and outside the Committee. I suspect that we shall return to this matter, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, at least accepts some of my argument.
Lord Kingsland: Apart from me, the noble Lord the Minister was the only noble Lord to speak to this amendment. I am surprised that there were not

CWH 147
stronger feelings about it in the Committee. I beg the Committee's pardon. One other noble Lord spoke to this matter with great feeling. It is most unlike me to have the memory of an observation by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, erased so swiftly. I shall reflect on the definition of "resident". I see the validity of the Minister's criticism that that may be too ill-defined a concept. However, I must confess to having some surprise at the overall approach of the noble Lord to my amendment. I would have expected the philosophy of the Bill, generally, to have militated towards my amendment. So I shall reflect on what he said and return to the issue at the Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 not moved.]
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Long leases]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 31, line 36, leave out ("21") and insert ("7").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 121, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 122 to 124. It is a variant on the amendment just debated and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and it is directed to the same purpose: to bring the responsibility for management closer to those who are in occupation, though it does not do so by any means completely.
The amendment changes the definition of a long lease for the purposes of the right to manage from a lease for more than 21 years to a lease for more than seven years. The question is: who should exercise the right to manage as members of an RTM company? There is a conflict of interest to some extent between the lessees under short leases and those under long leases, the occupiers as against the reversionaries. Short lease holders are obviously more concerned with the maintenance of current services and, to some extent, with the current standard of decoration. Long leaseholders will naturally be more concerned with the structure of the building.
One of the purposes of the right to manage is, or at any rate ought to be, to ensure that the maintenance is in the hands of those who either live there themselves or have some fairly close connection with the property and are not merely very long-term investors. People who live on the premises have much more contact with each other than absentee leaseholders. They are much more likely, for example, to turn up to meetings of the RTM company and to be willing to take on the responsibilities of being a director of the RTM company.
Surely, we do not want members of an RTM company to be absentee landlords. I accept that the right to manage should not be the responsibility of rack-rent tenants for short terms. In many parts of London, certainly in large parts of Kensington, the tenants under such tenancies are young people, highly mobile, moving in and out and with no real interest in the maintenance of the property.
The long lease for the RTM purposes does not need to be the same length as the long lease for enfranchisement purposes. We believe that the definition of a long lease should be reduced to the shortest length at which it can reasonably be said that the members have something more than a merely transient interest in the property. That is why we have selected a lease which lasts for more than seven years. That, again, as we know is a significant dividing line because of the switch in the responsibilities for maintaining various installations under the statutory law from the landlord to the tenant.
If a 99-year lease is subject to a sub-lease for 10 years, we believe that the sub-lessee rather than the head lessee should be the member of the RTM company and that there is a balance to be struck between short and long leaseholders. We also believe that drawing the dividing line at seven years, as we propose, is the best place at which to strike that balance. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: I rise to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend. I have a feeling that it mainly applies to residential properties in London. On some of the larger estates the leases are divided between what under present law are long leases, a significant number of 20-year leases and a number of rack-rent leases. Effectively, some of the major estates have managed to arrive at a position where perhaps one-third of the tenants are on long leases as presently defined; one-third are on about 20-year leases; and the remaining one-third are on rental leases. From the point of view of management, people who have 20-year leases seem to regard themselves as living in long leases—there is no difference from their point of view.
While seven years is not proposed as a level for enfranchisement, it may be different for management. The people have been living in the property for more than seven years, which is a reasonable time, whether under a seven or eight-year rental lease—or a nine-year rental lease which I happen to know exists—or under a 20-year lease for which they have paid a capital sum, or under a longer lease. Under all those circumstances they should not be denied the right to manage. I therefore strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I want to ask the Minister about the wording of Clause 73(2)(b). Clause 73 explains what leases are long leases and paragraph (b) provides that it is for a term fixed by law, and so on. and adds in parenthesis:
"(but it is not a lease by sub-demise from one which is not a long lease).
We seem already to have dealt with that under Clause 72(4)(a). The Minister now has 10 minutes to think of an answer.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.18 to 5.28 p.m.]
Baroness Hamwee: I am not capable of a smooth resumption. Before we adjourned for the Division, I was asking the Minister to explain the necessity for the words in parenthesis in Clause 73(2)(b). My reason for asking is not because I am so concerned about the repetition of the provision which appears in Clause 72(4)(a), but in case by repeating the words there is an implication that the provision and the application of Clause 72 differs from Clause 73(2)(b) as compared with the rest of Clause 73. I should have thought that Clause 73(2) is subject to Clause 72 as well as to Clause 74.
Lord Kingsland: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that he thought that the amendment goes some way to achieving the objective I sought to achieve in Amendment No. 118. However, I fear that the costs that it will impose will outweigh any benefits that are gleaned.
The effect of this amendment would be to devastate what remains of the short leasehold market. It assumes that the rental market consists only of short-term lettings where the rent is paid on a periodic basis.
There is a ready market for properties for which people are prepared to pay to occupy for a limited number of years but where they would prefer to pay a lump sum for the lease rather than an annual rental. In effect, the price paid to acquire the lease is the capitalisation of the rent. It is arguable that the ability to sell short leases provided a degree of flexibility in the residential property market, particularly in central London. It requires an income of around £50,000 a year to obtain a mortgage on a flat, virtual freehold—that is to say, a 999-year lease—valued at £150,000. I estimate that a 35-year lease for the same flat would be worth about £90,000, which would require an income of £30,000 to obtain a mortgage. The value of a 21-year lease would be lower still, and therefore more affordable to those on slightly above average incomes.
Most freeholders have ceased to sell leases of between 21 and 35 years since the 1993 Act, as those would be subject to enfranchisement. Freeholders have continued to grant short leases of less than 21 years but they would be unlikely to do so in future if this would contribute to their losing the management of their building.
The amendment may also have an impact on how the institutional investors view the residential investment market. The institutions are beginning to return to the residential market, concentrating mainly in the letting sector. It is essential that the institutions are not deterred from this sector at this improving time.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. He is claiming that, in the rental market, people may in certain circumstances prefer to pay a capital sum rather than an annual rent, but the position is usually the other way around. The only reason we have these 20-year leases with large capital sums is as a means of raising capital for the landlord without giving the opportunity to enfranchise. That
CWH 150
grew up a few years before legislation introduced by the previous government. The 20-year leases were designed just to avoid the legislation. I do not see that they have any relationship, from the tenant's point of view, as a means of living in what is notionally called a short-term rental property and paying a capital sum instead.
Lord Kingsland: Perhaps I may say that the purpose of my intervention was to indicate that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would have an adverse effect on the supply of properties, for which there is a considerable demand.
Lord Whitty: The amendment rather cuts across the Government's aim, which is primarily to give the right to manage to those who have acquired a long-term stake in the property. In other words, it is those who see themselves as more akin to the owner-occupier than to someone who is on a rack-rent. These are the people who probably would not have chosen to buy leasehold in the first place if, under English property law, buying a freehold flat had been a practical and sensible solution at that point. It is to be hoped that when the Bill comes to full fruition the successors of such people will become commonholders.
All leaseholders are technically tenants, irrespective of the way in which they have paid for their lease. It is quite difficult to draw a completely logical line between those who are would-be owner-occupiers and those who are would-be renters. Any test is subject to the criticism that a few people fall on the wrong side of the line. The Government came to the 21-year option, which seemed to give about the right level of balance and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said, is the point at which the right to enfranchise exists under current legislation. I admit that the noble Lord was pointing to some detrimental effects of that but, nevertheless, there is a consistency here.
A number of people think that there should be shorter leases with the same rights as those of long leases. It is certainly true that in some circumstances a long-term renting tenant may pay more than a long leaseholder does as a lump sum, but that is not really the point. The question is: what is the balance of stake in the building itself that would justify tipping the balance towards giving them the right to manage? There is a difference of opinion between the noble Lords, Lord Jacobs and Lord Kingsland, as to the nature of the market, and in a sense both are right.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, claims that, if we were to reduce the threshold for the right to manage below 21 years to seven years, that would destroy the existing market. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said that to a large extent that market exists only to get round the existing enfranchisement provisions. I understand both those concerns but I must also say to both noble Lords that it is quite a limited part of the totality of the leasehold market, which probably

CWH 151
applies only in central London. In most other parts of the country, would-be buyers would not be prepared to sink such large sums of capital into what is, after all, a fairly short-term interest with a rapid rate of depreciation. This sub-market is dominated by perhaps the kind of people whom the noble Lord just accused me of favouring—relatively well-heeled investors, purchasers and corporations.
Although I understand the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Jacobs, it would distort the totality of the approach to the leasehold market as a whole if we were to change the threshold here. There is some merit in consistency between enfranchisement provisions and right-to-manage provisions and I am not convinced by what has been said in the past few minutes that we should depart from that consistency here.
As regards the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—it was a good question—the clauses are more or less lifted from the 1993 Act, which is not an excuse for me not being able to give a clear explanation. However, they are different types of lease. It is probably better if I write to the noble Baroness and leave a copy of that letter in the Library for the enlightenment of other Members of the Committee. However, I resist the proposed reduction from 21 years to seven for the reasons explained.
Lord Goodhart: I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. Perhaps I may say also that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that our proposals would damage the market. If anything, they would probably improve it, because those who wish to dispose of property for a period of anything between eight and 20 years are unlikely to want to be involved in the management of the property. Quite frankly, they would much prefer to have a clean situation whereby they get the rent and do not have to worry about the property. They would be much more likely to prefer that than to be active members of the RTM company. There is a real risk that RTM companies will end up with a number of inactive members who feel they have very little stake in the property other than to draw the rent from their sub-tenants.
The Minister referred to the head lessees in this situation as being something akin to an owner-occupier but, quite clearly, somebody who has sub-let for a 20-year term is not an owner-occupier. It seems to me that it is much better to get the management into the hands of those who are closer to occupation of the property. However, I shall not repeat my arguments. We may well want to look at this matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Long leases: further provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 122 to 124 not moved.]
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Notice inviting participation]:
[Amendments Nos. 125 and 125A not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 33, line 31, at end insert—
("(4) The provisions of section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 as to service of notices shall apply to the service of notices under this section.
(5) If a notice of invitation to participate is not served in accordance with this section, every director and officer of an RTM company at the time of the breach shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(6) If any director or officer of an RTM intentionally fails to give notice to any qualifying tenant in accordance with this section, such director or officer shall be liable on summary conviction to not more than 3 months imprisonment and a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 126 and I hope that it will prove uncontroversial. Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 makes some fairly simple provisions of the deemed service of notices; for example, service by recorded delivery is deemed to be good service. This plainly reduces problems of proving service on qualifying tenants, which might otherwise be the subject of potentially expensive and divided disputes.
The other proposed subsections deal with enforcement. Problems have arisen in the past about how to enforce provisions for tenants to have notice of rights. Some Members of the Committee may recall a notorious case where the trustees of two of the biggest property-owning charities in the country decided to swap their property portfolios. In order to stop the tenants exercising their right to buy the freehold, those supposedly reputable trustees, with supposedly reputable advisers, devised a scheme which had the effect of defrauding tenants of their rights. The Court of Appeal held that the scheme in large part worked because the enforcement provisions were inadequate.
In order to avoid problems with enforcement, I therefore propose that two criminal offences be enacted. The first is an offence of strict liability which bites where notice that an RTM company intends to apply for the right to manage is not properly served. This will ensure that directors and officers of the RTM company have an incentive to ensure adherence to the proper procedures for giving notices.
The second is a more serious offence, punishable with up to three months imprisonment, for those directors and officers who cynically avoid serving notices with the intention of preventing certain qualifying tenants from exercising their rights. There is a risk with this legislation that an RTM company will be promoted by a small group of tenants who deliberately seek to shut other tenants out of participation in the right to manage. The second offence is designed to provide a proper incentive to ensure that all qualifying tenants have an equal opportunity to participate in the RTM company.
Amendment No. 126A would enable any of the present managers of the block to require the RTM company to prove that it had complied with the requirement to serve the notice of participation on all qualifying tenants. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may ask about the position if plain notices are not given. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has not proposed a sanction. What happens if the notice of invitation to participate is not given? Is the claim notice then invalidated? It seems to me that it is not. Can the Minister confirm the position?
Lord Whitty: I would draw the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to Clause 108 of the Bill which provides detailed requirements on the serving of notices under the right to manage. That is sufficient provision without in effect replicating the similar provisions of Section 196 of the Law of Property Act, as he suggests.
The second part of the amendment relates to directors being held personally responsible where a participation notice is not properly served; we consider that somewhat unnecessary, if I have understood the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, correctly. After all, any failure to serve notices properly would in itself invalidate any attempt to exercise the right to manage and therefore, they would have to start all over again. There would be no point in having an additional penalty since no benefit would have been achieved. The intention is that not serving the invitation to participate properly would invalidate the claim notice. We think that the Bill as it stands does that.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also proposes allowing the landlord to require evidence that the notice to participate has been served. We see no need for such a provision. The invitation to participate is intended to ensure that all leaseholders know that it is proposed to acquire that right, which will also help the RTM company to sign up sufficient members. As such, the service of the notice of invitation to participate has nothing directly to do with the landlord. Giving him rights to demand information about how it has been served therefore serves no other purpose than to provide unscrupulous landlords with yet a further excuse for challenging the process.
The interest of a leaseholder is not directly prejudiced by a failure to receive a notice of invitation. The right to manage can be acquired only if enough of the leaseholders become members of the RTM company. Anyone who had not become aware of the proposed acquisition would not have been in a position to prevent it going ahead, provided that enough of the others had signed up, but would in any event have the right to become a member of the RTM company at any time.
CWH 154
That is the central part of Amendment No. 126. The provisions in relation to how notice is served are not necessary. The other provisions are a misunderstanding of how the process should work and are unnecessary.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his response. I shall look again at Clause 118 and meanwhile give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. I shall reflect also on his remarks about the second part of my speech. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 126A not moved.]
Clause 75 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 127:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
APPOINTMENT OF SURVEYOR
(".—(1) To prepare for future management. prior to the service of a notice of invitation to participate, the RTM company may appoint a surveyor in accordance with section 84 of the Housing Act 1996 (right to appoint surveyor to advise on matters relating to service charges).
(2) A surveyor appointed under subsection (1) shall report on the current condition of the property, both physical and financial.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 127, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 268 and 269. I shall not press the argument on Amendment No. 127 because I believe that the Minister, when he replied to the general debate on guidance, subsumed this whole matter. I hope that he can give us some assurance that there would be facilities for an RTM company to appoint surveyors. The last thing one wants is for an RTM company to take over common parts of the building and find those common parts in total shambles. I hope that will be in the guidance. If my noble friend can assure me that it is, I shall go no further with the argument.
Amendments Nos. 268 and 269 refer to the commencement clause of the Bill. We now know that the commonhold provisions in Part I of the Bill are essentially enabling provisions. They set out a framework under which regulations can conveniently be made. It is not precise, and I understand exactly why that is so. The Government need to consider very carefully what kind of regulations they will issue under Part I of the Bill when it becomes an Act.
On the other hand, the right to manage does not require a great number of regulations. It hardly requires any regulations at all. I am persuaded by advisers that the one thing that is needed from the Bill immediately after it receives Royal Assent is the right to manage. That will be the crucial matter for the Bill. Commonhold can wait, but I do not believe that the right to manage can wait, which is why in Amendments Nos. 268 and 269 I invite my noble friend to split the clause and commence Part II, Chapter I—the right to manage—more quickly. I see no reason why the Government should not commence the whole of Part II much more quickly. They should simply specify a date for enactment, as in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. If we do that it

CWH 155
will provide enormous reassurance to people who wait for this to become law but do not want to wait for the whole procedure of commonhold to be implemented. They will have the right to manage quite soon after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I have sympathy with the amendment in so far as it gives the Minister an opportunity to consider whether there may be some asymmetry between RTM and other matters. I have raised this matter in another connection. I believe that there is some asymmetry between the clauses to do with RTM and other matters in the Bill, and it may be worth while to consider that.
Lord Whitty: As regards Amendment No. 127, which allows the RTM company to appoint a surveyor prior to exercising the right to manage, my noble friend Lord Williams may be right that we can deal with this matter in guidance. I shall certainly look at that carefully. It is, however, possible that we may need something like his original amendment because that gives the surveyor right of access to the building and to relevant documents. As to that, we may need to establish a statutory right. Ideally, it should be dealt with in guidance, but if it was necessary to clarify the statutory position on access we might need to look at it further.
As to the date of commencement, in a sense there may well be some asymmetry in the Bill, but in the area of the right to manage we are committed to a substantial period of consultation, principally in relation to the constitution of the RTM company itself As explained earlier, we are committed to consulting before making regulations. We want to ensure that proper guidance is in place before the commencement of that right. All of that will take time. It may take six months as the amendment suggests; it may take longer or even less time, but there will certainly be a substantial period of consultation and drafting. At this stage the Government prefer to have flexibility in the Bill rather than be tied to a commencement date.
Baroness Hamwee: I, too, have sympathy with the amendment. Can the Minister confirm that Clause 155, which provides that the provisions of the Bill shall,
"come into force in accordance with provision made by order",
allows for different parts of the Bill to be brought into effect at different times?
Lord Whitty: If that is what is stated, it allows flexibility. I believe that that is the normal form of words.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising that issue. I am sure that that is right. I hope that the Government will take seriously the fact that the right to manage is a fundamental matter that many people look to in the Bill. If there must be consultation, let there be a sense of urgency about it, because people want the right. I am grateful for my noble friend's observations about
CWH 156
Amendment No. 127. No doubt he will look at it and let noble Lords know at a later stage what the Government propose to do about it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Clause 76 [Right to obtain information]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 33, line 33, after ("person") insert ("who has a right to manage the premises or any part thereof").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is twofold. First, it is to limit the RIM company's powers to obtain information and, secondly, to provide sensible enforcement powers.
As presently drafted, the clause gives the RIM company extensive powers to demand information from anyone whomsoever. It must be remembered that the RTM company has this power at a time when it has not yet acquired the power to manage. In other words, it is just a putative RTM company—a company that wants to acquire the right to manage.
The main thing which the RTM company needs at this stage is a list of all the qualifying tenants in the block. The person who knows that will be the person with the right to manage. The purpose of the first two amendments is to limit the power to demand information so that, in practical terms, only the landlord need give information, and to limit the information that can be demanded to the information which needs to be put in the claim form.
As at present drafted, Clause 76(1)(b) is extremely imprecise. What limits are to be placed on information which the RTM company may reasonably require? This is potentially an extremely intrusive provision. All sorts of confidential agreements could reasonably be demanded by the RTM company and there is no limit as to whom can be asked for information.
A proper enforcement power is also needed. As at present drafted, I suppose an RTM company might be able to apply for an injunction, ordering the recipient of a notice to provide information. That is hardly a cheap and cheerful means of enforcing this obligation. It would be much better to have a narrow duty of disclosing the names of tenants and the details of their leases, which is imposed on the landlord and is enforceable by summary criminal proceedings in the event of breach. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for explaining his amendments, which are as we understood them. The amendments are intended to restrict the power for RTM companies to obtain information. Under the amendment, the power could be used only to obtain information relating to certain matters which are required to be included in the claim notice which is, in turn, required by Clause 78. However, I observe that the noble Lord has tabled amendments to Clause 78 itself, which would extend the matters which would be required to be included in the claim notice.

CWH 157
The main purpose of Clause 76 is indeed to ensure that an RTM company can obtain this information, but the company may have a legitimate reason to obtain other information which is pertinent to the claim. It is difficult to set that out exhaustively on the face of the Bill. We have therefore decided to provide a general power to obtain other information which the company reasonably requires. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked me about the limitation. The answer is that the word "reasonably" should protect landlords and other managers from being faced with unnecessary or unjustified demands. Indeed, I should remind the noble Lord that he argued previously that the RTM company will need to have made all manner of management plans. If it is to do that, it will need information on the existing management. If the Bill were limited in the way suggested by the amendments, it would not achieve what the noble Lord wants.
We have another problem with the amendment. It creates a criminal sanction for a failure to comply. We are reluctant to create new criminal offences unless there is a pressing need to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggests that it is not enough to go for an injunction to the court, but Clause 103 provides the power to apply to the court for an order to provide the information requested. We consider that to be enough.
6 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his response. Clause 76(1) is limited to situations before the RTM company acquires the power to manage. It refers to its power to make a claim. The Minister quite rightly drew my attention to the fact that, in another amendment, I have asked that more information be provided by the existing management of the company so that a putative RTM company can make an objective assessment about what it is taking on.
However, those amendments sought to place an obligation on the existing management to produce that information. Here I am talking about a claim which the Minister will observe applies to any person. Therefore, with great respect, I do not believe that the two approaches are incompatible.
I understand the Minister's desire not to introduce more criminal offences—it is very good to find a Minister who feels that way about a parliamentary Bill—and I agree with him that an injunction is a reasonable alternative, but it is much more expensive for an individual to put on foot. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 130 to 132 not moved.]
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Notice of claim to acquire right]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 132A:
Page 34, line 12, leave out ("14") and insert ("28").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 133, 134 and 135 in this group are also in my name. I propose not to move them when the appropriate moment arrives.
Amendment No. 132A, which I shall move, would increase the minimum period of time between the service of the notice of participation and the service of the notice of claim from 14 to 28 days. We believe that 14 days is too short a period to allow the leaseholders to decide how they wish to respond to a notice to participate. What if a notice were served the day after a leaseholder left for a two-week holiday? We consider that 28 days would be more appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As regards the proposal to increase the minimum period from 14 to 28 days, we consider that it is unnecessary and would cause another delay. The 14-day gap is intended to allow leaseholders the opportunity to reflect on whether they support the acquisition of the right to manage. If enough of them do, the notice can be served once the 14 days have expired. If they do not, the company will have to wait until sufficient members agree and it can serve the notice.
If someone was away, it would not affect that calculation at all. When they returned they could indicate that they wished to participate. However, if there was a majority there already, their subsequent view would not be relevant. If someone was away on a holiday for longer than 14 days and there was not a majority, the whole process would have to wait anyway. I do not believe that these amendments are necessary.
Lord Goodhart: Before the Minister sits down, surely there is a problem here. If someone was away but wanted to participate, they would be unable to do so if the necessary majority had been obtained without their joining in. Is that not correct?
Lord Whitty: No. Anyone who is qualified can join at any time, whatever view he or she may have taken at the beginning.
Lord Kingsland: The Minister is confident that his own provision will work effectively. I disagree with him, but I cannot put the matter to the vote. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Contents of claim notice]:
[Amendment No. 133A not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 133B:
Page 35, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) It must include an offer of cover to provide for the RTM company directors' and officers' liability insurance, fidelity guarantee and professional indemnity insurance.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would require the RTM company to include in its notice of claim that it had secured an offer from an insurance company to provide appropriate insurance cover. The intention of the amendment is to offer a means by

CWH 159
which the RTM company can demonstrate its competence to manage and reassure all parties without laying itself open to any form of challenge regarding the degree to which it would be competent.
The amendment would require the company to obtain the three forms of insurance specified. The first is directors' and officers' liability insurance to protect those leaseholders involved in the management of the RTM company. It is already widely regarded as good practice for residents and management companies to obtain that form of insurance. The protection it offers against personal liability for the consequences of any errors on the part of a lessee who is involved in management may encourage more people to volunteer to serve.
The second is a fidelity guarantee to protect leaseholders' funds held by third parties in service charge or reserve fund accounts against theft or embezzlement, with the intention that the moneys would be directly protected. Any loss would be restored immediately while the insurers pursued the culprit.
The third protection is professional indemnity insurance to insure the company against the consequences of any failure in the day-to-day management of the block. It is unlikely that an insurer would agree to offer professional indemnity insurance without being certain that those undertaking the day-to-day management were competent. To give one example, insurers would wish to be certain that health and safety issues would be managed in a professional and competent manner, which would be expected of a commercial managing agent. We see no reason why an individual leaseholder should expect any less protection from the arrangements put in place by the RTM companies. The benefits to the leaseholders and the RTM company from these forms of insurance are, we believe, self-evident.
Amendment No. 133C is also in this group. That amendment sets a deadline of two months, rather than one month, to respond to the notice of claim for the right to manage. As with Amendment No. 132A, we believe that the timeframe proposed is too short. We prefer the deadline for responses to be two months, in keeping with the parallel requirement for responses to claims, enfranchisement or lease extension.
My noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, have tabled Amendment No. 136 which is also in this group. I support that amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 133B.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to Amendment No. 136 which is grouped with this amendment. I call this my "health warning provision". There is a potential liability as to costs for a right-to-manage company in various circumstances. I believe that it is only right that before—this is the important point—one enters into a right-to-manage company one's attention is drawn to these liabilities, which can be substantial. The Committee will find the liabilities in Clauses 85 and 86 of the Bill.
CWH 160
It is important to remember that these are joint and several liabilities; there is not only your potential share of the liability as a member of the RTM company but the overall liability should one of the other people involved default on their share of the costs. I believe that that should be drawn to everyone's attention before the proceedings start, rather than waking up to it later, as I have experienced in my practice.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I have added my name to the noble Earl's amendment. It is an improvement on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I have very serious problems with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
Directors and liability insurance is now almost impossible to obtain. Certainly an RTM company would have enormous difficulty in obtaining this kind of insurance in the market—as it would with fidelity insurance—and even the larger firms of consultants are having difficulty in renegotiating their professional indemnity insurance. I understand that the legal profession also is having problems with this. I do not see this as a practical proposition for directors of RTM companies. I do not believe that any underwriter would accept them.
Although the provisions of Amendment No. 136 are quite draconian, I believe, as the noble Earl said, that there should be a health warning for people going in for the right to manage. Again, it comes down to the proposition that people should go into the right to manage with their eyes fully open as to what they are letting themselves in for. When the Bill is enacted, a section such as this would be helpful in that regard.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I think that the health warning in Amendment No. 136 is a very worthwhile addition to the Bill. In many cases we will be dealing with people who may be quite inexperienced in what they are taking on; therefore, what they are getting into needs to be made very clear. It is all too easy for people to be seduced into thinking that a right to manage is very attractive, but they need to be faced very clearly with the consequences.
I also have some concerns about Amendment No. 133B. My concerns partially reflect what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said. The amendment as it stands seems attractive, but it is all about quantum. You could have a very low amount of cover which achieves very little other than providing something for a fig leaf of respectability. It is about the quantum cover and the nature of the wording of the cover that is to be provided. You can have wording which is sufficiently opaque and broadly drawn as to have very little impact.
There is also another reason why we probably do not need this provision. I suspect that every director of an RTM company will want it. You therefore do not need to write it into the legislation because the directors of the RTM company will themselves be seeking it in order to protect their position. It will therefore be drawn in inexorably by the directors of the RTM company who will want to have it. Amendment No. 133B represents another hurdle which we do not need to impose.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that we cannot agree that the claim notice should have to include an offer to take out liability assurance. I am less sorry after hearing the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Williams, because it would effectively make insurance a further qualifying criterion by the back door.
The right to manage is designed to reflect the fact that the leaseholders hold a majority of the equity of the building and should therefore already have a say in the management of the block. We are putting leaseholders on a more even keel with other home owners. We cannot agree that that needs to be hedged around with requirements that are based on the presupposition that they will not be competent enough to take sensible decisions about the management of that property. We have heard graphic examples from a number of Members of the Committee of people who have been put in the position of managing property who are not competent to do so. However, there is no protection to be found from having a nanny state and putting on the face of the Bill things that are not appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is right: the benefits of insurance are self-evident. It would be very sensible for the RTM company to consider taking out insurance of that kind. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, had a valid point: the fact of saying that there should be insurance does not guarantee that there would be adequate insurance, and the problem of defining "adequate insurance" on the face of the Bill would be quite significant. We cannot agree to making them do so, therefore.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also proposes allowing two months to respond to a claim notice. The procedure for acquiring the right to manage, and particularly the timescale involved, have been the subject of much discussion with interested parties. Nobody has suggested that one month is too short, so we stick to the view that one month is enough. Adding a further month would only introduce further delay for no good purpose.
The amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is interesting. It is intended to ensure on the face of the Bill that the parties are aware that in the event of the failure of an RTM bid the individual leaseholders, as well as the RTM company, are jointly and severally liable for the landlord's reasonable costs. I certainly agree that everybody should be aware of the respective rights and liabilities.
The Bill provides that the form and content of both the notices of invitation to participate, required under Clause 75, and claim notices may be prescribed by regulation. That would provide the opportunity for us to require an appropriate statement about this matter to be included in the notices. That would meet the requirements of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that people should be made aware before they become members. This amendment, which refers only to claim notices, would not do that. Our power under regulations will also apply to the notice of intention to
CWH 162
participate and therefore meets his requirement. The detail of it is still subject to consultation, and that is as it should be. However, it is better to have it in regulation than on the face of the Bill for that reason.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. May I take it that something to this effect will be in the regulations? He said that there would be consultation and that the Government have the power to bring in regulations. As the noble Lord is only too well aware, once the regulations come to this House they cannot be amended, but it would be a great help to all of those who are concerned about the matter to know that it would definitely be in in some shape or form.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can certainly give that assurance.
Lord Kingsland: When gunfire comes from behind as well as in front, it is usually prudent to withdraw as decently as one may. I shall not seek to press the amendment this afternoon. I am pleased that the Minister has, in effect, supported the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friend Lord Caithness; some satisfaction has been acquired. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 133C to 136 not moved.]
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Claim notice: supplementary]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 136A:
Page 35, line 20, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: The amendment removes the subsection that states that a claim notice for the right to manage is not invalidated by inaccuracies in the particulars required. This is intended as a probing amendment. If a claim notice is not invalidated by inaccuracy, what requirement is there to be accurate? We appreciate that the intention may be to ensure that minor errors, such as spelling mistakes, errors in the precise postcode, or mixing up the leaseholders and their flat numbers. need not invalidate a claim. However, we would be interested to know how accurate a claim should be in the light of this subsection.
Amendment No. 136B was also in the group. This amendment requires a claim notice for the right to manage to be registered with the Land Registry, so that it will show up on any searches undertaken on behalf of the prospective purchaser of any flat or freehold. This proposal parallels the provision which is already in place for leasehold enfranchisement and lease extension, through the Leasehold Reform Regulations (1967) and the Leasehold Reform Regulations (1993), as they relate to Section 110 of the Land Registration Act 1925, which requires the vendor to ensure that all relevant information regarding title is registered with the Land Registry. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am relieved to find that Amendment No. 136A is a probing amendment.

CWH 163
We think subsection (1) of Clause 79 is a very important provision which we would not wish to lose. Subsection (1) says that any inaccuracy in the claim notice does not, of itself, invalidate that notice. We know from experience that many landlords will look for any excuse to reject a claim notice. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggests it could be a wrong postcode, a wrong flat number, or even a mis-spelt word, but that is obstructive behaviour which subsection (1) would prevent.
At the same time, as the Explanatory Notes to the Bill make clear, this subsection does not allow the leaseholder to get away with making a false claim. If the claim notice incorrectly claims that the leaseholders are entitled to acquire the right to manage, the landlord will be able to make a counter-notice disputing their eligibility to do so. We feel that a sensible balance has been struck.
The next amendment requires that the RTM company be required to register a claim notice. We are not convinced that there is any need for this. It is for a potential purchaser of any landlord's interest to make appropriate inquiries about the interest he is planning to buy. Vendors of freeholds will have duties to provide relevant information to prospective purchasers. If a purchaser is not given all of the right information, such as the existence of a claim notice, that would seem to be mis-selling and the purchaser should look to the vendor for redress. We do not see this as the responsibility of the RTM company.
Following the introduction of a right to manage, we would expect purchasers of freeholds, or their advisers, to be aware that the right may be exercisable where the property is eligible and make purchasing decisions on that basis.
Lord Kingsland: Amendment No. 136A was a probing amendment and therefore I have no intention whatever of pursuing it in substance. I would like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his very full answer.
So far as Amendment No. 136B is concerned, I shall re-table it at Report stage and feel strongly inclined to put the matter to the vote if the Minister responds in like manner. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 136B not moved.]
Clauses 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Counter-notices]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 36, line 27, at end insert ("or
(c) that it is not just or convenient that the RTM company should acquire the right to manage,").
The noble Lord said: Grouped with this amendment are Amendments Nos. 138 to 140 and 147. The amendments to this clause are very important to this side of the Committee and its approach to this part of the Bill. We consider them essential to make the Bill compliant with the Human Rights Act.
The Government's approach is to give lessees an absolute right to manage. It matters not on the Government's approach that the landlord is a paragon of virtue and carries out his management functions meticulously and cheaply. It matters not on the Government's approach that the lessees' whole purpose in acquiring a right to manage may be to avoid doing vital repairs to the building. No matter how good the landlord, no matter how disastrous the lessees' intentions might be, the lessees will have the right to manage.
It seems to us, on this side of the Committee, that the right solution is to have a much more flexible system. Everyone's objective must be to improve the quality of the country's housing stock and it is in the interests of both landlords and tenants to ensure that the management of property is the best possible.
The solution, in my view, is for the leasehold valuation tribunal to carry out a balancing exercise to determine whether a particular block is likely to be better managed by the landlord or by the tenants. In some cases, it may be clear that the tenants should have the right to manage. The landlord may for years impose exorbitant service charges for repairs which are lamentably carried out. In other cases, the landlord may have been first-class, but the leases in the building have only a few years to run and the tenants want to avoid carrying out extensive structural work that is essential to keep the building in good condition. Amendment No. 139 sets out a number of matters which would be relevant to the carrying out of a sensible balancing exercise.
If these amendments are not accepted, it seems to me that the Government will have great difficulty in showing that a landlord's human rights have not been infringed. As I said in setting out the Opposition's approach to this part of the Bill, the right to manage is a valuable one. Landlords quite legitimately, in order to manage blocks of flats, have those rights. It is justifiable to take away that right without paying compensation if the landlord is abusing his position. This kind of case would plainly satisfy the Duke of Westminster criteria set down by the European Court of Human Rights.
What is not justifiable is taking away not only the profits of managing but also potentially damaging the landlord's reversionary interest in cases where necessary repairs are likely to be postponed. There is simply no pressing social need for that kind of expropriation without compensation. That is why giving the leasehold valuation tribunal the power to carry out a balancing exercise is important. The message which needs to go out from this Commit tee is that Parliament condemns bad landlords but supports good landlords. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will not be surprised to hear that we on these Benches disagree very strongly indeed with this group of amendments. We believe that the whole purpose of the right to manage in Chapter 1 of Part II

CWH 165
of the Bill is to get over the problems that have been shown up in the past few years by the necessity for proving that there has been mismanagement by the landlord. One gets round all that by making it a right for people to take over the management. We know that in many cases, if the landlord is a good landlord, they would certainly be well advised not to take over the management themselves. However, there will be many cases in which they do. It will be infinitely simpler and a great deal cheaper for them if they come along and say that they have the necessary number of qualifying tenants who agree that they want to take it over, and they then set up their RTM company.
These amendments would take us back to the existing system and would potentially make it enormously costly as one would need to have substantial litigation in order to establish one's right. One only has to look at Amendment No. 139 and at the list of issues that the leasehold valuation tribunal will have consider to see that the proceedings could stretch for days, if not weeks; the potential cost could be enormous. We believe that the effect of this group of amendments would be to effectively destroy the whole of the right-to-manage scheme.
Lord Monson: In contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, this seems to me a very worthwhile group of amendments. They would introduce a highly desirable safeguard into the Bill, particularly as one could count upon the leasehold valuation tribunals to come to a fair and balanced judgment. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, may have overlooked that point.
Lord Jacobs: I cannot support the amendment. Of all the provisions that the Government are putting into the Bill, the one most supported by leaseholders—and the least disappointing—is the right to manage. The amendment would destroy any benefit that leaseholders will secure.
Having said that, as I said before, I live in central London and have one of the greater landlords as the freeholder, who manages the property. In the last two or three years, he has doubled and redoubled his efforts to do the most professional job imaginable. One would need to be barking mad to consider taking over the management because it could not be done to the same standards. However, the possibility of the tenants taking over the management is a spur to good management, particularly to the landlords. I, therefore, strongly oppose the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Jacobs, are right; these amendments expose the real difference between us on Chapter I, Part II of the Bill. If they were to be agreed to, Part II of the Bill would not be worth pursuing.
The principle behind the Bill is a "no-fault" right to manage. The criterion for the right-to-manage is that the leaseholders should have the greatest share of the equity of the building. We argue that, if they have that, they should be able to take over responsibility for managing the investment without having to prove shortcomings on the part of the landlord or to prove
CWH 166
that they were more suitable managers. The noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Jacobs, have made it clear that if they thought they would be conspicuously less suitable managers—and if there was no cause for complaint—they would not wish to manage, and that that is the protection.
The phrase "just and convenient" comes from Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which enables leaseholders to apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for the appointment of a manager where the landlord has failed to comply with his obligations. The use of the phrase in those circumstances allows the tribunal to balance the landlord's failings against the consequences of losing management responsibility. That does not work in these circumstances. "Just" to whom? "Convenient" to whom? The question is left entirely open.
It has been said already that Amendment No. 139 has a long list of matters which would have to be taken into account, but the list is not exhaustive. Amendment No. 139 says "shall have regard in particular" to these matters, which allows others to be involved.
There are plenty of safeguards in the Bill. There are safeguards for landlords or other occupants if the RTM company fails to manage the building. This includes the right to apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for the appointment of a new manager, to which I have already referred. The manager could be the landlord himself if the tribunal accepted that he was suitably competent to carry out this role. It is unnecessary to add a further hurdle to be overcome before the leaseholders can exercise the right in the first place.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that the landlord has a right to protect the reversionary value of his property. Clause 94(1) allows a landlord to require a right-to-manage company to carry out its management responsibilities. This, together with his right to be a member of the company, allows him to safeguard his reversionary interest. If the RTM company persistently falls down in its duties, anyone affected could seek its replacement under the 1987 Act.
It would be wrong for the right to be taken away on spurious grounds. The amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would provide unscrupulous landlords with every opportunity to frustrate or obstruct leaseholders' legitimate aims. We simply cannot accept what would, in effect, destroy Chapter 1 of Part II.
Lord Kingsland: To make it absolutely clear to the Committee, we strongly support the principle of the right to manage. That is not in issue. Moreover, we deplore the conduct of bad landlords and their practices.
Our concern is where a good landlord, who has an unblemished record, is required to transfer the right to manage to a right-to-manage company which subsequently manages the property badly. The Minister has described to the Committee a number of provisions in the Bill which he believes will prevent

CWH 167
such a situation occurring. In our submission, however, those provisions, in themselves, are insufficient to deal with the problem that I have outlined. I shall reflect on the noble Lord's reply and come back to this issue, perhaps in a different form, on Report.
I omitted to speak to Amendment No. 147 in the group. I shall speak to it when we arrive at its place in the list. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 138 to 140 not moved.]
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Landlords etc. not traceable]:
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 37, line 21, leave out ("court") and insert ("leasehold valuation tribunal").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 142, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. They are simple amendments. They seek to leave out "court" and insert "leasehold valuation tribunal". The Bill rightly gives emphasis to increased role for the leasehold valuation tribunals. I see no reason why that is not the appropriate body to deal with landlords who are not traceable, which is the kernel of Clause 82.
A leasehold valuation tribunal is a much less daunting prospect for a right-to-manage company than going to court. Much as I admire and like solicitors, unless it is absolutely necessary, the further they are kept away from property the better. This is one area where they can be kept just that little bit further away. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: We support the amendment. It seems appropriate that the leasehold valuation tribunal should become a specialist court, dealing as far as possible with all the issues that arise under the Bill. It is appropriate that these particular issues should be determined by the LVT. It will be a more informal and, we hope, a quicker and cheaper way of dealing with such issues.
Lord Kingsland: We also support the amendment, although we consider that the operation of the leasehold valuation tribunals at the moment leaves something to be desired. We shall table amendments later in the Bill to that effect.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The reason we suggested putting this to the courts was because the courts have to make similar decisions in other areas and no particular specialist expertise is required. We do not think that leaseholders, going to the courts in this way, are likely to receive a substantial bill of costs. There is a precedent in the 1993 Act for the procedure for collective enfranchisement where the landlord cannot be found, but we do not feel very strongly about this. There are other precedents in other parts of the Bill, where we have transferred some categories of leasehold disputes to the leasehold valuation tribunals.
CWH 168
Therefore, we are perfectly prepared to consider this matter for the Report stage if Members of the Committee feel strongly about it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Could it be that my noble friend is accepting the amendment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Parliamentary draftsmen never allow us to accept amendments unless they have been drafted by parliamentary counsel. I have said that we do not feel strongly about it, and we will consider it.
Lord Goodhart: In that case, perhaps I may ask why it was that the Government accepted my Amendment No. 3, which was drafted by me and not by parliamentary counsel?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Because we said we would.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We have moved from "consider" to "not objecting", which is a monumental step forward. In this spirit of encouragement, perhaps we can look forward to some more positive speeches from the noble Lord.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—I am grateful for his support—that the LVTs need strengthening. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that as a result of this Bill there will be improvements in the staffing resources and efficiency of the LVT in order to carry out all the tasks it is required to do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That question goes beyond parliamentary consideration of this Bill, but I am told that such strengthening of resources is in hand.
The Earl of Caithness: I am much obliged to the 5th Cavalry. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Withdrawal of claim notice]:
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 145A not moved.]
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Deemed withdrawal]:
[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
Clause 84 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 85 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Goodhart: We believe that, as between the landlord and an RTM company, there should be no liability for each other's costs, as now provided by Clauses 85 and 86. Members of an RTM company are almost always likely to be less able to afford costs than the landlord. There will therefore be a serious disincentive to them if they have to pay the landlord's costs as well as their own—and, of course, they will

CWH 169
have to pay their own. Equally, if the landlords are liable to pay their own costs, there will be an incentive on them to reach an early agreement.
It is true that, under Clause 85, the landlord's costs had to be reasonable, but "reasonable" is, frankly, an elastic word. If the RTM company wishes to challenge the reasonableness of the landlord's claim costs, that challenge will itself be the subject, potentially, of further litigation, increasing the lessee's costs still further.
If we seriously want to help lessees obtain the right to manage, we should exclude this proposed liability to pay the landlord's costs.
Lord Whitty: These clauses would completely remove the right of recipients of claim notices and landlords to recover the reasonable costs of dealing with those notices. While one does not want to use the emotive term "expropriation", unlike the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, it cannot be right that someone who has had his rights taken away compulsorily should bear the costs involved in dealing with that. Anyone who is served with a claim notice has a legitimate right to defend himself if he wishes to challenge it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, indicated, it is not a blank cheque; one must be reasonable. The process of challenging those costs is through the LVT, which we have all agreed is a sensible and relatively informal way to resolve these issues. This amendment is not appropriate. The landlord must have the ability to recover reasonable costs.
Lord Jacobs: I support my noble friend Lord Goodhart. The argument of the Minister that each side should have the right to claim costs in the event of a loss sounds very reasonable at first blush. However, the parties are unequal, and that is where the problem between leaseholders and freeholders starts. If in the main the parties are unequal and power and strength lie with the freeholder, as we have seen with leasehold extensions before the LVT where the parties may take some time to put forward their cases, the costs incurred by landlords may be quite frightening. On occasion they employ, not surprisingly, the very best, and hence the most expensive, counsel, and that scares leaseholders most of all. It is wrong to treat the two parties as equal; in reality, almost invariably that is not so.
Lord Whitty: It would probably establish a right of precedent for the RTM. If the RTM is successful in its claim it has redressed that inequality. At that point the landlord is no longer an unequal party and, therefore, has a claim to have his reasonable expenses repaid. I accept that there may be landlords who try to seek unreasonable expenses; certainly, history indicates that that happens, but in relation to that there is the safeguard of the LVT. Clause 85(2) is also an important qualification, in that costs are reasonable only if they are of the kind that the landlord would
CWH 170
incur if he was personally liable for them. There are a number of safeguards here. Therefore, I hope that these clauses are not deleted.
Lord Goodhart: We shall consider this matter further in the light of what the Minister has said. We shall not press our opposition to the clause on this occasion.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 147:
After Clause 86, insert the following new clause—
("Cessation of RTM company rights
CESSATION OF RTM COMPANY RIGHTS
.—(1) After an RTM company acquires the right to manage any premises, from time to time any person who is—

(a) a qualifying tenant,

(b) a tenant of any part of the premises who is not a qualifying tenant, or

(c) the landlord of the whole or any part of the premises (including mesne landlords) or a management company party to any lease of the premises or any part thereof who prior to the acquisition date had the right to manage the premises,
may apply to the leasehold valuation tribunal for an order that the RTM company cease to have the right to manage.

(2) The grounds on which such an application may be made are that on the date of the application—

(a) that where there are only two flats in the premises the tenants of both flats are not both qualifying tenants and members of the RTM company.

(b) if there be more than two flats in the premises the tenants of fewer than one half of all the flats in the premises arc both qualifying tenants and members of the RTM company, or

(c) it is not just or convenient that the RTM company should continue to have the right to manage the premises.

(3) The application must be served on—

(a) the RTM company, and

(b) the landlord of the whole or any part of the premises (including mesne landlords) and any management company party to any lease of the premises or any part thereof who but for the RTM company's right to manage would have the right to manage the premises.

(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the procedure for such applications, including provisions as to costs.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is a safety net in place if an RTM company takes over the management of a block and things go wrong. One of the omissions from the Bill is the failure to include any method of removing an RTM company once it has started to manage a block. There are two situations in which it may become appropriate to remove an RTM company from management: first, where the tenants no longer want the company to manage; secondly, where the company grossly mismanages.
If the RTM company ceases to have the support of the majority of the tenants it must be right that interested parties can apply to have the company removed as the manager. Equally, in the second situation where the company shows that it is unable to manage the block properly, interested parties should

CWH 171
have the right to intervene. A tenant, for example, who finds that essential repairs are not being carried out should be given the right to have the management of the property put in alternative hands. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I answered this amendment in dealing with Amendments Nos. 137 to 140. The same arguments apply to the cessation of the RTM company rights as apply to the establishment of RTM company rights. They are a mirror image, as it were. That is borne out by the fact that Amendment No. 147 uses the same "just and convenient" phrase which was to be found in Amendment No. 137. All tenants have the right to seek the replacement of a defective RTM company under the 1987 Act by virtue of Schedule 7. There is plenty of protection. We can see no more reason to accept Amendment No. 147 than the previous amendments.
Lord Kingsland: The Minister said that his response to this amendment was the same as his response to my Amendments Nos. 137 to 140. I can equally say that my response to his response on that occasion applies equally in this case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87 [The acquisition date]:
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 148A:
Page 40, line 14, leave out from ("is") to end of line 15 and insert ("a quarter day not less than three months after the date on which the determination becomes final, unless otherwise agreed by the parties").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 148A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 148B. These amendments would require the acquisition date to be set as a quarter day and to allow a minimum three-month handover period, unless the parties agreed otherwise. The date of handover of management responsibility should, in our submission, be linked to a clear date in the service charge year. The quarter days are fixed and well known. Although not all leases refer to quarter days, landlords and managing agents are used to working around these dates as focal points for management activity.
We believe that the minimum period of one month specified in Clause 78(7) is too short to allow an effective and orderly handover, and recommend that a three-month minimum period after the service of the counter-notice be allowed and that the RTM company should take over responsibility on the next quarter day after that.
I have had no luck so far with my amendments to extend time periods. I look forward to the Minister's reply with a degree of fatalism. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am glad the noble Lord has no serious optimism because I am certainly not going to give him any grounds for it. There are a number of routes by which the RT'M company can acquire the right to manage in so far as the point of agreement is
CWH 172
concerned. Where there is a counter-notice, that has to be determined by a leasehold valuation tribunal. Whether it is by agreement or whether it is by decision of the tribunal, these amendments would extend the period from that date to the point where the acquisition occurs. We can see no justification for that.
The leaseholders have a right to a say in the management of the property—that has been established either by agreement or by the tribunal—and there is no reason for undue further delay, whether by reference to three months, to quarter days or whatever. One month seems to us to be adequate. If it has been challenged, there has already been some delay and there is no reason to extend it further.
Lord Kingsland: I am disappointed but not in the least surprised at the Minister's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 148B not moved.]
Clause 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Notices relating to management contracts]:
[Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 88 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Kingsland: I rise to speak to the Question that Clauses 88 and 89 shall stand part of the Bill. I am not convinced that the Government's intentions with respect to these provisions are clear, and I think they will pose practical problems. I appreciate that the intention of these arrangements is to ensure that an RTM company is not bound by what are called "sweetheart contracts"—to prevent a disgruntled landlord from shackling the RTM company with unsuitable contracts during the handover period.
We understand that the Government's intention is that existing contracts will transfer to the RTM company, when the right to manage is exercised, only if both the company and the contractor agree: but we are not sure that this is clear from the Bill as drafted.
Clauses 88 and 89 deal with the service of notices relating to management contracts but do not make clear what happens to those contracts once the notice is served. Landlords will he required to serve notices on their contractors at least one month before the handover of management so that the contractor has time to make any arrangements in the light of the changing circumstances and negotiate as necessary. It would be extremely helpful to have clarification from the Minister as to his understanding of the position relating to compensation as a result of a contract being frustrated.
We are not convinced that the Government have appreciated that contractors may be influenced in their decision as to whether to continue a contract by the financial strength of the RTM company. A contractor may be happy to deal with the landlord who has a track record and real assets; he may be less certain in dealing with an RTM company. We wonder whether

CWH 173
contractors will accept a contract from an RTM company if they do not believe that the company will be in a position to pay.
We are also concerned that the Government have not considered the impact of buildings withdrawing from the landlord's bulk purchasing arrangements on those leaseholders who remain under the landlord's management. It is quite possible that they, through no fault or decision of their own—or indeed the landlord's—will find themselves forced to pay more for services because the landlord is unable to obtain as good a deal with a smaller portfolio.
As to insurance matters, as I understand it, it is not possible to frustrate insurance contracts under the present law because of the continuity of the insured interest, which is not affected by management arrangements. The circumstances appear rather closer to that of a novation or assignment where the freeholder must be specifically released from the obligation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for this opportunity to stand up and get the circulation going in this rather cold room in which the Committee is being conducted. I agree with what my noble friend said about this clause. I find it highly unclear and it is a very important section that needs clarification.
The purpose of Amendment No. 151, which is grouped with the clause stand part debates in respect of Clauses 88 and 89, is designed to write into the Bill what I think the Bill is trying to say. It is not trying to add to the Bill; it is merely clarifying the situation.
I need the Minister to do that for me. What will happen to existing contracts at the handover of the management, and what will happen to frustrated contracts?
7 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 152 is also part of this group. Clause 88 and 89 undoubtedly require clarification. Having read the clauses and having looked at the Explanatory Notes, I came to an entirely different conclusion from the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. My understanding was that the existing contracts would be continued but simply transferred from the landlord to the RTM company. Indeed, it seems generally appropriate that that should be the case. Let us take, for example, a contract with a gardening contractor in respect of which there is no problem. If that contract is only terminable on, let us say, six months' notice given on either side, I see no reason why the change from the landlord to the RTM company should have the effect of terminating the rights of the gardening contractor.
For that reason, I would on this occasion be unable to support Amendment No. 151 which would treat all contracts entered into by the landlord as being null and void and frustrated. The effect would be that somebody who had entered into a contract and who might have incurred expenditure on the basis of that contract continuing for a period of time, would have no right whatever to compensation.
CWH 174
We have come up with a different solution. We recognise that there can be a problem with existing service contracts. Sometimes, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, there is a sweetheart contract, a contract with an associated company of the landlord or some element of mutual back-scratching. However, we believe that there is no reason why there should be an automatic termination or why the RTM company should have power to terminate a fair and reasonable contract. We believe there should be a power to terminate the cause, and Amendment No. 152 first suggests that any contract entered into after the RTM claim notice has been served should be subject to review. Once the claim notice has been served, of course, the landlord is on notice that he is not in a position to enter into long-term contracts without the risk of the RTM company disclaiming them when it takes over the right to manage. That would prevent contracts being dished out by the landlord to his associates.
Amendment No. 152 gives a power to terminate contracts entered into before the claim notice has been served for a cause. We have suggested what those causes should be: where the money payable to the contractor party is too much, where the services to be provided are inappropriate—for example, services that do not actually need to be done—where they are done to an excessively high and expensive standard, or where the contractor party is not a fit and proper person to provide the services. We believe that those are matters to be dealt with in the opinion of the directors, but that opinion must be a genuine opinion before the power to terminate can be entered into. We would be perfectly happy if this amendment was accepted on the basis that it should be not only a genuine but a reasonable opinion. We believe that this amendment is the right solution to what is obviously a somewhat complicated problem.
Lord Whitty: This is certainly a complicated problem about which there is some misunderstanding. I shall try not to add to that. The Bill allows normal contract law to apply where the right to manage is acquired. Under contract law, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart implied, the reality is that a contract will normally fall as frustrated where one of the parties is placed in a position where he or she is no longer able to fulfil the obligations. Hence, a contract which relates to the management of a property will normally be frustrated where the right to manage is acquired for that property, because it will take away the existing manager's management functions and his ability to fulfil his side of the contract.
As far as concerns compensation, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, under normal contract law at the point where a contract falls frustrated the contractor can recover the costs already incurred under the contract, but there is no entitlement to further compensation above that respective compensation. We believe it right that when the RTM company takes over it should not have to take over all the contract. We, therefore, do not want to interfere with what would be the normal operation of contract law.

CWH 175
We recognise, however, that there are a number of other considerations. First, it would not be fair for contractors simply to lose their business without having had notice. There will also be contracts which the RTM company will wish to take over. It is for that reason that we have not provided in the Bill that contracts must always be frustrated. That would be too inflexible and counter-productive. In many cases the RTM company will want to take over those contracts. We also want to give landlords the opportunity to re-negotiate contracts which perhaps apply to more than one property, such as a gardening contract, or whatever.
In the light of those considerations, the Bill makes provision for notices to be served in good time to make everyone aware that the right is to be acquired and the legal position which follows, and to make the necessary adjustments. I should also make clear that nothing in the Bill overrides the employment rights of anybody concerned, including those under TUPE. There is nothing in the Bill which causes a right-to-manage company to be obliged to take over a gardening contract, or any other, unless it has agreed to do so. There is, therefore, no need for the powers envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
I also have some trouble with the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which provides that all contracts are automatically frustrated once the RTM company acquires the right to manage. This would mean that the RTM company could not, by agreement or whatever, take over any of the landlord's existing contracts. It would, therefore, be put in the position of always having to start from scratch, whatever was the most sensible situation. It would also leave a landlord who had more than one property, and a contract covering more than one property, with the requirement to re-negotiate the existing contract but to exclude the RTM property in all circumstances. We have designed the provisions in these clauses and elsewhere to prevent such ridiculous situations arising.
Amendment No. 151 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, also purports to provide that the normal rules of contract law shall continue to apply. That is the case but it has the consequences which I spelled out rather than the ones which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spelled out. It is difficult and complicated and we have taken careful advice. If we were to state it in such broad terms in the Bill, it could be misleading. Instead, we would have to set out in all detail what the application of contract law means.
Members of the Committee will appreciate that we are not all that keen to undertake such a significant expansion of the Bill. However, normal contract law will apply where the right to manage is acquired. It has the consequences I have tried to spell out, and there are good reasons why the fact that it applies should be implicit rather than explicit in the way that the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would suggest. Given the complexity, for the purposes of
CWH 176
both the landlord and the putative RTM company, this issue will also need to be spelled out in detail in the guidance.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, replies, I have not researched this but I am not quite as sure as the Minister that the contracts necessarily would be frustrated. The issue about transferability of contracts is a complicated one. The basic rule is that the benefit of a contract can be transferred but the burden of a contract cannot. However, if the gardening contractor who is providing the services is willing to continue to provide those services to the RTM company, I am not entirely certain that the court would not be prepared to draw an implication that the contract was not, in those circumstances, frustrated, and that the gardening contractor was entitled to continue to provide those services and to receive payment for them from the RTM company rather than from the landlord. That may or not be the case—I am not saying that it is—but I believe that this issue will need to be looked at with some care in the interval between now and Report stage. I shall try to do so myself and perhaps the Government will also consider doing so.
The Earl of Caithness: The Minister said that he had received careful advice. Having listened to what he has had to say and being interested to hear how the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, took a different view from me on reading the Bill, I wonder whether the Minister would seek more careful advice on this clause. I am more muddled than I was before I heard what has been said. I shall have to read it in Hansard because the acoustics in this room are not great at the best of times. This area needs clarification. Perhaps we can look at it between now and the Report stage.
Lord Kingsland: I do not rise to withdraw an amendment because I do not have an amendment down. I simply speak to the Question that Clause 88 and 89 shall stand part of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, gave the Committee very good advice. We can all go away and read what we each said, form our own views and come back at Report stage to hear whether or not the Minister will reaffirm what he has already said, or whether he has reconsidered his position and returns with a modified view.
Clause 88 agreed to.
Clause 89 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 151 and 152 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 152A:
After Clause 89, insert the following new clause—
CONTINUING LIABILITIES
(".—(1) Where a liability exists as a result of an event prior to the acquisition date, the responsibility for that liability rests with whoever was the manager party at the time of the event.
(2) If a liability such as described in subsection 1) exists, the RTM company shall permit the former manager party and any person authorised to act on his behalf reasonable access to any relevant documentation (or, if the information is recorded in the

CWH 177
document in a form in which it is not readily intelligible, to give any such person access to it in a readily intelligible form) which is in its control.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 152A. The amendment ensures that if a liability exists, it remains the responsibility of whoever was responsible for the management at the time it arose, and gives the former manager a right of access to any relevant files in such circumstances until the issue is resolved.
Where there are continuing liabilities arising from an event prior to the date of the hand-over of responsibility, it should be made clear that the liability remains with whoever was responsible at that time, and does not transfer to the new management regime. It is logical, in these circumstances, that the landlord should have the right of access to the relevant files until the matter is concluded, even where the RTM company would have a subsequent interest once the case is settled. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for explaining that. At first sight, we do not agree that this provision is necessary. There is nothing the Bill itself will do to transfer any liability which was incurred before the acquisition of a right to manage. This is partly bound up with our previous discussion on what will happen to existing contracts. It may be that we can reach greater clarification on that at a later stage in the Bill.
The amendment also proposes granting powers to the landlord to access documents held by the RMT company. That does not seem necessary. Clause 90 requires the previous manager to hand over only information which is required in connection with a company's management of the building. As liability does not pass across, it should not be the case that any documentation relating to that liability would have passed across. Therefore, I do not see the need for that part of the amendment either.
Lord Kingsland: Perhaps on reflection, it would have been better to have dealt with this amendment in the course of the discussion on the previous grouping. We shall wait to hear what the Minister has to say on Report on the general issue of contractual liability, and in the light of that, reconsider whether or not I should press this amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Clause 90 [Duty to provide information]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 42, line 47, leave out ("four) and insert ("three").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 154, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 158, 162, 163 and 164. As I read the Bill, information on a hand-over could be as long as two months after the right-to-manage company has acquired the right to manage. In other words, there is an RTM company that we want to see succeed, we want to see take over
CWH 178
the block, but it is not getting all the information that it needs, and some it will not get until two months after it has taken over the management of that block.
That is wrong. As soon as the claim notice has been put forward, there ought to be an overlap period. There should be a regular flow of information for at least two months between the landlord and the right-to-manage company before the right-to-manage company takes over. There is also a provision that where information is not provided, that matter could be referred to the LVT. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and I have put my name to the other amendments in the group. I am particularly concerned that an RTM company could start business without any funds. That seems to be something that the Government do not intend and which this amendment would correct.
As I read the Bill at present, there is no obligation for the landlord to hand over uncommitted service charges at the acquisition date; it may wait until the appropriate moment. This seems to put the RTM company in a very difficult position. We are trying to achieve a smooth handover from a landlord to an RTM company. I believe that these amendments, taken in the round, would ensure that the handover is as smooth as it can possibly be. There will undoubtedly be difficulties, but we want to make it as smooth as possible.
Lord Whitty: I appreciate that we are all seeking to ensure a smooth transition of management. Quite frankly, with this Bill it has been quite difficult to know what to do for the best and there are conflicting suggestions. We appreciate that in many cases it would indeed be helpful if the transfer of functions and the handing over of monies were to take place at the same time. However, we also recognise that some leaseholders will wish to take over the management at the earliest possible date because they are concerned that the existing landlord may well exploit any delay.
We fear that this amendment would leave leaseholders vulnerable to such a position and also reduce the time available for landlords to produce the records. The arrangements for handover in the Bill were drawn up after extensive consultations and represent a compromise between the various conflicting concerns. We would be reluctant to move away from those arrangements. There will be many situations where an element of co-operation will enable the parties to agree sensible arrangements for the transfer of responsibility and to agree sensible timetables—the provisions in the Bill allow plenty of scope for that—but where there is an element of antagonism or mistrust, leaseholders would almost certainly wish to gain control as rapidly as possible. In such cases, they would need to accept a temporary period of inconvenience and may need to finance expenditure arising. Nevertheless, the issue as to who was controlling the building would be resolved.

CWH 179
Nothing is completely satisfactory in this area. We believe that our provisions are better than those contained in the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: A compromise is a compromise is a compromise and can even be re-compromised. I hope that, on reflection, the Minister will think carefully about these amendments because they are specifically designed to ease the transition period and to ensure a smooth handover.
The Minister said that in a bad situation the right-to-manage company will be eager to take over as soon as possible. I can understand that. However, I would have serious concerns for that RTM company if it does not have all the information. The landlord must be required to provide information for the right-to-manage company by a certain time, otherwise that company would be opening itself up to potential liabilities in order to enter into a contract in good faith. The RTM company wants to see its block properly managed and believes that it can manage it better than the landlord, but, unless it has all the information required, how can it possibly be in a position to make a sensible judgment?
This is a very serious area that we have still to resolve. I do not like the situation in which relevant information could be handed over as much as two months after the new management company has taken over. That is surely not right. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on that further between now and another stage.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on these amendments. He raised a very important point about finance for an RTM company that has adequate funds. Can the Minister give me an assurance that he will have a serious look at this issue again—without commitment—in order that this problem may be properly addressed?
Lord Whitty: On that basis, certainly.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the Minister. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 155 to 157 not moved.]
Clause 90 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Clause 91 [Duty to pay accrued uncommitted service charges]:
[Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 43, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Costs contingently payable under existing contracts shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (2) as having been previously incurred; but where the amount of such costs when determined is less than the amount deducted in respect of them under subsection (2), the balance shall be paid to the company as soon as is reasonably practicable.").
The noble Lord said: This is a short and somewhat technical point. Under Clause 91 the landlord must hand over to the RTM company uncommitted service
CWH 180
charges. Those are sums that he has received and holds by way of service charges, less whatever amount is required to meet the costs which have previously been incurred in connection with the matters for which service charges are payable. The problem is that, although the costs may have been incurred, the amount that is needed to pay for them may well be uncertain.
In an ordinary building contract the landlord may say that the amount is too much because the work has not been done properly. Equally, the builder may say that the amount under the contract is not enough because additional work has been done as a result of extras falling outside the contract. Therefore, there may be uncertainty as to what is required. Where there is such uncertainty it seems appropriate that the landlord should be entitled to hold on to the sums that are payable for work that has already been clone, but if at the end of the day it turns out that the amount he has to pay is not as large as that the balance must be handed over, along with the uncommitted service charges that have already been handed over, to the RTM company. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: There is a need to clarify potential confusion about what money should be handed over by the landlord. We are, therefore, prepared to consider this matter to see whether we should table an amendment at a later stage.
Lord Goodhart: I am very pleased with the Government's response. This is the second time today that we have had such a concession. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 not moved.]
Clause 91 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]
Clause 92 [Introductory]:
[Amendment No. 165 not moved.]
Clause 92 agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 93 [Management functions under leases]:
[Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 167A:
Page 44, line 5, leave out ("and management") and insert (", health and safety, management and compliance with all relevant statutory provisions and guidance").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 167A seeks to clarify the full extent of management responsibilities and to ensure that there is a particular reference to health and safety issues.
It is important that the legislation makes clear that once the RTM company has acquired responsibility for management it and not the freeholder holds the primary responsibility for exercising all management functions under the lease. It would be undesirable for all concerned if leaseholders, dissatisfied with the

CWH 181
decisions of the RTM company, should then sue the freeholder for failing to carry out his or her management responsibilities. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether to say "nanny state" or "burdens on small business". We see no need to expand the definition of "management" in the way suggested in this amendment. "Management function" is intended to relate to what the company will take on under the leases to the property. The company will also be required to comply with any statutory requirements which are binding upon it as a manager. They will include health and safety legislation as well as requirements under leasehold, landlord and tenant law. This matter is already covered and no amendment is necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also suggests that the RTM company should be required to comply with all relevant guidance. Setting aside the question of precisely what that guidance should be, in any event we see no justification for requiring compliance with guidance. The whole point of guidance is that it is advisory. We encourage people to follow it but do not require it.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that health and safety matters are covered in the concept of management. I shall allow the noble Lord his point on guidance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 44, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 168, together with our objection that Clause 100 stand part of the Bill, raises the question of the area which the RTM company manages. One starts with Clause 93 which details the management functions. Subsection (5) provides:
"'Management functions' are functions with respect to services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance and management".
Subsection (6) provides:
"But this section does not apply in relation to—
(a) functions with respect to a matter concerning only a part of the premises consisting of a flat or other unit not held under a lease by a qualifying tenant".
A "qualifying tenant" is a tenant who holds a lease of a residential flat under a long lease.
The result of this appears to be that the RTM company is responsible for discharging the management functions over all flats which are occupied by long leaseholders, whether or not the long leaseholders are members of the RTM company. However, it does not apply to flats which are held on short-term rental leases, assuming there is no intermediate long leaseholder; nor does the right to manage apply to shop or office premises. I believe that that division of responsibility will be unworkable where a block contains flats, some of which have
CWH 182
qualifying tenants and some of which do not. It appears that the dividing line between a matter which concerns only a particular flat and a matter which concerns that flat and other parts of the premises is not clear. For example, if the landlord originally covenants to provide hot water and heating to the flat and there is a particular problem which affects one flat only which does not happen to have a qualifying tenant, it appears that that is not part of the management functions of the RTM. Whose responsibility is it? Is it some residual function of the landlord?
I believe that the RTM company should be entitled and required to take over the management of all units which are served by the same common parts whether or not they have qualifying leaseholders. Most commercial premises will not use the same common parts; for example, they will be on the ground floor with separate entrances. I certainly do not object to the amendment of the paragraph so as to exclude from the RTM management functions in respect of units which do not share common parts. There would still be some problems, particularly with structural repairs, and it will be possible to live with that. In my view, you cannot have flats in the same building sharing the same services and the same common parts without a single unified management.
I am also puzzled by the interaction of Clauses 93 and 100. Clause 100 assumes that the service charges payable in respect of excluded units go to the RTM company. How are funds to be made available for any management function in respect of excluded units which are not carried out by the RTM company? Clauses 93 and 100 need to be looked at again and need to be revised. I believe the solution should be that in respect of units sharing the same common parts at least, the management function should be taken over wholly by the RTM company, and the service charges should be paid direct to the RTM company. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: We oppose this amendment. We agree that the RTM company should be responsible for the management up to the door of the units but not beyond. We support the Bill's intention that freeholders should remain responsible for managing flats let on short leases, which we believe should include relevant assured tenancies and Rent Act tenancies and any units let on business leases.
The relationship between the landlord and these tenants is entirely different from that between the freeholder and leaseholder. Any interference in that relationship could compromise the ability of the landlord to manage his investment and this aspect of the business.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his support. What the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is saying is entirely consistent with what he has been arguing throughout, most recently when he was trying to get the right to manage brought down to leases of seven years instead of 21 years. It is certainly consistent, and if we were to

CWH 183
follow that approach it would make greater sense for the RTM company to take over responsibility for the whole property, including matters which are internal to units held on commercial and short leases. But that is not what we are intending to do. This would represent a fundamental shift away from the purpose of the right to manage.
Our objective is to provide long leaseholders, who have made a substantial investment in their own homes, with the right to manage the building as a whole. We do not consider it appropriate that they should be able to interfere in the relationship between the landlord and short-term or commercial tenants. It is not our intention to provide other tenants, who will not normally have made a substantial investment in their premises, with the right to manage.
There is no problem at all about the common parts of the property because somebody is responsible. The landlord is responsible or the long leaseholder is responsible, and they are responsible in proper proportion. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asks who pays for the works done in the units which do not become the responsibility of the RTM company. The relationship of these units under the lease is not affected. If the lease says the tenant pays the landlord, that still applies; it is unaffected by the Bill. We do not see that there is a problem here. The common parts are protected, the members of the right-to-manage company have their own responsibilities, and the landlords have the responsibility for the others.
As regards Clause 100, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was concerned about the relationship between Clause 93 and Clause 100 rather than Clause 100 as a whole. I have a very long speech in defence of Clause 100, but I do not think it was being attacked. If he will allow me, I should like to write to him about the relationship between Clause 93 and Clause 100.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope the noble Lord will copy the correspondence to us. We have been looking forward all afternoon to hear his defence of Clause 100, and we feel rather left out of the correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Anyone who wants it can have it. I shall place a copy in the Library. There is no shortage of paper. It can be a long letter if you want.
The Earl of Caithness: Another rain forest is cut down at the same time.
On a serious point, I was confused by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on common parts. He said that the management could be done either by the landlord or by the management company—at least, that is what I thought he said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The responsibility for paying is in proportion to the units.
The Earl of Caithness: But the management will be done by the management company, will it not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for that. I misheard him to begin with and I am grateful for the clarification.
Lord Goodhart: I remain quite worried by this. It is true that the proposal that the RTM company should take over the management of the whole block as far as it shares the same common parts is consistent with the line we have been taking. However, the amendments are not driven so much by that as by my concern about the workability of the system under which the responsibilities will be divided between the right-to-manage company and the landlord. I simply do not believe that is workable.
If there is going to be a right-to-manage company, it has to take over responsibility, like it or not, for the whole of the block. How will it regard the excluded units? How will one allocate the facilities charge between the RTM company and the landlord? How will one deal with issues such as heating where the RTM company maintains the boilers and so on? If there is a blockage somewhere in the pipes which affects only the radiator of the excluded unit, the responsibility for dealing with that will shift over to the landlord. That is just not workable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I would not like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to sit down feeling dissatisfied with the answers. He is quite right in saying—and I failed initially to make clear to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—that it is the right-to-manage company which implies the duty to manage. It is responsible exactly as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, say.
The question of who pays is what I thought was being addressed. The answer is that somebody pays for each of the units, either the RTM company member, the leaseholder, or where there is a shorthold, they pay. If it is a short-term or commercial tenancy, then the responsibility for payment is set out in the lease. Somebody pays for all the units, and therefore somebody pays his share of all the common costs.
The only remaining problem would be if there were a problem of access to get to defective pipes in a single unit, but I cannot imagine that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is worried about.
The Earl of Caithness: I am not sure I followed the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I am with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Surely it is not that different from what is happening now. If the landlord is managing the property now, and there are long leases and other leases, which is quite normal, it is not a question of the apportionment of the cost and the liability; it is not to do with the management per se.

CWH 185
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has confirmed that it is the right-to-manage company which takes over the management; it is a question then of the apportionment of the costs which needs to be sorted out right from the beginning.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: This confusion was beginning to emerge during the debate on Schedule 6 about the two kinds of common parts. There are common parts between the residential parts, and there are common parts for the whole of the shell of the building. My only thought is that when my noble friend Lord McIntosh writes his letter he should address the question of which type of common parts fall into which category. Two kinds of common parts are being talked about here. There are certainly common parts between the residential areas and common parts for the whole shell of the building. That certainly seems to be part of the debate that is going round at the moment.
Lord Goodhart: We are in a state of some confusion. My understanding is that the effect of Clause 93(6)(a) is to leave the RTM company with the responsibility
CWH 186
for managing common parts, but not with the responsibility for exercising management functions with respect to matters that are internal to a single unit. Those matters that are internal to a single unit therefore must necessarily remain the responsibility of the landlord, so that management is divided.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall include it in my letter.
Lord Goodhart: That would be helpful. I may have misunderstood matters, but it seems to me that they are fairly obscure. I would welcome a letter on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Lord Whitty: In this atmosphere of confusion, yet to be enlightened, I would suggest that the Committee adjourn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): The Committee stands adjourned sine die.
The Committee adjourned at thirteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Treaty of Nice
  Treaty of Nice
  Subsidiarity and the Single Market
  Subsidiarity and the Single Market
  Luxembourg Compromise
  Luxembourg Compromise
  Israel: Land for Peace Negotiations
  Israel: Land for Peace Negotiations
  Title IV of EC Treaty
  Title IV of EC Treaty
  Arkady Gaidamak
  Arkady Gaidamak
  Asylum Applicants: Explanatory Notes
  Asylum Applicants: Explanatory Notes
  Immigration and Advisory Service: Funding
  Immigration and Advisory Service: Funding
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Oakington Reception Centre
  Oakington Reception Centre
  Strategic Communications Unit: Prime Minister's Webcasts
  Strategic Communications Unit: Prime Minister's Webcasts
  Redundancy Notification
  Redundancy Notification
  Credit Cards: Contractual Relationship
  Credit Cards: Contractual Relationship
  Compact Discs: Cost
  Compact Discs: Cost
  Mirror Group Pension Funds
  Mirror Group Pension Funds
  Older People and the NHS: Human Rights Provisions
  Older People and the NHS: Human Rights Provisions