Sitting of 30 March 2004

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

Sustainable Energy Act
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Margaret Moran.]
9.30 am
Mr. Andrew Stunell:I am delighted to have been successful in the ballot for this debate on an extremely important topic. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some firm, practical and robust answers.
The background to the debate is the success of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, which was a private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), who hopes to join us later. An important provision in that Act is section 2(1), which states:
"The Secretary of State must within one week beginning with the coming into force of this section designate under this subsection at least one energy efficiency aim."
The designation of that energy efficiency aim is at the core of what I want to say today, although it is part of the bigger topics of promoting sustainability and eradicating fuel poverty in housing, and—this is not incidental—building up a viable energy efficiency industry in the United Kingdom, with the accompanying employment and economic prospects.
The Minister has a good idea of what I am going to say, not least because he has already heard it in stereo from just about every part of the spectrum. For a start, 332 hon. Members signed early-day motion 96, which sets out the core of the subject. Overall, 420 hon. Members have signed early-day motions or voted or spoken in debates in support of the sustainable energy aim set out in the 2003 Act. We are still waiting for that aim. If that is not enough, the Secretary of State has received a joint letter from every environmental nongovernmental organisation asking when the aim will be published and what it is.
A similar letter was received by the Secretary of State from every fuel poverty NGO and other relevant organisations. In addition, just about every trade association and group of manufacturers and installers of energy efficiency equipment has also written in the same terms. The Minister has heard about the matter not just in stereo but quadrophonically. His Department knows the script, but I want to ask, on the record, some pertinent questions and I hope that he, in turn, will put some robust and positive answers on the record.
To go back a little, we need to emphasise the importance of developing a sustainable environmental policy and to remind ourselves that 27 per cent. of the carbon dioxide emissions produced in the United Kingdom come from homes and houses. We are living a lifestyle that needs three planets to be sustainable, not the one that we have. I am hoping that, apart from any assurances that the Minister can give on this subject, he
360WH
will say that there is a determination throughout the Government to ensure that our homes and housing stock are far more sustainable in future than they have been in the past and that the Government intend to play an active part in promoting that. I particularly hope that he will explain to his ministerial colleagues the need to designate a requirement on the Thames gateway site for perhaps 2,000 zero-energy homes, which could kickstart the whole sustainable housing market.
Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. The subject is important. He referred to the Thames gateway, and he will be aware that my constituency is in that area. Many of the 40,000 people on Canvey Island live 6 ft below sea level. The argument is not just academic, because within 40, 50 or perhaps 80 years, the flood defences will again be threatened. If we are to build another 2,000 houses in the Thames gateway—it is said that some will be on the flood plain—it is very important that we tackle global warming and CO2 emissions, which increased by 1.5 per cent. last year and have increased in three years out of the past four. Clearly, the Government must do something.
Mr. Stunell:I agree. The hon. Gentleman has the fortune, or possibly the misfortune, to represent a constituency that will be directly affected if global warming proceeds unchecked, and he makes a valuable point.
When the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East introduced his Bill, as it then was, the relevant clause stated that the Government should set "targets". I served on the Committee that considered the Bill, as did other hon. Members here, and there was a considerable tussle between the Government and the Bill's supporters about the precise wording. Eventually, the Government prevailed and the word "aims" was substituted for "targets". That represented a serious watering down. Revisiting the Committee transactions, I see that there was a great deal of concern, not to say bitterness, on both sides of the Committee when the change was made. I am not sure whether this is a parliamentary term, but I slagged off the promoter of the Bill somewhat for his faint-heartedness. However, as I am now steering my own private Member's Bill through the system, I can see how such things happen and I am somewhat more forgiving of the fact that he felt the need to buckle under Government pressure.
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said in Committee that we need have no fear that the word "targets" was being replaced by "aims". He said that that had to do with chapter 3 of the White Paper, which set out the Government's aims. He said that they were still the Government's aims and that the Bill's proposals would be "helpful in achieving them" He also said that
"to deliver our commitments, in particular in chapter 3, we will work with the energy efficiency industry, and others who have an interest".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 24 June 2003; c. 56–58]
Given that assurance, does it matter that, nine months later, interdepartmental shilly-shallying is blocking all progress, scaring away investors in the energy efficiency industry and undermining the achievement of the United Kingdom's CO2 targets? As

361WH
the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said, it certainly does matter, because UK CO2 emissions are increasing. They increased in three of the past four years, most recently by 1.5 per cent. A Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs dismissed that as simply "a blip", but if, in three years out of four, instead of working towards our target, we are going in the opposite direction, that is more than a blip.
We are moving away from the Kyoto targets to which the Government signed up, and we all know that energy efficiency is the most cost-effective way to cut CO2 emissions and get back on track. It not only helps us to achieve the Kyoto targets but enables households to save on their fuel bills and improves their comfort and health. It can also make a major impact on fuel poverty reduction. Furthermore, if there was steady and sustained investment in energy efficiency, driven by clear public policy, we would see growth in jobs and economic progress in the industry and throughout the economy.
However, when we consider the record since June, we see that there has instead been a tremendous amount of weaselling by Ministers and Departments. At the time, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said that we need not worry, because there were 135 targets in the White Paper and the aims in the Bill would be a way of harnessing the fulfilment of at least some of them. However, he was a little elusive in Committee about precisely which ones, and closer inspection shows why. Although there are 135 targets in the White Paper, amazingly, none is about energy efficiency. It says only that there is an expectation that there will be a carbon reduction—there is not a target.
In the absence of any definition of the aims set out in section 2, which was supposed to be given within one week of its coming into force, no one knows what they are supposed to do to implement Government policy on energy efficiency. That means that everyone in the energy efficiency industry is pretty much stalled. They cannot go to the bank manager to raise money to invest on expanding their business to fulfil an undefined expectation and an absent aim. They need a bankable commitment. They need a target. At the very least they need a published aim. They need that even more having been led up the aisle and dumped more than once before by the Government, such as on cavity wall insulation in 1999.
The energy efficiency industry needs something that is published and bankable all the more because after the Minister made his announcement in June 2003, the Government promptly cut their expectation in half. Instead of talking about a saving of 5 million tonnes of carbon by 2010, they started to talk about a 4 million to 6 million tonnes saving by 2020. From the industry point of view, that is simply unacceptable. Perhaps not surprisingly, there has been no development and no expansion, and no effort yet to move in the direction set out in the Sustainable Energy Act.
After downgrading the expectation by 50 per cent., the Government sent a memo to the Environmental Audit Committee last May in which the then Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North
362WH
(Mr. Wilson), confirmed the smaller figure. It was repeated on 16 September 2003 by Lord Evans, the Government spokesman in the House of Lords.
The level of confusion at that time was such that director of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, Andrew Warren, took up the matter with the permanent secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry, Sir Robin Young. He pointed out the problems caused by not having a published aim and the expectation being halved. In a letter dated 22 August, Sir Robin replied:
"I can certainly confirm that the Government remains committed"
to the White Paper figures
"of around 5 MtC by 2010."
In addition, it was agreed by the Department that Lord Evans's words in the House of Lords were an error, and in another letter to Mr. Warren, dated 19 September, Sir Robin wrote:
"I am happy to confirm that the 4 to 6 MtC saving quoted by Lord Evans was intended as a reference to additional annual savings by 2020, over and above the 5 MtC by 2010".
Quite remarkably he continued:
"the Hansard Editor of Debates has offered to include a clarification in the Bound Volume and we will be writing to her to confirm this."
The bound volume for that period has not yet been published, so I cannot confirm that that has happened.
By this time, there was much concern and confusion. Baroness Maddock asked a parliamentary question last October and received a further assurance that we were talking about 5 million tonnes by 2010 and a further 4 million to 6 million tonnes by 2010. Lord Whitty, speaking to the all-party group for intelligent energy on 10 December said:
"We must reach the ambitious targets for energy efficiency in the Energy White Paper. Without this all the other objectives will not be achieved".
That is perhaps the first time the Government have used the word "targets". The figures in the White Paper are now officially referred to as "targets", despite all the Government's efforts to replace that word with "aims" in the Sustainable Energy Bill.
In his consultation document, "Economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency", the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government are still working towards their aim of saving 5 million tonnes of carbon from domestic energy efficiency by 2010. That suggests that, despite a minor wobble, things are back on course. We must consider the process by which the Government will publish that aim. That takes us back to what the Minister offered in the debate last June when he said:
"In order to deliver our commitments, we will work with the energy efficiency industry, and others who have an interest."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 24 June 2003; c. 56.]
Mr. David Drew: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case, but would he, like me, accept that one of the underlying problems has been the fact that the Government have some form in cutting the warm front programme, which is crucial to eradicating fuel poverty? The only way in which that can

363WH
be done in a sustainable way is by introducing energy efficiency, and the Government must get that programme back on track. Does he agree?
Mr. Stunell:Yes, I very much agree. If we have more time, I should like to explore that issue more fully. Unfortunately, there is not just uncertainty about how the Sustainable Energy Act will be implemented, and when the aims will be published, but all the energy efficiency industry's experience of Government action is negative. Warm words were said in 1999 about cavity wall insulation and now about the warm front programme. The situation has built up and just when things might be starting to happen, a great deal has been knocked down. It makes it all the more difficult for somebody running a company, thinking that they might take advantage of new market opportunities, to visit the bank manager and say, "I have this real opportunity," without being laughed at. The climate for business investment that the Government set is very important. I understood that one of the badges of new Labour was to be finely tuned to the needs of business, compared with their previous incarnations. On this issue, they seem to have gone completely off track.
In June last year, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services offered to
"work with the energy efficiency industry, and others who have an interest".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 24 June 2003; c. 56.]
The Secretary of State is well briefed on what the industry and those other interests want: they all want to see the 5 million tonnes of carbon that will be saved by energy efficiency set out as a clear aim in legislation, which will then underpin their own programmes for investment and targeting the problem.
Every energy efficiency company and trade association signed a joint letter sent to the Minister and to every hon. Member, saying that it was imperative to set those targets. It said:
"If we are to secure the necessary funding, then absolute and unambiguous quantified carbon saving commitments will be needed from the Government."
The Government face a completely unanimous view from every outside body and interest, as well as from the 332 hon. Members who signed the early-day motion, yet they still have not set those targets. The reason for applying for this debate has been enhanced by the letter now being circulated by the Economic Secretary, which was sent to a number of hon. Members. I quote from the version sent to the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), which is dated 12 March 2004. It says that:
"rather than setting specific targets it is more important to put in place the right incentives for individuals to take up energy efficiency."
In other words, we will not have targets or aims, but simply incentives. We know that incentives do not work. They have not worked for 25 years and there is not the slightest evidence that they will work in the next 25 years, so the letter completely tears up the script that Ministers laid out when they were amending the Sustainable Energy Bill in June 2003. It tears up the script, carefully repairing the damage done by misspeaking in the House of Lords to say, "No, the target of 5 million tonnes of carbon is a target based on the White Paper, so everybody except the Government is out of
364WH
step."Actually, everybody, including half the Government, is in step, but half the Government are not.
Last week, 15 of the United Kingdom's leading companies involved in the manufacture, distribution and supply of energy wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that they were
"extremely concerned to have had sight of letters currently being sent to MPs by the Economic Secretary…about Energy Efficiency".
They went on to say:
"We know all too well from bitter past experience that 'incentives' without targets simply will not ensure the creation of sufficient business confidence to enable us to invest in plant, personnel and delivery structures. We should therefore be most grateful for your assurance that the Treasury does not intend to resile from the commitments given by Lord Whitty."
I hope that I have outlined some of the flip-flops that the Government have made on the issue. I ask the Minister whether he is willing to rescue the Act and his Government's reputation by flipping, or perhaps flopping, once more. Will he tell hon. Members whether the words of the Energy Minister in Committee in June 2003 still stand, or should we believe what their Lordships were told on 12 September 2003, that instead of reducing by 5 million tonnes by 2010, the aim is 5 million tonnes by 2020—an effective halving of the aim? Or is it what Lord Whitty said to the all-party group on 10 December 2003, reinstating the target of 5 million tonnes by 2010, plus another target of 4 million to 6 million tonnes by 2020? Or is it what the Economic Secretary wrote in his letter of 12 March 2004, that we will not have any aims or targets at all and that everything will be done by incentives? Which of those multiple versions of the truth is the one that the Minister wants to give hon. Members today? Will he please make it the most positive and robust that he can? Otherwise his sustainability policy will not go anywhere.
There has been a lot of confusion, not among those who supported the legislation or the 332 hon. Members who want to see the list of aims and targets produced, but in Government. I do not know whether that is the result of careful and deliberate debate or whether it is because, as is often the case on energy policy, every Department is at sixes and sevens with every other Department. Whatever the process has been, the consequences are the same. The confusion and uncertainty mean that there has been no investment or planning and that we are nowhere near fulfilling the needs of the Government and the policy that the Minister professes to support.
I ask the Minister, who has the uncomfortable job of speaking for the Government and for DEFRA this morning, to give the reassurance sought by the manufacturing companies in the letter sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 March that the Government will set a specific target. Specifically, will he put it on the record that they support the higher target of 5 million tonnes by 2010 and the extended 4 million to 6 million extra by 2020? We need a clear sense of purpose and direction. Will he publish at least one aim as soon as possible, so that the industry can get to work on the job? Will he give an assurance that he will relay to other Departments the strong and firm view that an excellent way to start on the objective of developing sustainable housing would be to set a target of 2,000 zero-energy homes at Thames gateway?

365WH
At one level, this is a technical and impenetrable debate about the implementation of one aspect of a private Member's Bill, which 99 per cent. of the public have probably not heard of. At another level, the debate can be used as a bit of partisan fun and knockabout because the Government have, yet again, not got their act together. However, I hope that we will view the debate in a third way: if we want the UK to be a world leader in providing for a sustainable planet, we must get right these decisions, which the Government perhaps consider as being at the micro-level—trivial or below the radar. Such decisions can mount up, as one brick after another in the wall, to provide a proper sustainability policy. I hope that I have illustrated the problem, and I look forward to the Government telling me what the answer is.
9.57 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on winning the ballot, thus allowing us to air our views this morning. Energy efficiency is extremely important for saving people from fuel poverty. I shall tackle the debate from that angle and stress fuel poverty more than energy efficiency.
We have had a mild winter, so we have not seen the alarming headlines of previous winters. Whether climate change will continue to save us from those headlines, none of us can say, but we were lucky this winter and fewer people than usual died from hypothermia. We have been lucky this year, but we need to make more progress in energy efficiency.
According to the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group's second annual report of 2003—04, between 1.4 million and 2 million people were in fuel poverty in 2001. Those figures represent a substantial reduction—a halving—of the 1996 figure. Therein lies one of the problems: the definition of fuel poverty. The usual definition revolves around the 10 per cent. or more of income that people have to spend on fuel to maintain the heating of their home as well as the cooking and lighting. According to the charity National Energy Action, the figures change depending on the definition of income. The Government take into account full income, including receipt of benefits, and on that basis, 1.8 million people were in fuel poverty in 2001. However, on the basis of basic income, the figure would increase to 2.4 million. The ideal would be to consider disposable income after housing costs have been paid, whether that is a mortgage or rent to a social or private landlord, in which case the figures increase substantially. When we look at figures that show people left in housing poverty, we must take those facts into consideration.
Rising incomes and benefit levels and falling fuel prices contributed significantly to the reduction that I have just mentioned. The incoming Labour Government reduced VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. in 1997, which helped tremendously, and later introduced the winter fuel allowance, which also helped considerably and which was increased recently for some pensioners. An added benefit is that the Government have targeted benefits at the poorest pensioners to keep people out of
366WH
fuel poverty. Other vulnerable groups have been similarly targeted with benefits. The average SAP—standard assessment procedure—rating for homes rose from 41.5 to 50.5 between 1991 and 2001, and from 39 to 49.4 in the same period for the 30 per cent. of households with the lowest incomes, so energy efficiency measures have obviously also contributed.
However, I have a worry about fuel prices, which have started to rise again. The biggest rises have been in Northern Ireland, where it has just been announced that, on top of an 11 per cent. increase in gas prices announced in October 2003, there is to be a further 20 per cent. increase. That is a staggering increase in one fuel price, never mind the knock-on effect on the price of electricity. It will be difficult to combat fuel poverty in the future if those trends continue. Increases in fuel prices are already beginning to dominate the headlines in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There are still about 4,000 communities throughout the United Kingdom with a cluster of more than 50 households that are as little as 2 km from a gas main. The Department of Trade and Industry has estimated that 120,000 households in such communities could be removed from fuel poverty merely by connecting them to the main. The Government are vigorously pursuing the pathfinder policy to connect 65,000 of those vulnerable households, along with 60,000 others.
Shortly, however, the United Kingdom will be importing up to 70 per cent. of its gas from the continent. That is one of my concerns. We will have virtually no control over the prices that the countries that supply the gas will charge the United Kingdom, not only for supplying the gas but for transporting it across the continent and under the channel. With the cost comes the added fear of a lack of security. I am pleased that energy is being discussed in the House of Lords in relation to the Energy Bill. I hope that the Bill will come before the House of Commons shortly. It has attracted much criticism, and I am sure that we can have that debate when it comes through. I want to see diversification in relation to the supply of energy, and not total reliance on importing 70 per cent. of gas from the continent, which could have a severe effect on fuel poverty in the future if we are not careful.

A 10 per cent. increase in electricity and gas prices increases the numbers in fuel poverty by half a million in the UK. As we have seen, there has been an increase of much more than 10 per cent. already in Northern Ireland. Consequently, at least half a million people pro rata have been rammed back into fuel poverty in that part of the United Kingdom alone.
The warm front, which is an excellent scheme and is much better today than it was in previous years, the energy efficiency commitment—the EEC—and schemes such as the network gas extension, to which I have just referred, are estimated to need £2.5 billion in resources over the period from 2005 to 2010. That is if we are to meet the Government's commitment to remove people from fuel poverty. If expenditure on the EEC is doubled, other programmes need to be increased by at least 50 per cent. to meet the Government's commitment. That is quite a staggering increase. We should bear it in mind that in the current year the resources committed to the warm front have decreased. I plead with the Minister to

367WH
look at the excellent warm front scheme very carefully and allocate many more resources to it over the next five or 10 years.
If a broader definition of fuel poverty were taken, to which I referred obliquely at the beginning of my speech, the Government would have to commit not £2.5 billion but £3 billion extra in resources to meet their commitments. They have set a target to eliminate fuel poverty entirely by 2016, and by 2010 for the most vulnerable groups. From what I have already said, that cannot be achieved through business as usual. We have to accelerate our efforts to get people out of fuel poverty and to increase energy efficiency.
While I am on the subject of the warm front scheme, I want to flag up some people in my constituency who are in extreme fuel poverty but unable to do anything about it. Mrs. N receives disability living allowance for her son, who is aged four. Because the benefit is not paid directly to the householder—Mrs. N—or her spouse, the family are not eligible for a warm homes grant. That means that her son does not have the opportunity to grow up in a warm, safe environment. The benefit has to be paid to the householder in order to trigger the grant, which I do not think is right.
Another case in my constituency flags up a slightly different problem. Mrs. R was awarded a top-up grant of only £170 for her loft insulation. She did not really call for the insulation. People knocked on her door, persuaded her that it was a good thing, and because it did not cost her any money she let them go ahead and do it. Now, however, her central heating system is on the verge of breakdown and she is extremely anxious. She is only 53 years old, but she is disabled and in receipt of disability living allowance, income support and incapacity benefit. However, she cannot get the grant because of a small amount of money that was spent on a small amount of loft insulation in the past. She now has to consider remortgaging her property, but feels that the building society will not let her do so.
I notice that the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group's annual report for 2003—04 recommends to the Government that
"Work should be carried out to understand the circumstances of those not in receipt of a 'gateway' benefit but clearly in fuel poverty."
It also recommends that
"The Warm Front Scheme Managers should have a small discretionary 'pot' of funds for those in urgent need of help, but not for a variety of reasons eligible for the schemes."
I completely endorse those recommendations, and hope that the Minister will take them seriously. The warm front scheme is an excellent one, but it needs to be examined again so that some extreme cases of fuel poverty, which are currently excluded for "rules are rules" reasons, are brought within its scope.
The warm front scheme deals with many people who are not in extreme fuel poverty, and people have flagged that up as a worry, but we should deal with whole areas where we know there is poverty. We know which are the most deprived wards in the country. Regrettably, several are in my constituency. I could take the Minister to some areas of my constituency and we could set a boundary in that deprived ward and work through it dealing with every household, instead of trying to pick out the ones that just qualify under the rules. Some
368WH
people would have had energy efficiency measures carried out in their properties, but I bet most of the people in those deprived areas would have qualified anyhow if they had been called on, or if they had called on the managers of the scheme. Energy action areas are an excellent idea, and rather than mess about with a scattergun approach, it might be better to identify the most deprived areas of Britain and treat them wholesale.
In the Housing Bill debate, I said that the new build standards of energy efficiency are very high, in both the private and the social housing sectors. I said, too, that although the decent homes standard is good, and I applaud the Government for their target of bringing all social sector housing to a decent standard by 2010, it is sad that according to the Government's figures people are still being left behind in fuel poverty. That cannot be right; it must mean that the decent homes standard is not addressing the energy efficiency measures under which homes in the private and social housing sectors should be brought up to the standard for new build in the building regulations.
The Government have some excellent schemes: for example, the decent homes standard, and the housing health and safety rating system, which is introduced in the Housing Bill and is a great improvement on the present system for the refurbishment of homes. The Housing Bill takes into account houses in multiple occupation, although there are difficulties with the definition of those, which we shall no doubt debate again on Report. The different programmes are operating in silos; the Government schemes appear to have no consistent approach to energy efficiency and reducing fuel poverty.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove hit on one of the difficulties when he said that there are too many Departments dealing with too many schemes, which leads to complications. That is not the Government's view. It may not be Labour party policy, but it is the Iddon policy that there should be an Energy Department and an Energy Minister, perhaps in the Cabinet, to bring schemes together, whether they come from the Department of Health, DEFRA, the DTI or the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The schemes should be given to one Minister with the political drive to get on with it, co-ordinate them and remove Britain from the embarrassing position of being low in the league when it comes to preventing hypothermia and deaths from fuel poverty. I am ashamed that in a bad winter in this new century so many people are still dying from hypothermia.
10.13 am
Mr. David Amess: I support the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and congratulate him on his good fortune in the ballot and on his eloquence.
I wholeheartedly support everything that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said; to summarise his closing remarks, he wanted joined-up government. As the promoter of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, I am delighted that the Sustainable Energy Bill was enacted, but I am not entirely at ease with what has happened since.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) is here today. I was a sponsor of his private Member's Bill and I can

369WH
empathise with him, and with other hon. Members who have promoted private Member's Bills, about the trials, tribulations and challenges of trying to put a Bill on to the statute book. I therefore congratulate the hon. Gentleman on promoting the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 and, following the wonderful briefing from the Association for the Conservation of Energy, everyone should support the hon. Member for Hazel Grove.
The Secretary of State is charged with setting an energy efficiency aim and taking reasonable steps to achieve it. I understand that Lord Whitty, with whom I dealt during the passage of my Bill, has given an assurance that the aim will be set after the Easter recess. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East and I know that we cannot rest on our laurels once we have been given ministerial reassurances, because Ministers come and go. However, it is the role of the civil service to advise Ministers, and hon. Members should be concerned about the Treasury's role in the matter.
I am delighted that the energy efficiency industry has sent an open letter to the relevant Secretaries of State. I hope that the Government will be impressed by, and will take notice of, the wonderful array of important people who have far more expertise than I pretend to have and who support the measure. I was intrigued to learn that the chief executive of Scottish Power, Ian Russell, was concerned about the Chancellor's failure to introduce in his recent Budget sufficient new measures to encourage consumers to be more energy efficient. He said that politicians need to work harder to drum the green agenda into consumers' hearts and minds. I do not believe that anything is more important than the environment and saving the planet, but the issue is not considered sexy at present. Perhaps we need people such as Britney Spears, Beyoncé, Jordan or my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who speaks for the official Opposition today, to be associated with it. It is a great shame that young people do not consider this fundamental matter sexy. Members of Parliament know that the issue is not a huge vote winner at present. As soon as we start talking about the environment and energy-saving matters, everyone shrugs their shoulders and thinks, "Another boring technical speech", which is a shame. I hope that in his reply the Minister will say something to inspire our young people and the general population so that they regard the issue as sexy.
The then Environment Minister described increasing carbon emissions between 2002 and 2003 as "a blip". I very much agree with the plea of the chief executive of Scottish Power to Government Ministers. He believes that the Chancellor should have included major incentives for energy efficiency in his Budget and that the Government should be much more proactive in convincing consumers that energy efficiency is a good thing. He rightly said that people must be shown how to conserve energy and be given some fiscal incentive. He suggested, for example, that the Chancellor could introduce a lower rate of stamp duty for energy-efficient homes—I certainly support that—and that a penalty for persistent misusers of energy could be added later.
More than half the emission reductions needed to achieve the UK's carbon emission targets are expected to come from energy efficiency. I am a member of the
370WH
Health Committee, and have absolutely no doubt that many health problems are associated with environmental pollution. The incidence of brain tumours and asthma, for example, is increasing. There are many such illnesses, and I hope that the general public will become aware of their causes.

I am delighted that the Energy Saving Trust has revealed the huge potential for UK homes to become energy independent and self-sufficient by investing in renewable energy alternatives.
Brian White: Does not the investment climate dictate whether companies invest, and is that climate not affected by uncertainty about Government expectations and requirements? Industry has heard it all before, and is concerned that there has not been effective action. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key to the matter is ensuring that the investment climate results in the introduction of measures that he identifies as necessary?
Mr. Amess:I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the Minister will find time to respond to that point.
I note that Powergen intends to target 500,000 homes in an energy efficiency drive. It will spend a great deal of money on that work and will contribute to the Government's energy efficiency commitment. In response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East about fuel poverty, there has been a great debate about how it should be defined, but we all know that it exists. Although Warm Front has been more successful than the home energy efficiency scheme that it replaced, the fact that more grants are being provided does not mean that fuel poverty is being eliminated. Many people remain unaware of the Warm Front scheme. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is no link between eligibility and energy efficiency in people's homes. I am disappointed by the take-up of the scheme; we need to be more proactive in promoting it to the general public.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East did us a huge service in introducing the Sustainable Energy Bill in Parliament. However, hon. Members cannot sit back and expect this Government, or any Government, to meet the aims of that measure. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear statement on the matter, in advance of what Lord Whitty might say after Easter.
10.22 am
Dr. Desmond Turner: Let us put the debate in context: the central driver in all energy policy should be the 60 per cent. saving of CO2 by 2050. So far, progress towards achieving that aim has not been impressive. We are in danger of fiddling while the planet burns.
There is a developing school of thought in the scientific community that the 60 per cent. target is insufficient, and that we should be looking at savings of at least 80 per cent. It behoves us, for the sake of future generations, to take effective action now, in addition to some of the more detailed considerations that we have discussed this morning. Otherwise our grandchildren or great grandchildren, if they are still alive, will not have

371WH
a good word to say for us, and they will be quite right because we will have abdicated our responsibility to future generations.
The Government have an important role to play. Britain is in a position—perhaps a unique one—to set an example to the world in energy policy. However, although I hate to have to say it about my own Government, we are not doing that effectively at present. The Minister may be able to offer suggestions as to why those difficulties are occurring, even under a Labour Government. I believe that part of the problem stems from the fact that four major Departments of State are involved in energy policy, and they do not cooperate as well as they should. There is a departmental silo over there and one down the road, and some of the people in those Departments, not necessarily the Ministers, look enviously at each other and guard their turf rather than putting their heads together and making coherent policy.
We are discussing provisions that are a continuation of some of those in my Home Energy Conservation Bill, which Members may remember ran into trials and tribulations similar to those referred to by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). I do not care whether we call something a target, an aim or an aspiration; that is dancing on a head of a pin. What matters is that we act, and we need to see the setting out of clear aims, targets or aspirations, whatever we call them, and clear mechanisms for achieving them. It is that combination that will appease the energy conservation industry, which has stimulated this debate, and ultimately produce results.
We are still not doing anything that does not cost anything, which is strange. For instance, the Housing Bill will license houses in multiple occupation, which provide some of the worst housing and domestic energy conditions in the country. My constituency is full of old terrace houses with a SAP rating in single figures, let alone one of 40 or 50. Impoverished tenants are still sitting over single-bar electric fires, keeping an anxious eye on the meter and hoping that their money does not run out. We have the magnificent target of not only getting a quick fix on energy conservation, but helping immediately those in the worst fuel poverty. My Bill would have required minimum energy performance as a condition of registering HMOs. The Housing Bill does not include that provision, although I shall table an amendment on Report, and I hope that the Government will accept it. It was one of the most important motivations in wanting to license HMOs in the first place.
There are many other things that we are not doing. For example, 50 per cent. of our housing stock has solid walls, and we have no economic way of providing wall insulation. Do we invest any money in research and development into appropriate, affordable energy conservation measures for those walls? Not to the best of my knowledge—that was certainly true a year ago, when a director of the Building Research Establishment informed us that there was no investment in such research, even although it could yield an enormous dividend.
In the broader context of energy policy, the 20 per cent. saving of domestic energy by 2010, or of 5 million tonnes of carbon, is of the same order that we aspire to achieve by deploying renewable energy to 10 per cent. of
372WH
our output by 2010. If we consider the situation in terms of bangs per buck, we will find that we would get a far quicker return from effective domestic energy provision than from deploying renewable energy. However, in reality, we need to do both and we need to do them effectively.
That is why I am saddened that the provision in my Bill enabling the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to require local authorities to deliver domestic energy conservation targets, which was carried into the Sustainable Energy Bill, has not been implemented. It may seem trivial, but some of the people most effective in promoting energy conservation—in advertising the Warm Front scheme and ensuring that it works—are our local authority home energy conservation officers, or however they are described locally. We happen to have an excellent officer in Brighton. I know the work that those people do, and with minimal investment they can produce good results. We are not using that power, which was inserted as an adjunct and as an extra delivery mechanism to ensure that things happen.
Our problem is partly cultural. It is endemic in government, irrespective of party. We have a "can't do" administration culture, for reasons that always seem important to the person saying that they cannot do something but, if considered in the broader context, are trivial and easily overcome. If we can convert our current culture of "can't do" or "It will wait; it doesn't really matter that much" into one of "can do" and "It can't afford to wait", we can make an impact. We can then get on with the business of saving the planet, preventing fuel poverty and leaving an inheritance to our grandchildren.
10.31 am
Norman Baker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on his sharply observed comments and his forensic analysis of the situation. I concur with everything he said.
There are clear reasons why we should do more in Parliament and as a country to promote energy efficiency. Most of those reasons have been touched on. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) quite properly referred to fuel poverty and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) referred to constituents huddled round one-bar fires. I have also seen such constituents, who have wind blowing in through inefficiently insulated windows, huddling round a fire unable to keep warm—and they have some of the higher fuel bills in my constituency. We must end that situation, which is unsatisfactory and unacceptable in the 21st century.
As my party's environment spokesman, I am predominantly concerned with climate change. As my hon. Friend mentioned, carbon dioxide emissions have increased in three years out of four. I am worried by what seems to be an underlying trend. With the switch from coal-fired to gas-fired generation, there was a one-off gain in the 1990s that led to significant reductions in carbon emissions. That has been banked and we are not seeing the further action necessary to reduce carbon emissions.
The Government have plans for renewable energy and they pay lip service to energy efficiency, but measures are not in place to meet the Government's

373WH
reduction target of 20 per cent. by 2010, let alone the 60 per cent. target, which, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said, may be insufficient in itself.
On fuel security, the Government quite rightly say that we must be certain of our fuel sources in years to come. We are at the end of gas pipelines that supply us from a very long way away. Many people want their bite out of the gas supply before it reaches us, and that will increasingly be the case in the future. The best way to enhance our fuel security in a very uncertain future is to minimise our demand for fuel in the first place by encouraging energy conservation and efficiency. That would be a very efficient way of ensuring security and it would of course benefit the energy efficiency industry, as my hon. Friend said.
Why is it such an uphill struggle to push energy efficiency? There seems to be cross-party, local council and public support for it, yet we must continually push and push to get measures implemented. There are two main reasons for that. First, there is a psychological reason: people, whether they are Ministers, MPs, officials, council leaders or whoever, like to build things. That is how they measure their achievement. They want to see a power station or a wind farm for which they have been responsible, so that they can point to it and say, "I did that." It is much less satisfying, psychologically, to say, "I cut energy use." One cannot really point to that. It is the same in the case of road transport: people like to build things. They are not so keen on road traffic reduction, which is far more important in some ways. We have to get over that mindset.
The second reason was referred to by several speakers this morning: the chronic failure of Government to deal with energy in a cohesive and comprehensive way in one Department. That issue is not confined to energy. It was also the case with animal welfare during the last Parliament. I drew attention to that regularly, and the Government, to be fair, have now largely sorted out that problem. All animal welfare issues are now dealt with by DEFRA, and policy is much more coherent as a consequence. We want the same sort of response on energy.
My party has proposed a change to the departmental structure that would bring together energy, transport and environment matters in a comprehensive way. That would lead to the sorts of changes and benefits that all of us in this Chamber want. At the moment, there is a split between DEFRA, the DTI, the Treasury, the ODPM and No. 10, which no doubt has a finger in there somewhere. As a consequence, we do not have joined-up government, and we get the sort of contradictory statements that my hon. Friend read out earlier.
Brian White:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons we were able to pass the Act was that we could play Departments off against each other? If the matter was dealt with by one Department, it would probably not be on the statue book.
Norman Baker:That is an interesting historical perspective, but I hope that it is not being advocated as a way to deal with energy policy. I would rather have one
374WH
Department to nail down than a number of different Departments—with which such games can indeed be played.
As someone who shadows DEFRA, I say with absolutely no disrespect to the Minister or his DEFRA colleagues that it is deeply frustrating to be continually in debates where we have a real problem in Government with someone from DEFRA who is not actually responsible for creating the problem in the first place, and is unable to give a solution. The responsibility lies elsewhere, in the DTI, the Treasury or somewhere else in Government. It is a bit like complaining to the booking clerk at my local station that the train has been cancelled. He or she cannot do anything about it, and one should not complain to the clerk, but they are the only person one can complain to. The Minister is the only person we can complain to today.
One of the things that we have to do is give DEFRA a bit more clout. Poor old DEFRA: the DTI has the energy White Paper and the macho bit, with all the wind farms, and comments on nuclear power. Energy efficiency does not matter much, so it is given to DEFRA, which is one of the fundamental problems. With no disrespect to DEFRA and its Ministers, for whom I have a great deal of time, it would have been better to have a DTI or Treasury Minister here this morning. We could really get our teeth into them. I hope that the Minister will do his best to respond, and more importantly, take back the comments that have come from all three parties today to the DTI and the Treasury to ensure that they get the message. We want more Government action on this front.
I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown in the sense that whether we talk about a target or an aim is not terribly important in itself, but the Government tend to differentiate the meaning of such words, so it becomes important because of the way in which they respond to those words. When battles are lost, targets become aims, and when they are lost comprehensively, they become aspirations. We have found that in many aspects of Government activity.
There is a target to cut carbon emissions by 5 million tonnes by 2010. Will the Minister put it on the record, once and for all, with no equivocation, that that is the Government's target? Secondly, will he confirm that they have mechanisms to achieve that target, and spell out what those mechanisms are, so we can be confident that it will be achieved? That is what we want to hear from him today, and I hope that he will give those assurances.
Hon. Members have quite rightly referred to comments from industry. I want to refer to the comments from a number of pressure groups which, as the Minister will know, have written to the Government on the matter. The Campaign to Protect Rural England, Forum for the Future, Friends of the Earth, the Green Alliance, Greenpeace, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the WWF have sent a common statement to the Government. I would like to read out one paragraph:
"We express our view that it is of the utmost importance that the aim is, or includes, the achievement of 5MtC savings p.a. by 2010 from domestic energy efficiency. We say this because: unless this is set as a firm target the necessary measures to achieve it will not follow; this level of carbon savings is vital in order to ensure the achievement of the government's overall CO2 reduction

375WH
targets; if the aim does not include 5MtC savings p.a. by 2010 from domestic energy efficiency, the whole credibility of the recent Energy White Paper will be thrown into doubt."
There is a united front from pressure groups, from hon. Members of all parties in this Chamber, and from the public. We want to know what the problem is and when and how the Government will commit themselves unequivocally to achieving the target.
10.40 am
Miss Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on securing this timely and important debate. I also recognise the contributions made by hon. Members from all parts of the Chamber. May I make a number of declarations? Clearly, I am not Britney Spears. In the short time available, my party was unable to secure her services, so the Chamber will have to make do with me this morning. I have modest interests in BP and Shell, and lived in a house with solar panels. Although time prevents me from commenting on the full scale of that disaster, I can say that I am not in a position to recommend their use without reservation. Perhaps we could explore that in a future debate.
I confess that I have sympathy with the Iddon policy of joined-up government, which I hope the Minister will also consider. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned a number of the Departments involved: housing is in the remit of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for energy and played a major role in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003; and today, the DEFRA Minister, who is responsible for fisheries, is responding—more of that anon. It would be welcome if, as proposed by the Iddon policy, one lead Department in both Houses was responsible for energy policy.
It is fair to say that we would all subscribe to and be in favour of energy conservation measures, particularly in the home, just as we would favour motherhood and apple pie. The Government must address the question of how to achieve those aims: who will pay the price and what will the cost be? The average cost of a home in the Vale of York is £200,000. It is incumbent on the Government to set realistic targets, and it is clear from the debate that Government targets are elusive if not unrealistic.
In the early-day motion on greenhouse gas emissions, which several hon. Members present have signed, we recognised
"that the industry and the environment and fuel poverty sectors have all stressed the importance of the aim being the achievement of five megatonnes of carbon savings per annum by 2010 from household energy efficiency as specified in the Energy White Paper".
I know that the Minister has a bad back, but he should not be allowed to wriggle out of answering the question: do the Government still subscribe to that aim or have they dropped it?
On behalf of the official Opposition, I record our bitter disappointment that the Government's environmental record is failing and that greenhouse gas emissions have consistently increased. The Government have done precious little: they set targets but either fail to meet them or remove them entirely. The Government's obsession with wind farms has entirely
376WH
clouded their vision and precluded any other form of renewable energy. The Government have failed to support combined heat and power—only one serious operator remains, and they have not stated whether they will support that operator's plans to generate further combined heat and power. They are no nearer to reaching their target of more than doubling the amount of combined heat and power generation by 2010. That was set out as recently as 18 December 2003 in a written statement by the Minister for the Environment, and I record my disappointment at the situation.
Moreover, the Government have failed to eradicate fuel poverty, and energy suppliers have pushed up their prices. The Public Accounts Committee stated that the £500 million in grant spent on warm front—the Government's main initiative to eliminate fuel poverty among the most vulnerable—had failed to help those most in need. It said that only a third of grants had helped the fuel poor with low energy efficiency in their homes. We have heard a great deal about such situations in hon. Members' constituencies. A third of grants goes to households not living in fuel poverty, and a third of poorer households, which should benefit, have not been eligible for warm front grants.
Brian White:Is the hon. Lady seriously advocating that the grants should be removed from disabled people?
Miss McIntosh:Unfortunately, time does not allow me to elaborate on these points as I would like, but I shall pursue the point that the Government must accept that the grants have failed to reach the most vulnerable.
The Sustainable Energy Bill set the initial target of a 20 per cent. reduction in energy inefficiency by 2010. Can the Minister confirm that he will progress towards the main provisions of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003? If so, why have the Government delayed announcing their report under the Act and the White Paper until after Easter?
I shall dwell for a moment on a little book that was launched last week, which I am told will shortly reach the No. 1 spot on the bestsellers list—or at least it would if it were available for sale. It is the Liberal Democrats' little yellow book. In it, the Liberal Democrats come out as being even-handed: on the one hand they say one thing, and on the other they say another, both things being perfectly contradictory. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove used to be in favour of an energy tax, and page 21 of the little yellow book says that, in the alternative Budget of 8 March 2002, the Liberal Democrats called for the climate change levy to be replaced with
"a carbon tax, which falls on energy use according to its carbon content".
In effect, that would be a tax on all energy users, and everyone's gas, coal and electricity bills would increase, which would hit the most vulnerable and those on fixed incomes particularly hard. The tax would be European Union-wide and might even be set by the European Commission.
The Liberal Democrats also advocate VAT on new house building. VAT would be levied at between 5 and 7 per cent. on new homes. I shudder to think of the impact on average house prices in my constituency. In the vale of York, the average home costs £200,000 and

377WH
rising. I recommend the little yellow book, to which we shall return. I note that there has been no mention today of a carbon tax, so we shall wait to hear in future debates whether the Liberal Democrats have ditched that policy or will return to it.
Mr. Stunell:I am anxious to give the Minister time to respond to the debate and I do not want to enter a side argument, but I would be happy to give the hon. Lady a copy of the Liberal Democrats' energy policy paper passed at our conference last year. She will find it a complete answer to the questions that she has raised.
Miss McIntosh:Regrettably, time did not permit me to quote from the Liberal Democrat policies adopted last year, but we shall return to that.
We have had a very good, positive debate, and we now need commitments from the Government. What is their commitment to energy efficiency? Why has the announcement of the report under the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 and the White Paper been postponed until after Easter? Does the Minister still subscribe to producing 5 million tonnes of carbon savings per annum by 2010 by way of household efficiency savings, as set out in the energy White Paper? Has his or any other Department performed an audit to show how much carbon would be saved by the policy that we have discussed this morning?
I conclude with one positive point and a plea to the Minister. I hope that he will have more success with conserving energy than he has so far had with conserving fish.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on securing the debate and welcome the contributions made by him and other hon. Members. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who leads on energy in the House of Commons—as Lord Whitty does in the other place—as he is attending the United Nations global ministerial environment forum in South Korea.
The energy White Paper last year was a turning point for UK energy policy. For the first time, sustainability was put at the heart of this country's energy strategy. By announcing the goal of a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by about 2050, with real progress by 2020, the Government showed that they were serious about making a long-term transition to a low-carbon economy. Those goals built on what was already an ambitious goal to reduce carbon emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010.
Hon. Members have expressed disappointment about the figures released last week showing a rise in emissions last year. That was caused by a higher than expected coal burn by the power generators. The Government take that very seriously and will use the review of the climate change programme later this year to look at how their climate change policies are delivering across all sectors and where they need to be strengthened.
378WH
However, it is worth reminding ourselves that this country, in contrast to most other countries that signed up to Kyoto, is on course to achieving its Kyoto commitments and is moving towards its national goals.
It is well known that there is the potential to improve energy efficiency by at least 30 per cent. across the economy. In the energy White Paper, the Government therefore identified energy efficiency as the major way in which we will meet our climate change goals in the short to medium term. Energy efficiency is expected to contribute more than half the total carbon savings to 2010 and in the following decade. We are talking about some 10 million tonnes of carbon savings by 2010 and a further 10 million by 2020. We expect about half of that to come from households.
The figure in the White Paper of 5 million tonnes, which has been cited today, was the Government's best estimate at that time of the savings that might be delivered by the policies and programmes set out in the climate change programme and further elaborated on in the energy White Paper. The figure was not presented as a target. The White Paper made it clear that the actual mix of measures needed in the future will be shaped by economic and technological developments.
Brian White:When we discussed the 2003 Act, one of the reasons why we talked about that figure was that it was equivalent to 20 per cent. That was specifically checked with officials at the time. That is why that figure was cited.
Mr. Bradshaw:I accept that, but the Government did not make a firm commitment to achieve specific levels of savings in any one sector. Hon. Members should also note that the figure of 5 million tonnes applies to the UK as a whole, whereas the aim required under the 2003 Act applies to England only. The equivalent figure for England would of course be lower.
Household energy efficiency has been improving steadily in recent years through the installation of central heating and improved insulation. Heat loss in the average dwelling was reduced by 31 per cent. between 1970 and 2001. During the 1990s, the average rate of efficiency improvement was around 1.4 per cent. a year, and that has increased further since then. However, I accept that we need to do better and we have a wide range of policies designed to achieve further substantial improvements.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove suggested that the energy efficiency industry in this country was stalled. I simply do not accept that. The building regulations, for example, are steadily driving up the standards of new and refurbished homes. A house built to 2002 standards uses about half the energy consumed in the average existing house.
Miss McIntosh:Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bradshaw:No, I will not. The hon. Lady has made many diversions in this debate and has left me very little time to reply.
In the last amendment to the regulations, the provisions covering existing buildings were extended to include the replacement of windows and boilers in

379WH
dwellings. I welcome the efforts of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove to widen the scope of the regulations further still through his Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill, which the Government support.
In the White Paper, the Government said that they aim to bring the next major revision of the building regulations into effect in 2005—some three years earlier than previously signalled—and that will improve standards yet more. Of particular importance will be the provisions requiring the use of only the most efficient A and B-rated boilers, which will come into effect in April 2005. We have also started a major new training programme designed to equip 70,000 installers with the skills needed to install those boilers and to advise consumers on high-efficiency heating systems.
In response to the points made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), the sustainable buildings task group set up after the better buildings summit last year will make recommendations after Easter.
Through the energy efficiency commitment, energy suppliers are carrying out improvements to their customers' homes worth around £150 million a year. We will shortly be consulting on our proposal for the next phase of the energy efficiency commitment after 2005, and we expect those levels of activity roughly to double. Once high-efficiency boilers become mandatory under the building regulations next year, the main role of the commitment will be to promote the installation of insulation and high-efficiency appliances, and the EEC target will therefore provide a very firm signal to the industries concerned.
Our fuel poverty programmes, including the warm front grant scheme, will continue to support the installation of heating systems and insulation in the homes of the fuel poor. I hear the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and I will reflect on his detailed and positive suggestions about how we might improve the warm front scheme. I will ask my noble Friend Lord Whitty to respond to him on the details.
380WH
My hon. Friend and other hon. Members also expressed concern about so-called silos in Government. Hon. Members constantly raise an issue about which they care deeply and wish that a single Minister was responsible. If we took on every single request, there would be hundreds of Ministers and hon. Members would not receive a better service. They fail to recognise that the Government are working through the new sustainable energy policy network, delivering joined-up government, and that all key Departments at ministerial and official level are involved.
The network is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Secretaries of State for all other Departments concerned are involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) said, there can be some advantages—I will not repeat the exact language that he used—in having different Departments with different priorities. One actually obtains a better deal than under the one that the Liberal Democrats are apparently advocating, in which we would have a single Minister responsible. That person would not be able to deliver what they were supposed to.
Several other programmes are furthering our energy efficiency aims: the decent homes programme, run by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; the Energy Saving Trust, which is funded by my Department; we have recently announced a major new energy services pilot; and several fiscal instruments were added to in the recent Budget.
As hon. Members have acknowledged, the Government will shortly be publishing their energy efficiency implementation plan, which will set out comprehensive measures to deliver the energy efficiency strategy contained in the White Paper. My Department has been developing it through the sustainable energy policy network. We will be setting such an aim to fulfil the requirements of the Sustainable Energy Act and the White Paper. It is our current intention to include an aim for the household sector within the energy efficiency implementation plan, and for that aim to be consistent with the measures that the plan contains.

Heavy Goods Vehicles
11 am
Mr. Andrew Mackay: May I first through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank the Speaker for allowing me to initiate this debate? I welcome the attendance of my old friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), and I am pleased that he will respond to this short debate.
In a conciliatory spirit, I put it to the Minister that there are many matters on which we agree, including the importance of improving safety on our roads. An analysis of the events in Madrid only a couple of weeks ago showed that as horrific, wrong and dreadful as that terrorist act was, the number of people who perished and the larger number who were maimed were not nearly as high as the number of people who die on roads in Spain or, for that matter, in this country. That is not to diminish that appalling terrorist atrocity, but it puts in perspective how much more we all have to do to ensure that our roads are safe and that casualty figures continue to fall.
Heavy goods vehicles represent about 1.4 per cent. of the traffic on our roads, yet they are involved in 15.5 per cent. of accidents that result in fatal casualties. I expect that, like me, hon. Members find those figures startling, but they get worse. Occupants of heavy goods vehicles represent 8 per cent. of the total casualties, whereas the occupants of vehicles that collide with a heavy goods vehicle account for 26 per cent. of casualties on our roads. It is therefore fair to say that anything that realistically can be done to improve the safety of heavy goods vehicles, such as my proposal to ensure that they are more conspicuous, would hugely benefit road safety and save lives.
I recall the days when there were no reflective number plates, and I am sure that the Minister does so too. In the days when we were both involved in Solihull politics, number plates were black and white. It was startling when reflective number plates were introduced in the late 1960s, largely by the 3M corporation, which has its UK headquarters in my Bracknell constituency. Hon. Members may recall a time when there was no reflective tape on the back of heavy goods vehicles, but now we all benefit from that at night. If we drive up behind a heavy goods vehicle that has broken down on a quiet road, our headlights pick it up much earlier than would otherwise be the case.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe regulation 104 suggests that reflective tape should be put on the sides of heavy goods vehicles. A significant number of accidents occur at night or in bad weather conditions, when drivers simply fail to spot the heavy goods vehicles sideways on, with the consequent accident and casualties that I mentioned earlier. For reasons that are not entirely apparent from my correspondence with the Minister, the Government have chosen not to implement regulation 104, although it has been implemented in Italy. A similar regulation has been implemented in Russia and America, where it has led to a 17 per cent. reduction in casualties and accidents involving heavy goods vehicles. The prize is therefore huge, and many far-sighted companies, such as Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury's and the John Lewis
382WH
Partnership, have voluntarily added reflective tape to their vehicles. That is marvellous, but we cannot rely on community-spirited companies. We should move towards all heavy goods vehicles having retro-reflective tape on the sides of their vehicles.
I have corresponded with the Minister in an attempt to persuade him of the need for such a provision. In his reply of 28 November 2003 last year, he was good enough to say:
"We are aware of the conspicuity benefits of retro-reflective tape, which can be used to outline the shape of large vehicles, using red to the rear and yellow to the side."
I am pleased that he recognises the strength of the case, but he went on to say that as regulation 104
"does not mandate the fitment of that tape to vehicles"
the Government have decided that at this stage they do not want to implement it in our country, which is a great pity. The Minister referred to a Loughborough university research and cost benefit study which states that
"mandating retro-reflective side and rear markings on new heavy goods vehicles in the UK would"
cost
"£12 million, while the expected benefits would amount to £6 million."
That was worrying, and sent a shiver down my spine. I am not sure how the Minister can place a value on dead and maimed people, but I should have thought that the price of saving so many lives was well worth paying.
I am by nature a deregulator rather than a regulator, so there must be special circumstances for me to call for additional regulation. I need, for example, to be satisfied that the cost is not disproportionate. The cost of putting tape along the sides of an average heavy goods vehicle is £100, which might be a lot of money to you and me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we were fitting tape on our own cars, but as the cost of a heavy goods vehicle costs is approximately £100,000 it is hardly a major financial burden on hauliers and companies with such vehicles. There is no reason whatever for not implementing the regulation.
In his letter, the Minister said:
"We are aware that the Italian government have proposed to mandate the fitment of ECE R104 retro-reflective tape to heavy goods vehicles registered in Italy. At the moment there is some doubt as to whether they have the legal powers to do this. Vehicle lighting and signalling equipment on new vehicles is harmonised throughout Europe and currently R104 tape is 'optional' under type approval: thus it is at the vehicle manufacturer's discretion whether or not to fit it. National governments cannot impose extra requirements on a vehicle which has been correctly type approved."
The Minister is nodding, but I am not sure that the rest of us buy that argument. The implication is that vehicle manufacturers alone can fit retro-reflective tape, and that if regulation 104 were made mandatory here it would be their responsibility to ensure that compliant materials were fitted before delivery. That is incorrect. Retro-reflective tape is easy to fit and can normally be done by end users themselves, as is the case with the companies that fit it voluntarily.
The Minister went on to say:
"Vehicle lighting and signalling equipment on new vehicles is harmonised throughout Europe".

383WH
Consequently, neither Italy nor the UK could act unilaterally. That is questionable, to say the least, as there are already instances where the UK imposes stricter provisions on safety markings for domestically registered vehicles while still complying with EU and UN type approval legislation. It is the responsibility of the end user, rather than the manufacturer, to ensure that additional provisions are met, because there is a distinction between type approval and domestic vehicle requirements. The Minister will be well aware of that distinction.
A pertinent example is "Long Vehicle" marker boards, as described in UNECE regulation 70. The boards are mandatory for vehicles registered in the UK, but not in other EU countries such as Germany. The vehicle type, for example, a particular type of Volvo truck, is approved under the appropriate regulations, but the UK imposes an additional requirement before an end user can register the vehicle in the UK. That seems perfectly reasonable, and a similar arrangement could apply to retro-reflective tape. I put it to the Minister that, happily, a precedent has already been set.
If regulation 104 were made mandatory in the UK the vehicle type would be approved in the same way, but to register such a vehicle the end user would have to ensure that it was fitted with the appropriate retro-reflective material. As I have already mentioned, that would cost no more than £100 a vehicle. Such an initiative would not prevent vehicles from other countries fro being allowed on UK roads, and would not contravene any EU trade legislation, so there is no good reason why we should not proceed.
Occasionally, the Minister and I gently clash about the issue of speed cameras in parliamentary questions. Far more lives would be saved by introducing a measure on retro-reflective tape than by siting speed cameras in the wrong place, such as, I strongly believe, the Heathrow airport exit. I would be out of order if I pursued that argument very much further so, as the Minister firmly believes in road safety, I urge him to implement regulation 104 as soon as possible. That is in everybody's best interests, and people who own and operate heavy goods vehicles have nothing to fear from the regulation.
11.13 am
Peter Bottomley: With the approval of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and the Minister, I should like to make a brief contribution. I am at fault for not tackling the problem, because 18 years ago, I proposed a regulation to fit sidelights on vehicles. That regulation could have dealt with the problem of the visibility of long heavy goods vehicle when crossing the path of approaching traffic.
My right hon. Friend has made the case for fitting reflective tape to the sides of vehicles. I expect that the Minister will say that to make that mandatory straight away would not be the best way to make progress. If the initiative is to be of value, it should be taken up with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and made a Europe-wide proposal. I hope that today's debate will stimulate every operator of new and old vehicles to put yellow reflective tape on the sides of their vehicles and red tape on the back. That would represent
384WH
progress, and I wish the Minister well in trying to get international agreement on introducing the measure as a mandatory Europe-wide provision.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport: First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on securing this important debate, and I agree with the general thrust of what he and the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) said. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that we are old friends who go back a long time; I first debated with him nearly 40 years ago. I always used to win those debates and I shall be equally convincing today, so I hope that he will not be too disappointed.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he is a keen deregulator, but I will avoid making the obvious joke—this is an example of him trying to increase the use of red tape. However, I am grateful to him for raising some important points on the use of retro-reflective tape on heavy goods vehicles to make them more conspicuous. I listened carefully to his arguments and I have re-examined our correspondence on the matter. We are in agreement on heavy vehicle safety. The Government take that matter seriously—it is an important part of our road safety strategy.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that road safety is extremely important to me and to my Department, as it has been to many other Ministers over a great number of years. We are making good progress on our road safety strategy, as set out first in "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone", which contains casualty reduction targets to be achieved by 2010.
Total deaths and serious injuries were down 17 per cent. in 2002, which is nearly halfway to our 40 per cent. target. Child deaths and serious injuries were down 33 per cent. in 2002, which is two thirds of the 50 per cent. target for 2010. However, that is no reason for complacency, even though those figures probably rank with the best in the world. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned several other countries, including Italy, Spain and Russia, which have substantially worse road safety records than we do.
The number of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles is high, but that too is falling. In 2002, 13,480 heavy goods vehicles were involved in injury accidents compared with 14,417 in 1993. That is a 6 per cent. fall in injury accidents over 10 years during which heavy goods vehicle traffic increased by 16 per cent. The rate of casualties related to heavy goods vehicles is falling dramatically, as it is in other areas of road transport. In the five years from 1997 to 2002, the numbers killed and seriously injured in accidents at night involving heavy goods vehicles also fell by 15 per cent. However, that is no reason for complacency, although things are clearly going in the right direction.
We have taken a number of other measures, such as extending the requirement for anti-lock braking systems to all vehicles and trailers over 3.5 tonnes. We have also introduced regulations making front under-run guards for new heavy goods vehicles compulsory, in addition to the safety guards already fitted to the sides and rear of heavy vehicles and trailers.

385WH
We have also been putting considerable effort and money into helping the road haulage industry to train the people that it needs to meet its requirements. About £8 million from the road haulage modernisation fund has been invested in training to help the industry to meet its future labour and skills needs.
Turning to the specific issues, the right hon. Gentleman raised some good points. I hope to be able to put my response in a context that may bring some comfort to him in the long term, although perhaps not in the short to medium term. I share the concerns that he raised about the conspicuity of large vehicles. He will know that, since 1973, retro-reflective long vehicle marker plates have been required on all new vehicles over 7,500 kg and trailers over 3,500 kg.
From 1991, vehicles more than 6 m long have had to have side marker lamps and side retro reflectors to make them more conspicuous from the side, and end outline marker lamps to show the height and width of the vehicle from behind. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned measures taken in the United States, where there has been a 17 per cent. reduction in casualties and accidents involving heavy goods vehicles. Some measures taken by the UK did not prevail in the United States; our vehicles were more conspicuous because of measures other than the use of tape.
When the new standard for retro-reflective tape was developed, we recognised that its use might offer further road safety benefits. In 1997, the Department commissioned research to establish how best to use retro-reflective and fluorescent materials on large vehicles. In particular, the research considered tape conforming to regulation 104, a specification for reflective tape agreed in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which regulates the technical requirements of vehicles. The regulation controls the physical properties of the tape—qualities such as its colour, how much light it reflects, dimensions, resistance to external agents and so on. It also contains guidelines on how the tape should be mounted on the vehicle, outlining its shape.
The Department's research on retro-reflective tape was one element of a larger project involving motor vehicle and pedal cycle conspicuity, which was carried out by the Ergonomics and Safety Research Institute at Loughborough university. The research showed that some accidents are due to the low conspicuity of vehicles or the poor perception of drivers as they approach a large vehicle, which retro-reflective tapes can improve by increasing the luminance contrast at night. However, fluorescent materials are more appropriate during the day.
The cost-benefit analysis prepared as part of the overall assessment showed that the estimated annual cost to the haulage industry of marking new heavy goods vehicles would be about £12 million, which was set against estimated savings of about £6 million. All deaths and injuries are important and we must concentrate our energy and resources on the best means of reducing casualties, focusing our finite resources where they will have the most impact. The report is available in the Library.
386WH
Our research was completed in 1998, so there are good arguments for re-doing the cost-benefit analysis and I agree that there is scope to do so. However, improving the visibility of heavy duty vehicles is included the European road safety action programme. The European Commission is carrying out research on the effectiveness of retro-reflective material, which will take about a year. Its research includes an assessment of costs and benefits, so it makes more sense to wait for the results before deciding whether we need to do anything more.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Italian proposal to require vehicles and trailers over 3.5 tonnes registered in Italy to be fitted with tape on the rear and the sides. It is part of a package of measures that the Italian Government are considering to tackle Italy's road casualty problems. That country already has requirements for heavy vehicles similar to those in the UK, but Italy has a much higher accident rate and I can understand why its Ministers want to take action.
To illustrate the scale of the problem, there were 11.1 road deaths per 100,000 of the population in Italy in 2000 whereas in the United Kingdom the figure was 6.1 per 100,000. That is a substantial number less. Total road deaths in Italy in 2000 were 6,410 and in the UK the figure was 3,598, so road casualty levels in this country are much lower than in Italy, probably even for heavier vehicle usage. While Italy has strong reasons for wishing to take this action, there is some doubt as to whether it can do so unilaterally.
Since I wrote my letter to the right hon. Gentleman in June 2003, the UNECE position has changed. It did so as recently as 28 February and it is now an optional provision for type approval. A member state cannot refuse to register a vehicle that has type approval in another EU state. Member states cannot unilaterally mandate that, as it could constitute a barrier to trade. There has been some confusion about that, but it has been cleared up by the European Commission. If the right hon. Gentleman wants more information on that and some detail, I am happy to correspond with him.
I have been asked how we can have mandated for so many years that marker boards be fitted on the rear of trucks but cannot now unilaterally mandate on retro-reflective tape. It might help the House's understanding if I explain that the rules are different. This is a complicated topic, but I will do my best to give an outline of why we can include one requirement in our national law but not the other.
The situation hinges on Economic Commission for Europe regulation 48, which concerns the installation of lights and signalling devices. That has been changed in the last month or so to include an optional provision for reflective tape. It makes no mention of the marker boards. They are covered by ECE regulation 70. The subtle difference in those regulations permits national Governments to set their own requirements. That is what we do in the United Kingdom. I believe that most other member states take the same position.
Germany recently made a proposal to the UNECE working group on vehicle lighting to allow countries to make the fitting of regulation 104 tape mandatory for type approval of new heavy goods vehicles weighing more than 12 tonnes. That would mean manufacturers having to fit the vehicles with a tape to be allowed to sell them in those countries. It makes sense for Germany to

387WH
make that proposal, as it does not apply the regulation for rear marker boards. Clearly it has much to gain from requiring conspicuity markings to the rear of heavy vehicles, but it starts from a lower baseline than we do, so the safety case is easier for it to justify.
We will consider the new UNECE proposals carefully and examine how they will affect our vehicle manufacture and haulage industries. As well as questions on the safety benefit, there are practical concerns, such as the difficulty with mounting the tape on unusually shaped vehicles without flat surfaces—for example, petrol tankers, cement mixers, cranes and car transporters.
So, as I am sure the House appreciates, we need to discuss the German proposal with United Kingdom stakeholders before we decide whether to support it. However, I assure to the right hon. Gentleman that, if we feel that that could bring genuine road safety benefits, of course it will have our full support.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the cost of fitting the retro-reflective tape. My Department's research shows that the cost is about £150 for materials, but there is a further cost for fitting. We have had representations from the industry—for example, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association; he probably knows the latter. Returning again to Solihull, his old pal Roger King may have a different view from the right hon. Gentleman. He may want to catch up with an old pal and have a discussion, perhaps over a little noggin somewhere, to see whether he can come to an accommodation with him as well.
This has been a useful debate on an important subject. If there is any matter that I have not covered in full, I shall, as always, be most pleased to correspond with the right hon. Gentleman.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

UK Olympic Bid (2012)
2 pm
Mr. Eric Joyce: I want to speak about the bid to bring the 2012 Olympics to the United Kingdom. A lot has been said in this place and in the main Chamber about the bid, and that is quite right, because it is of great significance in itself. If successful, it will have implications that will keep this place and the main Chamber busy for many hours from now until 2012 and, no doubt, beyond. I have read previous speeches on the subject and will endeavour to avoid repeating points that have already been raised.
I believe that if the state is to commit itself to hosting an event such as the Olympic games, it must do so on the basis that all parts of the UK must benefit, directly or indirectly. The games must, of course, be held substantially in one place, although some events can be dispersed. Rowing, for example, will be held at the world-class Eton Dorney facility, and football will be held across the UK, including in Glasgow and Cardiff. Much of the benefit will, of course, come to the London area, but it is important to note that there will be significant spin-offs across the UK for tourism, building contracts, extensions to building contracts and the whole chain that relates to the games.
I want mainly to talk today about the sports communities—not just in competitive sport, but those existing in all communities—that would benefit considerably from a successful bid, providing that those responsible for managing it proceed with sensitivity to the need to spread the benefits as widely as possible. I am glad to hear from London 2012 Ltd., the company responsible for putting the bid together, that such sensitivity to the reliance of the bid on taxpayers across the whole UK is to the fore in its mind.
Mr. Graham Stringer: Does my hon. Friend accept, in the nicest possible way, that the title for this debate is technically a misnomer, because the bid is in the name of London and the British Olympic Association and not the United Kingdom? Does he agree that, in order to obtain the support of the whole UK, the British Olympic Association and the Government should had followed the practice of other countries of opening the nominations for the British competitor city to the whole UK? Not having done that has divided the country in many ways, because people think that something given to London, without allowing other cities to compete, is unfair.
Mr. Joyce:I recognise entirely what my hon. Friend says: he is extremely knowledgeable on the subject. My understanding—I shall say more about this later—is that the criteria drawn up by the International Olympic Committee are such that London is the only city in the UK that is likely to succeed. Although I recognise that other hon. Members whose constituencies are in large cities would naturally want to argue for their cities, I must recognise that Falkirk is unlikely to be a successful bidder for the 2012 Olympics. That is a harsh fact of life, and I must resign myself to it.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I confirm what my hon. Friend has just said? The IOC made it clear that the only bid city from this country that it would entertain was London. Manchester and Birmingham have tried unsuccessfully before, and the BOA made it clear it would only put forward a London bid. It is not a bias towards the metropolis; it is a fact of life that the IOC would only entertain a London bid, and we must accept that.
Mr. Joyce:I agree: it is simply a fact of life and we must proceed from that position. That is where we find ourselves now; sadly, the Falkirk Olympics remain on the theoretical books—
Chris Bryant: On hold.
Mr. Joyce:On hold, for a little longer, until we expand the town.
The bid team is establishing a nations and regions support group, which will meet for the first time this May. That is an important development.
Mr. Stringer:As ever, I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend and following the logic of his argument. However, he should consider the cities that have hosted the Olympic games since the second world war, the slight majority of which have not been capital cities. Furthermore, I have never found an official statement from the International Olympic Committee saying that it will accept a bid only from London. He said that there will be many debates on the subject, so will he bring us that categorical statement of IOC policy either today or in another debate?
Mr. Joyce:I cannot bring that categorical statement. I proceed from the assumption that the bid is being made in the name of London, and that is just the way it is. The evidence may be given in future debates, and I strongly suspect that that will happen, but it is not something that I can do today.
Each nation and region will nominate someone from the business world and another from the sporting world to represent it on the support group. The group will be chaired by Charles Allen, who is the vice-chair of London 2012 Ltd. and one of this country's leading business people. The group will advise on how best to link the bid to regional businesses and sports networks, and it will create a new platform to develop the ways in which the UK as a whole can benefit from bringing the games to London. That will include exploring opportunities for commercial contracts, for locations such as universities to benefit by providing bases for pre-Olympic training camps and for venues to attract major sporting events in the run-up to the games.
As far as I can see from its remit, the nations and regions support group will not consider the knock-on effects of the games, but some benefits will accrue. A successful bid will lead to world-class facilities, which we could reasonably expect many sports to take advantage of for years to come. In addition, a successful bid may assist Glasgow's chances of staging the 2014 Commonwealth games, in which the city has declared its interest. Its councillors are meeting today with a view to developing the bid. Not that anyone would want it, but
390WH
even an unsuccessful Olympics bid could bring advantages. Manchester's unsuccessful bid for the Olympics led to an enormously successful Manchester Commonwealth games, and similarly, if the council decides to go ahead, a Glasgow bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games could benefit.
I understand the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), but if not in name, the bid is effectively by the UK as a whole—it is a Great Britain and Northern Ireland bid.
Chris Bryant:One difficulty with the legacy is that it will all be in London, although there may be earlier benefits elsewhere. Another point is that the IOC has a habit of making exaggerated demands on countries that hold the Olympics. For instance, Athens has been told that it must have a legacy stadium of 10,000 seats for baseball and basketball, two games that are hardly played in Greece.
Mr. Joyce:That is interesting, as I was not aware of that. However, I cannot quibble with the criteria laid down by the IOC because I do not know enough about the detail. It is inevitable that a substantial proportion—if not the majority—of the economic, developmental and regenerational benefit will accrue to the largest conurbation in the country. That is a fact of life. If we want to bring the Olympics to the UK, there are some things that go without saying, and that is why it is important that we spread whatever benefits as widely as we can. I suspect that there will be upgrades to sporting facilities such as football stadiums, and we must consider that they will be of significant benefit to the communities affected.
Mr. Andy Reed: Places such as Loughborough university will benefit from the location of one of the major sporting teams because of the facilities that we already have and the extra income that will be generated. Some of the facilities will need upgrading by then, and the legacy will not be coincidental: it will flow from ensuring that places outside London play their part. Many of my constituents will be very interested in volunteering, and I hope that my hon. Friend will address that as well.
Mr. Joyce:Indeed. I will come to that in due course. My hon. Friend is taking most of my speech away, so I will not reply to him immediately or I will run out of words and deliver it in the wrong order. He is right: there are many ways in which the rest of the country can benefit. Those of us who represent constituencies outside London must consider ways in which we will benefit, rather than concentrate too much on the fact that the largest conurbation will be a significant beneficiary.
The Government and the British Olympic Association made it clear that the criteria set by the IOC mean that London is the only city that could be a successful British bidder. Even then, we know from coverage of the subject in the press and elsewhere that competition will be very fierce.
Political, business and sporting leaders from across the UK have been vocal in their support of the London bid. Scotland's First Minister, Jack McConnell, has

391WH
confirmed his support for the 2012 bid. In doing so, he noted that Scotland would benefit in many ways from a successful bid.
The bid may attract additional tourists who would be likely to attend part of the Olympics and take in some other part of the UK while they are here. They could do no better than to visit the Falkirk wheel, one of Scotland's most visited and excellent tourist attractions. It is increasingly the reason why many people visit Scotland, and by remarkably good fortune, it happens to be in the middle of my constituency. It has been suggested that the high diving could take place from the top, which is 130 ft high, but I suspect that the canal at the bottom is too shallow for that.
In confirming his support for the Olympic bid, the First Minister also drew attention to the first-rate facilities that already exist in Scotland, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has already alluded. Those facilities include the swimming centre of excellence at Stirling university. It is not in my constituency, but it is only 20 minutes away and a place of work and study for many of my constituents. Other facilities include the national rowing academy recently opened at Strathclyde Park. They could readily be used as pre-Olympic training camps.
Scotland would of course host Olympic football events. I realise that Members may wish to challenge this point, but it would seem odd if Scotland were to host an Olympic football event and there was no UK team involved. It is a contentious issue, and the Scottish Football Association, the Football Association and the British Olympic Association have proposed various ways round it: one would be that the winners of a home international represent Britain. I am not sure about that. Another would be a select UK team. There are several ways of dealing with it, but it would be peculiar not to have a UK team. That is not to force the idea on the FA and the SFA, however, because I believe that the last time it happened was 1960.
Chris Bryant:As a Welshman representing a Welsh seat, I wholly concur with the view that there should be a UK football team. I am sure that there will be a football match in the millennium stadium, which is a fine stadium—probably the best in the land. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that we should go in that direction rather than in the direction that some wild, woolly nationalists have argued, namely that we should have separate Welsh, Scottish and English teams for athletics, cycling, swimming and everything else.
Mr. Banks:The IOC would never accept that.
Mr. Joyce:I agree entirely. There are separate football associations and identities for international football, but that would not be acceptable to the IOC.
Scotland, much like other parts of the United Kingdom, has a proud history of welcoming visitors from around the world with warmth and friendliness and I am confident that athletes and spectators from participating Olympic countries would find Scotland an excellent place for preparation and tourism. Politicians in Westminster and in Scotland have expressed Scotland's desire to welcome athletes, although we recognise that it would be a matter of competing with
392WH
locations not simply in England but in sunny places such as the south of France where African athletes might find it more pleasant to be in the run-up to the games. Nevertheless, we have the facilities and we must ensure that that is on the record.
I want to mention the effect of a successful Olympic bid on sport in and around my constituency, which is in Scotland's central belt. I am aware that many issues concerning sport are devolved to the Scottish Executive and that anything concerning the national lottery is, theoretically, reserved. There is a danger of getting into a mire if I go into too much technical detail about particular sports, but sport is as much a part of Scottish national life as it is a part of Welsh national life and, I am sure, of English and Irish national life. It is fair to flag up the importance that sport plays in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK.
In many respects, the important impact of sport in our constituencies comes from the community effect, not from the high-level competing. Many people in our constituencies take part in sport daily and look to the highest level of performance for their inspiration. Many Olympic sports are essentially community sports.
Pete Wishart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will start to discuss how the Olympics will be financed, which will be from lotteries. Does he share Scotland's concern that its slice of £41.8 million to pay for the London Olympics will set back the regeneration of sport in Scotland by 20 years?
Mr. Joyce:I shall come to funding presently, although I realise that time is ticking on. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him, but I do not necessarily disagree with all that Sport Scotland says, and I recognise that there will be a burden on taxpayers. I shall try to respond to his comment in context, if I may.
Community sports that are also Olympic sports include gymnastics, judo, hockey and basketball, and one can find people taking part in those sports in sports halls in our constituencies on any night of the week.
I shall speak about judo, which has a noble history in the Olympics. In Scotland, it is run under the auspices of Sport Scotland, but it is a BOA sport and ties in with the British Judo Association. In fact, it delivered one third of all the medals that Scotland won in the last Commonwealth games. Scotland and the UK are becoming very successful in that sport, and its main base is its many community clubs throughout the UK.
In Scotland, there are 110 judo clubs, and the 10,000 members, the majority of whom are children, and their parents, keep the sport alive. Volunteers usually work for nothing, and the officials who run judo organisations usually do so for very modest reimbursement. As young people grow older, there is a trend for them to be attracted away from their particular sport, and from sport in general, by more sedentary activities. That is a pity for national life, and one of the benefits of holding the Olympic games in the UK is that the exciting, flashy side of sports, which may rarely be seen, is brought into their own backyard. That will encourage people to stay in sport, particularly in my sport, in which there is a serious drop-off rate before people reach early adulthood.

393WH
More countries are members of the International Judo Federation than of the United Nations. That should remind us of the effect that sport has in connecting people from different countries and communities. It makes people in our constituencies, who might not normally think about international issues, more aware of what is going on around the world. That is another reason why community sports should be at the forefront of our minds.
Sport Scotland, in common with its regional counterparts in the UK, has said, as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) said, that an Olympic bid could draw resources away from other areas of sport in Scotland—the Minister may wish to respond to that. I think that, in return for the benefits to the UK and to Scotland of holding the Olympics in Britain, we should all take an element of the risk and cost. All sports would benefit, to the extent that it justifies their taking an element of the risk that will be largely borne south of the border.
Pete Wishart:I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Surely, with an ever dwindling pot, the money should fund community resources, proper sporting tuition and a community infrastructure so that young people participate in sports, especially given the lifestyle and obesity problems in Scotland. That money should not go into infrastructure projects in London. The Olympics may make people interested in sport, but would the money not be better spent on community resources?
Mr. Joyce:I think that the hon. Gentleman has a particular agenda—his raison d'être is to stress the importance of independence and separation and he thinks that decisions on funding should be made on that basis. I think he finds it difficult to swallow not that the Olympics might be staged south of the border—he probably views that in the same way as if they were staged in Paris or elsewhere—but that many athletes will compete with enormous pride wearing a Great Britain and Northern Ireland vest, shirt or swimsuit, and that millions of people, north and south of the border, will proudly support them. I think that it sticks in the craw of Scottish and Welsh nationalists that people are enormously proud to be British on these occasions. That is a fact of life, and all is can say to him is that he might be happier if he switched political parties.
Mr. Don Foster: Is not the answer to the concern of the hon. Member for North Tayside that however much additional funding we would all welcome for community sport, it is largely run by volunteers? As a result of holding the Olympics in this country, the enthusiasm, interest and participation of young people in those community sports activities will be massively boosted. That will help to tackle the obesity problem that he referred to.
Mr. Joyce:I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman's wise words.
The UK is undoubtedly the spiritual home of the Paralympics, which are a wondrous display of physical and mental determination in sport, and we probably say
394WH
too little about them in debates such as this. Although the UK is a leader in the development and promotion of sport for the differently abled and in the medals haul, holding the games will lead to UK Paralympic athletes garnering a larger than usual haul of medals—there is evidence that holding the Olympics leads to winning more medals. It will also provide additional inspiration to those of differing abilities, who sometimes feel that participating in sport is beyond them. In short, I believe that the UK and its Paralympic athletes deserve the opportunity to showcase the advancement of Paralympic sport in 2012.
I shall conclude by repeating my key points for my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I hope that she can respond to them in her winding-up speech. I want to be confident that the bid team and the Government are making a major effort to ensure that the benefits are, wherever possible—we must recognise that there are limits—spread throughout the UK and our community sports. I would also like the Minister to comment on university sport, which I have not mentioned, but which feeds into the mainstream and is sometimes a little underfunded. We have heard of marvellous facilities at Loughborough, Stirling, Bath and Sheffield, but in other parts of the country, university sport is not always as well funded as it might be. I also stress the role of the Paralympics, which are sometimes a bit of a Cinderella issue in these debates.
2.26 pm
Pete Wishart: I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing what I think is the third debate in as many months on what I will refer to as the London Olympic bid, which is a much more appropriate description. I have managed to speak in most of the debates, although I concede that my contribution has not been the most popular or well received one. That is probably because I have been prepared to challenge the cosy consensus that suggests that a London Olympics will be good for London and for the rest of the United Kingdom. That contention is at least challengeable. The Olympic bid will be good for London because—
Mr. Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Gentleman says, those of us who are fans of sport are used to his relentlessly negative comments on behalf of his party. May I put a challenge to him? If another Olympic country suddenly announced that it wanted to use his constituency of North Tayside as its training base, would he suddenly appear in all his local newspapers saying that he had always been in favour of the 2012 Olympic bid?
Pete Wishart:If any Olympic country were prepared to come to Pitlochry, Dunkeld or Forfar, I would be delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but that is not the point that I have been consistently trying to make in these debates, as he will appreciate.
I have been prepared to challenge the cosy assumption that a London Olympics will he good for London and for the rest of the UK. We know that the Olympics will be good for London, because the Government commissioned the engineering consultants Arup to consider the issue. The benefits for London will be substantial and significant. I do not know what the

395WH
impact will be on the rest of the UK but, when I assess the losses and gains on the balance sheet, I see more losses than gains.
It would take more than the first round of an unlamented football competition and the possible use of some of our facilities by international teams to convince me otherwise, because the loss is quite significant and quite tangible. It is all about the way in which it is proposed to pay for a London Olympic games. They will be paid for with £1.5 billion of lottery funding, but lottery funding is for the good causes, charities and grass-roots sports in each and every one of our constituencies. That is an unacceptable way to pay for a London Olympics.
I feel vindicated in questioning that approach, because I have read the interesting report by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport that comes to the same conclusion. In fact, it goes further than I have ever gone in a speech about a London Olympics. It states:
"We regard the £1.5 billion earmarked by the Government as the Lottery's overall contribution to the Olympics as a straightforward raid."
Chris Bryant:As a member of the Select Committee, I should perhaps explain exactly what we meant by that statement. We are earnest supporters of the Olympic bid, but many of us would like the country to pay through taxation rather than the lottery. That does not mean, however, that we believe that Britain should not be saying yes to a London bid.
Pete Wishart:I appreciate that that is the sentiment of the Select Committee, but a straightforward raid is a straightforward raid. I hope that the Minister listened to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because what he mentioned would be a much more appropriate way to pay for the Olympics. It is unacceptable that the good causes, charities and grass-roots sports in my constituency should pay for infrastructure projects in central London.
The Select Committee's report is very interesting, balanced and rounded, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on being a member of it. It is worth telling the hon. Member for Falkirk, West—this applies to his constituency as well as to mine—that the report states that
"funding the 2012 Games, should the bid be successful, constitutes a potentially huge drain on the total funds available for the existing good causes, including grassroots sport (especially outside London where expected legacies will presumably be less)."
The games will have a greater impact on the far-flung nations, regions and constituencies than on constituencies closer to London.
The Select Committee is entirely right. Paying for the London Olympics out of the money that would ordinarily go to grass-roots sports, charities and other good causes is wrong in principle and contrary to what the lottery is supposed to be about. It is wrong for the nations and regions of the UK, which the Select Committee rightly identified as the biggest losers in this grand lottery raid.
For what reason will the lottery fund be raided? The odd football game in Glasgow. We are told that holding the Olympic games in London will create a massive
396WH
incentive for people to become interested in sport, that all of a sudden they will get off their couches and get involved in sporting activities. How does that square with the speech of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, who mentioned Sport Scotland's comment that, because of the way in which the Olympic games will be funded, the regeneration of sport in Scotland will be set back by 20 years? It is worth pointing out exactly what Sport Scotland said:
"If we lose over £40 million from lottery funds because of the London Olympics we'll need to end whole programmes which provide support to grass root and elite sport in Scotland… There is a terrible irony in the fact that bringing the greatest sporting show on earth to the UK could devastate the regeneration of sport in Scotland and set us back 20 years."
We must take such comments seriously.
Mr. Reed:I have not been too disparaging of the hon. Gentleman's comments in the past. I have listened to the same speech on each of the three occasions that he has given it.
I support some of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, in that my support for the Olympics has always been on the basis of the least impact on grass-roots sport. However, does he accept that the games are not just about a two or three-week event? If we win in 2005, there will be a seven-year build-up to the games. If we were able to utilise all that energy and excitement, perhaps the lottery would generate even more money rather than less. There is a great deal of work to be done, but we should get behind the games and make them work in such a way that grass-roots sport across the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, is not affected.
Pete Wishart:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that useful intervention, because we must get this right. We cannot allow good causes such as charities and grass-roots sport to suffer, which Sport Scotland envisages will happen. Taking £41.8 million, as it currently stands, from good causes in Scotland is unacceptable. We must try to find alternatives and a means of dealing with the situation.
Chris Bryant:The hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of this issue. In fact, much of the money that will, as he puts it, go from good causes to the Olympics will be spent before 2012 by the bid committee and the good causes on things that good causes might well have done anyway. Their projects will be realigned to work with the Olympics. Resources will not be directly taken away from them. In many cases, there will be an effort to bind everything in the sports strategy for the UK into the single bid for the Olympics.
Pete Wishart:I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope that that is the case, but he should speak to the volunteer organisations in his own constituency or the national organisations in Wales, as I have. They have real fears and concerns about the impact on their lottery funding. They are looking for reassurances, which I hope the Minister will be able to provide.
The simple and obvious fact, regardless of what the hon. Gentleman says, is that it is inevitable that grassroots projects will suffer if money is diverted from them to large infrastructure projects in London—we all

397WH
accept that. We have heard the Government say that they accept that grass-roots projects will suffer, and our constituents are aware of that.
There are massive health and lifestyle problems in Scotland. Unfortunately, for much of the population, including children, obesity is increasing. Most of the people do not participate in any sporting activity. I do not believe that that will be addressed by a London Olympic games. It will be addressed only by facilities and proper sporting tuition, and by investing properly in our communities and by building the sporting infrastructure. We need investment in grass-roots sports projects, not in massive infrastructure projects in London.
Our team sports are in decline. We have nothing in the way of a youth academy with facilities. It will not have passed hon. Members by, but Scotland secured the wooden spoon in the Six Nations rugby on Saturday, such is the condition of team sports in Scotland. If a pot of money is available to be diverted, it should go to youth academies and grass-roots team sports to try to reverse that worrying trend.
I have a sensible solution to the matter, which will satisfy London Members and those from the more far-flung regions: as the wealthiest and most prosperous city in Europe, if London wants the Olympic Games it should pay for them. London will get all the benefits and legacies if its bid is successful. It will secure 3,000 jobs, the regeneration of east London, the £70 million benefit of the fiscal impact of growth in the local economy and the extra income generated by the growth in tourism, which it is estimated will be between £280 million and £507 million. London has wealth way beyond what those in the regions and the other nations in the United Kingdom can imagine, and good on London for that. But it must pay for the Olympics.
It is estimated that Scotland will lose £41.8 million from the national lottery's good causes if London succeeds in its bid to host the 2012 Olympics. That will inevitably lead to long-term damage to Scotland's charity work. A small amount of money in a small community makes a huge difference and a lot of good work can be done with £41 million in small grants. I do not know how much of a feel-good factor there will be if London gets the Olympic Games, but that amount would certainly help charity work in Scotland.
I hope that London will be successful in securing the games, but I do not want the good causes, charities and grass-roots sports in Scotland and the other nations and regions of the UK to pay for them. If London wants the Olympic Games, London should pay.
2.37 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing not only this short debate but others, too. I trust that he does the lottery, as he is clearly a lucky sort of fellow.
The insular, negative approach of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) was very depressing. When the curling team, which was effectively from Scotland, won the gold medal, the whole nation rejoiced; I did not complain about the lack of curling
398WH
facilities in London or anywhere else, because that victory unified the whole country. It might be at the centre of his complaints that the Olympic games are such a unifying force, because that is not something that the Scottish National party welcomes. It is not just about London.
When the Minister winds up, she will no doubt tell us more about the costs. A successful Olympic games will make a profit, which will benefit sport throughout the country. The mere impetus to people who participate in sport will generate income down the line. Thanks to the Mayor's levy, Londoners will pay for the project for about seven years, so it is not the case that they will make no contribution.
An Olympic games, whether it succeeds or fails, will reflect on the whole country; there will be tangible benefits, not just for London. There will be sports events and training camps for Olympic teams from other nations around the country and an enormous amount will be spent on them. Athletes in the different disciplines from the four home countries will participate in the games; it will be an enormous boost for the country as a whole. London has to be the location, because a city has to be nominated. We must check whether an official statement has been made on the matter, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer). When I was Minister for Sport, it was made clear to me by the then president of the IOC, Juan Antonio Samaranch, that in no circumstances would a bid other than London's be acceptable to the IOC; the BOA has consistently said so, too. A proper statement on the issue would clear the air, because it is being used as a diversion. Manchester and Birmingham made brave efforts and failed quite badly in terms of the number of votes that they got from the IOC. I think that the entire country should close ranks behind the London bid.
I declare a constituency interest. The heart of the bid centres on my constituency. In the east end, we are delighted. I say to the hon. Member for North Tayside that London may be a wealthy city in its totality, but if he comes to the east end, I will show him levels of poverty, unemployment and deprivation that rival anything in Scotland or elsewhere. That is not the only reason to hold the Olympic games there, but it is an important spin-off. The regeneration of the east end of London in Stratford and the lower Lee valley would be of enormous benefit. I hear many Scots accents in my area, so it is not as though the jobs will go only to the English. Unfortunately, decrepitude alone will rule me out from being at the opening ceremony in 2012 as the Member of Parliament for West Ham, but in the meantime I will give the bid all my support.
I enter a small personal note. I realise that I am personally tainted by the failure of the 2006 World cup bid. We did our best. We had a great bid that was well organised. However, external factors determined that we were not to be successful. One of those, of course, was the gentlemen's agreement, of which we knew nothing when we set out on the bid or when the Tories launched it in 1996. The crowd violence at Charleroi and Brussels in Euro 2000 was the final nail in the coffin.
I say to Ministers that if we had been successful in that World cup football bid it would have been put down to the charisma and inspired leadership of Bobby Charlton, but because we failed we blame the

399WH
politicians. That is the way it goes, and I hope that Ministers in the Department will take that as an object lesson. There is no fear of crowd violence at beach volleyball spoiling our bid for the 2012 Olympic games.
The trouble is that we live in a country where the blame culture reigns supreme. According to the press, when we attempt anything we are either the best in the known cosmos or we are the pits. There is no in between. This is a competition, and we must accept that, in a competition where there are so many cities going for it and giving it their best shot, we could lose. That does not mean to say that we are contemplating losing. We must give it our best shot, but of course there is a risk. The competition is fierce and there are a lot of obstacles to overcome. There will be setbacks during the process.
All bids go through those setbacks. Sydney did so last time and Athens is now going through the problems of putting in place the infrastructure and getting it all together. There are the added problems of terrorism and security needs. I do not suppose that Beijing will have many problems with construction. Anyone who can run tanks over their own people in Tiananmen square is not likely to be held up by a bunch of construction workers. However, we will run into difficulties, and one must always be aware that, at the time that we announced that we were going to go for anything, we found large numbers of fair-weather friends. We must ensure that we maintain the political will to overcome the obstacles and problems that we will, no doubt, encounter along the way.
We mentioned the question of legacy. We must ensure that there are legacies to the bid. I mentioned some of them, including how the country will be united and extra money will come into sport following a successful Olympic bid. In my own area, Stratford and the lower Lee valley, we need to know what will happen to that Olympic stadium. It can be put only to a football use. West Ham is a possibility, Tottenham Hotspur another and, judging by the ambitions of Mr. Abramovich, perhaps Chelsea might like to transfer to the east end. I am not sure how my constituents would view that proposal. I, of course, would be delighted.
My last point is about my early-day motion 786, which is about a British Olympic football team. That is a principle supported by the IOC and the BOA. Indeed, FIFA has made it clear that, were we to enter a Great Britain football team, that would not jeopardise our position with respect to the four home nations at FIFA. We can believe that if we want to—it is certainly the public statement.
I have been pushing the idea of a Great Britain team for many years—as a Minister, and before I was a Minister. The existence of four nations in the World Cup is not only a remnant of imperial arrogance—it is self-defeating. No other country would be mad enough to divide itself into four bits to make it easier for other countries to defeat it. I know that people will say that only English players would be in the team, but that is nonsense—it is a snapshot. I can think of a Great Britain team that would have had Greaves, Law and Best in it. We were never given the opportunity to see that.
I believe that the Olympic games would give us a chance to see how the country reacts to a Great Britain football team. It would introduce some of the Olympic spirit into our professional game, which would not be a
400WH
bad thing. I hope that the Minister will give her support today to the principle of a British Olympic football team, although if she does I suggest she first buy a tin helmet.
2.46 pm
Chris BryantI was not sure whether that was an intervention or a peroration; clearly the peroration defeated the intervention. I had not intended to speak this afternoon, but I was inspired when the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) intervened with his nationalist urge for us to dismember the United Kingdom yet again and to encourage an element of resentment against the bid on behalf of the capital city of the United Kingdom.
I have always been a supporter of the Olympic concept, ever since 1972 when, on holiday with my family in Spain, I was ill. I was not allowed to go out in the sun and I sat and watched every moment of the Olympic games and noted in a notebook every outcome—every runner's speed and each element of the results. That shows that I have an obsessive personality. I am obsessively supportive of the London bid, despite the fact that my constituency will not receive many direct benefits from it. I believe, nevertheless, that the indirect benefits will be substantial. For a start, it will provide to a significant extent the inspiration that we need in this country, encouraging more young people to see sport not just as something happening in a distant country, or something that other people do, but as something that people here pursue with phenomenal ability.
I should like every young person in the Rhondda to watch the television and see the Olympics in the UK, perhaps after a run-up to the games in which some of the athletes will have trained in south, west or north Wales. I should like those young people to have an opportunity to come into contact with them and to come to believe in the possibility that they could achieve as well as anyone else if they became involved in sport.
The Manchester Commonwealth games provided, to an extent, just such inspiration for sportspeople in the United Kingdom. There was a resurgence in certain sports. Rowing, cycling and swimming, in particular, have undergone a resurgence in the past few years that has fluctuated with the success of United Kingdom sportspeople in major international tournaments.
There will also, I believe, be significant tourism potential to be gained for the whole of the United Kingdom from holding the Olympics in London. It is a simple fact that London will fill up pretty quickly with tourists, even at that time of year. An important role for the London tourist board is as a gateway for the rest of the United Kingdom.
The National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament have spent quite a lot of money trying to market Scotland and Wales on the west coast of America and elsewhere. I think that that is a mistake. We should do better to market Britain, because it is only by flying to London airport that people will go to Cardiff, Ceredigion or other places in the United Kingdom.
I am reminded of the fact that when Charlotte Church sang before the recently elected George W. Bush he asked her where she was from; she said she was from

401WH
Wales and he said, "What state is that in?" She said, "Terrible." The likelihood of many people in the United States of America going to Wales is relatively minor, unless they understand that they are coming to the United Kingdom. That is why I believe passionately that this is a key opportunity for the British tourist organisations to ensure that they get the Olympic tourism issue right. People coming into London will see only a tiny part of Britain if they visit only London, Oxford and Stratford-upon-Avon. We need them to travel throughout the UK.
I am in favour of the Olympics coming to London for the simple reason that London will stage them phenomenally well. The opening and closing ceremonies in nearly all such events around the world are run by British people. We will probably do it better on our own home territory than anywhere else. I believe in the Olympic spirit. It is good for sport around the world and for international relations. That spirit was formed in the original Olympics in ancient Greece as an attempt to bind people together. I hope that Britain, through running the Olympics in 2012, will provide a similar stimulus, because we will do it better than any of the other countries.
One of the indirect benefits, which might become a direct benefit for every part of the country, will be the number of volunteers that it will take to run the Olympics in London. London alone will not be able to provide all the volunteers. What better opportunity could there be for a young person, whether they are from Edinburgh, Swansea, Newport or Stratford-upon-Avon, than to come to London and spend three weeks helping in a major international sporting event? They will be able to see major sporting heroes and heroines at close quarters. The experience of recent Olympics—we are already seeing this happening in Athens—is that those volunteers are often the next generation of sporting heroes and heroines. I hope that we shall see that happen in the event of a successful London bid.
Pete Wishart:I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I hope that he will deal with the key issue of funding. Given that he has spent so much time on the Select Committee taking evidence, will he join me in encouraging the Minister to think again about how the London Olympic bid will be financed by the London Olympic lottery game?
Chris Bryant:I will say something about the financing. I believe that it is right that London is paying a significant proportion of the money. I would prefer the Exchequer to pay the rest of the money rather than the lottery, but one of the best reasons why London should have the Olympics is the fact that the whole of the UK supports it. The hon. Gentleman is way out of step with the people of Scotland and Wales, or the majority of the people in the UK. The Welsh support the bid coming to London more than the people of London do—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is waving the Select Committee report at me, but I believe that everyone in the country wants it to happen.
As the lottery binds together the different elements that comprise the £750 million that will go towards the bid, it needs to ensure that it is not chucking the baby
402WH
out with the bathwater by making it more difficult for elite athletes to do well and for grass-roots athletes to get started. I will be encouraging the rugby clubs in the Rhondda to send volunteers to the millennium stadium and to London. That will be just as good an impetus and support for those clubs as any money they have had in recent years from the lottery. For that matter, they have not had much money from the lottery. If the Minister wants to respond on that point as well, I will be grateful.
Another reason why I have supported the bid for a long time relates to one of the reasons why we will do it better than anyone else: we have the British Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC as a broadcaster of sport is sans pareil. No other broadcaster does it better. The BBC has been more innovative and has found new ways of showing sport, enlivening it and making it exciting. It has explained sports that people might not be used to watching and given them a platform. The BBC will do a phenomenal job as chief broadcaster of the Olympics in 2012, which is another good reason why they should come here.
Last week, the Select Committee went to Athens, and we noted significant issues that we need to bear in mind, including security. The atrocious events in Madrid a couple of weeks ago mean that we are bearing international terrorism in mind, but it is not only now that that will be the case. I suspect that the Olympics will face the problems of international terrorism this time round, next time round and certainly in 2012.
It is interesting that much of the international advice for the Athens Olympics has been provided by the United Kingdom. We have played a leading role in providing security support and recommendations. That puts the UK in a strong position for a bid for 2012. I know that some people have said that Britain should not host the Olympics because we are a more likely terrorist target than elsewhere, but I believe that we have the strongest network of intelligence services and that London would do a better job than many other places in the world because we have had to face terrorist threats for many decades. I hope that that would be seen not as something that tells against us, but as something that if anything tells in our favour.
On transport, having been to Athens last week and having sat on the bus for quite a long time going from one part of the Athens site to another, I know that large distances will have to be travelled in Athens in the middle of the summer. The transport issues will feature in any London bid. However, the truth of the matter is that the London bid is remarkably compact. The vast majority of athletes will not have to travel any distance at all, nor will many journalists, which is probably even more significant. There will be 22,000 journalists at the Athens Olympics. That beats the number of athletes by some 2,000 people, which is particularly interesting because only a few months ago it was expected that there would be only 15,000 journalists. It is important that we get the accommodation right first and foremost for athletes and the Olympic family, but also for all those who want to attend the events.
We should ensure that we get the transport aspects of the Olympic bid right, but we should not be too troubled. Compared with many other major cities in the world, we probably have—and certainly will have by 2012—the most compact bid and the best organised public transport system. The process of improving the

403WH
infrastructure in east London between now and 2012 could only be good, for all the regeneration reasons that have already been advanced by other hon. Members.
Having seen Athens last week, I want to make the point that if we win the bid next year, it is vital that we do not leave starting to build the infrastructure and putting the events together for any time. We cannot even take the summer months off afterwards. Once we win the bid, we must kick-start the process immediately. We want to ensure that people do not write negative stories about the UK Olympics just before they have happened, and that everything is up and running and ready early on.
I will end with a point that has been mentioned by several others: I desperately hope that we will have a UK football team. Football is not my sport particularly, and I am aware that I am wearing a Burberry tie, which, when talking about football, is not necessarily thought of as a good combination. However, if we can have a UK team in rugby union, where there is a long tradition of the home nations playing against each other, there is no reason why we cannot have a UK football team. It would be a terrible dereliction of duty by the football authorities, and probably by the political and cultural class, if we did not ensure that there was a UK team winning in the millennium stadium as a great finale to Britain's successful bid for the Olympics in 2012.
2.59 pm
Mr. Don FosterI congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing the debate, one of a number that he has held on this issue. I welcomed the vast majority of what he had to say and his positive support for the bid for the 2012 Olympics. I have only one small criticism of the hon. Gentleman and of all who have contributed to the debate so far: there has been no mention of the fact that this is a bid not only for the Olympics but for the Paralympics. That is a crucial component of the bid. [HON. MEMBERS: "He mentioned it."] In that case I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
We should always remember that this is a linked bid. The fact that this country was the home of the Paralympics is an additional reason why I hope we will be selected. Indeed, there are many reasons why our bid stands a good chance of being successful. We have hosted the Olympics on only two previous occasions. We did so in 1908, at very short notice, when we took over from Rome because of its problems with a significant volcano, and in 1948 after the 1940 and 1944 Olympics had been cancelled because of the second world war. It is about time that we had another bash at it. We are much better prepared these days than we were in the past.
A point rarely mentioned is that we are one of only a few countries that have participated in each of the modern Olympics, alongside Australia, France, Greece and Switzerland. The bid team have already put together an exciting and imaginative bid. I want to touch on some of the security points raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). His contribution and those of the hon. Members for Falkirk, West and for West Ham (Mr. Banks) were in stark contrast to the huge negativity of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). I am told that this is not the first time
404WH
that he has made his speech. I have not heard it before so I cannot say whether it has improved. One thing is true: it was extremely negative and unnecessarily so. It was also based on a string of false premises, and I shall touch on some of those in a minute.
I am happy to be party to the cosy consensus, as the hon. Gentleman described us, of those who support fully and absolutely our bid for the Olympics and the Paralympics. London was the right city to put forward, but we must ensure it is not only London that benefits from a successful bid. Huge benefits will accrue to the rest of the United Kingdom too, although greater benefits will accrue to London. We have already heard of the money that will be spent on regeneration and on improving the transport infrastructure. We have heard about the jobs that will be created and the benefit that the games will bring to an area of London that is suffering from high levels of deprivation and unemployment. The Olympics coming to London and the rest of the UK is an exciting prospect. There will be millions of visitors. An estimated 3.7 billion people watch the Olympics. What a huge boost that will be for tourism in London and the other areas of the country featured in the TV coverage, which, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said, the BBC will no doubt provide extremely well.
There will be huge benefits outside London, too. Some 200 competing countries will come here looking for training villages all around the country. I urge the Minister to ensure that the British Olympic Association and the Government provide support to all regions to enable them appropriately to package information for the visiting countries so that they know of the wide range of opportunities that exist throughout the UK. Various events, such as football, will take place in different parts of the country.
The hon. Member for North Tayside is fundamentally wrong to say that this will have a detrimental impact on sport in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or any other part of the UK. As I said in an earlier intervention, I believe that there will be a huge benefit to sport. We should consider the impact of major sporting activities that have taken place outside the UK in which the UK has competed. Most recently, our success in rugby has had a huge impact on the take-up of rugby, both in playing at all levels and in spectating. There will be a huge boost to the take-up of a wide range of sports by young people and others as a result of the Olympics coming to the UK. That, I believe, will be far superior in its impact to spending a bit extra on supporting community sports activities, although we all want to see that money spent.
Normally, my party is reluctant to suggest that the Government should impose their will on how lottery money is spent. We opposed the establishment of the New Opportunities Fund because we believed that it breached the principles of additionality. However, there will always be exceptions to the rule, and because of the huge benefits—in sport, regeneration and tourism—that the Olympics will bring to London and the rest of the UK, we argued that this was one of those exceptions, and supported the use of lottery money as part of the package of funding to underpin what I hope will be a successful bid.
Pete Wishart:Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster:I will in a minute. The hon. Gentleman gave the impression—others outside might misinterpret what he said—that all the lottery money going to the Olympics would come from funding for existing good causes. As he knows, it is intended that there will be a new, exciting lottery game specific to the Olympics, and that at least 50 per cent. of the lottery funding will come from that rather than be taken from the other good causes.
The hon. Gentleman will also know, because he will have done his homework, that those who worked out how much money would be generated by the new Olympic lottery game and how much would need to come from the other good causes may have been too pessimistic. He will know that recent figures show that, for the first time in a number of years, the amount of money coming into the national lottery has levelled out. He will also know that the European game that is being planned is likely to increase the revenue from the lottery, which may mean that the loss to the other good causes will be far less than was originally predicted.
Pete Wishart:It is estimated that —1.5 billion will be lost from the lottery to pay for the Olympic games. In Scotland that will be £41.8 million. The hon. Gentleman should speak to the sports and other volunteer organisations in his constituency to gauge their anxieties about those suggestions. There will be an impact on grass-roots sports, and I wish that the hon. Gentleman would come to that conclusion. We must balance whether the Olympics are worth having with the impact on, and costs to, grass-roots sports facilities and organisations in our constituencies. I would like the hon. Gentleman's views on that.
Mr. Foster:My views are quite simple—the hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. I have no doubt that the Minister, who will have more time to speak than me, will give the figures correctly. The £1.5 billion that will come from the lottery includes the money taken from existing causes plus the additional money that will be generated through the new Olympic lottery game. As I suggested, the hon. Gentleman bases his figures on a false premise.
I say to the hon. Member for West Ham that I entirely support his proposal for a British Olympic football team. On Saturday, I went to watch Charlton Athletic play at the Valley and, although they lost, they demonstrated that it is possible to bring together people from several different countries who speak several different languages and to play extremely well. It would be far easier to bring together people from just four countries who speak the same language to create a successful football team. I was disappointed, however, to hear him announce—for the first time, I think—that by 2012, he does not expect to be a Member of this House.
Mr. Banks:I will be dead.
Mr. Foster:I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman say that.
406WH
Finally, the hon. Member for Rhondda is right to draw attention to concerns about terrorism, and to the fact that the London bid proposes one of the most compact Olympic bids, with a large proportion of the major sports to take place in a small area, with a compact Olympic village. I hope that that will be taken on board. We fully support the bid, and we hope that it will be successful, as we know that it will benefit not only London, but the whole UK.
3.11 pm
Mr. Nick HawkinsI congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing the debate, which has given us an opportunity to speak again about matters that many of us feel passionately about. I particularly congratulate him on what he rightly said about the Paralympics, which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) unfortunately failed to observe. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West about that. I have had the privilege and pleasure of meeting many of our Paralympic athletes over many years. The Paralympics began in this country, and we should be proud of that.
As the hon. Member for Bath correctly said, it is a bid for the Olympics and the Paralympics, and we should not forget that. I was talking to some of the leaders of the British Paralympic Association at the official launch at the Royal opera house, and I am sure that everybody will remember the contribution that the association has made, and continues to make. I know that we will win a great many medals at the Paralympics in Athens, as I hope we will in the main games. Seeing what Paralympic athletes can do inspires generations of young people to overcome their disabilities. Going back to the origins of the Paralympics at Stoke Mandeville, one can only admire the work that has been done over many years.
I referred in previous debates to the fact that my constituency is likely to be a beneficiary of a successful bid in 2012, so I declare that interest. The one site that we know will inevitably be part of a successful bid will be Bisley in my constituency. In fact, the National Rifle Association's headquarters straddles the boundary between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). We already benefit from huge numbers of visitors to the area during international shooting competitions.
The answer to some of the negative comments made not only by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), but in interventions by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) is that the whole country can benefit from international competitions, as we saw from the successful Manchester Commonwealth games. The fact that the only site for the Manchester Commonwealth games in the south of England was in my constituency—the shooting had to be there, and I had the privilege and pleasure of being asked to present medals there—is another example of how the whole country can share in and benefit from any international sporting event.
Mr. Banks:Would I be wrong in suggesting that the hon. Gentleman might like to see some members of his Conservative association used as targets for shooting?
Mr. Hawkins:I am not going to respond in any way to my good cross-party friend, the hon. Member for West

407WH
Ham (Mr. Banks). However, I echo the hon. Member for Bath in hoping that the hon. Member for West Ham will continue to be an hon. Member in 2012. I. was amazed when he talked about the risk of decrepitude, because he is still young and vigorous. I am certain that he will have the opportunity to present medals in his own constituency in 2012; I had the good fortune to present medals in mine during the Commonwealth games.
On a more serious point, there are some issues about funding, to which I hope the Minister will respond, which I hope will deal with some of the negative aspects of the contribution by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West. The Conservatives have said that we completely support the Olympic bid and will continue to do so. However, there are a couple of issues to which we think the Government have not yet paid sufficient attention. We have repeatedly said that it would be good for the Olympic lottery game to start when interest in the Olympics is at its height—this summer, to coincide with Athens. The Government originally suggested that that was not possible under BOA rules but, when we pressed them about it, they admitted that it was allowed under BOA rules but they were not going to do it.
There is still time for the Government to change their mind, and I hope that they will because the earlier the Olympic lottery game starts, the greater the opportunity for other good causes not to be adversely affected. I do not believe that they will be adversely affected because, like the hon. Member for Bath, I believe that there will be such an explosion of interest that the Olympics games will be able to make even greater earnings if they are handled correctly, as I hope and believe they will be.
One funding lesson learned by the Olympic movement worldwide after the success of the Los Angeles games and the work of Peter Ueberroth was to bring the private sector more into the picture. As yet, the Government have not placed enough stress on the importance of the private sector. I know that Barbara Cassani and her team are doing a lot of work with not only the City of London but businesses nationwide and internationally, and I want to do all that I can to encourage that.
If we are right in believing that there will be an explosion of enthusiasm after we win the bid, there is every opportunity to prevent adverse effects on the funding for grass-roots sport. That is what the hon. Member for North Tayside claims his concerns are all about, but his repeated comments that it is a London bid and that London should pay for it reveal the attitude of his party. Any other concerns are window dressing to reinforce what is really a campaigning approach by the Scottish nationalists that I deeply deplore.
I strongly support what the BOA is doing under the splendid leadership of Simon Clegg, and Barbara Cassani has a very good team behind her. When we win the bid, as I am confident that we will, I hope that we will see opportunities for sports generally—not only Olympic sports—to spread their message more widely. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the winning of the rugby world cup has proved an inspiration, with many more young people volunteering to start playing rugby at every age. That can happen in every sport, and I hope and believe that it will. As has been said often, we have seven years for that explosion of interest to happen.
408WH
It is crucial to recognise that sport is a way of taking young people away from dangers such as the drugs subculture, and of making them aware of the importance of health and fitness. I know that the Minister agrees with me about that and that those objectives are shared across parties, so we must use the Olympics for that. I was inspired by the example of competitive swimmers. In his robust contribution, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke about how he was ill during the 1972 Olympics and so watched it all on television. One performance that he will have seen was that of the then captain of my swimming club, Brian Brinkley, who is just about to finish coaching Northampton swimming club to go back to our club, the Bedford Modernians.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman remembers, Brian Brinkley made the freestyle final at the 1972 Olympics. Young competitive swimmers such as I were inspired by having people such as him in their small home-town club. Bedford had great links with rowing and rugby but, until the existence of the Bedford Modernians under the coaching inspiration of Charlie Wilson, who was our national squad coach for the 1972 Olympics, we did not see Bedford as a hugely important sporting town. Suddenly finding that the captain of our swimming club was leading the British team was fantastically inspirational to me and to all the other teenage swimmers in the club. That will happen throughout the country to young people with the 2012 Olympics.
We must recognise the huge benefits and not start nitpicking in the way that the hon. Member for North Tayside wants to do. I shall do a deal with him: after we have won the bid, if I meet any members of the IOC in my capacity as deputy chairman of the all-party group on sports, or as shadow spokesman on sport and they ask me where in the UK would be a good place to have a training base, I shall suggest Pitlochry and Dunkeld. If I manage to convince some countries to have their training camps there, perhaps the Scottish nationalists will give up their relentless negativity. All other parties are united and every other hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has supported the Olympic bid. I believe that we can win it, and I certainly hope that it will inspire a generation of young people to get involved in sport. It would be a wonderful thing for the UK and we should do all we can to support the Olympic bid.
3.20 pm
The Minister for the ArtsIt may be the third or fourth time that hon. Members in the Chamber have debated the Olympics but it is my first. I promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism has not avoided the debate so as not to have to listen to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) repeat his speech—he is in Liverpool on ministerial business.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. In response to the direct question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I add my personal support—I join the cosy circle of support—for the Olympic bid. It is a good bid, and it is important that we are united; we will not win the bid if the country is not seen to be behind it. Therefore, I know that my hon. Friends will understand if on this occasion I thank the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for

409WH
Bath (Mr. Foster) for the support that their parties have given. They both spoke forcefully, and well understand the importance of sport to the nation and what the games will bring to all of us if the bid is successful.
There is a real issue about how the regions would be affected. I am a Mancunian by birth and my constituency is in Birmingham, so perhaps I have more reason than most in the Chamber to groan about the inability of cities other than London to compete successfully for the Olympics. That time is past. We are behind London as the United Kingdom city that is bidding. I have no doubt that the rest of the United Kingdom will benefit, but the effort has to be made. There will be no benefit if no one makes the effort, and we will benefit most by being enthusiastic and getting behind the bid. As constituency MPs in whatever area of the country, we owe to it to our constituents and our regions to shout up for them and to explain how that region can contribute and gain.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing the debate and I support what he said about the nations and regions support group's work travelling around the country to ensure that there is a regional legacy. That was an important move and it was important to make it early in the life of the 2012 bid. The senior team on the bid has already visited several countries and regions, including Scotland last October, when Barbara Cassani herself led the team to listen and to ensure that there is a legacy.
I remind hon. Members that the £340 million that the sports councils are putting in is to ensure that the Olympic games have a legacy. It is an important funding stream to ensure that, in getting the bid together and hosting the games, we see a legacy in every region possible.
I will not pretend that it would be right or possible to spread the Olympic venues across the country. Several hon. Members have mentioned that one attraction of the bid is the proximity of the sites to each other. It means that most athletes, with some exceptions for specialised sport, will not have a long way to travel, and that journalists, who we know do not like travelling outside Westminster, let alone the confines of the M25, will not have far to travel either. Ironically, one attraction of the bid is that it is centred in one geographical location.
Hon. Members have mentioned that training camps could be anywhere in the United Kingdom. If one looks at where the UK has chosen to base its training camps, it rarely stayed close to where the Olympics took place. Teams want to be away from that fevered atmosphere and to train in privacy and in a quieter atmosphere. There is a lot to be gained if an Olympic team trains away from London. If football matches were held outside London, that would help that to take place. I support my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham in saying that it would be good for us to have a football representation. That is a matter for the sporting bodies but, if it can be progressed, I am sure that no one would take exception.
410WH
The next point that I wish to make goes to the heart of the points that the hon. Member for North Tayside made about finance. It concerns the atmosphere that will be created for sport in the United Kingdom. I think that the mistake that he makes is often made not just in sport but in other areas of life. He is forcing us to choose between excellence and access, which are old things that people pit against each other and cite as enemies. I see the Olympic games as a celebration of excellence in sport. That is not to say that we do not treasure access, or continue to put money into access. I think that access is more successful if people can see excellence in practice. Excellence motivates people to participate in sport.
I do not have figures on the matter because it is not my area of ministerial responsibility, but I have been interested and participated in sport throughout my life and still do. When Britain is no longer very good at one particular sport, general participation tends to fall. The reverse also happens: when someone does well and succeeds, general access increases. I do not take away from our obligation and from the necessity of investment of resources and effort at grass-roots level, but the hon. Member for North Tayside must accept that having the Olympics in the UK will encourage access.
Pete Wishart:I do not want excellence at the expense of access. I would rather have both. I am appealing to the Minister to reconsider the way in which this will be financed. Let us not take finance from the lottery. Let us have access and excellence.
Estelle Morris:The point I make is that the Olympics is the best way of showing excellence that I can think of, not just in one sport but in many. Do not forget that most people in the United Kingdom will never see an Olympics live but see it only on television. Hosting the games would give millions of people a chance to see live performance.
I come on to the financing. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Tayside that it should come from tax. People from Scotland will not necessarily pay less if it comes from general revenue rather than from lottery contributions. I did not follow the logic of that point. We anticipate that £1.5 billion will come from the lottery, £750 million of which will be from the Olympic lottery and £340 million from the Sports Lottery Board. On top of that, £625 million will come from London council tax payers and £250 million from the London Development Agency. I think that that is a good funding package. That is only the public sector funding package—money will also be raised from television rights, from ticket sales and through the private sector.
If a profit is made, that money will go back into sport at the grass roots. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman will say if we invest to get a return not only in excellence but, potentially, in money to the grass roots.
I wish the bid well. It is the best thing that we can do for sports. People in this country are proud of their country of origin but they are also proud of being UK citizens. This gives them an opportunity to celebrate that at the same time as celebrating sport.

Regional Broadcasting (East Midlands)
3.30 pm
Mr. Alan MealeI am extremely grateful to be given the opportunity to raise the concerns of my constituents, and others in the east midlands, about ITV's decision to close its Nottingham studio complex and move its operations to Birmingham in the west midlands. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who is a west midlands and Birmingham Member, I believe that if the move is enacted, it will lead to the loss of at least 400 jobs and will be severely detrimental to those who reside in the east midlands. That would worsen rather than improve regional news-gathering and delivery services in the east midlands. People in the region would have to make do with second-hand and second-class news provision.
At the outset, I remind the Minister that ITV's decision flies in the face of its own charter for the nations and regions, which states:
"Regional news is one of the defining features and most popular aspects of ITV's output. ITV is committed to extensive regional and sub-regional news coverage in excess of that offered by the BBC."
I am not privy to any information that the BBC is about to announce the closure of its studios in Nottingham. It has active radio and television studios and a production centre in Nottingham, as well as production centres in the west midlands. Therefore, ITV's statement is false and its decision flies in the face of the facts.
ITV's actions represent little more than a slap in the face for its customers in the east midlands as well as for the aspirations of the region, which are distinct from those in the west midlands, to where ITV intends to transfer its production coverage.
Mr. Andy ReedWith all due respect to what goes on in Birmingham, it is clear that news from the west midlands bears no relevance to those of us living in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Derbyshire or Nottinghamshire. Whatever the protestations from ITV, the service will be reduced and we will be fed a diet of information from a region in which we have little or no interest.
Mr. Meale:I am grateful for that intervention, which is absolutely true. I represent an east midlands seat that almost borders the area covered by northern regional television, which comes from Leeds. It is easier for colleagues and me to attract news services from Leeds than from Birmingham—it is almost impossible to get news coverage from Birmingham, even for specialist events. I remind the Minister of a tragic event in my constituency a few years ago: the announcement of the closure of almost every pit in Nottinghamshire. Even that could not persuade Birmingham to send news coverage crews; stringer and independent services were employed, which did not cover the event as seriously as they should.
I also remind the Minister that a little over two decades ago, a major campaign was launched by east midlands Members of all parties for a regional television centre in the east midlands. That was an active and successful debate, because the Government of the day accepted that the east midlands needed an opportunity
412WH
to show its character through a centre for news and current affairs delivery for local people. In the same spirit as that of 20-odd years ago, I intend to give way to any colleagues from the east midlands who want to participate in the debate. It is imperative that we engage in this debate if we are to have any chance of saving an essential service.
Mr. Jim MarshallMy hon. Friend will be aware that a number of us have written to Ministers and to the body overseeing commercial TV, and he will know the response that we received. One of the main points in the response is that the regional TV company is spending a lot of money in the east midlands on further news-gathering facilities and on the ability to feed information to Birmingham. How does he answer that response?
Mr. Meale:I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I received the same letter—indeed, it was sent to all east midlands Members. I was, at the very least, disappointed. In fact, I thought the letter a disgrace. I thought that I was receiving a letter from the chief executive of ITV—it read exactly like that. It is not the job of Ofcom to do the dirty deals and business of ITV. Rather, it was established to protect ordinary people's rights, needs and aspirations in respect of creative media communications coverage.
I was also disappointed that, five or six days after I tabled the early-day motion to which all colleagues in this Chamber have added their signature, I received a telephone call from a senior Ofcom official who made various excuses as to why ITV should be allowed to do what is proposed and said that it was quite a good thing and TV coverage would generally progress. I had to remind her that it was not her job to serve ITV. Ofcom's job is different: it is about public protection.
Many hon. Members here today and some who are in Committees elsewhere are furious about the situation. For those who represent seats in the east midlands, it is causing major anger and disquiet. We cannot understand why these events are occurring. We all believe that the proposals are extremely detrimental and will lead to nothing other than the east midlands once again becoming, as it was 20-plus years ago, the Cinderella region and—I say this with all due respect to the Minister and the seat that she represents—being reliant on the bigger, brasher brother in Birmingham for any coverage that it receives on major issues that are important to the people of our region.
Let us consider some of the facts that I have managed to glean on the issue. Since the formation of the single ITV company, hundreds of jobs have been lost in TV broadcasting in the regions, and studios have been closed irrespective of their profitability. The first closure programme involved the Northam studios in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who takes a close interest in these matters. Those studios, which were the birthplace of programmes such as "The Ruth Rendell Mysteries", "Worzel Gummidge" and "That's Life", closed with the loss of 175 jobs. Other studios have closed in other parts of the country. Now it is the turn

413WH
of Nottingham, the home of shows such as "Family Fortunes", "Popstars" and "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?". Just as importantly, it is the base of "Central News East", the hub of news delivery for the east midlands, which has regularly won awards for its coverage, including the world gold medal this year for its programming.
The Government are deeply committed to regionality. As recently as June 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in respect of broadcasting:
"Regional character matters. We will look to Ofcom to defend it with vigour."
Sadly, as has been pointed out, we are getting no vigour at all when it comes to the protection of people's rights and the opportunity to receive fair and decent local coverage. Instead, we are getting representation by Ofcom in favour of amalgamation and the isolation of regions such as ours.
If we do not get our act together, worse is yet to come. A significant period elapsed before the proposed closure was challenged. If we rely simply on Ofcom, it will be too late. The boards and shutters will be put up on the studios. The teams will be disbanded and lost. Journalism will have to rely on Birmingham as the main area of supply. All the good work and all the money that has been spent on recruitment, technology, mechanisms and methods for these people to work will be gone and will be difficult to replace.
Alan SimpsonWill my hon. Friend confirm that part of this sense of loss, to which Ofcom seems quite indifferent, stems from the fact that Carlton gave a commitment to the east midlands that it would match and better the BBC's investment, commitment and performance? The irony is that in Nottingham we currently have an expanded base of BBC news coverage at the same time as the commercial sector proposes to remove its base from Nottingham completely. Is not that why we need the Government to intervene in the face of both the crude commercialism that will shift the regional commitment away from Nottingham and Ofcom's failure to protect those regional commitments?
Mr. Meale:My hon. Friend is right. As I said, it is Ofcom's job to represent people and to safeguard and protect their rights and opportunities in this respect. He is right about the investment. There is a commitment in the ITV charter to expand news services more than the BBC. That has not been done. It has not even been proposed. This is solely about profit. I have just reminded the Minister and hon. Members about the very profitable programmes that have been made in Nottingham such as "Family Fortunes", "Popstars" and "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?". Nottingham is profitable. It may not profitable enough for the people at ITV who want to disband it and cash in on it, but that is not a good enough reason to do so.
To move the production from Nottingham to Birmingham would be a disaster and would lead to the wholesale break-up of news teams and the dislocation of operations. Worse still, it would undermine the
414WH
relationship between broadcasting and its audience, a vital ingredient in any local communication provision. That is a factor that even Charles Allen, the chief executive of ITV, admitted in October 2002 when he stated:
"People like local TV. People like local news and we would be daft not to encourage it."
He is not doing that at present. He is encouraging local news, but that local news is not in the east midlands, it is in the west midlands. In the east midlands, it is yet another part of the jigsaw which is about controlling all news networking throughout Britain and reducing the costs.
I should not need to remind the Minister that at the heart of the debate lies the fact that the east midlands has a firmly established identity of its own. It is socio-economically and culturally different from its neighbours, most notably the west midlands and Birmingham in particular. Its industries, which are predominantly food production, coal mining, clothing, textiles and other types of apparel production, contrast with the engineering, car manufacturing and high-tech industries of the west midlands. The difference is probably best expressed by the two regional development areas that represent the two regions. They have a different make-up, they have different characters on their boards and they are geared to the needs of the various local interests.
As I said earlier, I intend to give time to other hon. Members to speak, so I will summarise briefly. According to a recent report by Cambridge Econometrics, two thirds of people claim that their local television company is their main source of local news, so Government action to protect it is imperative, especially if the reorganisation of local radio is anything to go by. Local news nowadays is little other than a series of regurgitated sound clips produced and broadcast mostly from centres that in some cases are hundreds of miles from the neighbourhoods they serve—or do not serve.
The same will undoubtedly be the case if TV programmes are produced and staffed by people who neither live in nor have any affinity with the areas that they are reporting, a likely scenario if the closure of ITV centre Nottingham goes ahead.
For those reasons and others, I ask the Minister to intervene in the matter. It is crucial to the east midlands that, like her constituency in the west midlands, we have the opportunity to develop our region in a way that suits the hearts, minds, needs and aspirations of the people we serve. It is not good enough, just for the sake of profit, for these centres to be closed down and left to the people who made such a mess of the City, the stock exchange and the pension provisions of most of our constituents.
3.47 pm
The Minister for the ArtsI feel a bit like the enemy in this debate, but I do not intend to be. I want to put on record how much I understand the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and the hon. Members who intervened about the importance of regional broadcasting. Members of Parliament understand that more than anyone else; our constituents are far more likely to know what individual MPs are up to in the House through regional television coverage than

415WH
through national television. Much of our accountability is discharged through regional news coverage, in newspapers and broadcasting. I am at one with my hon. Friend in that respect.
I accept that Birmingham has a tendency to dominate the midlands region; the history and the news of the east midlands is different and there is a danger that it will get squeezed out. I go further: I hear complaints from people in Solihull that Solihull gets squeezed out, although it adjoins Birmingham, let alone from those who are about 50 miles down the road to the east.
My starting point is the same as that of my hon. Friend: the east midlands has a specific voice and a specific set of interests and concerns, and we need to pay regard to them. However, I cannot say much more to give comfort to him. It is for Ofcom, not the Government, to intervene in the matter. I cannot intervene or promise that the Government will do so, as that will not be done. I shall therefore explain how the mechanism for accountability and checking works.
The starting point is to balance two things, the first of which is the right of any company to organise itself as it sees fit. Companies must have that right, whether or not they are broadcasters. It is a competitive world and they must be able to change to survive, not just because people's viewing and listening habits have changed, but because of technology, too. That is just the way life is. It would be wrong to put a stranglehold on broadcasting companies and say that they cannot change to meet those needs. Secondly, broadcasting companies play an important role in safeguarding our democracy which is different from any other private sector organisation in any other sector of the economy. The regulatory framework must combine both those aspects.
I want to talk about how that happens and try to reassure hon. Members about what may happen in the future.
Mr. Meale rose—
Alan Simpson rose—
Estelle Morris:I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson).
Mr. Meale:The letter from Ofcom states that the
"amount of sub-regional news for the East Midlands is mandated by Central's licence—4 hours a week averaged over a calendar year."
Coverage for the east midlands region, which stretches right the way down to south Leicestershire and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), up to north Nottinghamshire and across to Derbyshire and Lincolnshire, and incorporates Nottingham, the eighth largest city in Britain, is being reduced to four hours a week. That is the reality.
The issue is not just about Ofcom saying that it will do one or two things about the news. We have one of the biggest production sites, 17 acres, in the whole of Britain. It is an important centre—we have proved that
416WH
with the programmes that we have brought out—but the site is being closed and sold off for a fast buck. That is not good enough for the people of the east midlands.
Estelle Morris:Before I respond I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South.
Alan Simpson:I want the Minister to return to the point that she made about Ofcom's responsibilities. We are not talking about Ofcom standing in the way of the commercial viability of companies. In fact, many of us would argue that some of the financial mess that has been made is due to the short-termism of the company's outlook. Is it the Minister's view that Ofcom has a duty to protect the regional identity of independent commercial television services because of the way in which the Government expect those services to be delivered? A central point of dispute seems to be whether Ofcom feels that it has a duty in that respect at all.
Estelle Morris:I will answer my hon. Friends' comments together. Yes, I do think that that duty exists, and I shall explain how it works. There are targets, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield just referred to, for four hours of local news. That figure has not been reduced. It is part of the contract that Central has with Ofcom for delivering localness. Indeed, localness is written into the Communications Act 2003 in a way that it was not included in legislation before. The Government have acted to protect localness by including in primary legislation the requirement that Ofcom must have regard to it. That is absolutely at one with what my hon. Friend is saying.
On localness, people must know where they stand. When the commercial contract is signed, companies are given targets for the delivery of local programming and production which they must meet. Local programming is what we are debating: programmes about local issues, made outside the M25. No matter how Carlton reorganises itself, those targets remain the same. They do not change because of the merger or job losses. People cannot say, "We're closing the east midlands centre, so we're reducing the number of hours of local news that we'll broadcast." The four hours is part of the target of eight and a half hours of regional programming—or rather it is not a target, but a deal; it does not change. Four hours of that total is local news. The allocation was increased the last time that the targets were looked at.
Ofcom has a statutory duty to ensure that the targets are met and that any reorganisation of the delivery of services in the region does not negate them. In the commercial world, as long as those targets are met, companies have discharged their responsibility to achieve localness. As far as I am aware, nobody called for an Adjournment debate on those targets before the job losses were announced, so I can only assume that the debate is now about whether the targets will be met.
Mr. Jim Marshall:Will the Minister give way?
Estelle Morris:In a moment. I just want to make one more point so that there is some flow in what I am saying.

417WH
The crux of the matter is sub-regional news, not regional news. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield is saying that regional news from Birmingham is not serving the east midlands well. To me, the crucial point is that as well as targets for regional news coverage, there are targets for sub-regional news coverage. As midlands MPs, we all know there are three sub-regional news coverage areas: Birmingham, Abingdon and Oxford, and the east midlands. I believe Ofcom's view to be that the targets for the east midlands sub-regional news cannot be met if all the news gathering is moved to Birmingham. Therefore, if a situation should ever arise—this is not what is proposed—that affects news gathering as well as news presentation, there would be a genuine argument that sub-regional targets were not being met, and Ofcom could be invited by local MPs to comment on that point.
My hon. Friends may not believe it, but the proposal—I have no reason to disbelieve it and am not intervening—is that the presentation of news, not news gathering, should move to Birmingham. As long as the journalists who gather the news are in the east midlands and there is a sub-regional target for east midlands news, as opposed to west midlands news, there is a powerful argument that the target has been reached. If my hon. Friends do not believe that, we have a difference of opinion. We shall have to wait and see. However, if the journalists move, Ofcom can intervene to say that the targets are not being met.
Mr. Reed rose—
Mr. Meale rose—
Estelle Morris:I have time to take two interventions.
Mr. Reed:I understand the commercial arguments that the Minister is putting forward and the difficulty in intervening in such matters. However, quality is the one thing that seems to be missing from what has been said. Is she really convinced by what Ofcom, ITV and Carlton have been trying to tell us; that is, that the quality of local coverage can be guaranteed by the proposals that have been put forward? Personally, I do not believe them, so there is an issue at dispute. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will be able to say in more detail why that will not happen. Is the Minister convinced that Ofcom is playing a
418WH
proactive part? I know that it has a light touch, but to have no touch at all seems completely the wrong way to deal with the matter.
Estelle Morris:I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield.
Mr. Meale:The evidence of previous closures shows a reduction in news delivery in the areas from which people moved. That is the reality, but I shall not challenge what the Minister said.
The whole point of this debate is that the east midlands is not a sub-region but a region all on its own. Its news is not to be subsumed by Birmingham or moved just because of improvements in technological delivery. The debate is about our having our own TV and news presentation centre in the east midlands. Without one, the east midlands is a sub-region.
The Minister comes from Birmingham. I know that there are difficulties with various TV stations, but Birmingham has its own centre. We want exactly the same for the east midlands, which, as I said, stretches from south Leicestershire to north Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Derbyshire. It is a massive area, and we demand parity in respect of a new centre.
Estelle Morris:Of course I do not believe that the east midlands is a sub-region, nor am I critical of it in any way. I used the term to discuss targets. Whether we like it or not, whether we live in the east or the west midlands, there is a midlands region, of which both areas are members. I certainly would not be happy if the news coverage all beamed out from Birmingham. My personal view is that if the news gathering from the east midlands were dropped, it would be detrimental to that area. I believe without a shadow of doubt that it would be a diminution of the present localism if all regional news from the whole of the midlands were collected and presented from Birmingham. All I can say to my hon. Friends is that that is not part of the proposal.
I cannot at this time stand up in a debate in the House of Commons and say, "I have been told by Central that its intention is to keep news collection in the east midlands and merely present the news from Birmingham, but, because I do not believe that, I shall ask Ofcom to intervene." It would not be fair to do so, because I believe what I am told by Central.
In the minute that I have left, all I can do is say again that the key thing in striking the difficult balance between having commercialism in broadcasting and protecting democracy is to hold the stations fast to their targets. My message to Ofcom is that that is what the House expects it to do. I suspect that the proposals before us will achieve that, but it will be for Ofcom to decide and to be the guardian of what all of us with seats in the midlands consider to be incredibly important targets.

Motorway Noise (Leicestershire)
4 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to my constituents in Leicestershire, particularly in light of the Government's stated intentions to reduce motorway noise. One only needs to visit Enderby in my constituency, for instance, or the surrounding areas of Whetstone, Narborough, Littlethorpe and Cosby to appreciate the full extent of the noise that my constituents suffer on a daily basis and have suffered for nearly 40 years.
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.10 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Robathan:Having been so rudely interrupted, I am delighted to return to the subject of motorway noise in Leicestershire on behalf of my constituents. As I was saying, one has only to visit the motorway area near Enderby to appreciate the full extent of the noise that my constituents suffer daily. It is often impossible to stand outside their houses and hold a normal conversation. My constituents cannot sit in their gardens in the summer; they cannot open their windows; and they cannot sleep at night. There is an endless roar, which gets a little quieter between 1.30 and 4.30 in the morning, but then starts up again and wakes them. Last October I visited Cumberwell drive in Enderby, where an official from the Highways Agency had come to hear the grievances of a large group of residents, the most voluble of whom were Mrs. Bingham and Mr. Akiens. I urge the Minister to visit Enderby because he would then understand the unacceptable level of noise.
The M1, as I am sure you remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was the first motorway in this country. It was opened to Lutterworth in 1962 and the stretch through Enderby was opened in, I believe, 1964. It bisects my constituency and south Leicestershire from the junction of the M1 and the M6 up to the Leicester Forest East service station. The noise problem affects people from Lutterworth all the way to Thorpe Astley and Braunstone. My house is about two miles from the motorway, but I can hear it clearly, although I am not arguing on my own behalf.
My constituents have suffered from the noise generated by the M1 for 40 years, but it is getting worse. Many people have bought their houses next to the motorway during those 40 years, but the M1 used to be relatively empty. A famous postcard, entitled "The most boring sight in Britain" and published in 1963, showed the M1 near Newport Pagnell with one car on it. That is no longer the case. As the Minister knows, traffic has increased dramatically during the last 40 years and especially during the last decade.
Last year, the Highways Agency told me that it plans to resurface the M1 between junctions 20 and 21 this coming summer. Resurfacing can reduce noise dramatically. I am not an authority on decibels, but I am told that resurfacing can reduce the noise impact by up to 50 per cent. The Minister may tell me that I am wrong, but such a reduction would obviously be
420WH
welcomed by my constituents. However, on 29 October, the agency told me that it was postponing the work for four years. That is unacceptable. The agency is a creature of the Government, and that is why I called for this debate and asked the Minister to come here today. My constituents do not want to be fobbed off any longer by the agency or the Government. Today, I seek clarification of the reasons for the delay in the work.
I asked the Minister a simple oral question on 6 January but failed to receive an answer, so I hope that I shall receive straightforward explanations and answers to my questions today. In a written reply to a question, numbered 140803, in which I had asked how many road resurfacing projects had been delayed due to value management work, the Minister stated:
"The re-phasing of projects is not the result of value management work, but arises from a reappraisal of factors that influence the appropriate timing of works to be undertaken, in the light of better information."—[Official Report, 5 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 52W.]
Yet I received a letter dated 29 October last year from Richard Bennett, who is a board director of the Highways Agency, in which he stated that confirmation of the work was
"subject to the outcome of further value management work."
That is the process that the agency uses to assist us when deciding programming priorities.
Mr. Bennett's remarks directly contradict those of the Minister, and when the hon. Gentleman speaks I would be grateful if he clarified whether he stands by his remarks. I repeat the question from 6 January, "Who is right: the Minister or the Highways Agency?"
The Minister also stated in a letter on 10 February:
"Increased costs meant that a reassessment of"
the work's
"value for money was necessary".
Yet, despite my requests no details about what exactly caused the rise in costs have been forthcoming. In a written answer to me, the Minister stated:
"Final cost details for resurfacing of the M1 between Junctions 20 and 21 will not be available until current investigations by the Highways Agency are completed."
That suggests that there has been no accurate and detailed costing for the work. Is the Minister saying that there has been a sudden increase in prices? If so, where is the evidence for it? The Government's response seems entirely illogical. In the same set of written answers, the Minister told my constituents that
"priority will be given to those cases in which the actual noise levels exceed those predicted by at least three decibels".—[Official Report, 24 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 340W.]
The Highways Agency finds roadside noise levels in Enderby of 86 dB, which is about 6 dB over its own acceptable limit. The Minister might be interested to know that as I trawled through the Secretary of State's announcement of April last year, as the Minister suggested I do, I stumbled on one particular gem. It stated that only since 1973 have
"the adverse noise effects of road proposals on the surrounding environment and possible ways of minimising these effects been more comprehensively taken into consideration before the road is built."
In other words, according to the Secretary of State's paper, the effects of noise were not considered when the stretch of motorway between junctions 20 and 21 was

421WH
built, and no serious sound reduction measures have ever been taken. Meanwhile, my constituents in Enderby, Narborough, Whetstone, Cosby, Littlethorpe, Lutterworth and Thorpe Astley continue to suffer. They have not benefited from noise reduction surveys or strategies since the road was built 40 years ago.
The noise is now worse than ever, and as the programme has been put back four years my constituents are condemned to another four years in the same situation. The Secretary of State's statement was, as the Minister suggested to me, a veritable treasure trove of information. Although the Minister told me that
"better value for money would be obtained by undertaking more work than simply resurfacing"
and that
"priority is given to road surfaces that are broken up",
the Secretary of State pointed to the need to prioritise work that"would not normally need to be resurfaced within the plan period".
In other words, that is work that would need to be undertaken for reasons other than simple maintenance—for reasons such as noise reduction, for instance.
The Highways Agency's own consultants, WS Atkins, open their noise survey paper, dated 22 September, by stating:
"Following the Government's Transport White Paper in 1998, a budget has been allocated to deal with specific noise problems on existing trunk roads and motorways."
Will the Minister contradict the remarks of the agency and the Secretary of State or will he accept that there is money ring-fenced for noise reduction separate from the needs of maintenance? In light of those facts the justification for postponing the work is simply not reasonable.
The agency website states that the Government's two criteria for priority are that the road must have been opened before 1988—the stretch of road under discussion opened before 1969 and has remain untouched—and that noise levels immediately adjacent to the road must be at least 80 dB. As I have said, the agency found levels to be some 6 dB higher at 86 dB. The M1 between junctions 20 and 21 must surely fulfil those criteria and should surely be at the top of the list of motorway stretches to be resurfaced.
In the consultancy paper to which I referred, WS Atkins considered options for reducing the noise, particularly between Enderby and Cosby. They found 160 houses that were affected by noise levels of 68 dB or more. I recollect that the Department of Transport even bought some houses in Roy close in the early 1990s because of the impact of traffic. The report considers erecting noise barriers in particular, and the costs of such noise screening are not horrendous. I urge the Minister to consider implementing noise screening along that stretch of the motorway as soon as possible—as happened, for example, in Luton, by junction 11, which I pass often. The conditions there are comparable.
422WH
The Atkins report found that a quieter road surface—a thin-wearing course—would reduce noise to all houses by approximately 3 dB. Decibels are a logarithmic unit of measurement, which, with my O-level maths, I am not sure that I understand, but I listened to a reduction of 3 dB on my computer less than an hour ago, and the effect was marked. I should like the road surfacing to be done now, and acoustic screening to be installed this year.

In his letter to me of 10 February, the Minister told me that the process for timetabling road improvements was "subject to continued review". This was reviewed, to the detriment of my constituents, in October. I hope that the Minister will say that he will review again the M1 from junctions 20 to 21, because the case for resurfacing the M1 this summer is overwhelming. My constituents are suffering now and have been suffering for 40 years: another wait of four years would be intolerable. The Government have promised quieter road surfaces and, in the 10-year plan, they claimed that
"reducing noise from motorways and other trunk roads is an important priority".
Furthermore, paragraph 3 of the road projects section of the Highways Agency's website says:
"Consider the length of time people have endured traffic noise."
No one can have endured noise longer than those living next to the M1 because the M1 was the first motorway. Having had their expectations raised, my constituents demand that those promises be fulfilled and I look forward to the Minister giving them a satisfactory response.
4.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for TransportI congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing this debate, and giving us a firm opportunity to focus on the Government's policy on quieter roads. In answer to an oral question in January, I told him that, were it not for this Government having such a policy—one did not exist before 1997—and had the money not been put in place, this debate would not have gone ahead at all. I remind him that we have made the policy a priority. He will appreciate that there are many other demanding priorities around the country which have been identified by hon. Members from both sides of the House who want roads attended to, but we have given that commitment.
Mr. Robathan:The Minister is absolutely right that the Government have made this policy a priority, and I remember being cheered up when I read about it in the 1998 transport White Paper. However, he will admit that quieter road surfaces, such as whisper concrete, were already being tested and installed before 1997.
Mr. Jamieson:Yes, indeed, but this debate could not have taken place if it were not for the Government's policy. The hon. Gentleman must be aware, particularly in his part of the midlands, of recent growth in the area, a downside of which is added traffic volume and noise. Leicester and much of the midlands are thriving under this Government's economic policies. I am delighted that unemployment has fallen and employment is rising, and whenever I go there I find new enterprise coming into the area, but that generates traffic and movement of

423WH
people. He asked me to visit Enderby, and if I have the opportunity to pop in when I am visiting, I would be delighted to do so and perhaps have a cup of tea with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Robathan:The Minister is very welcome—I will even pay for the tea.
Mr. Jamieson:I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome.
The hon. Gentleman was at pains to ensure that our approach is consistent and equitable, which I believe it is. Before I go into the detail of the situation on the M1 in Leicestershire, in which he is particularly interested, I want to say more about the Government's quieter roads programme.
The strategic road network helps to support a healthy economy by providing the backbone for the effective distribution of goods and services and the easy movement of people. However, it is not without its disadvantages. People who live close to major roads sometimes experience the effects of increased noise, and the expansion of the road network inevitably disturbs the local environment. A balance that satisfies our economic and environmental needs has to be struck, and much can be done to minimise any negative impact on the environment. I often say that the Highways Agency is the second largest planter of trees in this country after the Forestry Commission. In our guidance to the agency, we take environmental matters seriously.
The Government have recently addressed public concerns about road traffic noise and are dedicating funds to noise mitigation. We accept that traffic noise is a concern for many people, and in the White Paper "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", published in July 1998, we gave the commitment:
"In future, whenever a road needs to be resurfaced, we shall ensure that the most appropriate noise reducing surfaces are used for those areas where noise is a particular concern."
In March 1999, we announced sift criteria to identify the most serious and pressing cases and a ring-fenced budget of £5 million a year to deal with the most serious instances requiring practical and cost-effective noise-mitigation measures.
The hon. Gentleman referred to those criteria, but for the sake of clarity it would help to have them on the record. First, trunk roads must have opened before June 1988, although priority attention is given to locations affected by roads that have remained unaltered since October 1969, the qualifying date for the introduction of noise mitigation measures. Secondly, current—that is, 1998—noise levels immediately adjacent to the road must be at least 80 dB. If the hon. Gentleman wants a small lesson in logarithms and decibels, I will assist him for a small consideration.
It may be useful to point out that the M6 Preston bypass between junctions 30 and 32 was the first motorway. It opened in the late 1950s, although that was probably before the hon. Gentleman was born. The third criteria is that in the case of roads opened or altered after October 1969, noise levels must be at least 3 dB greater than predicted for the design when the road was planned. The aim is to address people's disappointment that noise levels mentioned during the planning process were different from those experienced when the road was eventually opened.
424WH
The hon. Gentleman will know that in November 1999, a list appeared in Hansard under cover of a letter from the chief executive of the Highways Agency, showing the most serious and pressing cases to be studied to ascertain the most practical and cost-effective solutions. That became familiarly known as the Hansard list, and by the time of the Government's 10-year plan, published in July 2000, the agency had been set the target of installing quieter surfaces on more than 60 per cent. of the trunk road and motorway network, including all concrete stretches, by 2010–11. That will benefit approximately 3 million people living within a third of a mile of such roads. Indeed, I believe that some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents have already benefited from resurfacing work on the M69 which has reduced noise. He looks curious, but if he ever takes that route, he will be able to see for himself how his constituents have already benefited from the Government's road noise reduction policy.
That policy over the period of the 10-year plan can be summarised as follows: a noise mitigation programme costing £5 million a year to address sites that meet the Hansard list criteria; resurfacing all concrete roads with quieter materials; and resurfacing black-top roads with quieter materials when normal maintenance is required. About 5 per cent. of the trunk road network at 70 different locations is constructed with a concrete surface. Clearly, given the scale of the problem, work cannot be completed overnight. Attempting to do so would not be practical because it would create a great deal of disruption on the network, so we shall phase in the work over 10 years. Concrete roads tend to be very robust, and often need resurfacing not because of deterioration but to ameliorate the effects of noise.
As part of the development of our road maintenance programme, the process of value management is applied to all major road renewal schemes to ensure that renewal schemes are technically robust and meet set standards. Proposed schemes are examined collectively to establish relative merits and priorities, and set criteria are used to assess schemes. The criteria for the prioritisation of resurfacing flexible trunk roads are related to the condition of the surface and include surface crack intensity, assessment of levels of rutting, unevenness, skid resistance, general wear and tear of surface material and the frequency of accidents associated with the road condition. Those criteria are used to determine the programme for resurfacing. The aim is to maintain the trunk road network using the principle of minimising whole-life costs, taking into account disruption to the road user and the need to keep the road in a safe and serviceable condition.
Turning to the condition of the M1 in Leicestershire, I fully understand the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents about noise from the M1. I accept that noise from roads is deeply intrusive to people who live near them, which is why we have developed a policy for tackling the noise from roads. In particular, I understand the specific concerns in the Narborough, Cosby and Enderby communities to the south of Leicester. That section of M1 was not identified as a specific site in the list published in Hansard in 1999, and therefore does not take as high a priority as those listed or other lengths of motorway and trunk road that have concrete carriageways.

425WH
To ensure that the most worthy sites are treated first, a nationwide ranking system has been developed. The section of road in question has what engineers call a flexible surface—a black-top surface—which means that it is not as noisy as roads with a concrete surface. Inevitably, therefore, the M1 in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will be given less priority in noise mitigation measures. Nevertheless, we have agreed that the Highways Agency should carry out noise surveys at particular locations where local people have expressed significant concern, and a number of locations in Leicestershire fall into that category.
A survey covering the communities of Narborough, Enderby and Cosby has been completed, and it indicates, as the hon. Gentleman said, that 190 houses are exposed to noise levels greater than 68 dB. That has enabled the agency to rank those sites against other locations in the country in order of severity. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the three sites are not the most severely affected by noise. They are ranked in the order Narborough, Enderby and Cosby, but because they are close to each other it is likely that they will all benefit at the same time when resurfacing work is undertaken on that section of the M1. When considering noise mitigation measures the rankings are used to prioritise the programming of works.
The agency is also undertaking a survey at Kirby Muxloe in Leicestershire, near junction 21A of the M1. That survey is in its final stages and we expect a report shortly. However, it is not only the desire to reduce noise from busy roads that gives rise to the need to provide a new surface; the condition of the road network is constantly monitored to ensure that maintenance is undertaken at a time that gives maximum value for money.
A process of continuous value management—some difficulty may have arisen in the understanding of the term—is carried out to prioritise the work to be done with the funds available. Depending on the deterioration of a particular stretch of road, it may move up and down the list of priorities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect us to do no less than that—to prioritise one road over another if it was deteriorating more rapidly.
The agency identified most of the motorway between junctions 20 and 21 as needing to be resurfaced within the next few years. The section is too long for the whole of it to be treated at once; hence the works are likely to
426WH
be split into four phases. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the works were originally programmed to start in 2004 and to be completed over three years, starting with the section adjacent to junction 21. However, after being subjected to the process of continuous value management that I mentioned earlier, the works were reprogrammed, and they will be undertaken between 2005–06 and 2007–08. Depending on the condition of the road and further examination, the works will take place earlier or later in that period, so there will not necessarily be a delay of three years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that a programme of work that takes place in 2005–06 is not that far away.
I realise that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that the work has moved out of this part of the programme. However, if he has listened to some of the other debates held on such matters, and if he were to see some of the correspondence that I have received from hon. Members on both sides of the House, he would agree that it is fair to prioritise the works on the criteria set out.
I hope that what I have said has reassured the hon. Gentleman that the agency carefully and stringently analyses each road scheme in accordance with a list of priorities. I will ask agency officials to ensure that they keep him informed on the detailed in-year programme as it develops for the M1 in Leicestershire.
Although mitigating noise from trunk roads and motorways is a complex subject, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government are doing all that they can to ensure that we have a fair system, which will benefit the greatest number of people over the next few years. We try to be as fair as possible but it is inevitable that those further back in the process are impatient to see the work closest to their homes completed.
I undertake to ensure that the agency keeps the hon. Gentleman informed, because I realise that the issue is important to people living in that area. I hope that he will recognise that we have put a substantial amount of extra money into the programme, and that we are tackling the list of works based on current priorities. The debate has been useful, and I hope that my explanation has been helpful. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for further explanation, I shall be delighted to correspond with him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  Animal By-Products Regulations
  Animal By-Products Regulations
  Badgers/Bovine TB
  Badgers/Bovine TB
  Coastal Defence
  Coastal Defence
  Flood Protection
  Flood Protection
  GM Crops
  GM Crops
  Parrett Catchment Project
  Parrett Catchment Project
  Sea Birds
  Sea Birds
  Secondments
  Secondments
  Sewerage
  Sewerage
  Sheep Tagging
  Sheep Tagging
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Special Areas of Conservation
  Special Areas of Conservation
  Swill Feeding
  Swill Feeding
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Spain
  Spain
  Counter-terrorism (EU)
  Counter-terrorism (EU)
  EU Constitution
  EU Constitution
  United Nations Reform
  United Nations Reform
  Eritrea
  Eritrea
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Serbia/Montenegro
  Serbia/Montenegro
  Israel
  Israel
  Arms Control
  Arms Control
  Arms Exports
  Arms Exports
  Departmental Buildings
  Departmental Buildings
  EU Border Management Agency
  EU Border Management Agency
  Human Rights and Democracy Projects
  Human Rights and Democracy Projects
  Iran
  Iran
  Kashmir
  Kashmir
  Korean Peninsula
  Korean Peninsula
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Poppy Production (Afghanistan)
  Poppy Production (Afghanistan)
CABINET OFFICE
  BACS
  BACS
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  Digital Television
  Digital Television
  Honours (Rugby)
  Honours (Rugby)
  National Lottery
  National Lottery
  Physical Education
  Physical Education
  Sport and Physical Activity Board
  Sport and Physical Activity Board
DEFENCE
  Challenger 2
  Challenger 2
  Defence Medicine Centre
  Defence Medicine Centre
  Gulf War Syndrome
  Gulf War Syndrome
  HIV/AIDS
  HIV/AIDS
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Operational Vehicles
  Operational Vehicles
  Stock Reduction
  Stock Reduction
  Departmental Timber Purchases
  Departmental Timber Purchases
  Ulster Defence Regiment (Records)
  Ulster Defence Regiment (Records)
LEADER OF THE HOUSE
  Register of Interests
  Register of Interests
TRANSPORT
  Speed Cameras
  Speed Cameras
  Bicycle Helmets
  Bicycle Helmets
  Buses
  Buses
  Driving Test Hazard Perception Test
  Driving Test Hazard Perception Test
  Focus Groups and Opinion Polls
  Focus Groups and Opinion Polls
  Motor Insurance and Driving Licences
  Motor Insurance and Driving Licences
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Network Rail
  Network Rail
  Rail Services (Kent)
  Rail Services (Kent)
WALES
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Computer Misuse
  Computer Misuse
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Conferences
  Conferences
  Employment Agencies
  Employment Agencies
  Human Rights and Democracy Projects
  Human Rights and Democracy Projects
  Science Strategy
  Science Strategy
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Blood Supplies
  Blood Supplies
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Citizenship Ceremony
  Citizenship Ceremony
  Focus Groups
  Focus Groups
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Laganside Development
  Laganside Development
  Murder Investigations
  Murder Investigations
  Organ Retention
  Organ Retention
  Phoenix Natural Gas
  Phoenix Natural Gas
  Post Mortems
  Post Mortems
  Pulmonary Hypertension
  Pulmonary Hypertension
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Unionist Paramilitaries
  Unionist Paramilitaries
WORK AND PENSIONS
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Child Support Agency
  Child Support Agency
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  IT Projects
  IT Projects
  New Deal
  New Deal
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Alcohol Misuse (Greater London)
  Alcohol Misuse (Greater London)
  Amphetamines
  Amphetamines
  Criminal Records Bureau
  Criminal Records Bureau
  Curfew Orders
  Curfew Orders
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Forensic Science Service
  Forensic Science Service
  Khat
  Khat
  Lancashire Police
  Lancashire Police
  Mopeds (CSOs)
  Mopeds (CSOs)
  Offender Management
  Offender Management
  Overseas Bribery
  Overseas Bribery
  Police Funding
  Police Funding
  Police Officers
  Police Officers
  Sentencing Statistics
  Sentencing Statistics
  Shopkeepers (Harassment)
  Shopkeepers (Harassment)
TREASURY
  Bushmeat
  Bushmeat
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Gift Aid
  Gift Aid
  Government Debt
  Government Debt
  Government Revenue Deficit
  Government Revenue Deficit
  Head Teachers
  Head Teachers
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Public Sector Employees
  Public Sector Employees
  Public Sector Relocation
  Public Sector Relocation
  Spirits Tax
  Spirits Tax
  Tax Collection
  Tax Collection
  Tax Receipts
  Tax Receipts
  Trusts (Income Tax)
  Trusts (Income Tax)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  ACAS
  ACAS
  Advice Booklets
  Advice Booklets
  Arms Exports
  Arms Exports
  Broadband
  Broadband
  Business Link
  Business Link
  Consumer and Investor Protection
  Consumer and Investor Protection
  Equal Pay Reviews
  Equal Pay Reviews
  Government Procurement
  Government Procurement
  Interest Rate Controls
  Interest Rate Controls
  Job References
  Job References
  National Minimum Wage
  National Minimum Wage
  Post Office Card Account
  Post Office Card Account
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  State Aid
  State Aid
  Taxi Licences
  Taxi Licences
  Trade (Taiwan and China)
  Trade (Taiwan and China)
  Trade Agreements
  Trade Agreements
  Tyres (Recycling)
  Tyres (Recycling)
  Utilities
  Utilities
  VAT Registration
  VAT Registration
  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
  Wind Farms
  Wind Farms
  Work-Life Balance Challenge Fund
  Work-Life Balance Challenge Fund
  Bed Blocking
  Bed Blocking
  Working Time Directive
  Working Time Directive
HEALTH
  Administration Costs
  Administration Costs
  Care Homes
  Care Homes
  Children (Mental Health)
  Children (Mental Health)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Digital Hearing Aids
  Digital Hearing Aids
  E-auctions
  E-auctions
  Hospitals (Carshalton and Wallington)
  Hospitals (Carshalton and Wallington)
  Medical Qualifications (EU)
  Medical Qualifications (EU)
  NHS Childcare Provision
  NHS Childcare Provision
  Recruitment/Retention Premiums
  Recruitment/Retention Premiums
  Rescue Services
  Rescue Services
  Strategic Health Authority Staff
  Strategic Health Authority Staff
  Working Time Directive
  Working Time Directive
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
  Easter Uprising
  Easter Uprising
  Employment Agencies
  Employment Agencies
  Magistrates Courts
  Magistrates Courts
  Opinion Sampling
  Opinion Sampling
  Supreme Court
  Supreme Court
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
  Best Value
  Best Value
  Council Housing
  Council Housing
  Department-Sponsored Bodies
  Department-Sponsored Bodies
  Fire and Rescue Services
  Fire and Rescue Services
  Gypsies/Travellers
  Gypsies/Travellers
  Housing
  Housing
  Local Authority Revenue (Tyne and Wear)
  Local Authority Revenue (Tyne and Wear)
  Playing Fields (Taunton)
  Playing Fields (Taunton)
EDUCATION AND SKILLS
  Boarding Schools
  Boarding Schools
  Adult Learning
  Adult Learning
  Adult Literacy/Numeracy
  Adult Literacy/Numeracy
  Citizenship, Personal and Social Education
  Citizenship, Personal and Social Education
  Communication Skills
  Communication Skills
  Devon LEA
  Devon LEA
  Teaching Assistants
  Teaching Assistants
  Literacy
  Literacy
  Education Funding (North-west)
  Education Funding (North-west)
  Enterprise Advisers
  Enterprise Advisers
  Europass Scheme
  Europass Scheme
  Export Control Act
  Export Control Act
  Mathematics
  Mathematics
  Modern Apprenticeships
  Modern Apprenticeships
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Pupil Mobility
  Pupil Mobility
  School Budgets (Greater London)
  School Budgets (Greater London)
  School Innovation
  School Innovation
  School Computers
  School Computers
  North Tyneside LEA
  North Tyneside LEA
  School Places (Ribble Valley)
  School Places (Ribble Valley)
  School Playing Fields
  School Playing Fields
  Schools (Computers)
  Schools (Computers)
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Students (South Derbyshire)
  Students (South Derbyshire)
  Teacher Recruitment
  Teacher Recruitment
HEALTH

  NHS Charges
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  We have laid before the House regulations to increase the income level at which people are entitled to full remission of national health service charges, payment of travel costs, national health service sight tests and optical vouchers, that is full help through the national health service low-income scheme. Currently, people are entitled to full help through this scheme when their income is equal to, or less than, their requirements. From 6 April 2004 people will be entitled to full help if their income exceeds their requirements by up to 50 per cent. of the prescription charge. This will mean that people whose income is only marginally above income support level will now be entitled to full help.

  Entitlement to income-based help with health costs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are a matter for the devolved administrations.

  Arm's Length Bodies
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  Two new regulatory bodies, which will operate at arm's length from the Department, come into being on 1 April: the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) and the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI). A third regulatory Body, the Office of the Independent Regulator (OIR) came into being in January this year. The inception of these new bodies will change the Department's role in the provision and inspection of healthcare and social services. The effects that this will have on accountability arrangements are set out below.

  The role of the OIR is to authorise, monitor and regulate National Health Service foundation trusts (NHSFTs). The Independent. Regulator is directly accountable to Parliament, and the Department will not be able to comment on the details of the OIR's day to day management. For any questions that might arise in this area, we would provide information on the Independent Regulator's behalf, but not directly.

  NHSFTs are themselves independent of the Department, and are directly accountable to their local populations and to Parliament. Because of this independent status, and NHSFTs' separate and local route of accountability, we will no longer be in a position to comment on, or provide information about, the detail of operational management within such trusts. Any such questions will be referred to the relevant NHSFT chairman.

  84WS
  Notwithstanding these changes, matters of national policy (including the statutory framework for the NHS, and its resources, standards and targets) will of course remain the responsibility of the Department. We will therefore continue to respond directly on these issues. We will also continue to respond directly on the services commissioned by the NHS locally, as these remain the responsibility of primary care trusts.

  As with the OIR, CHAI and CSCI are independent of the Department. We will therefore provide information to Members on behalf of these bodies about their activities, but not directly. Two areas of their operations warrant particular notice. The Department has traditionally had much a closer involvement in the (performance) star ratings system. From 1 April, it will be CHAI's and CSCI's responsibility to devise the form of performance ratings, and their criteria and methodology. The Department will approve the criteria devised.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Service Charges
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  The Department has carried out a review of the basis for charging for a number of plant health, plant varieties and animal health services that it provides. Invoicing for the services concerned was suspended whilst the review was completed.

  The review focused on whether the legislative basis for making charges for these services was adequate. The conclusion is that for the following services the legislative basis was not sufficient to allow the Department to impose a charge:

  Plant Health

  Export certificates for plants and plant products

  Seed potatoes: approved stock scheme

  Seed potatoes: fees for inspection of pre-basic seed potatoes

  Seed potatoes: fees for investigation of complaints

  Plant Varieties and Seeds

  Provisional seed certification scheme

  Seed samplers' and crop inspectors' examinations

  Examination of seed analysts

  Additional costs of meeting statutory consent conditions for GM crop varieties in national list trials

  OECD /ISTA certification

  Purity and germination tests

  Special tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability

  85WS
  Animal Health

  Certain aspects of the Poultry Health Scheme

  Factory Inspection Scheme

  Additional animal health certification issued in connection with the Classical Swine Fever outbreak in 2000.

  A parallel review of Forestry Commission services has found that the legislative base for export charges of forest trees and forest products was not sufficient to impose a charge. Invoicing for this service was also suspended whilst the review was completed.

  Action will now be taken to repay to customers some £2.4 million of charges that were levied over the six years prior to the suspension of charging. To take this forward, the Department and the Forestry Commission will be writing over the coming weeks to those organisations and individuals who are to be repaid.

  Indicator

  2004–05 Target

  1. Deliver the programme of improvements to the strategic road network.

  Achieve:

  — At least 440 progress points for the Ml, M6 and M25 schemes, compared to 2003–04 forecast score of 250.

  — At least 95 per cent. of the major schemes progress points required to reach the score of 6,500 compared to the 2003–04 forecast score of 4,590.

  — Complete 20 of 26 priority action sites at junctions.

  2. Deliver a demonstrable reduction in incident-related congestion and minimisation of road works-related congestion.

  In establishing the Regional Control Centres (RCCs), achieve:

  —West Midlands RCC and traffic officers commence service. Achieve 92 of 100 points.

  —140 of 155 progress points for all other RCCs and traffic officers.

  Establish and implement a management system to monitor and report on incident-related congestion in the West Midlands.

  3. Make information available to influence travel behaviour and inform decisions.

  —Make publicly available by March 2005—and maintain thereafter—traffic information for the Agency's network through a website and a dedicated voice recognition interactive telephone service.

  —Provide by March 2005—and maintain thereafter—on the Agency's motorway network, strategic route advice using the variable message signs (VMS) available, for all incidents causing more than 15 minutes predicted delay, and monitor its accuracy.

  4. Deliver the Agency's agreed proportion of the national target. By 2010 reduce by a third (i.e. to 3,327) the number of people killed/seriously injured on trunk roads compared with the 1994–98 average of 4,991.

  Reduce by at least 832 to 4,159.

  5. Maintain the network in a safe and serviceable condition.

  Achieve a road surface condition index score of 100 ±1

  6. Mitigate the potentially adverse impact of strategic roads and take opportunities to enhance the environment taking into account value for money.

  Achieve at least 95 per cent. Across the five sub targets:

  — Air Quality: Improve quality of at least two air quality management areas (AQMA) sites.

  — Biodiversity: Achieve at least 5 per cent. of the Agency's Biodiversity Action Plan extending across 15 priority targets.

  —Landscape: Introduce no less than four planning schemes.

  — Noise: Treat at least 50 lane km of concrete road surface with lower noise surfacing.

  — Water: Treat at least five outfalls identified as posing a pollution risk to watercourses.

  7. Deliver a high level of road user satisfaction.

  Achieve from the road user satisfaction survey an average annual score of at least 85 per cent. for motorways and at least 80 per cent. for trunk roads.

  86WS
  Where required, work is underway to introduce the necessary legislation for future charging for the services affected.

  The review concluded that the necessary legal base was in place to How charging for plant health propagation scheme services provided by the Department. Charging for this service will recommence from this coming season.

TRANSPORT

  Highways Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  The Highways Agency's 2004–05 business plan is published today and contains seven key targets for the Agency to deliver by 31 March 2005. These are:

  87WS
  Explanatory notes against each of these indicators are provided in the business plan, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Maghaberry Prison
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  I wish to announce that with effect from 31 March 2004, in accordance with the powers conferred on me by Rule 5(1) of the Prisons and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, part of Maghaberry prison site, formerly the site of Maze prison, is removed from within the boundaries of Maghaberry prison. The area to be removed is indicated on the site map, which I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses, by the words"area to be removed from the site of Maghaberry prison".

  Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr.Ian Pearson)
  The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland. Annual Report and statement of accounts for 2002–03 has been deposited in the Library of the House today.

DEFENCE

  Business Process Review of Defence Housing
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr.Ivor Caplin)
  I announced in July 2003 that the Ministry of Defence was conducting a business process review of the management and delivery of Defence housing, 2 July 2003,Official Report, column 2OWS. The Review has been completed and I have placed a copy of the final report in the Library of the House.

  This work has been part of a coordinated approach to the future direction of defence housing. It supports detailed work to improve accommodation through the defence housing strategy that, as set out in the Defence White Paper: "Supporting Essays", will direct the future provision of housing for service personnel and their families worldwide. It also takes forward work from earlier internal and cross-departmental studies. The Review has focused primarily on delivery and management of Defence housing in mainland UK, but it includes recommendations on our living accommodation overseas that might be considered in the future.

  The main conclusions were that some improvement could be made to the processes involved with the management and delivery of Defence housing. It was also recognised that we could benefit from the synergies within Defence Estates (DE) and the Defence Housing Executive (DHE). A number of recommendations have been made to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes and organisations involved in delivery of Defence housing, the most significant of which are:
  DHE and DE will merge from 1 April 2004. Initially DHE will be absorbed into DE as a self-contained business unit but over time Head Office processes will be merged.
  88WS
  The Chief Executive of DE will become responsible for the delivery of Defence housing in mainland UK.
  To protect the interests of Service personnel and their families a dedicated housing customer care function will be maintained within DE with suitable governance arrangements.
  Initiatives to improve customer care, particularly the housing prime contract for England and Wales, will continue.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Household Statistics
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr.Andrew Smith)
  Today I have published households below average income for 1994–95 to 2002–03. This is a report published under national statistics arrangements with headline results that cover Great Britain. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The report shows that there has been strong growth across the whole income distribution, and comparing incomes between 1996–97 and 2002–03, the poorest fifth of households have kept up with the strong income growth of middle-income households.

  Steady progress has been made towards the Government's target to reduce by a quarter the number of children living in low-income households by 2004–05.

  Some 700,000 fewer children are living in relative low income compared to 1996–97.

  There has been a more dramatic reduction in children in "absolute" low income and this has now halved since 1996–97, equating to 2.1 million fewer children growing up with their opportunities undermined by acute financial hardship.

  For pensioners below the same fixed threshold, the decline has been around two-thirds, from 2.7 million in 1996–97 to fewer than 1 million in 2002–03, meaning enhanced dignity and security for 1.8 million people during their retirement.

  Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance
  The Minister for Work (Mr.Desmond Browne)
  In a written statement on 4 December 2003, I announced the publication of the Department's second stage and final report of the review of ELCI.

  The report described the work that had been undertaken since June 2003, identified the further actions we intended to take and set these in the context of a strategic approach aimed at improving the efficiency, sustainability and outcomes of the ELCI system.

  A number of initiatives have been put in place to improve the functioning of the ELCI market. In addition we are working immediately to help business by a range of actions.

  I am pleased to announce the publication today of a partial regulatory impact assessment on a proposal to remove the requirement for ELCI from limited companies that employ only their owner (incorporated owners/sole employees). It is estimated that there are about 300,000 such companies.

  89WS
  The partial assessment seeks the views of employers (in particular incorporated owners/sole traders) and insurers and their representative bodies and other stakeholders (e.g. employees, lawyers) and their representatives on the proposal. The views of the wider public are also welcome.

  Copies of the partial assessment have been placed in the Library.

  We will continue to take forward the initiatives and long-term proposals in the second stage report. We believe that they will continue to deliver significant, sustained improvements within the ELCI market.

  Business Plan
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr.Andrew Smith)
  I am today able to announce the 2004–05 annual performance targets for the rent service, responsibility for which transfers to my Department from 1 April 2004, and the disability and carers service. The targets I have agreed are set out below.

  Further information on the plans of the businesses in 2004–05 is contained in their individual business plans that have been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  THE RENT SERVICE

  Service Delivery
  To process 87 per cent. of housing benefit determinations, with an inspection, within 15 working days.
  To process 87 per cent. of housing benefit determinations, without an inspection, within 3 working days.
  To process 87 per cent. of pre-tenancy determinations within 4 working days.
  90WS
  To process 87 per cent. of redeterminations within 15 working days.
  To process 87 per cent. of fair rent determinations within 40 working days.

  Value for Money
  Productivity: To increase productivity by 1 per cent. by the end of the year compared to last year.
  Costs: To reduce the cost per case by 1 per cent. in real terms by the end of the year.
  Quality: 87 per cent. of local reference rent housing benefit determinations to he upheld on redetermination.
  Quality: 87 per cent. of fair rent valuations to be upheld by judicial review.

  Customer Satisfaction
  To raise the customer satisfaction rating, of satisfactory or better, from 87 per rent. in 2003–04 to 90 per cent.in 2004–05.

  DISABILITY AND CARERS SERVICE

  Business Event

  Targets for 2004–05

  Decision Making Quality: DLA

  90 per cent

  Decision Making Quality: AA

  90 per cent

  Accuracy: CA

  95 per cent

  Claims—Normal Rules: DLA

  39 days

  Claims—Normal Rules: AA

  24 days

  Claims: CA

  24 days

  Claims—Special Rules: DLA

  8 days

  Claims—Special Rules: AA

  8 days

  Renewal claims: DLA

  32 days

  Renewal claims: AA

  23 days

  Appeals: DLA

  40 days

  Appeals: AA

  40 days

  Appeals: CA

  38 days

  Note:

  DLA — Disability living allowance

  AA — Attendance allowance

  CA — Carer's allowance

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

Prison Population
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest available figures for the prison population.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the prison population, as of Friday 26 March, was 75,167. Of that total, the number of sentenced prisoners was 62,462 and the number of remand prisoners was 12,703.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those statistics. Does she accept that they show a rise of almost 500 over the February figures? What contingency plan does she have in mind to accommodate prisoners now that we have reached the total useable capacity in our prisons? Can she also confirm that she has no intention of using police cells for people who have been dealt with by the courts? If that is so, can the noble Baroness say what alternatives are available?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as the noble Lord pointed out, I accept that the figures have risen since February. Thankfully, we have not yet reached our useable capacity. We have no intention of using police cells unless there is no other possible alternative. I can assure noble Lords that we have an expanding capacity: some 2,500 more prison places will be available by the end of 2004. Noble Lords know also that we are reforming our correctional services to help balance demand with capacity. This will be aided by the creation of the National Offender Management Service, which will improve the management of offenders and reduce reoffending.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the number of lavatories, showers and bathrooms has been increased to match the increase in the number of prisoners?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a precise answer, but I can say that those issues are quite rightly and properly taken into account to ensure that the facilities made available to prisoners are appropriate. I shall certainly undertake to write to the noble Baroness about the specific issue. However, she is right to raise it. It is a matter that we have highlighted and it is important.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what steps are being taken currently and what steps she has in mind to better educate the public that community punishments are not a soft option?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, work is going ahead through various debates, information and education that we are giving to the public, together with what we are doing with the Judicial Studies Board and the work to be undertaken by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Work is also underway within local criminal justice boards and the National Criminal Justice Board to raise confidence in community sentences. The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right: community penalties are not soft options. They work and can be used to great effect.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, is my noble friend on the Front Bench aware that the British Muslim community is extremely worried about the increased number of its youth in the prison system today? Is my noble friend further aware that, within education, under 20 per cent of British Muslim youths are achieving grades A to C in five GCSEs? They are also four times more likely to be unemployed and there has been an increase in drug use and drug-related crime among them. While I congratulate the Government on appointing full-time imams to work alongside chaplains within the Prison Service, what partnership programmes are the Government supporting for the rehabilitation, reform and training of these youths for jobs?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the increases in the areas identified by my noble friend are indeed worrying. However, I applaud the work being done by imams in supporting resettlement programmes. I should like to welcome the progress we have made both within prisons and through the probation service in addressing reoffending. I know that there are still many gaps in the service, but the creation of positions for imams has been very helpful in our efforts to move forward on the agenda. As regards education, up to the end of February 2004, the prison system, incorporating the public and contracted sectors, has delivered 42,348 basic skills awards. We are working hard to improve those education figures and to enhance the opportunities for work. To that end, we are working with a number of agencies, including the CBI. Young Asian men and women will be very much part of that targeted group.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, given the 1,000 per cent rise in the number of shoplifters imprisoned over the past 10 years, what plans do the Government have to introduce a de minimis threshold which would rule out imprisonment for minor offences more effectively than the current law manages to do?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, one of the major contributors to that change may well be the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Your Lordships will know that the role of the council is to set appropriate bench-marks for use by sentencers. We also hope that with the strengthening, improvement and breadth of community sentences, sentencers will have available to

1165
them robust punishments that can be used instead of imprisonment, which we have been very clear should be the last and not the first resort.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the number of women prisoners is also rising?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the number of women in prison has not risen as quickly as the number of men; it is fairly stable. However, the issue needs to be addressed. The fourth Starred Question, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, relates to the issue and I shall obviously answer that Question in far more detail.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, what proportion of the prison population is there for alcohol-related problems and what proportion for drug-related problems?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is a very high instance indeed in relation to drug and alcohol-related problems. A large majority of those tested on admission are found to have either drugs or alcohol in their bloodstream. We are seeking vigorously to address the issue.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, what is happening in regard to reoffending rates? Are they going up or down?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it depends on which category of offender one is dealing with. In terms of juvenile offending, the reoffending rate seems to be going down. In relation to other categories, it very much depends on the type of offence as to whether the figures are on an upward trend or a downward trend.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while there are 2,448 children in prison in this country, 775 in France, and, I understand, 12 in Denmark, in Italy they do not imprison children? Can the Minister say what movement there has been in the figures for children in prison and what movement there has been in the figures for children on remand?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the figures are going down in relation to those in prison and there has been a slight decline in relation to those on remand. I agree with the thrust of the noble Earl's question: that the number of juveniles in prison is too high.

Fallen Stock
2.45 p.m.
Lord Plumb Lord Plumb asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the proposed national scheme for the collection of fallen stock will be sufficiently funded to ensure its successful introduction.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, yes. We have announced that we will make substantial funding available to assist with the introduction of the scheme. However, the viability of the scheme will also depend on the level of uptake from livestock farmers.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that it is almost a year since the scheme was announced in your Lordships' House? At that time farmers were told that they would no longer be allowed to bury stock on their farms after 1 May. Does she agree that since then the confusion has been confirmed? Since that first announcement, three delays have occurred. In announcing the latest delay, it was stated that it was hoped that the scheme would now start in the autumn. Does the Minister further agree that if Defra misses the next date the scheme will be fundamentally undermined and farmers will not sign up to it, particularly the 50 per cent of them who have so far supported the scheme?
Can the Minister confirm that the issue of state aid will be fully addressed and that a full tendering operation will have taken place with the collection and disposal operators so as to provide, ultimately, the most effective scheme and a reliable service for dealing with the casualties? How will those funds be allocated to approved renderers, hunt kennels and incineration facilities?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the first thing I need to make clear is that this is not solely a matter for Defra. It is normal government policy that an industry should shoulder the costs of its own problems of the removal of waste as a by-product of the industry. On this occasion, the Government are working closely with the industry and are putting in funding, a fact which the noble Lord was gracious enough to recognise. The delay in the starting date is a matter for the board, which has looked at it in detail, as will be the revision of the initial proposals, which it is now considering. This will include matters raised by the noble Lord, such as the allocation of resources. The Government and the industry are determined to make the scheme effective and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, will share that ambition.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, can the Minister indicate what proportion of the funding for the collection of fallen stock will come from the Government and what proportion from the farming community? When the first three years of government funding runs out, what charges are likely to be levied? Will farmers be paying 100 per cent of the cost of collection at that time?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord recognises that the Government will still be here in three years' time. The allocation of resources represents three-year government funding to

1167
help to start up the scheme. It will begin as an assessment of approximately one-third of the costs of the first year, diminishing over the three-year period. At the end of the three-year period, the level of charges for individual livestock producers will be a matter for the board, which is addressing the issue urgently at the moment. At the end of the three years, the industry will be expected to bear the costs of disposal.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what will be the position with fallen equines, which are not classified as agricultural stock?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the scheme relates to those animals and livestock used in the food production chain. It therefore does not specifically relate to horses. I know of the interest of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in the welfare of horses. It is a matter we are addressing separately in the light of certain other developments.
Earl Peel: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the scheme will work on a national level and that there will be no parts of England which it will not cover? Furthermore, if I may go back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, can the noble Baroness confirm that all animals that are used for food production will be included in the scheme?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, all animals used for food production are included in the scheme. It is a UK-wide scheme; the board is charged with the task of seeking to meet the needs of the industry across the whole of the UK.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has on several occasions asked the enforcement authority, which I think is the DTI, to enforce the ban that has existed on burying fallen stock since last May with, to quote him, "a light touch". I am not quite sure what enforcing the law with a light touch means. Can the Minister tell us what advice farmers are given if they ring up Defra and say they have fallen stock and the only way they can see to dispose of it is to bury it?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, initially, the contact would be made with the local authority organisers of regulatory control. The advice given is that where farmers can reasonably demonstrate that they have very great difficulty in disposing of fallen stock—after all, many outlets already exist for such disposal—they should not pursue aggressively those who have acted in good faith and sought to implement these measures. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will share my view that the sooner we deal with this the better, because ultimately the measures are intended to avoid polluting the environment and spreading diseases.

Compensation Claims
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to counter the "blame culture" and reduce the impact of compensation claims on schools, the National Health Service and other public services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the Better Regulation Task Force is currently conducting an independent study of litigation and compensation, and has been gathering evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. The task force hopes to publish its report in May; the Government will give the report detailed consideration. The Department for Constitutional Affairs will be co-ordinating the Government's response, which will be published in the usual way, within 60 working days of the report's publication.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and glad to hear about the action of the Better Regulation Task Force, but does he not accept that the Government really need to do more in this area? Does he not accept that, because of this blame culture, personal responsibility is being undermined, and doctors and teachers are constantly having to look over their shoulder? In the end, the effect of this blame culture will be to detract from the actual provision of public services to the public.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think we should wait and see what the Better Regulation Task Force advises. I say that advisedly, because the evidence on this issue is quite complex and, in some respects, contradictory. The evidence is that there is not an increase overall in claims and there is a reduction in claims coming to court. One should not immediately assume that the issue is in any sense out of control. Of course, we want to ensure that when a public body has failed and has caused significant harm to someone as a consequence of its actions or inactions, there is speedy redress. We do not want to encourage vexatious, frivolous or fraudulent claims.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that compensation of multi-millions is almost in the form of a lottery because it is allocated to someone over their lifetime and paid as a lump sum? In some other countries, it is paid out per annum for the lifetime of the person in a smaller amount. Doing so here would save the public purse a considerable amount of money.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is an interesting issue. Compensation sums in this country are settled by judges rather than by juries as in the States. Clearly,

1169
that is for good reason. When a court and a judge are making a decision on the amount of compensation needed over someone's lifetime, that is extremely complex. They have to forecast not only the future cost of care and welfare but also life. Therefore, it is worth reflecting on that point.
The other point is that many people wish to have control over their own affairs rather than having an ongoing flow of payments. They would like to be in a position to make decisions about how to arrange for their care in the future, which a lump sum allows them to do.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister referred to the report of the Better Regulation Task Force. But there is another side of the coin from compensation and litigation—that is, the communication by public bodies faced with complaints by members of the public. It is very important to offer apology, explanation and redress at the appropriate time, as that avoids compensation and litigation continuing for too long. Will that be addressed by the Better Regulation Task Force?
Secondly, what has happened to the Chief Medical Officer's report, Making Amends, on medical negligence in the NHS? That seems to have gone below the surface since the consultation period ended in October.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is quite right to highlight the issues of investigation, communication with someone who feels aggrieved, and, where a failure has occurred, an apology. That goes to the heart of good public service. Those principles were very strongly set out in the Chief Medical Officer's report Making Amends, which, as the noble Lord signals, received a good response in the consultation period. In the light of that consultation, the Department of Health is considering when to bring forward proposals.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we have enough time to hear from these Benches and then from the Benches opposite.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, do your Lordships agree that while it is important to address the issue of a compensation culture for apparently trivial matters, does it not allow your Lordships or,
1170
indeed, Ministers, to obscure the fact that there are many distressing cases in which there is no doubt that the health service has been responsible for severe damage to children, yet 10 years later compensation still has not been paid? That is a disgrace, and we do not hear enough about it.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am not exactly certain to which cases my noble friend is referring. Even if I were, I would of course be debarred from commenting on individual cases as a consequence of my role. Nevertheless, I would be interested to hear where he feels injustice is being caused. If there were clear-cut breaches by the NHS, I should have expected such claimants to have pursued their claims vigorously against the department and the NHS.
Lord Taverne: My Lords—
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Hurd!
Baroness Amos: My Lords, shall we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hurd?
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, what are the Government doing to urge forward the use of mediation by the NHS and in other parts of the public sector? Mediation can often provide quicker, better relief than expensive and sometimes distressing litigation. I declare an interest as chairman of the mediation charity CEDR.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I look forward to having the opportunity for discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, in his role in that respect at some stage. The Chief Medical Officer's report, Making Amends, made it quite clear that mediation should be part of a process of bringing to settlement claims over medical negligence when they should be settled. Certainly, the issue of mediation is one that the Department for Constitutional Affairs treats very seriously indeed—that is, how to find earlier and more effective resolution in certain disputes. I would welcome a discussion.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, is not one of the most extraordinary penalties that the National Health Service has had to suffer the very large sums that were paid or agreed to be paid in connection with the events at Alder Hey? While the parents were justifiably upset at the very insensitive treatment that they received, is not the endorsement of that kind of payment an endorsement of the view that bodies must be buried and that burial is not complete until they have all their parts, which is a form of animism that predates classical times?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there are occasions during Questions in the House when one wants pause to reflect on exactly what was the thrust of the question.

1171
Of course, Hansard allows me that opportunity. I shall reflect on the matter and correspond with the noble Lord.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that part of the increase in "compensation culture", as it has been called, is probably caused by the no-win-no-fee lawyers who, unfortunately, quite often tout for business? The Times today mentioned the fact that something like 60 per cent in some areas are false claims. Does my noble friend agree that people should be challenged and prosecuted as a punishment to deter others from making such false claims?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, undoubtedly fraud should be prosecuted, and people who make fraudulent claims should be aware of the risks to which they expose themselves. Having said that, it would be wrong to perceive that conditional fee agreements, which were I believe introduced in 1995 and developed in 2000, have been other than a considerable success in broad terms in allowing people to bring to justice cases which they otherwise would not have done. That has also deterred frivolous claims by increasing the risk of making frivolous claims.

Women's Prisons
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the proposed closure of two women's prisons is consistent with their policy of locating women prisoners close to their families.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the decision to change the role of Her Majesty's Prison Edmund's Hill and the female unit at Winchester Prison was taken in the light of many factors. The impact of the change on the women at those establishments was considered when making that decision. It is anticipated that there will be a slight improvement in the overall closeness to home for women prisoners. However, there may be a small number of prisoners who are located further from home as a result of these re-roles.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will she accept that experience suggests that when women prisoners, or any prisoners for that matter, are suddenly moved from one prison to another, many of them will have not the slightest idea where their destination prison is as most people do not have a very good sense of the geography of this country? That can be extremely disturbing for the prisoner involved.
Will she agree with Cherie Booth, for example, that too many women are being jailed for petty offences? In the light of that, and having already spoken about the introduction of the national offenders management
1172
system, what will happen to prisoners jailed for relatively minor offences before the NOM system comes into place, which is not due for several years?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, can I just unpack some of those questions? I do not agree that women have no idea about their destination. In particular, with regard to the move that took place from Winchester to Send, we were very concerned about the arrangement. The women were spoken to at the therapeutic community and the operational manager for women's prisons spoke personally to all the women involved to discuss what was to be expected with the relocation. The women decided that they wanted to move the therapeutic community to Send.
I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important for people to know where and why they are going somewhere and how they will be transferred. That has been very much taken into account.
We have made it clear that we do not believe that prison is the first option for those who commit small non-violent offences and that other means of treatment are perfectly proper. That is clearly set out in our new strategy for dealing with women. We endorse many of the comments that have been made by Cherie Booth and others about the need to look at the issue sensitively and appropriately.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that with regard to the therapeutic community project that has been under way at Winchester, the funding was ring-fenced? Can she guarantee that after the Thursday of this week, when funding for women's prisons is taken within funding for all prisons in the regions, the funding that has heretofore been available for the therapeutic project will continue?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I call certainly reassure the noble Baroness that the work that is being done in the therapeutic community is very highly prized and valued and that it may be an exemplar of what we may be able to achieve elsewhere. Although I cannot tell the noble Baroness that it will be in perpetuity ring-fenced, I can reassure her that we are ensuring that arrangements are in place for the longer-term development of the therapeutic community at Send. That will include re-establishing the therapeutic culture and putting in place a programme of regime activities. I hope that gives the noble Baroness some reassurance.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, have the Government given particular consideration to the needs of three categories of women prisoners in the course of these moves? I refer to those who are older, those with serious mental health problems and, above all, those who are terminally ill.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course the needs of those three categories of women are taken into account. However, the noble Baroness will also know that the needs of women with young families are also important; the level of disruption that that causes

1173
is a matter that we take very seriously. The noble Baroness is right to highlight the issue of mental illness, age and terminal illness. All those issues need appropriate and proper consideration.
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, following what the Minister has just said, is she aware that both St. Edmund's Hill in Suffolk and the therapeutic community in Winchester, which I believe is the only one of its kind in Europe, have been in existence for only two years? They have built up specialist staff and local volunteer networks. Is it thought that the closure of those units for women, particularly vulnerable and disturbed women, is in any way balanced by the short-term gain of places in prisons for men?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I make it clear to the right reverend Prelate that we very much understand the importance of this work. That is why the director of therapy and the other members of the therapeutic team have already moved, at least for the initial transition period. We are maintaining that system of help and care. I also acknowledge that building appropriate local volunteer networks is of immense importance. We accept that the pressure of adult male prisoners and the current and future capacity of the female estate was an influence in taking the decision. However, I remind noble Lords that new prisons at Bronzefield near Heathrow and at Peterborough will be opening in June 2004 and March 2005 respectively. Therefore, we hope to have 450 places for women in June. That is a significant issue.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the majority of women remanded or sentenced to prison are involved in one way or another with illegal drugs? In Styal, for example, 75 per cent of receptions have drug problems. What effect does the Minister believe that the closure of the two units will have on the ability of the Prison Service to deal with those problems?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, those issues are being addressed. As I have tried to make clear, the needs of the women were fully taken into consideration before the decision to move them was taken.

Out-of-town Shopping Centres
3.9 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
What changes have recently been made to the planning guidance for out-of-town shopping centres (formerly known as PPG6) at the instigation of the Treasury.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government's policy is and remains to focus new retail development in or on the edge of town and city centres. There is no intention to change that. We have consulted on a new
1174
draft PPS6 to replace the current PPG6. That reiterates the Government's "town centres first" approach. After considering the responses to the consultation, we shall publish the final version of the new PPS6 later this year.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not think that people who read the new draft guidance would interpret it in that way. They are interpreting it as a licence to build many more out-of-town centres. Will the Minister comment on that? The noble Lord and I, and many other noble Lords, recently spent many hours debating the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. During those debates there was a good deal of discussion about the regeneration of town centres. I think that the guidance is contrary to the discussions we have been having about rejuvenating town centres and encouraging their development and it is contrary to the suggestions of his noble friend Lord Rogers about town development. I should like the Minister to comment on those points. This is a licence to build many more out-of-town centres rather than developing the high street, which we feel is very important.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not see PPS6 in its draft form in that way and we should remember that it is only a draft. Perhaps it would be worth me reminding your Lordships' House of the Government's aims as set out in paragraph 1.2 of the planning policy statement. It states that it,
"covers town centres and principal town centre uses. The Government's key objective for town centres is to promote vital and viable city, town and other centres by planning for the growth of existing centres; and promoting and enhancing exciting centres, by focusing development in such centres and encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all".
I suggest that its intent is plain and simple. It is about the continued regeneration of our town and city centres. That is where the emphasis is and that is why we have a "town centres first" policy.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Treasury involved in this matter? In how many cases has the policy of the Treasury been upset by the building of new premises?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that when the Government decide to revise or review existing policy they consult widely within government. I am sure that that is true across government. My understanding is that the draft PPS6 reflects consultation with a range of departments, including Her Majesty's Treasury, the DTI and Defra.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, the draft PPS6 clearly favours large format stores. Can the Minister assure the House that PPG6, which has been in operation for the past seven years and has helped to protect our town centres, will not be undermined by the final draft of PPS6? Can he further assure the House that it will not undermine the amendment to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill moved by his

1175
noble friend Lord Rooker in response to the issue I raised about out-of-town stores being able to expand internally through mezzanine floors?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we were more than happy to strengthen our position with regard to out-of-town and out-of-city-centre stores by putting in the "mezzanine amendment". That is an accurate reflection of the Government's policy intent. We are whole-heartedly behind our existing policy. It has worked extremely well. An evaluation in January this year confirmed support for concentrating on town centres. There is no doubt that PPG6, in its old form, has influenced a change in retail patterns and that major stores have responded positively to that. After nearly 20 years of everything moving out of town, new floor space in town centre schemes now exceeds that in out-of-town shopping centres and retail warehouse parks. We see that as a badge of success for this Government's policy in supporting "town centres first" developments.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us are relieved by what he has just said, which is contrary to the newspaper headlines? Will he also say that existing out-of-town stores should not be allowed to expand? Will he confirm that public transport can work effectively only if it serves stores that are located in town centres?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is dangerous to be prescriptive on these matters. If the noble Lord thinks carefully about his statements, there is a danger in that. It is dangerous to say that one can have good public transport only in city centres and that one cannot have good public transport on the edge of town or in out-of-town areas. Our policy is very clear. We favour, support and want to see the continued development and regeneration of our city centres as the major centres for retail development in the future. That is the policy intent behind the revised PPS6.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how much pleasure it gave to some of his noble friends to hear him say that the Government fully support their own policy? Perhaps he can tell us when the Government will support their own policy on other issues, such as House of Lords reform.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has opened up a Pandora's box of some sort here. I am very grateful for the linguistic correction.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, for the benefit of those noble Lords who do not know the technicalities of the subject, can the Minister explain the difference between a PPG and a PPS? Is it the case that changing "guidance" into a "statement" will be a significant move away from advice towards instruction?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is a change of nomenclature. We are talking about policy planning guidance changing into policy planning statements. The
1176
effect for local planning authorities will be no different. There will be guidance and there will be statements. They are about helping local authorities to work through the difficult range of issues that they must sort out when dealing with complex planning matters.

Business
3.17 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, I think that it would be helpful if I said a word about today's business. It looks a little more crowded than it appeared to be when the usual channels scheduled it last week. We have tried to take action to deal with that and this is how we hope that the day will pan out. The Children Bill, which now has far more speakers than it did when we planned the business, will now start as soon as possible after 5 p.m. and it will go through to a conclusion. The three orders that are down for consideration after the Children Bill have been rescheduled, with agreement, to after tomorrow's business, which makes more sense. It still leaves today quite busy. It means that we are likely to run beyond the target time of 10 p.m. but if all noble Lords contributing to the Children Bill are able to confine their remarks to around eight minutes we would finish before 11 p.m. I think that that would meet with general approval.

Civil Partnership Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, civil partnership. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Employment Relations Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House: Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Grand Committee on the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill from Monday 5 April to tomorrow.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 14,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clauses 15 to 18,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 19 to 32,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 33 to 35.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Bill
Report received.

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill
3.20 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to move that the Commons reason be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT TO A CERTAIN COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A COMMONS AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 14 as first printed for the Lords.]

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 1, Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new Clause—
  "Piloting conduct at European and local elections
  (1) An election to which this section applies (a pilot election) must be held—

  (a) only by postal voting, and (for that purpose)

  (b) in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order (a pilot order).

  (2) These are the elections to which this section applies—

  (a) the European Parliamentary general election of 2004 in a pilot region;

  (b) a local government election in England and Wales if the poll at such an election is combined with the poll at an election mentioned in paragraph (a).

  1178
  (3) These are the pilot regions—

  (a) North East;

  (b) East Midlands.

  (4) Postal voting is voting where no polling station is used and a person entitled to vote in person or by proxy must deliver the ballot paper by post or by such other means as is specified in a pilot order.
  (5) A pilot order—

  (a) may modify or disapply any provision made by or under a relevant enactment;

  (b) may contain such consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provision or savings (including provision amending, replacing, suspending or revoking provision made by or under any enactment) as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate;

  (c) may make different provision for different purposes."

  The Commons agree to this amendment with the following amendment—
  1A Line 15, at end insert—

  "(c) Yorkshire and the Humber;

  (d) North West."

  The Lords disagree to Commons Amendment No. 1A to Lords Amendment No. 1 for the following reason—
  1B Because it is appropriate to make provision for no more than two pilot regions, as recommended by the Electoral Commission.
  The Commons do not insist on their Amendment No. 1A to which the Lords have disagreed, but propose the following amendment to the Lords amendment in lieu of that amendment—
  1C Leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—

  (c) Yorkshire and the Humber;

  (d) North West.

  ( ) Postal voting is voting where no polling station is used and a person entitled to vote in person or by proxy must deliver by post or by such other means as is specified in a pilot order—

  (a) the ballot paper, and

  (b) the completed declaration of identity form.

  ( ) The declaration of identity form is a form which is delivered along with the ballot paper and which is completed by being signed—

  (a) by the person to whom the ballot paper is addressed, and

  (b) by a witness to that signing whose name and address are clearly marked on the form.'

  The Lords agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1C in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 1A, but propose the following amendment thereto—
  1D Line 3, at end insert—
  "but, in the case of either region specified in paragraph (c) or (d) above, a pilot may only take place if it is specifically recommended by the Electoral Commission in a report which is laid before both Houses of Parliament after the coming into force of this Act."
  The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 1D to Commons Amendment No. 1C, for the following reason—
  1E Because it is not necessary to seek further advice from the Electoral Commission.
  The Lords do not insist on their Amendment No. 1D to Commons Amendment No. 1C to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1E but propose the following amendment to Commons Amendment No. 1C in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 1D—
  1F Line 3, leave out—
  "(d) North West."
  The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 1F to Commons Amendment No. 1C, for the following reason—
  1G Because it is appropriate to pilot postal voting in four rather than three regions.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1F to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1G.
  It is hard to credit that we are still debating this Bill. This issue in the Bill has been to the Commons four times. If we divide today, it will be the fifth time that this House has voted on the issue in opposition to the Commons.
  In the optimistic hope that anyone is interested in the issue, perhaps I may summarise what is about. It is essentially about a piloting scheme to try to increase turn-out in the European and local elections and to see whether, by universal postal balloting, that can be done. The evidence from local government on why that is likely is strong, but never have we undertaken such an experiment at regional level.
  The debate between us is not about the principle of a piloting system, but whether we should carry it out in four regions or in three regions. It defeats me to understand how this House can believe that it is a point of principle on which it should stand in the face of the Commons four, potentially five, times. I cannot conceive how it could be a point of principle that there should be three regions rather than four. The latter is the view of the Government and it has been asserted by the Commons.
  To focus on the specifics, after these many, many stages, we are now debating whether the north-west region should be added to the other three regions that are to be piloted in the June European and local government elections. After a lengthy—some might call it tedious—process, we are now all in agreement in both Houses, and I think between the parties in this House, that it is desirable that we should carry out all-postal ballots in three regions at least. It has taken a while to get there, but we have reached that point. We disagree on whether the north-west should be added to those other three regions.
  At heart, it is not an issue on which, I believe, that the Lords has any strong case to claim that it has a constitutional right to stand in the face of the will of the Commons, because it comes down to a judgment by the Government that it is desirable to pilot in four regions rather than in three. Why is the north-west suitable for a pilot as well? First, the Electoral Commission, in its report, when it was asked for its advice, stated that the north-west was potentially suitable, but that there were some areas of concern on whether elections could be securely and safely
  1180
  carried out in that region. The commission made it clear, if it needed to be done so, that the Government were entitled to undertake further discussions and explorations to see whether the commission's concerns could be addressed.
  We have had those further discussions and all that one needs to know from those is that regional returning officer and the electoral returning officers for the relevant authorities in the area believe that all-postal ballots can be carried out successfully in the June elections in the north-west. Therefore, it is suitable for such a pilot.
  The second reason why we are clear that a fourth pilot should be carried out is that north-west has, as we have identified at earlier stages of the Bill, particular areas of complexity and challenge in terms of the those elections. When we discussed the issue, all three parties had an open, perhaps even a positive attitude, towards the potential of all-postal ballots, at least in local government elections in the future. I have not heard voices against that. However, for us to be able to carry out at some date in the future all-postal ballots in local government elections, if that is what the Government propose and Parliament agrees, we will certainly require us to be satisfied that in areas where there is complexity, or where there may have been concerns about fraud, we can find satisfactory solutions to those problems.
  The Bill makes significant progress in that respect by putting into legislation additional checks and safeguards to limit fraud. Some of those measures resulted from the good debates that we have had in this House and the representations that we have received.
  Therefore, it is important that we now test those measures in practice and research their effect. Security issues have now been given a higher profile by the debates in this Chamber, not least by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We will not know whether those measures work unless we test them and research what happens. The electoral returning officers say that it is safe and secure to do so, but we have to study the issues and to see whether the measures work in practice.
  Therefore, we will learn more about whether all-postal ballots could, at some future date, be carried out effectively, at a regional as well as at a local government level, by testing them in a fourth region and properly evaluating our findings in the ways about which I have spoken previously in our debates. The final reason why it is beneficial to include the north-west is a straightforward, practical one. Many local authorities in the north-west have already been carrying out their local elections on an all-postal basis. In October, they will carry out the regional referenda on an all-postal basis. It seems bizarre in that situation, when there are other good reasons for them to be holding all-postal ballots, not to allow them to maintain the consistency of all-postal ballots in June and all-postal ballots in October. It is hard to see how this House sees it as a point of principle that it has a constitutional right and duty to assert its primacy over the Commons. In short, the Government are entitled to their judgment that it is beneficial to include a fourth region in the pilots for the reasons that I have set out.

  1181
  I turn to the issue of the constitution. Without, in any sense, being flippant, I bring to the attention of the House what has been said by a number of our Members. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referring to the issue, stated:
  "Of course, on something like this, eventually the Lords will give way. They must do".
  When the Bill was last considered in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, stated:
  "I had always understood that as well as being a revising chamber, we have a duty to cause the Commons to stop and think again—
  amen, I say, to that. However, she went on to state—
  "I had understood that that was an accepted procedure at least twice. The third time, we have to accept the inevitable".—[Official Report, 25/3/04; col. 859.]
  It seems to me that she adequately captured the constitutional conventions and traditions of this House.
  The Commons has already disagreed with this House four times on the issue. If this House again divides on it, it will be the fifth time that it has opposed the measure.
  Lord Jopling: My Lords, will the Minister explain why he keeps banging on about the constitutional issue, when the reason the Government continually lose over the matter is that they are putting only around 100 of their Members into the Lobby when they have 182 Members in this House or thereabouts? Surely, it is the fault of the Government themselves for not rallying their own supporters to get their own business through.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not want to weary noble Lords with arithmetic, but the Government's party has 28 per cent of the vote of this House. I am not making a major complaint about that, because it is not healthy, as has been the case in the past, that the party of government has an overwhelming majority. However, that is a fact.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I accept the arguments that the noble Lord has made but it is very rare that on a political matter, which suits the party in government with a vast majority in the House of Commons, such a Motion is put before this House. Even if our procedures are altered, every second chamber in Europe is regarded as the protector of the constitution. I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that this looks like political jobbery. The Minister ought to answer that.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, I was about to turn to the assertion that I believe has been made in another place and at times here—perhaps more softly and expressed with the usual courtesy of this House—that a particular issue lurks beneath this matter. All I can say is that I have seen no academic evidence whatever that an increase in turnout through postal balloting benefits one party at the expense of another. If there is
  1182
  such proper academic evidence, I invite noble Lords to bring it to our attention. No doubt the issues arouse much excitement on the part of agents but there is no evidence that an increase in turnout through postal ballots helps one party at the expense of another. That needs to be put absolutely clearly on the record. I see no malign motive of the kind that has been asserted.
  So, what do we have? We have a judgment by the Government that we should include four regions. There is no constitutional reason whatever that I can see for this House to assert its will in the face of the Commons. With the greatest respect, but with the greatest clarity, I ask this House to bend to the will of the Commons on this issue.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1F, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1G.—(Lord Filkin.)
  Lord Rennardrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1F to Commons Amendment No. 1C to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1G—
  1H Leave out "not".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this will be the second time that this House has considered insisting on its compromise amendment that there should be three all-postal pilots in the elections in June. The issue of principle concerns simply how these kind of decisions should be taken. By insisting on this amendment we are insisting on a compromise between two all-postal vote regions as desired by the House, all political parties except the Labour Party, and as originally recommended by the Electoral Commission, and the position of the other House and the Labour Party that there should be four all-postal vote regions, supposedly coincidentally all in the more pro-Labour half of England. This is not, therefore, a simple issue between an elected House and an unelected and only partially reformed one. It is about how changes to voting rules should be decided when the parties involved cannot agree.
  Anyone listening to this debate—perhaps there are a few listening for the first time—should know that Parliament established the Electoral Commission, in the words of the Minister at the time, in order to,
  "reinforce the integrity of our electoral arrangements".
  However, the Government are now seeking to ignore the Electoral Commission on the fundamental issue of how many all-postal elections there should be in June and, specifically, where they should be held.
  We have offered a compromise based on accepting entirely the view of the Electoral Commission on the fundamental issue of how many all-postal vote elections there should be and where they should be. In considering our position it is of some significance that the compromise of three regions based on the recommendations of the Electoral Commission is exactly what the Government originally asked for. The problem lies with an inexplicable and late change of mind by someone in the Labour Government who wants to insist on changing the voting rules, abolishing the right to vote at a polling station in the

  1183
  areas that are most important to Labour despite the risk of significant fraud taking place that could change the result in many of the local authority elections.
  With entrenched positions established, why should we continue to insist, as we have done so strongly so far? First, we have compromised. You do not have to be a mathematical genius to work out that the amendment for three regions is a fair compromise between the positions of wanting two or wanting four regions to have all-postal pilots. This compromise has much wider support in both Houses of Parliament than has so far been reflected in the Division Lobbies.
  Secondly, in a dispute between parties about the rules, you need an arbiter, and you should abide by the view of that arbiter. That is a democratic and fair principle. If the Government, or whichever Minister is ultimately responsible for this sequence of events, remain unwilling to compromise, that will be seen as behaving like the batsman who is declared out by the umpire but who refuses to walk.
  Thirdly, I acknowledge that we must think carefully about what precedent we have in this House for the exceptional step we should now take in insisting on a compromise. There have been few occasions for such insistence since the passing of the Parliament Act 1949. But one such important precedent was what happened in 1969 when this House insisted upon its amendments to the House of Commons redistribution of seats Bill. That was an attempt by the then Labour government, with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, as Home Secretary, to reject the Boundary Commission's proposals for redrawing the boundaries of the Westminster constituencies. With hindsight that was seen by some in that Labour government as a shameful and undemocratic episode. The measure was blocked by the House of Lords, preventing a majority in the House of Commons abusing that majority.
  Not long after I entered this House I had the great privilege of talking with the late Lord Longford. He gave me much good advice about issues of principle and speaking in this Chamber. His contributions to the House were on many occasions outstanding, clearly principled and are very much missed. He made a very significant contribution to the debate in 1969. In response to the Labour government's attempts to gerrymander the Boundary Commission's proposals, he said:
  "I am sorry, as a citizen and as a member of the Labour Party, because we claim to stand for higher standards, and it is depressing if we have persuaded ourselves that it is all right because the Tories have always done the same".
  He made a powerful case for this House insisting on an issue where a government were trying to change the voting rules in defiance of all other parties and of the independent body charged with making recommendations on such issues.
  In the same debate Lord Byers, speaking from these Benches, said of the government's position:
  "I do not like this attitude to electoral problems, and I think the House of Lords, if it is to do its duty, must reject these various devices by the Government. This is a matter of principle on which a House of Lords, reformed or unreformed, would still be invited by my side of the House to take the same position. It seems to me
  1184
  the Government have only one thing in mind. It is to use all the means they have to secure party advantage for this coming General Election, and it is our duty to say 'enough is enough'".
  If noble Lords insist on this amendment, we are again inviting the other place to accept a compromise. If we continue to insist, we are saying that those who try to change the rules, fail to achieve consensus, ignore independent advice and refuse to compromise must accept responsibility for what they are doing. But if wiser counsels prevail within the Government, the Government can have the Bill and the three all-postal pilots which they originally said that they wanted. If the role of this House is to make the Government think again, we must make them think again very hard this afternoon. I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1F to Commons Amendment No. 1C to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1G, leave out "not".—(Lord Rennard.)
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I want to make it clear that there is not a great deal of unanimity about whether there should be all-postal balloting in local elections. I am not certain that that is something to which we have all agreed but, for today's purposes, it is not very relevant.
  As the Minister said, it is the fifth time that we have debated amendments—it is not the fifth time that we have debated this amendment, but the second time—finally to decide on the regions to be included in the European pilots. We have rehearsed the problems over and again, as well as the views of the Electoral Commission, which—I do not need to remind the House because it has been said before—is the body set up by the Government to oversee elections and give them advice.
  The Electoral Commission has been nothing if not consistent with that advice, which is that four electoral regions are too many. That view was reiterated in the letter received from its chairman to which we referred at some length and which we debated last time. That strong advice was made very clear to the Government from the Electoral Commission. Four regions are too many because it is a test of more than one-third of the electorate. We have said before that that can barely be called a pilot. It is a very substantial proportion of those who will vote at the elections.
  The surprise about this extended debate is not that the Opposition have been so insistent on the Government following their own initial intentions—that there should be no more than three electoral regions. They invited the Electoral Commission to put forward up to three electoral regions, and I remind the House that that is what the amendment that we proposed last time with the support of the Liberal Democrats, and which has been moved today, is intended to achieve. It is a compromise that both opposition parties put forward last time, but which the Government have so far resisted. They have done so obdurately. The three regions in the Government's mind have now gone up to four, despite the advice from the commission.

  1185
  What is even more surprising is that the argument has begun to turn on the desirability of those European regions being used as a test bed for the referendums for the regional assemblies. The elections are the only regional ones that take place. The European regions will translate themselves into the regions for regional assemblies. The fact that the regions were a test bed for the regional assemblies had stolen over us during our discussions, but it was never tacitly admitted until the Minister popped the cat out of the bag a couple of weeks ago. He made the admission again today.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt but I have to correct a misinterpretation of what I said, as I did in the previous debate. I made it absolutely clear last time that I had never used the argument that the regions were a test bed for regional referendums, and explained that I did not think that a sound reason, yet the same accusation is being made of me. I find that surprising. What I said and said again today was that, while there were other good reasons, there was a further reason of maintaining the consistency of the same type of election. That is a completely different argument from that of a test bed.
  3.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we are debating semantics. The Minister said earlier, quite rightly, that three of the four regions would be the regional assembly regions. That is precisely what they are, in terms. The election would be a test bed for those referendums, however he puts it. The whole question of the regional assemblies takes the matter out of the remit of the Minister and puts it into the hands of the Deputy Prime Minister, who has taken an active interest from another place. We therefore need to ask who is running the show.
  We are very conscious that we are putting great pressure on the Government to come to a decision—a decision that represents their own initial thoughts. Despite what we have heard from time to time from Labour Peers, that is what this House should be able to do—to say to the Government, "Think again. This is where you started. This is where you should end". The advice from the Government on all sides goes against the line that they propose to take.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, put forward powerful arguments about both the Government doing that and the precedents set in this House in the past. My strong recommendation to my colleagues is to support the amendment.
  Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. I have not spoken until now, because I hoped that there would be agreement on the issue. I tell the Minister how deeply disappointed I am that it has come back yet again after the attempts made in this House to reach a compromise. If I understood him he said that there was no point of principle in the matter, but there is a deep point of principle. I was elected to the other place in the backwash of the events that
  1186
  surrounded the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and the attempt to repudiate the parliamentary Boundary Commission report at that time.
  The lesson learnt from that was that, at all times if possible, any change in electoral practice should be by all-party agreement. I remember the occasions on which, when issues arose, it was agreed that they would be put to a Speaker's Conference in which all parties would be represented, because all parties recognised the overwhelming desirability of there being all-party agreement in matters of such sensitivity. The Minister will be unable to persuade other parties in this House that there is not political consideration in the proposal that he put forward. That is the belief in many quarters and precisely the trap into which the Government have fallen.
  In the present circumstances, the matter is even more important. The Government have overriding power. The Minister talks about government and the Commons. The Commons is the Government, but the enormous majority that the Government have enjoyed for the past seven years means that they have absolute power. But with absolute power comes responsibility, and it does not include the right to ride roughshod over other political views that happen to be different from theirs. In this case, the principle in which many of us believe very strongly is that electoral changes of any kind should, wherever possible, be done by agreement, and that the Government should seek always to achieve that.
  If there is difference and argument, the existence of some independent voice is particularly valuable. If the Government do not have their own appointed Electoral Commission to support them, their position is extremely difficult. I hope that, on reflection, the Government will recognise the value of preserving that all-party consensus on the arrangements made in future about changes in electoral law, and realise that compromise is needed on this issue, as it will be needed in future when further arguments arise about changes in electoral law and practice.
  Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I, too, shall be brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was right to remind the Minister that there were philosophical disagreements at earlier stages on the Bill about whether there should be compulsory postal voting. Indeed the Minister will recall contributions that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and I made questioning the desirability of having electors sitting at home casting votes at an early stage in an election campaign that totally changed the dynamics of that election campaign. It also added the problem that any people who might be have been convinced by the arguments as the election proceeded would have been unable to change their minds later, because their votes would have already been cast.
  We also both referred to the problem of people simply being at home and not caught up in the civic duty to cast their vote at a polling station—and how that could change the nature of the election. Before we proceed to make such fundamental changes, there needs to be a considered argument. I accept the comments of the Minister that we could at least make

  1187
  an evaluation after pilot schemes have been conducted over whether or not such changes are still desirable. However, many of us remember what happened four years ago when we considered the nature of the European election. We were told that the closed party list system would be reviewed after those elections. That was a monumental change to the way in which we conducted elections in this country. It was a retrograde step, because for the first time it took away the right of a British citizen to be able to cast their vote for a named candidate. Instead they would have had to consider a "take it or leave it" list and vote for a political party. I felt that that was wrong, I spoke against it at the time and I am sorry that we have not had the chance to reflect on the matter, because, like so many of such matters, it will become set in stone—as will compulsory postal voting.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, at earlier stages I pleaded with the Government to try to reach consensus about this issue. For all of us who haw been members of political parties, although looking at the matter now from the purely dispassionate point of view of an independent, it is obvious that if there is no agreement between the political parties about the conduct of an election or electoral systems, there will be misgivings and allegations will be made of unfair practices. It will not matter which party those allegations come from. It will only add to the existing deep public cynicism about the way we conduct politics and will leave people with a bad taste in their mouths. That is in no one's interest.
  So, why is the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, inviting us to take this to the wire? It is surely to be able still to try to find a way of reaching some agreement—not just between the two Houses but between the political parties. That is the best way to proceed on sensitive matters of this kind. No one is impugning the integrity of the Minister, who is one of the most highly respected Members of this House, but the way that we have arrived at this conclusion is highly undesirable.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall be brief, which the House will welcome, so that we may put this matter to the test. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is correct to say that this is not the fifth time that the amendment has been debated, but it is the fifth time that a debate has taken place about whether the north-west should be part of the pilots.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, suggested that only the Labour Party was in favour of this change. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, both the SNP and Plaid Cymru also supported the changes in the last two Commons Divisions.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am saddened, as those parties will be, that it is a cause for mirth. That is sizeism in its extreme.
  I am more used to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and his Benches historical analogies from the 17th century rather than the modern period and I am not sure which of them I know less about. Nevertheless, his
  1188
  comments were regarding whether changing the boundaries was legitimate or not and I shall go no further into the historical record. We are not talking about changing the boundaries, we are simply arguing about whether there is benefit in testing whether all-postal ballots should take place in the north-west in the June elections, given that they will take place in the October elections in any event. It is not the same type of issue.
  Not for the first time, the advice given to the Government by the noble Lord, Lord King, is good. It would not be wise to seek to make changes hastily or rationally, to issues, however relatively technical or trivial—which this matter is, at heart—without seeking to achieve consensus. We have sought that, perhaps laboriously, in our discussions on the Bill. I have sought to set out why we believe there is good reason for balloting in four regions, rather than three.
  Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government had sought consensus. As I understand it, the compromise in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is the only compromise that has been put forward. It appears that the Government's attempt to seek consensus is, in reality, to stick to the ground that they have stuck to previously and on which they have so far failed to persuade the other parties of their view. If the Government fail in that, they need to consider their position carefully.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, no government lightly returns to this House with the frequency that we have on such an issue without considering their position very carefully. We would be fools if we did not do that. But that reflection, and the attempt to put before this House why we believe that there are good reasons for the insistence, is why we have asserted that position. I shall say no more.
  The noble Lord, Lord Alton, signalled that the change in the dynamics of elections was an issue that required careful study. That is exactly why I have affirmed to this House that I want the Electoral Commission and others to take an extremely active role in investigating how such a process works before this House considers any future changes in that respect.
  For those reasons I ask this House not to insist on the amendment to the Commons' wishes.
  Lord Rennard: My Lords, the issues of principle are clear. First, should one party be able to choose a different voting mechanism for different regions in the country that take place in simultaneous elections, according, perhaps, to partisan advantage? Or is there a different way that we should decide such issues? Secondly, should we aim for compromise and consensus? Three is the only mathematical compromise that I can think of between four and two. I invite the House to show that it has purpose and to show the same mettle that it had in 1969. The Minister

  1189
  said that it is a different matter between gerrymandering the boundaries and changing the voting mechanisms. I suggest that both situations are similar and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
  3.57 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1H) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 130.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Addington, L.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Alton of Liverpool, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  King of Bridgwater, L.

  Astor, V.

  Kingsland, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Avebury, L.

  Laing of Dunphail, L.

  Barker, B.

  Laird, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Livsey of Talgarth, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Lyell, L.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Maclennan of Rogart, L.

  Byford, B.

  McNally, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Maddock, B.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Coe, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Condon, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Moynihan, L.

  Cuckney, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Deedes, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Denham, L.

  Newby, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Noakes, B.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Northover, B.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Elles, B.

  Patten, L.

  Erroll, E.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Plumb, L.

  Fearn, L.

  Prior, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Razzall, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Reay, L.

  Fowler, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Rees, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Rees-Mogg, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Renton, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Roper, L. [Teller]

  Greenway, L.

  Russell, E.

  Hamwee, B.

  Russell-Johnston, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Hanningfield, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Higgins, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Hooson, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  1190

  Slim, V.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Tombs, L.

  Steel of Aikwood, L.

  Tope, L.

  Stern, B.

  Trumpington, B.

  Stewartby, L.

  Vinson, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Walker of Worcester, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Alli, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Hylton, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  Jones, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Jordan, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Boothroyd, B.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Laming, L.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Burlison, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Carter, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Chan, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Chorley, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Clark of Windermere, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Morgan, L.

  David, B.

  Morgan of Huyton, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Desai, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Elder, L.

  Orme, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Ouseley, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor

  Paul, L.

  Pendry, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Peston, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Filkin, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Gale, B.

  Radice, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Golding, B.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Grantchester, L.

  Simon, V.

  Greengross, B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Hannay of Chiswick, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Triesman, L.

  Howarth of Breckland, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  1191

  Warner, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill returned to the Commons with a reason.

Energy Bill [H.L.]
4.7 p.m.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Whitty, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Triesman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 217:
After Clause 156, insert the following new clause—
"EXCLUSION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FROM REGISTERS
(1) In section 36 of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44) (register to be kept by GEMA), after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) The Authority may enter the provisions of anything in the register in a manner that excludes, so far as practicable, so much of the details of those provisions as it considers it appropriate to exclude for the purpose of maintaining the confidentiality of—

(a) matters relating to the affairs of an individual the publication of which would or might, in its opinion, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual; and

(b) matters relating specifically to the affairs of a particular body of persons the publication of which would or might, in the Authority's opinion, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that body."

(2) In subsection (2) of that section, after "Subject to" insert "subsection (2A) and to".
(3) For section 49(3) of 1989 Act (matters needing to be excluded so far as practicable from register to be kept by GEMA)—
"(3) The Authority may enter the provisions of anything in the register in a manner that excludes, so far as practicable, so much of the details of those provisions as it considers it appropriate to exclude for the purpose of maintaining the confidentiality of—

(a) matters relating to the affairs of an individual the publication of which would or might, in its opinion, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual; and

(b) matters relating specifically to the affairs of a particular body of persons the publication of which would or might, in the Authority's opinion, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that body.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of the amendment is to deal with a misconsequence in the Utilities Act 2000. A previous provision was interpreted as allowing Ofgem to exclude confidential information from the register which it has to keep under the Electricity Act 1989. The Utilities Act inadvertently repealed that provision, and we are now restoring its effect and extending it to the Gas
1192
Act 1986. The amendment aims to reflect accurately what Ofgem is already doing in practice with regard to excluding confidential information from the register. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 157 [Assistance for areas with high distribution costs]:
Lord Triesman Lord Triesman moved Amendment No. 217A:
Page 120, line 45, leave out "authorised" and insert "relevant"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group are intended to clarify various aspects of the clause and to ensure that the policy intention of replacing the hydrobenefit licence condition is not undermined by future changes in the electricity market. That will maximise the benefit of the scheme to customers in the north of Scotland.
Amendments Nos. 217A and 217G seek to ensure that the recipient of the assistance under the new scheme is the appropriate distribution network operator rather than a future distribution company which, although operating within the same area, will not face the same costs as the intended recipient.
Amendments Nos. 217B and 217C are required to ensure that the new scheme is passed on to suppliers and does not leak away through future charges to generators. An additional amendment—Amendment No. 217D—ensures that individuals are not required to provide information which they could not be compelled to give in evidence in civil proceedings in the High Court or the Court of Session and which would, for obvious reasons, be inappropriate. Amendment No. 217E will oblige Ofgem to enforce the provision, and Amendment No. 217F has been tabled in order to clarify the meaning of a licence holder in this context.
All that was mentioned in Grand Committee, and it is plainly necessary to make those minor amendments to Clause 157. I hope that they will clarify various aspects of the clause and ensure that the policy intention of replacing the hydrobenefit licence condition is not undermined by future changes in the electricity market. As I said, we believe that that will bring significant benefits to the north of Scotland.
Although we stated in Grand Committee that we thought it might be more appropriate to lay the clause as an amendment to the Electricity Act 1989, I should point out that, having looked at the matter in more detail, we now feel that it should remain a free-standing clause within the Energy Bill. That is simply because there is no logical place to locate the clause within the Electricity Act—a point made to us by one or two noble Lords during the Grand Committee stage—and that is what we are attempting to accomplish.
Perhaps I may respond to a question which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Gray, raised yesterday. I apologise for not having heard him do so but I believe that I am accurately informed that he did. The question that he raised was also the subject of a brief debate. I think I am correct in saying that the noble Lord was referring to the hydrobenefit subsidy when he asked about Scottish hydroelectricity and consumers in the north of Scotland. I am pleased to be able to tell the noble

1193
Lord that the Government have no intention of replacing the hydrobenefit licence condition with a levy on consumers in the north of Scotland to the value of £270 million. Indeed, the replacement will benefit consumers in the north of Scotland and will be financed by suppliers across Great Britain. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I wish to acknowledge the statement made by the Minister regarding the subject that I raised last night. I am relieved to hear that there is no question of those who live in the north of Scotland being asked to contribute directly, according to the rumour that I had heard. I am glad to hear that the Government are not changing their present plan on that. Thank you very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Triesman Lord Triesman moved Amendments Nos. 217B to 217G:
Page 121, line 2, leave out "and"
Page 121, line 5, at end insert "and
(c) requires relevant distributors in receipt of a payment under the order to secure, in accordance with the order, that the benefit of the payment is passed to the authorised suppliers supplying electricity in the area of Great Britain in question."
Page 121, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) No person may be required under this section to supply information he could not be compelled to give in evidence in civil proceedings in the High Court or the Court of Session."
Page 121, line 32, leave out subsection (11) and insert—
"( ) Part 1 of the 1989 Act shall have effect as if every requirement or other duty imposed on a licence holder under this section were a relevant requirement within the meaning of that Part (see section 25(8) of that Act)."
Page 121, line 43, at end insert—
""licence holder" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of that Act;"
Page 121, line 44. at end insert—
""relevant distributor" means an authorised distributor who distributes electricity by means of a distributions system to which at least 100,000 premises are connected."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 217GA:
Page 121, line 44, at end insert—
"( ) Section 105 of the Utilities Act 2000 (c. 27) (general restrictions on disclosure of information) shall have effect as if information provided under this section were provided by virtue of the provisions of that Act or the 1989 Act."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 217GA I would like to mention the identical amendment, Amendment No. 217L. That is an amendment to government Amendment No. 217H, which introduces a new clause after Clause 157. I shall move Amendment No. 217L formally at the appropriate time.
The amendment is purely a drafting or technical amendment to correct what appears to be an anomaly or absence of a necessary consequential amendment. The section we are considering contains provisions enabling the Secretary of State to require certain information to be
1194
given to him. That requirement is wholly within the purview of the Bill and not within the purview of either Section 105 of the Utilities Act 2000 or the 1989 Act. Those two Acts provide protection for confidential information received by the Secretary of State in the circumstances laid down in the two well established and well understood Acts.
This is a different concept from the totally distinct issue of protection of legal privilege, which the Government have covered in the Bill. The amendment simply provides that information given under Clause 157 will be treated in the same way as that given under Section 105 of the Utilities Act and the 1989 Act. In due course, if passed, Amendment No. 217H will need to be adjusted in the same way. I repeat that this is purely a drafting amendment with no issue of principle involved. It is proposed only in the interests of consistency. as information given under each of the three pieces of legislation should be treated in exactly the same way, otherwise considerable confusion and disparities might ensue. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am pleased to say that we agree to consider the amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Hendon and Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. We agree that to protect the confidentiality of information provided under the hydrobenefit replacement scheme, Section 105 of the Utilities Act should be applied. We shall return with an amendment to cover that.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that concession or agreement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Triesman Lord Triesman moved Amendment No. 217H:
After Clause 157, insert the following new clause—
"ADJUSTMENT OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES
(1) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section if it appears to him—

(a) that a particular area of Great Britain is suitable as a location for the generation of electricity from renewable sources;

(b) that, as a result, that area represents an area of high potential for the development of the generation of electricity from such sources; and

(c) that that development is likely to be deterred, or otherwise hindered in a material respect, by the level of charges that would (apart from the order) be imposed by authorised transmitters on persons generating electricity in that area from renewable sources.

(2) An order under this section is one that establishes a scheme which—

(a) limits the amounts of charges that authorised transmitters may impose on persons so generating electricity in that area to amounts determined in accordance with provision contained in the scheme; and

(b) requires the charges imposed by the authorised transmitters on authorised suppliers to be adjusted in accordance with the scheme for the purpose of making good shortfalls resulting from that limitation.

(3) An order under this section establishing a scheme in relation to the generation of electricity from renewable sources in a particular area must specify the area.
(4) For the purpose of facilitating the implementation of a scheme an order under this section may make such modifications as the Secretary of State considers appropriate of the conditions of the licences of authorised transmitters and of authorised suppliers.
(5) For the purpose of carrying out the functions conferred on him by or under this section the Secretary of State may require—

(a) an authorised supplier,

(b) an authorised distributor, or

(c) an authorised transmitter,
to supply him, in a specified form and within a specified time, with information of a specified description.

(6) No person may be required under subsection (5) to supply information he could not be compelled to give in evidence in civil proceedings in the High Court or the Court of Session.
(7) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as he considers appropriate.
(8) Subsection (7) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the commencement of this section.
(9) Where a scheme in relation to the generation of electricity from renewable sources within a particular area is in force, no scheme shall be established in relation to the generation of electricity from renewable sources outside that area.
(10) A scheme shall not be applied in relation to a time more than ten years after the commencement of this section.
(11) A scheme—

(a) shall not be applied for a period of more than five years; but

(b) subject to subsection (10), may be renewed at any time by a further order under this section for a period of no more than five years from the coming into force of the further order.

(12) Part 1 of the 1989 Act shall have effect as if every requirement or other duty imposed on a licence holder under this section were a relevant requirement within the meaning of that Part (see section 25(8) of that Act).
(13) In this section—
"authorised distributor" and "authorised supplier" have the same meanings as in Part 1 of the 1989 Act;
"authorised transmitter" means a person authorised by a licence under section 6(1)(b) of that Act to participate in the transmission of electricity;
"licence" means a licence for the purposes of section 4 of that Act;
"licence holder" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of that Act;
"renewable sources" means sources of energy in relation to which the following condition is satisfied, namely, that the production of evidence in respect of electricity generated from those sources is capable of satisfying a renewables obligation imposed by an order under section 32 of that Act (obligation in respect of electricity generated from renewable sources);
"scheme" means a scheme established by an order under this section.
(14) An order under this section is subject to the negative resolution procedure."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 217H is a response to an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller of Hendon, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 217HA, 217J and 217K tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, as well as
1196
Amendment No. 217L, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Hendon and Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may make the case for those amendments before the Minister speaks to them.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I shall speak to my amendment and the noble Lord will have a place in the running order to speak to the other amendments. I do not wish to curtail his desire to do that. I was trying to be helpful about the whole group.
The government amendment would provide the Secretary of State with the power to adjust transmission charges for renewable generators within a single area shown to be of high renewable potential where there is evidence that an unadjusted transmission charge might have a material impact on the future renewable build.
The order, if made, could last for 10 years and would be reviewable after five years. The Government would use the power only if there is evidence that it is needed. It would be used to set a threshold and to set a discount on the difference between the threshold and the charge that would otherwise apply. Only renewable generators within the specified area would be eligible for the dispensation.
We tabled this amendment because we believe that it may be necessary to make provision for renewable generators facing the highest transmission charges in the outlying areas of Scotland where there is considerable renewable energy potential. Although the Government are committed to cost-reflecting charging, the fact that the renewables industry is not yet mature means that the impact of high transmission charges could be of concern. The amendment could help to ensure that the Government's renewable targets are not put in any jeopardy. I believe that many noble Lords will agree with us on this point. That was the intent behind Amendment No. 113ZL, which was tabled in Committee.
This may be the moment to pause to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I shall then resume the sequence on the other amendments. Otherwise, we may get into a rather confused debate. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 217H, Amendment No. 217HA,:
Line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—
"( ) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must publish a draft of the scheme he is minded to establish, together with an impact assessment of the cost of the scheme including its impact on charges for electricity supplied to customers in Great Britain, and must consult such persons, including suppliers in Great Britain, as will be affected by the scheme.
( ) The Secretary of State must publish, for each year after the making of an order under this section, an annual report on the ongoing costs of the scheme established by the order, including the impact of those costs on the charges for electricity supplied to customers in Great Britain in that year."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 217HA, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. I am most grateful to

1197
the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, for following the more usual practice that the proposer of an amendment may make his case before it is answered.
We first heard of this new subsidy for high transmission costs for renewables in remote areas at the end of an otherwise long speech by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, on 12 February. I have to say that from that moment it exploded into an issue of acrimonious public controversy. The Financial Times of 14 February, under the headline, "Regulator hits at subsidies for remote wind farms", stated:
"Ofgem, the energy regulator, has attacked government plans to subsidise transmission costs for wind farms in remote areas as `unnecessary and misguided"'
Having seen that, I asked Ofgem for a copy of the full statement. I was sent it. I shall quote a couple of brief passages from it. It states:
"To amend the Energy Bill in this way is unnecessary and misguided. It would mean that renewable generators will pay less to transmit their electricity than traditional generators. A great deal is already being done to encourage renewable generation. The Renewables Obligation alone is worth about £45 extra for every megawatt hour of electricity produced. This is providing additional financial support of at least £485 million to the renewables industry this year alone".
It continues:
"There is no evidence that further investment in renewable sources of electricity would result from a further subsidy of this sort".
And then lower down it states:
"If the Government proceeds in this way it will represent an unwelcome move away from the principles of cost-reflective charging for transmitting generation".
At the time I said that I thought it was an almost unparalleled attack on the Government from a regulator. When we raised the issue after the February Recess, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—I am sorry not to see him in his place—produced a surprising reaction. Although 10 days had elapsed since that first statement was issued, he said:
"The row may have been very public, but until I came into the Room I was not aware of it".—[Official Report, 24/2/04; col. GC 56.]
I hope there are some red faces in the DTI. I fancy that it is one of the major crimes to send a Minister into a debate without having drawn his attention to hostile press criticism.
We then had a letter dated 17 March from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in which he explained what the amendment was about. First, he said, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has said, there is an order-making power to "adjust" that is a weasel word if ever there was one; what they mean is that it is going to "reduce"—the charges that are charged by transmission companies to renewable generators,
"within a single area shown to be of high renewable energy potential and where there is evidence indicating that unadjusted"—
that is to say, unreduced—
"transmission charges might materially impact on renewable generation build".
1198
But the noble Lord went on to say:
"The costs resulting from such a scheme would be spread across GB supply companies".
That was his first point.
The second was that much of the detail—as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has said—as to how the calculation will be done is not to be included on the face of the Bill. So we have to wait for that. Thirdly, he said that,
"we have not yet concluded on the definite need to exercise this provision, or the exact area to which any provision would relate".
Fourthly, he said,
"that the likely area will be the Highlands and Islands of Scotland".
Fifthly, he said that the order will be subject only to the negative resolution procedure,
"as the measure is technical in nature and relatively narrow in scope".
The fact that it has given rise to such vocal controversy in the press would seem hardly to justify that statement.
So, one has to ask: why is Ofgem so bitterly opposed to what the Government are proposing here? I have a three-page note, but in the interests of trying to achieve our target for the next business, I shall summarise it in five short sentences. First, the transmission charges are and should remain cost reflective; that is to say, the charges should reflect the generators' use of the system.
Secondly, it says that it is important that new generators should face cost-reflective charges. It argues the basic economic arguments that there can then be trade-offs for different costs and benefits; for instance, environmental and economic objectives. A subsidy blunts these economic signals and distorts investment.
Thirdly, it argues that transmission companies estimate that they are already spending about £400 million over three years to accommodate growth in renewables. So, there is already a significant cost to consumers, perhaps of the order of £25 million that would be passed on in electricity charges to consumers. Fourthly, as a result of this DTI proposal, generators in the chosen area will not pay cost-reflective charges while other generators, including renewable generators outside the area, will pay.
Perhaps I may sum up the Ofgem argument as follows:
"With the RO set to generate subsidies in the range of £485 million this year there is no evidence that extra subsidy through capping transmission charges will lead to more investment. It risks promoting an inefficient and uneconomic electricity system".
I find that a very persuasive case. It is the Ofgem case and it needs to be heard. It has one great advantage: cost-reflective charges are open and transparent. It is easy then to calculate what the cost is and how it is passed through to customers' bills.
For those reasons I must say that I was very tempted to oppose this new clause. However, I have also considered very carefully the defence given by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in Grand Committee, which has been reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, suggested that,
"trade-offs between environmental and economic objectives are ultimately for government and for Parliament".—[Official Report, 1/3/04; col. GC 151.]
I also find that a persuasive argument.
So, the case comes down to our old friend "transparency". If there is to be a subsidy, we must know in advance what it is going to cost; how the cost is to be borne and by whom; and what is the additional burden that will fall on consumers' Bills.
That brings me to my amendments. Amendment 217HA would omit subsections (7) and (8) of the Government's amendment, which are wholly inadequate for the purposes I have outlined. It would impose on the Government instead a duty to publish a draft scheme to include an impact statement about the costs that will be incurred and the impact of those costs on charges to consumers, and then to consult the people affected, including suppliers, on the draft scheme. The second paragraph of the amendment states that there should be an annual report on the ongoing costs, including the impact on consumers' charges. That seems to me to be the least that is required if we are to have transparency about the new subsidy.
Amendment No. 217J is probing: to ask whether the Government are really expecting to use the power only once; whether there will be only one area, the Highlands and Islands, and, if so, why.
I tabled Amendment No. 217K because I believe that this scheme must be subject to proper parliamentary approval and that that requires an affirmative, not a negative procedure. This is not a narrow technical issue, as was stated in the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, of 17 March. It is a major departure and, as such, when the scheme is proposed it should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I need not mention Amendment No. 217L, which has already been spoken to by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon.
This is a new and self-evidently controversial subsidy. Before we can accept the new clause, we must ensure transparency and consultation, especially on costs; we must ensure that there are regular statements about the cost to the consumer; we must safeguard confidential information; and the scheme must be subject to the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for introducing the amendment, with which I wholly agree. The government amendment would add a capital grant to a particular scheme, which is not what the renewables obligation is about,
1200
it is about supplying a given or projected number of renewable units. To that extent, it is contrary to the renewables obligation.
I took particular exception to subsection (8) of the government amendment, which provides that consultation,
"that took place wholly or partly before the commencement of the section",
would suffice. That is wholly wrong for any scheme as dramatic as this. Unusually—for the first time in my experience—I agree with Ofgem. That may be as welcome to it as it is to me. It has it right: it is quite wrong to use such a device to further the ends of what would otherwise be uneconomic renewable development—uneconomic, that is, given the level of subsidy provided for all other forms of wind and other renewable generation.
The Government obviously feel some unease, because they have tabled a sunset clause for 10 years and provided for a review at five years. The Minister is seeking to tread in areas in which he has little confidence and is using a sledgehammer to take the power to crack a hypothetical nut. If the nut exists, which is far from certain, it ought to be dealt with by proper consultation and by bringing a measure before the House. I support the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, an enormous sum of money is at stake here that will be paid for by consumers of electricity. Should such a sum be added to income tax, there would be outrage, but the Minister suggests introducing the scheme by negative resolution and an order. That is my objection, laudable as it is for those who want to generate in the Highlands and Islands in that way. So my noble friend's amendment is highly desirable.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I definitely support my noble friend's amendment. He has explained it extraordinarily well. We are in a difficult position and I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, said about the main amendment, Amendment No. 217H. I also take the point made by my noble friend about what appears to be government policy. I have taken soundings around the industry and it is not upset about it. The industry is relatively satisfied with the amendment and those in Scotland feel that it would be a disaster if it were not placed on the statute book.
I do not want this to sound like a threat, because it is not meant to be but, having said that, I should find it practically impossible to support the government amendment without my noble friend's amendment to it. Because the issue is so complicated; because the sums of money involved are so great; because the scheme runs counter to everything we have ever believed in about charges being cost-reflective, and so on, it is only right that it should be transparent. The Government are obliged to tell us what is necessary. I hope that the Minister will agree, but in my opinion he should be pleased and want to do that. If not, the scheme is very difficult for us to accept.

1201
As for it being introduced by negative instrument, that would be lunacy—that is not parliamentary language, so I withdraw it immediately; it would be very foolish. This is an important matter that should return to the House for discussion.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, a variety of arguments have been adduced during the debate. I must confess immediately that in Grand Committee, I was as surprised as my noble friend Lord Whitty. Although I had caught a glimpse of one article in the Financial Times, eminent newspaper although it is and a great favourite of mine, and was aware that the chief executive of Ofgem had raised the issue that led to that article, it was not immediately apparent to me that there was such widespread disquiet in the industry as has been suggested this afternoon.
Ofgem is an independent regulator and has its role as such, but it is surely the Government's job to take into account wider energy objectives than Ofgem is asked to consider and to legislate if necessary. Those are not the functions of Ofgem. Yesterday, opposition Members moved an amendment to give the Secretary of State power to cap all transmission charges. The Government are taking that power, but only when it is necessary to protect the Government's energy objectives, otherwise leaving charges as set by the National Grid. That is surely the appropriate and proportionate response.
Let me say at once that the Government expect to use that power for only one area, as matters stand. That area is not chosen for random geographical reasons, but because it is characterised by having a high renewables potential and being otherwise liable to be subjected to high transmission charges. In our view, those criteria at present fit only the Highlands and Islands—there may be areas with similar characteristics in the north of Scotland, but we are discussing a fairly circumscribed geographical area because of the criteria, not because of the geography.
If I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, there is plainly some difficulty in meeting the twin objectives of ensuring that the north of Scotland is not subject to unusually high charges, which most of the residents of that area would find extremely oppressive, but, on the other hand, not making provision that takes account of those requirements. That is why I am slightly surprised by what has been said.
We believe that transmission charging should be cost-reflective, that the scheme should incorporate that aspect, but it will obviously dilute the costs that will be borne by consumers. We think that that is justified where the renewables industry is being established—broadly speaking, it is still in the process of being established; I do not think that anyone could say that it is fully fledged. We think that 10 years is
1202
sufficient to enable the industry to become established and do not believe that an ongoing concession on transmission charges should be required. The sums involved are not likely to be very large, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, fears. It applies only to renewable generators connected to the transmission system not the distributary system, and only in a specified area. It will be recovered from suppliers of Great Britain as a whole, a point that I made in my earlier introduction to the first part of the Government's statement.
I do not intend to make a long statement, but I recognise the seriousness with which some noble Lords have put their points, including the observation by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, about the rare occurrence of his agreement with Ofgem. I am glad to have been present to celebrate it with him.
Amendment No. 217K produces a scheme, such as that which I have tried to describe, to operate in more than one single area. Amendment No. 217J seeks to make the order effective through an affirmative resolution, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord has got it the wrong way round: Amendment No. 217J is about the area while Amendment No. 217K is about negative or affirmative resolutions. I just wanted to help the noble Lord.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I appreciate that. All help is gratefully received, particularly in some of these groupings.
The Government have no wish to fast-track proper parliamentary scrutiny where that should occur; it is simply that parliamentary time is finite and the demands upon it great. Although there are no hard and fast rules for the types of orders that should be made through an affirmative or negative resolution, because the measure is technical and relatively narrow in scope—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, does not agree with that, but it remains the case—precedent would suggest that the negative resolution procedure is the right level of parliamentary scrutiny for this type of measure. I therefore ask that the amendment be not moved.
In tabling our own amendment which would allow for a dispensation on transmission charges for some renewable generators, we were very careful to ensure that that power would be limited to a single area of high renewable energy potential where transmission charges might have a material impact—as they plainly could, in the north of Scotland—on renewable generation build. I shall not repeat the geographical issues, as those points were made with great power and eloquence in Grand Committee by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Gray, when considering the importance of protecting people in the north of Scotland from unreasonable and unrealistic charging. As we said in Committee, our current intention is to specify an area and to meet those concerns. It is right to do so.

1203
It is important that the transmission system is built and charged for in a cost-reflective way. The only legitimate exception to that argument is where that could have a material impact on renewable targets. For that reason, I ask that Amendment No. 217K be not moved.
On Amendment No. 217HA, I welcome the interest that several noble Lords have shown in this regard. We broadly agree with the sentiments expressed; of course the Government must produce a draft proposal on any scheme and consult widely upon it before laying it before Parliament. Equally, the Government will produce a full regulatory impact assessment of the scheme—I give that undertaking. I welcome the intention behind this amendment, but the matter is adequately covered by the government-drafted amendment.
The second part of Amendment No. 217HA, however, would require the Government to produce an annual report on the cost of the scheme to consumers. The cost of the scheme will be set out in the impact assessment. We do not believe that it is necessary to go further and to produce an annual report, as we do not expect the impact on individual customers to vary substantially from year to year. It is worth remembering that the order would be reviewable after five years, at which point the costs and benefits of the scheme will be reviewed. On that basis, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn. I reiterate the point that I made in Grand Committee: the intention is perfectly intelligible but the solution to it is disproportionate.
I shall now respond to Amendment No. 217HL. As in the case of hydrobenefit, we have already considered the amendment, and I undertook, when the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, moved the amendment about protecting confidentiality, to consider it properly before the next stage. I thank noble Lords for raising the issue. It fits in particularly well with the set of the amendments that I have addressed.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has done his best to help us. I am grateful for his undertakings about the form of consultation. However, I cannot for the life of me see why he should resist including them in the Bill. This is a new proposal for a new subsidy, and it requires thorough consultation.
The provision that I have set out in Amendment No. 217HA is the minimum that should be required for such an issue. I do not believe that what the noble Lord has said will meet the case. I am sorry that he seems so startled. Does he not recognise that the paper prepared by Ofgem has spelt out some very strong arguments? I was very tempted that we should accept them, but I recognise the point made by the noble Lord today and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in Grand Committee that in the last resort it is for government and Parliament to set the balance between economic and environmental objectives. I recognise that the
1204
Government are trying to do that, but we need these amendments, or some of them at any rate, written into the Bill. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 217HA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 217H, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 146; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Astor, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jopling, L.

Attlee, E.

Kimball, L.

Avebury, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Barker, B.

Kingsland, L.

Blaker, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

Lane of Horsell, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Brooke borough, V.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Byford, B.

Lucas, L.

Caithness, E.

Luke, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Coe, L.

McNally, L.

Colwyn, L.

Maddock, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Courtown, E.

Mar, C

Craig of Radley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Craigavon, V.

Marlesford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cuckney, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Denham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dholakia, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Naseby, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Noakes, B.

Elles, B.

Northesk, E.

Elton, L.

Northover, B.

Erroll, E

Norton of Louth, L.

Ezra, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Fearn, L.

Onslow, E.

Fookes, B.

Palmer, L.

Fowler, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Freeman, L.

Patten, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peel, E.

Geddes, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Glentoran, L.

Plumb, L.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Goschen, V.

Reay, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rennard, L.

Greaves, L.

Renton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Hanham, B.

Rogan, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Roper, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Higgins, L.

Russell, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hooper, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Howe, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sandberg, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sharples, B.

1205

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Tope, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Trumpington, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vinson, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Waddington, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Wakeham, L.

Stewartby, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Walmsley, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Walpole, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tombs, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hoyle, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Alli, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Andrews, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jones, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jordan, L.

Barnett, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Kirkhill, L

Berkeley, L.

Laming, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bhatia, L.

Lipsey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Boothroyd, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Borne, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brookman, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Burlison, L.

Marsh, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Christopher, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mitchell, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Monson, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morgan, L.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

David, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Orme, L.

Dixon, L.

Ouseley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Parekh, L.

Elder, L.

Patel, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pendry, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Peston, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Radice, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gale, B.

Rea, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Golding, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goudie, B.

Sheldon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon, V.

Grantchester, L.

Slim, V.

Greengross, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Smith of Leigh, L.

Haskel, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Thornton, B.

1206

Tomlinson, L.

Whitaker, B.

Triesman, L.

Wilkins, B.

Turner of Camden, B. Warner, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 217HA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 217H, agreed to accordingly.
4.57 p.m.
[Amendment No. 217J not moved.]
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 217K:
Line 71, leave out "negative" and insert "affirmative"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 217K) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Goschen, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Greaves, L.

Astor, V.

Hamwee, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hanham, B.

Attlee, E.

Hanningfield, L.

Avebury, L,

Harris of Richmond, B.

Barker, B.

Higgins, L.

Biffen, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Blaker, L.

Hooper, B.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

Howe, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Byford, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Caithness, E.

Hunt of Wirrall, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jopling, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Kimball, L.

Colwyn, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Kingsland, L.

Courtown, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Craigavon, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Cuckney, L.

Luke, L.

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Dholakia, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dundee, E.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

McNally, L.

Elles, B.

Maddock, B.

Elton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Erroll, E.

Mar, C

Ezra, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Fearn, L.

Marlesford, L.

Fookes, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Fowler, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Freeman, L.

Methuen, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Geddes, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Glentoran, L.

Noakes, B.

Goodhart, L.

Northbrook, L.

1207

Northesk, E.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Onslow, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Palmer, L.

Stewartby, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Peel, E.

Swinfen, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Razzall, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Reay, L.

Tombs, L.

Rees, L.

Tope, L.

Renton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rogan, L.

Ullswater, V.

Roper, L,

Vinson, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Waddington, L.

Russell, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Wakeham, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sandberg, L.

Walmsley, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Walpole, L.

Sharples, B.

Weatherill, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Haskel, L.

Alli, L.

Hayman, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Andrews, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Barnett, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Borrie, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jones, L.

Brookman, L.

Jordan, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Burlison, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Christopher, L.

Laming, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

David, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Marsh, L.

Desai, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dixon, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Donoughue, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Elder. L.

Mishcon, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Monson, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Morgan, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Parekh, L.

Gale, B.

Patel, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Golding, B.

Pendry, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Peston, L.

Goudie, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grantchester, L.

Radice, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Rea, L.

1208

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Sawyer, L.

Thornton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Sheldon, L.

Triesman, L.

Simon, V.

Turner of Camden,

Slim, V.

Warner, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Whitaker, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

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

Children Bill [H.L.]
5.8 p.m
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to be here today to speak about the Government's ambitious agenda for reforming children's services and the important role that the Children Bill will play in those reforms.
The Green Paper, Every Child Matters, and the consultation response, Every Child Matters: Next Steps, which we published at the same time as the Bill, build on the successes and failures of the current arrangements. They build on the report by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié. They build on the significant amount of work that the Government have started, to support children and families and reduce child poverty, through programmes such as Sure Start, Quality Protects and Connexions. They build on innovative practice at local level to bring programmes and services together. They set out our vision to improve life chances for all children and young people, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable, including those who are disabled; those who are cared for by the local authority or are otherwise outside their immediate families; those who have experienced changes in their family circumstances, perhaps through bereavement; or those at risk of abuse or violence.
This is a long-term vision for radical reform. We want to move beyond individual initiatives, however successful, towards a system where universal and specialist services work more effectively together to maximise opportunities and minimise risks for all children and young people. We want to focus on better prevention so that support can be offered early, when it is needed, in a way that responds to the needs of children and their parents and carers.
The work that we are now taking forward, including the Children Bill, has been informed by feedback received from children, young people and adults during the consultation on Every Child Matters. The

1209
consultation revealed wide support for our vision. We received some 1,500 responses from adults and organisations and more than 3,000 responses from children and young people.
Respondents told us that change needed to be inclusive, flexible and well managed. We were reminded that we must recognise the critical role of parents, carers, families and communities in securing the well-being of children, and that one of the great strengths of the system is the way that voluntary and community organisations work alongside the statutory sector in providing support to children and their families. Above all, children and young people said that they wanted to be listened to and to have a clear say.
It is the central thrust of the legislation, and of the wider reforms, that children and young people should be at the centre of our policies. The Children Bill embeds in legislation, as a shared set of goals for all who work with children, the outcomes which children themselves have told us are most important: that is, being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution, and achieving economic well-being.
We have listened carefully to the messages from the consultation respondents and have worked closely with a wide range of stakeholders to draw up the provisions before noble Lords today. The Children Bill is largely enabling legislation that is designed to be a catalyst for improving local partnership and effective practice around children's needs. It is prescriptive only where we believe that this is necessary to ensure accountability or to protect children's welfare.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is the best approach to ensure a long term and effective process of transformational change. This legislation has the wellbeing of children and young people at its heart. It establishes a clear voice for children and young people and draws together strong local partnerships around better outcomes, with a tighter focus on safeguarding children, clear lines of accountability and a focus on continuing improvement.
The first part of the Bill makes provision for the establishment of a Children's Commissioner for England who will be a clear voice for children and young people. This will be a powerful, independent position. The commissioner will be charged with representing the views and interests of children and young people and with reporting to Parliament against the outcomes that we have affirmed. The commissioner should engage with all sectors to help to make us a more child-focused society. An investigatory or case-work based role in a country of 11.7 million children would lead to an unmanageable workload. But it will be the role of the commissioner to ensure that complaints procedures are accessible and effective to handle such cases, and to influence at a strategic level the opportunities available to children and young people.
When the NSPCC consulted children on Every Child Matters it found that many want a commissioner who understands and relates to them and who genuinely cares about them. Above all, they want a
1210
commissioner who really listens to them. The commissioner will be free to investigate and report on all areas of the lives of children and young people, including the media and business.
We recognise the important context provided by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Bill reflects that. However, the commissioner will be guided by what children and young people say to him or her, not by what adults—however well meaning—think children want. He or she will be the Children's Commissioner, not the Government's or the lobby's commissioner.
The logic of the devolution settlement means that the commissioner will report on non-devolved issues as they affect children and young people across the whole of the United Kingdom. He or she will work closely with the commissioners in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that their views and experience are taken into account.
The second part of the Bill sets out the legislative measures that we are taking to improve support for children and young people at the local level. We have worked closely with a wide range of stakeholders, including the voluntary sector and local government representatives, to make sure that our provisions ensure that the new package of duties and powers places children's needs at the heart of local planning and delivery. The provisions recognise the roles of the whole range of agencies and organisations—including criminal justice agencies and the voluntary and community sector—in working together to improve the well-being of children. They allow flexibility in the way that better integrated services are developed in response to local priorities, while ensuring that there are clear lines of accountability.
The Local Government Association has described our proposals as setting the scene for a
"radical change that will improve the wellbeing of all children and ensure greater protection for the most vulnerable".
Partnership working is at the heart of our reforms. Clause 6 embeds better outcomes as the focus of new duties on agencies to co-operate to improve the wellbeing of children and young people. These agencies include health bodies, the police and probation services, Connexions and the Learning and Skills Council, all of which have important contributions to make. It is crucial to engage non-statutory organisations from the voluntary and community sectors, and to ensure that young people and their parents have a say. The clause therefore looks to local authorities to ensure representation from other bodies that work with children and young people locally.
The clause also supports the development of children's trusts, placing decision making in the hands of strong local partnerships able to commission services on a fair and contestable basis against a shared assessment of the needs of local children, their parents and carers. The new pooling power in Clause 6 enables local authorities, primary care trusts and other agencies, such as Connexions and youth offending teams, where agreed locally to pool their budgets more flexibly through children's trusts.

1211
The fundamental purpose of these formal partnership duties is to encourage more flexible and accessible services to meet local needs. Services will be increasingly co-located through children's centres and extended schools. That will be supported by the reforms that we are taking forward outside legislation in order to improve effective working practices across professional boundaries with a common assessment framework and increasing use of lead professionals to develop a relationship of trust with a child and to link him or her, as necessary, to multi-agency support.
While working to improve outcomes for children across the board, we must however have a very clear focus on safety. All agencies must play their part. Therefore, Clause 7 places duties on agencies to ensure that in exercising their normal functions they have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. That duty strengthens the expectation that where a professional in one service area is concerned about a child, he or she will speak to others who can help to find out if there is a problem and take action if necessary.
To ensure better protection, the Bill makes provision for new statutory local safeguarding children boards reflecting a specific recommendation made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who highlighted inconsistency in the work of area child protection committees. The new boards will ensure the quality of local arrangements for safeguarding, including staff training, local planning and needs assessment. The Bill ensures that all relevant statutory agencies must be members of the boards and that other important agencies are able to participate, particularly those voluntary organisations which play such an important role in safeguarding children.
Some of the most vulnerable children in our society can be those who, for whatever reason, do not live with their parents but are cared for by the local authority or through private fostering arrangements. Clause 36 responds to strong messages from the consultation by taking provisions to strengthen the current arrangements for notification of private fostering, with the power, if necessary, to move to a formal registration scheme.
As the noble Lord, Lord Laming, stated in his report into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, it is imperative that we ensure a clear line of accountability for children's services and strong leadership within them. Clause 13 provides for a new post of Director of Children's Services. This will establish a single point of accountability for a local authority's education and children's social services functions. Directors will play a leading role in making partnership arrangements, driving joint working and transformational change on the ground. They will be well placed to drive action on some of the deep-seated problems around the interface between education and social care.
For example, noble Lords will be all too well aware from the report of the Social Exclusion Unit of our collective failure to improve the life chances of looked-after children. These are children and young people for whom the state acts as corporate parent. It is crucial that we ensure that we are giving them the educational tools
1212
they will need to succeed as adults. Clause 43 places a particular duty on local education authorities to promote their educational achievement.
Local political leadership is equally important to these changes. The Bill also provides for a lead council member for children's services, to secure the profile of children's services at the local political level. We expect most authorities to have a director and lead member, and a children's trust, in place by 2006, and all by 2008.
These important reforms of children's services locally will be supported by the new integrated inspection framework and joint area reviews, for which provisions are taken in Clauses 15 to 19. The measures in Clauses 41 and 42 to bring the intervention powers for social services in line with those for education will allow a co-ordinated approach to be taken in response to service failure where other support measures have not been successful.
I am particularly pleased by the great progress that Ofsted and the other inspectorates have made in working together to turn the integrated inspection proposals into a reality. As Denise Platt, chair of the Commission for Social Care Inspection, said recently:
"We are tackling the same challenges that services have to grapple with, of working together constructively. We have had to unpack the fine words and make a reality of them and we have done this—and will continue to do so—by putting children and families at the centre of all we do".
That is what this package of reforms is all about—ensuring that services co-ordinate themselves around the outcomes for children, placing children and their families at the centre of all they do.
I turn now to the issue of sharing information between agencies and professionals. This is something which we would all agree is crucial to effective joint working and to the ability of professionals properly to understand the needs of the children with whom they work. The responses to the Every Child Matters consultation showed a broad consensus that sharing information about children is a vital aspect of safeguarding children and ensuring that they thrive.
The appropriate and responsible sharing of information is something that practitioners make judgments about all the time. It is a part of their jobs. We know that there are concerns about when it is appropriate to share information and often it is difficult for practitioners to get past even the first hurdle of finding out who else has an interest in the welfare or well-being of a child. So the measures we are taking are about supporting people who work with children in exercising their professional judgment. We will make clear that an intrinsic part of fulfilling the duties to co-operate to improve the well-being of children set out in Clause 6, and to safeguard and promote their welfare, set out in Clause 7, is the sharing of information when a professional judges that doing so will contribute to those aims.
Additionally, in Clause 8 we are taking measures to enable the establishment of databases to support and enable effective information-sharing between professionals and services, so that children and young people can get quicker and easier access to the specialist services they need. I cannot stress enough, however, that the IT system will

1213
support professional judgment, not replace it. It will not remove the need for professionals to talk to each other. It will help them to do so more confidently and more effectively.
The database record would be accessible only to practitioners working with the child who need the information to do their jobs. It will not hold case information from a child's files, but the minimum core of information that will enable professionals to establish links—such as the child's name, address, the name of their GP and school or other educational setting, the contact details of any specialist services dealing with the child and the fact that any practitioner has a concern about the child.
So where, for example, a health worker had a concern about a child, they would take any appropriate action in their own area of practice, but would also be able readily to see which other practitioners were involved with that child. In one place they would be able to find the details of a social worker involved with the child or to discover that a housing officer had recorded a concern. They could then quickly confer with those other professionals to identify the child's overall needs and how best to meet them.
It is crucial to get details such as access arrangements and technical specifications right. To do this we need to be informed by experience. As well as learning from the pilots under way in 15 local authorities, we are also seeking expert technical advice. To allow for this work to be done, we think it is right for many of these details to be set out in secondary legislation. But we also recognise that these technical details are sensitive and deserve proper scrutiny by the House. With this in mind we have ensured that they are subject to the affirmative resolution procedures. We are also mindful of the comments made last week by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Ahead of the Committee stage, we will consider what further detail we might practically include on the face of the Bill.
I turn now to the implications of this Bill for Wales. Under the devolution settlement, health and social care are matters devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. The Assembly shares our commitment to children and young people, and in particular to safeguarding the most vulnerable. It has developed an approach that takes account of their needs and the different policies, priorities, local structures and management arrangements in Wales.
Clauses 20 to 27, in accordance with the devolution settlement, make separate provision for Wales for those matters found in Clauses 6 to 14 in Part 2. Clause 21, in particular, contains unique Welsh provisions regarding the appointment and designation of lead directors and members for children and young people's services by local authorities. The clauses also provide for the appointment and nomination of lead executive and non-executive directors and members by local health boards and NHS trusts. The lead directors and members will be tasked with taking forward those arrangements for planning in partnership to ensure that they act as strategic drivers for
1214
action. The Assembly will be discussing with local authorities the most appropriate way of implementing these requirements.
In line with changes at government level, Clauses 28 to 35 contain the arrangements necessary to transfer the functions of CAFCASS, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, for children ordinarily resident in Wales to the Assembly.
This Children Bill is an important first step in a long-term programme of reforms, to which this Government are deeply committed. Our commitment was underlined recently by the Budget, which means a real-terms average annual growth between 2004–05 and 2007–08 of 3.8 per cent in the children's services baseline for local authorities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be making further detailed announcements in due course to support the children's reform package. We can already point to the allocation of a further £669 million by 2008 to Sure Start, ensuring that by 2008 there will be 1,700 children's centres covering the country's 20 per cent poorest wards.
But while the Government have recognised the need for further investment, the reforms are also importantly about the more effective use of existing resources. To a great extent, our proposals have been inspired by innovative practice on the ground and the enterprise of dedicated practitioners to work together to adopt a more child-centred approach. The whole purpose of this Bill is to embed these approaches consistently across the nation. We are not seeking change for change's sake, but to develop a shared national programme of change that will have far-reaching implications for all children and young people.
We are being rightly ambitious, but from the enthusiasm that has met this vision I am confident that this Bill puts us on course for a generational step change in the quality of help we give to maximise opportunity and minimise risk for every child and young person. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
5.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to begin the debate by thanking the Minister for introducing the Bill with her customary clarity. I am sure we all share the sense that today's Second Reading is an important event—important for the many children and families who we trust will benefit from its provisions, and important, too, for those individuals in the public and voluntary sectors who are tasked with delivering the services upon which those children and families can so often depend.
This is a Bill which is, at heart, about finding better ways of doing what we already do. If it is legitimate to speak of anything good springing out of the death of little Victoria Climbié, I am sure that we all hope that the Bill and the new forms of professionalism that we all want to see emerging from it will be those good things.

1215
Quite apart from our memories of Victoria Climbié, we need be in no doubt that change has to happen. The statistics of misery, injury and death in young children cannot to any feeling person simply be figures on a page. They are just too shocking in what they tell us. It is an appalling fact that every week of the year at least one child dies as the result of cruelty by an adult. Of all the rapes that take place in this country, a quarter are rapes of children.
I am sure that we all know parents who are exceedingly protective of their children and are afraid to let them go out unaccompanied for fear of what might happen to them. Feeling protective towards one's children is an entirely understandable emotion but in fact, if we look at the harm that befalls children, abductions and abuse by strangers form only a small percentage of the total. Most child abuse is committed by someone the child knows well—often, although not always of course, within the close family.
It is very often the case, so the NSPCC tell us, that the abuse is suspected by another adult who could have done something to prevent it. Without any doubt, a great deal of abuse is hidden and never discovered. In the face of such awful truths we have a duty to keep asking ourselves how we can do better.
Over the years, successive governments have put measures in place aimed at improving the welfare of children, the main landmark of the past 20 years being the Children Act 1989. I am proud of that Act but 15 years' experience have, I think, pointed up one or two weaknesses within it. The present Government have built upon the Children Act in useful ways, not least by strengthening the statutory duties of local education authorities and schools in the Education Act 2002. They have also set about strengthening the various inspectorates, in tandem with the new and welcome quality agendas which extend from the NHS into schools and social services.
And yet, as the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, emphatically brought home to us, none of this has been enough. Over the past 30 years there have been at least 30 inquiries into cases of child deaths known to social services. Every single one of them has spoken of the need for better communication and joined-up working in child protection. None of them has had any noticeable effect. That is why there is a general consensus that this time, in the wake of the Climbié case, things really do have to be different. The emphatic language used by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was a wake-up call to that end.
Against this backdrop, the Bill before us represents a fantastic opportunity, and I can reassure the Minister by saying that there is much in it that we can welcome. One of the things I welcome most of all is the language of the Bill, which moves us away from the relatively narrow canvas of child protection onto the much wider canvas of children's well-being and support for parents and families. A wider canvas of this kind inevitably means a more ambitious agenda and, for some people, a change of culture. But there is an enabling tone about the Bill which I think is very positive. In one or two areas where the Government might have been overly prescriptive, they have drawn back.
1216
But there is also, I would suggest, an obvious general principle that we should work to as we debate the Bill. That is that new structures and new processes, necessary as we may think they are, are no substitute for good professional judgment and high quality people, in the right numbers, on the ground. In bringing us the Bill I know the Minister means business and I am sure her colleagues in the department do as well. But none of us should allow ourselves to think that, on its own, the Bill represents the gateway to salvation. For legislation will of course do nothing to recruit social workers and health visitors, teachers and school nurses, to fill the many vacancies that currently exist in those disciplines; or to provide those individuals with the right training. These are separate and parallel issues, largely dependent on resourcing.
The main lesson from the death of Victoria Climbié, let us never forget, is that those in the public services responsible for her care simply did not do their jobs properly. Had they done so, Victoria would most probably have been alive today. More than half of the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, were aimed at correcting failures of professional practice.
In the same vein, as we look at each of the Bill's provisions—for example, the Children's Commissioner, local safeguarding children boards, directors of children's services—the test of those innovations will be whether, and how precisely, they will contribute to improvements in services for children and families. We are not engaged in a glorified box-ticking exercise. A Children's Commissioner for England is someone for whom many people have been clamouring for a long time, and the Bill would create one. But the test of whether a Children's Commissioner is an innovation for which the Government can take credit is not whether he or she exists, but what he or she will be able to do.
In the Green Paper we were promised a "Children's champion, independent of government". A champion is surely a person who can take up a cause and fight for it both freely and powerfully. That is not quite what we appear to have got in the Children's Commissioner as currently proposed. Nor, indeed, do we appear to have someone who is independent of government. The ability of the commissioner to focus on children's rights as opposed to their wishes, and to investigate and report in defence of those rights, will, I think, he matters that we will wish to explore in Committee.
In the same way, local safeguarding children boards, which seek to place area child protection committees on to a statutory footing, have been generally welcomed. The concept is indeed a good one if it genuinely leads to more effective joint working and better delivery of services. But how precisely will the boards achieve this? Clause 10 of the Bill leaves their functions and procedures blank. The Minister will be the first to agree with me that these boards cannot just be talking shops. Their work has to be about hands-on delivery, which means that it must form an integral part of the work of the Children's Services Authority.

1217
That in turn means that there has to be proper accountability, from the boards right to the top of the authority. The accountability of the Director of Children's Services and the lead member is self-evident; but the accountability of and within the boards is not. We need to look at that.
The Government seem to take as read that what is needed to achieve better standards of child protection is greater scope for information sharing between agencies. I do not think anyone would argue, having read the report into the death of Lauren Wright two years ago, or the report into the death of Victoria Climbié, or any of the previous reports, that better communication between professionals was not needed. Of course it was. But if the question is "How do we achieve better communication?", the answer is surely not Clause 8 of the Bill.
Let me say to the Minister that I am not uncharitable. I understand what has motivated the clause. Indeed, one of the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was that we should have a national database on to which would be logged the names of all children up to the age of 16. But Clause 8 is a charter for Ministers to devise information-sharing schemes of an unspecified and potentially far-reaching nature, overriding common-law rights of confidentiality and without necessarily paying heed to the fundamental principles of data protection.
I have very serious difficulties with this. In the first place, Ministers are consigning to secondary legislation not simply detailed issues of implementation but major decisions of policy. As a matter of principle, that is unsatisfactory. Much more needs to be spelt out on the face of the Bill. One gets no sense of what information-sharing arrangements the Government regard as being proportional to the problem; who should be allowed access to the databases and in what circumstances; what kinds of information should be stored; or even whether the databases will record details of all children or only those who give rise to a concern. There are numerous practical questions as well which remain unresolved. I am not necessarily resisting the concept of having databases. However, I firmly resist the idea of writing the Government a blank cheque for future regulations.
Once again, the only question we need to ask is: will these arrangements work for the benefit of children and, if so, how? In other words, let us not believe that by creating databases, we are neatly ticking a box and thereby solving a problem. We may not be.
Exactly the same question applies to the proposals in the Bill for private fostering. An enhanced duty for local authorities to raise awareness about notifying private fostering arrangements seems a pretty feeble prescription. I doubt very much whether it would have saved Victoria Climbié. To my mind, nothing short of compulsory registration, with penalties, is likely to begin to address the mischief.
What is absent from the Bill, which I find regrettable, is any mention of the role or responsibilities of parents. The new and welcome aspiration of promoting children's well-being can surely only be brought to fruition in the
1218
fullest sense if we explicitly recognise both the importance of good parenting and the point at which the role of the state should most appropriately begin and end.
We are, I would like to feel, on the threshold of an exciting step change in the care and protection of children. If we approach the Bill, as I am sure we all do, both constructively and in a spirit of consensus, we can make it something to be proud of. I look forward very much to the opportunity of scrutinising it in detail as it proceeds through this House.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the very helpful way in which she introduced the Bill. From these Benches, we very much welcome the Government's good intentions in introducing the Bill and if, on occasion, we seek to change it as it passes through this House, that does not indicate any disagreement with our common objective of ensuring the five outcomes for children outlined in Every Child Matters. We will work hard with the Government and others to ensure that the Bill that leaves this House contains measures which are well founded in principle and effective in operation. We are all committed to the protection and safeguarding of children and the promotion of their happy development and welfare.
First, I have a few general points. There are some powers in the Bill, such as those in Clause 8, which are very wide indeed, and many of them will be defined by regulations at some time in the future. Not only does the lack of detail make it very difficult to comment on the Bill today, but in relation to those powers there are no statements of principle on the face of the Bill.
As the Minister mentioned, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee commented on this and suggested that the more significant aspects of the provisions in Clauses 8 and 23 should be included on the face of the Bill. We welcome the Minister's comments about that and look forward to what she has promised to do about it.
Secondly, the Bill is based on the Green Paper Every Child Matters, but unfortunately several groups do not appear to matter quite so much, since little account of their special needs has been taken. I refer to young offenders, refugee and asylum-seeking children, disabled children, runaway children and children from ethnic minorities. My noble friend Lord Dholakia and others will be seeking clarification on how these very vulnerable groups will be helped by the measures in the Bill.
Thirdly, although much has been said about listening to children, there is really not enough in the Bill about the voice of the child and no reference to providing advocates for children who may need them. Even the five outcomes which originated with children themselves have been changed, not just into legal terms suitable for legislation but in ways which subtly change the meaning. For example, the outcome of "enjoying and achieving" has become "education and training". One of the children responding to the Green Paper said that the Bill should, "check children are getting their happiness". I am not sure how this or any other Bill

1219
could ensure that children are getting their happiness, but I think we all know what she means, and we should bear it in mind.
The Government have produced the Bill in response to the issues raised by the case of Victoria Climbié. We will assess it on the basis of whether its provisions would have helped that little girl and others like her escape from their miserable lives and avoid their tragic deaths. If we are critical of the Bill, it is not that we question the Government's good intentions. We evaluate it simply on the basis of whether it will achieve that important aim cost-effectively, without prejudicing the rights of all other children.
Let me turn to some specifics—first, the measures to establish a UK Children's Commissioner. The Minister may recall that since I first entered this House in May 2000, I have campaigned consistently, alongside my noble friend Lord Dholakia, and others across all parties who have worked tirelessly, for children in England to have the same right to their own champion as children in Wales have enjoyed for several years and those in Scotland and Northern Ireland have enjoyed more recently. What good news it was when we heard that the Government were going to introduce the necessary legislation. Our disappointment at the actual powers that the Bill confers on the commissioner is only in proportion to our happy expectation that English children would soon have a powerful champion to protect their human rights. Therefore, while welcoming the new commissioner, there is widespread agreement that the powers are very weak compared with those of the commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is difficult to imagine why the Government have thought that necessary.
During the passage of the Bill, we will be seeking to strengthen the powers and independence of the UK commissioner so that he can fulfil the demands of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that we should establish a children's rights champion,
"to monitor protect and promote all the rights of the Convention for all children. They should be easily accessible to children; able to determine their own agenda; empowered to investigate violations of children's rights in a child-sensitive manner: and ensure that children have an effective remedy for violation of their rights".
These proposals are out of step with the rest of the UK and international standards. A commissioner who cannot instigate inquiries without the agreement of the Secretary of State is not independent. The UNCRC should be a guiding framework of the commissioner's operation, but a commissioner who only "may" have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will not be able to safeguard children's rights adequately. A commissioner who cannot bring, or intervene in, legal proceedings will not provide an effective remedy for the violation of children's rights. We do not want the commissioner simply to be a government listening post for the views of children. We need him or her to head a powerful independent institution that must be listened to, with the right to publish reports, without having to lay them before the Secretary of State first, and to whose recommendations the Government and others must respond.
1220
I know the Government have commented that the powers of the new commissioner are different because England is bigger than the other UK nations. Well, I think English children have a right to the same level of voice as those anywhere else in the UK, and the resources should follow them equally. I was horrified to discover that the budget per child for the Northern Ireland Commissioner is £3.80; for every Welsh child it is £2.11; and for every Scottish child the Commissioner has 98 pence to spend. But the anticipated expenditure on every English child by the new commissioner is only 24 pence.
The way to deal with the size of the English child population may not be to establish exactly the same structures as elsewhere. For example, it would probably make sense to have a set of regional children's commissioners. However, it certainly does not make sense to give an English child only one-fifteenth of that resource made available to Northern Irish children. We will lay amendments to strengthen the powers of the new Children's Commissioner.
The relationship of the new commissioner with the other UK commissioners raises questions that my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Livsey will address in more detail. However, it seems to me difficult for the new commissioner to co-operate effectively with the other UK commissioners when he will have powers that are weaker than theirs, but does have the power to investigate non-devolved matters relating to Welsh, Scottish or Irish children without reference to them. It is not clear whether children in the criminal justice system fall within the remit of the commissioner. Will the Minister clarify that?
My noble friends Lady Thomas of Walliswood, Lady Linklater and Lady Barker will speak about various aspects of the clauses relating to children's services in England, but perhaps I may make just one or two points. A number of pathfinder projects have been set up, some of which are only just getting off the ground. It would seem sensible to give time properly to evaluate how well they have worked before rolling out the ideas nationally. In addition, a great deal of best practice has been established by local authorities across the country in the co-ordination of children's services, but little effort has been made to evaluate it. The changes proposed in the organisation and delivery of children's services will require an enormous and costly upheaval. Can the Minister justify why the Government are proposing those particular ways of doing things before such evaluations have taken place?
There seems to be a tension between the child protection organisations, which tend towards a more prescriptive model, and the local authorities and professional bodies, which prefer local children's services authorities to be allowed to meet the requirements in their own way. However, that tension was resolved yesterday when the LGA and NSPCC issued a joint statement. They agreed on the need for a strong national framework of standards, but not a nationally prescribed single management structure. They agreed also on the need for clear lines of

1221
responsibility and accountability at both political and management level. That strikes me as a sensible way forward.
I shall mention also the importance of voluntary organisations in delivering children's services and the concern expressed in many quarters that they have not been adequately built into the Bill. Those authorities that work well with voluntary organisations obtain excellent value; those that sideline them lose out on behalf of their citizens. What do the Government propose to do about those concerns?
On the matter of the duty to co-operate to improve well-being, there is another noticeable omission. Schools are not mentioned, except in the 16 references to Ofsted in the inspections clauses. Teachers and school governors have an important role to play in ensuring the well-being of children and it is surprising that no measures are included in the Bill to ensure their duty of co-operation.
Another missing group is GPs. They are not included among those who have a duty to safeguard in Clause 7. That brings me to the issue of confidentiality that has been raised by many organisations. Where does the duty of confidentiality come in when doctors, youth workers, sexual health advisers such as the FPA and the Brook Advisory Centre, Connexions personal advisers and many other are working within the information-sharing proposals in Clause 8? Will children be willing to confide in those people if they feel that the information will be shared?
The measures for the statutory local safeguarding children boards are generally welcome, but many questions still need answering—for example, how young offenders come into the picture—but I am sure that my noble friend Lord Dholakia will have much to say about that.
The new role of director of children's services raises many issues, but I shall ask just two questions. First, is this a move towards a more thematic approach to local services on behalf of the Government and where will it end? Is a director of old people's services also envisaged? Secondly, what kind of person is likely to be recruited for a job where he or she is to become "the name in the frame" in terms of accountability—even for some areas over which he has no management control? There are many workforce and resource issues arising from the need to manage a fundamental cultural change among the various professional groups that deliver services to children. It is essential that those issues are taken into account and that professional turf wars do not get in the way of effective joint working for the sake of children.
I turn to the inspection regime, which is an area to which my noble friend Lady Sharp, who could not be in her place today, will bring her substantial expertise to bear at a future date. The Bill brings together nine inspectorates with very different areas of expertise under the umbrella of Ofsted. Any two or more of them may be asked to conduct an inspection of any children's services authority. It is not clear who will make the decision as to which of them will conduct those inspections and on
1222
what criteria that decision will be based. I know that some cross-agency inspector groups are already working and that joint training is planned, but that will take a long time to bed in. What will happen in the mean time and how will that process be managed? When the need for intervention has been established, how will Ofsted ensure that it is proportionate and that there is no blanket condemnation of an authority that may have shortcomings in one area, but excellence in another?
Finally, I turn to two omissions from the Bill. First, the Government will be aware of the widespread disappointment that they have not seen fit to use the Bill to repeal the 1860 legal defence of reasonable chastisement for violence against children. The Minister will not surprised to learn that a cross-party alliance of Peers intends to introduce a new clause to put that right in Committee. We hope that the Government will look kindly on the aims of that consensus. Giving children equal protection to that enjoyed by adults under the laws on assault is a policy whose time has come. It has attracted a large majority of support among the general public as well as among child protection professionals, academics, politicians and parents. Of course, it has attracted support also among children, who understand more than most how ineffective and potentially harmful physical punishment can be.
That archaic law undermines child protection and flies in the face of our human rights obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have been severely criticised for our failure to address the matter in national and international arenas. The Bill offers a natural opportunity to address the matter firmly and unambiguously. We need to provide a modern legal framework to support parents and to provide them with effective disciplinary tools that strengthen their loving relationship with their children and serve children better by teaching them effectively how to behave well. It is important to make it clear that the public interest will not be served by prosecuting caring parents for an occasional quick smack, ineffective though it is in delivering good discipline. That is how the law works for assault against adults and the lawyers have confirmed that that is how it would work for children too. A lot of nonsense has been spoken by scaremongers about how removing that defence might work on the ground. However, one has only to look at the sensible way in which similar reforms have been introduced to protect children and support parents in 10 other European countries to see that those worries are totally unfounded.
Secondly, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that we were assured during the passage of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill that the matter of parental contact arrangements to protect the children of broken families would be addressed in this Bill. So far, we have seen nothing, but perhaps the Minister will be able to assure us that the Government will honour that promise by introducing a government amendment at an early stage.
In conclusion, I remind your Lordships of my relevant interests in the NSPCC, UNICEF and the Family Planning Association. I look forward greatly to the

1223
contributions of my noble friends and all others in the House who care so sincerely for the well-being of children. I look forward also to the response of the noble Baroness the Minister, whose credentials in this matter are of the highest.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, for the record I should begin by reminding the House that I chaired the independent statutory inquiry following the murder of Victoria Climbié. The Government have from time to time since then consulted me on sections of the Green Paper, Every Child Matters, and on parts of this Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing to this important Bill. I am delighted by the general welcome that it has already received.
I am sure your Lordships will understand that the Victoria Climbié inquiry was a gruelling and thoroughly dispiriting experience. That was not only because of what happened to Victoria but also because the seminars in phase two indicated very clearly that the shortcomings of the current arrangements are widespread. I am therefore grateful that the Government, and many of the key agencies, have responded to the report in a robust and determined way.
This Bill holds out the long-awaited prospect of a fundamental change in the ways in which the state provides services for children and families. What is envisaged is a shift from a narrow preoccupation with protection to a commitment to promote the well-being of every child. Surely our ambitions for every child and young person extend far beyond the dreadfully limited perspective that they should be free from deliberate harm.
In my experience the vast majority of parents attempt to provide their children with the best start in life. In general, parents are best placed to do this, so the aim should be to develop new and more creative ways of supporting family life. The state services should not be seen by families as a threat, but rather as offering ways to help parents to develop good parenting skills and to be better able to fulfil their responsibilities to their children. That requires a commitment to prevention and a willingness to become involved much earlier, before events become a crisis, and to enable families to overcome whatever difficulties they may experience. Of course, sadly, in some situations more direct action may be needed to safeguard the child, but the starting point should be to work in partnership with the family rather than set out to do things to them.
Although the Children Act 1989, to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred, requires the authorities to address the welfare of the child by placing the needs of the child at the heart of the process, I fear that what Parliament willed is all too often not delivered. This Bill provides the opportunity to learn from past failure and once and for all to set a course which demonstrates that in our society, to borrow the title of the Green Paper, we can make it a reality that every child does matter.
With that in mind, I commend the general outline of the functions and powers of the Children's Commissioner. In most countries that have such a post of this kind, the
1224
population is much smaller. In England there are more than 11 million children and young people. We must hold on to the belief that the main task of the commissioner is to be an advocate for all children. It is a huge and creative task if it is to hold the Government and Parliament to the ambitions of this Bill.
In my view, the commissioner must avoid being drawn back into concentrating on matters of child protection. That would undermine the unique and distinctive role set out in this Bill. The post should not be used to second guess the decisions of the authorities, not only because there are well established mechanisms in place for that but also because the commissioner post will be worthwhile only if it brings a new dimension to the well-being of millions of children and young people. It may be that from time to time the commissioner will be able to investigate some alleged failure by the services, but the Government are wise to exercise discretion in such matters.
That serves to illustrate why I recommended that the Government should establish a national agency to monitor the performance of the local services, to undertake a developmental role and to report to Parliament on the reality of service delivery at the front door of each agency. I hope that the Government will keep under review the need for stronger machinery to ensure that good quality services to children and families can become the reality for which we all wish.
I congratulate the Government on Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill, which place a clear duty to care on each of the key services involved with children and young people to promote well-being rather than react only at times of crisis. The easy exchange of information between services is essential but, before it can be realised, the technology across the many hundreds of organisations will need to be compatible, and there needs to be an understanding across each of the professional groups on the essential matters of what information is to be recorded, who is responsible for inputting the information and who will have access to such information. These are matters which will need to be handled with care and sensitivity if they are to command widespread support. It is wise of the Government to keep open the options until the results of the pilot studies are to hand.
I welcome the requirement that each children's services authority must have a local safeguarding children board and the responsibilities and membership of this body are set out. However, I have grave reservations about the freedom given about who might chair those boards. I advocated that such a board should be chaired by the chief executive of the local authority. I did so for three reasons. First, I believe supporting children and families must include many of the services provided by the local authority, and it is one of the most challenging tasks undertaken by local government. If it goes wrong, the consequences are serious. That being so, the chief executive should occupy that pivotal position. Secondly, the involvement of the chief executive is likely to influence the level of representation by the other key services. Thirdly, the director of children's services should report to the board, so cannot chair it. I am wholly opposed to an external person chairing such a board because in this matter there should be no way of

1225
avoiding organisational accountability. To assist the board there will be a director of children's services reporting to it, whose function is well set out.
I refer to something that is not in the Bill but has already been referred to: the defence of reasonable chastisement. Like most people, I abhor violence, and in the Victoria Climbié report I made it clear that I believe that children should be protected under the law in ways which recognise their potential vulnerability. But the reality is that the defence is understood by few parents or carers, and has been used very rarely and with very little success. It is important that if we remove the defence, we should do so in a way that does not run counter to the main thrust of the Bill. It would be a simple thing to remove a defence that is so rarely used—but the reality is that the motivation for removing the defence is to create a general ban on smacking.
We have before us the opportunity to reshape services to children and families around prevention and enabling and supporting parents. We should do so in a way that enables us to work in partnership with parents. The state should be very careful not only of being intrusive in family life but also of doing so in a way that implies a threat to good but harassed and less able parents. I could give many examples of such cases, but I am sure that noble Lords are familiar with them and time does not allow. Suffice to say that removing the defence is one thing, but creating an offence is another. We must be very wary of criminalising otherwise good and caring parents. I much prefer to follow the path of education and support to that of coercion.
In this country we now have the lowest birth rate ever, and there can be no excuse for us to continue to fail the well-being of children. It is a long road from Victoria Climbié to achieving the kind of childcare that we all wish to see. This Bill is an important milestone along that road, and I wish it well.
6.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Children Bill and commend the Government on their commitment to improving services for children, safeguarding them and providing for their overall welfare. Every Child Matters: The Next Steps stated:
"The vision we have is a shared one. Every child having the opportunity to fulfil their potential, and no child slipping through the net".
The Church of England shares that vision and has an important role to play in implementing it. The Churches between them are the largest voluntary movement in the country and are weekly in contact with thousands of children. The proposals in the Bill to encourage greater co-operation across services and to provide a truly multi-agency approach to children's services are sound. It was very good indeed to hear the Minister stress that in her opening statement. However, we must ensure that the role of the Churches and of the voluntary sector more broadly is clarified. I refer to Clause 6(3) in particular. As a major provider
1226
of services to children, I would like voluntary sector agencies to be named explicitly as relevant partners for children's service authorities under Clause 6(3). This would include the faith communities. Additionally, I believe that children in trouble with the law are children in need and therefore youth offending teams should also be included in the list of relevant partners. These concerns apply equally to the Welsh section of the Bill in Clause 20.
As other noble Lords have said, there is much to commend in the Bill, not least the proposal to create a Children's Commissioner for England. We can expect a great deal of debate about how far the proposals on the commissioner's role, function and duties take us towards the truly independent rights-based champion for children that is needed. Many people are disappointed that the role of the commissioner has so far not been more clearly focused on children's human rights and that there is no duty placed on him to have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We believe that it is crucial that a children's commissioner should have independent powers of investigation and reporting in order to act as an effective champion for children and young people.
The creation of a clear statutory framework of outcomes for children setting down a positive marker of expectation for children's lives in this country is very much to be welcomed. However, it is to be noted that there is no reference to any opportunity for spiritual development among those outcomes. Education and childcare legislation require statutory authorities to have regard to a child's religion. In contrast to the 1960s, I believe that the vast majority of secular bodies such as hospitals and the new universities take pride in being able to offer what they call "whole person care", which includes a spiritual dimension.
The philosophy that every child matters is an important one and one that we should hold on to as we assess the merits of the Bill and whether it delivers for all children. In many ways it could he said that there are two categories of children to whom we need to pay particular attention: the ones who may be considered to "fall down" most often and who find themselves in trouble with the law, and the ones who are perhaps most "lost", who are seeking refuge in this country with or without their families. The litmus test for the Bill will be whether the needs of these most vulnerable children, those in trouble with the law and those who are in this country from abroad under various circumstances, are met through these proposals.
I welcome the new duty to safeguard and promote welfare and the inclusion of governors of prisons and secure training centres in this duty. However the duty itself must be strengthened if it is to make any difference in the lives of children who are incarcerated or otherwise involved in the criminal justice system. As recent inspection reports have shown, children in the youth justice system are least likely to have their welfare needs met. The list of those who are bound by this duty must be extended to cover all of the services responsible for the welfare of refugee children including, sadly, the immigration removal centres where far too may of them are detained.

1227
We must not forget that many of these reforms have been sparked by the death of a child, Victoria Climbié. Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for his work in bringing forward sound recommendations to try to ensure that no child is left as unheard and unnoticed and as utterly failed as she was.
It is important to note that Victoria Climbié was a privately fostered child. We need a registration scheme similar to that for childminders and statutory foster carers. Therefore, many people are disappointed by the use of a sunset clause that will allow a registration scheme to be established four years after the Bill is enacted in the event that the notification scheme outlined in the Bill is deemed ineffective. It is of some concern that the Government are willing to wait a further four years to establish a registration scheme when one is needed now and could be established immediately.
Finally, I urge this House, as other noble Lords have also urged it, to grasp the opportunity that the Bill presents to equalise the law in respect of protection from violence by removing the current defence of reasonable chastisement. From the Church's point of view, we look to the person of Jesus and the extraordinary respect and high regard that He had for children that is revealed in the New Testament. He emphasised respect for their status as human beings and we in this House will want to do no less.
In her opening statement, the Minister reminded us of the importance of voluntary organisations. I hope that as this very important, epoch-making Bill proceeds through Committee she will listen to the Children's Society, Barnardo's and other children's societies because they have many points of detail about the Bill to which we need to pay attention.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I would first like to applaud the thoroughness of the consultation process behind this Bill. And in welcoming the impact the Bill will have on the many ways in which children's life chances are damaged, I feel a sense of relief, as a citizen and as a UNICEF UK trustee, that our Government have done something substantial to safeguard children's happiness and potential.
I propose to focus on two rights-related aspects. The first is the commissioner for children. This is a huge step forward. In the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I was a member, there was agreement over all parties that this would be greatly to the benefit of our children.
I am particularly glad that the function of the commissioner is to promote the awareness of the views as well as the interests of children. We took evidence from children, and they were very sensible, for instance, about traffic planning and very poignant about things like bullying. Their trust that their arguments, which were requests, not demands, would be heard, was humbling. Those of us who think all individuals are of equal worth felt a duty to ensure that those voices would be incorporated into any new
1228
arrangements. It is also important that the Bill includes a duty to promote awareness of the views of children who do not have other adequate means. I hope this means children in care, children in mental hospitals, children in prison, itinerant children, refugee children—especially as the latter group seem to be outside the scope of some of the key parts of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said.
As to promoting interests, this needs powers, including the power of independent initiative in setting up an inquiry. It is not clear that the Bill provides for this. The Bill is silent on powers to obtain evidence, to summon people or to require documents to be produced for a general inquiry.
The far-reaching and highly important investigation in Australia on the "lost generation" of aboriginal children that we heard about in the Joint Committee would not have uncovered what it did without such powers. Equally, there should be an unfettered power to publish a report, safeguarding the identity of individuals if need be.
There is, as we know, already a international framework for what children should expect of those in power over them—the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is, of course, signatory. I echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the right reverend Prelate that it is disappointing that our Children's Commissioner "may" have regard to the convention, not must; and that there will be no duty to promote and protect the coherent framework of rights it established which the UK has for many years mainly accepted. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which comments on national reports, had some important and constructive points to make about children in the UK, and this could be an opportunity for a commissioner to look into them and indeed to take part in the next UK report under the convention.
I also share some of the concern over structure. In the Bill the commissioner is for the whole of the UK and therefore, presumably, some difference between that role and the role of the separate commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is envisaged. The commissioners for the devolved nations have themselves expressed some anxiety about this. It would be helpful if my noble friend the Minister could explain this a little more and also say how the children of England will fare in comparison with those of the other UK nations.
My last point is to echo the striking omission in this, I repeat, forward-looking and heartwarming Bill. It is time that the UK dropped the defence of "reasonable chastisement" in cases of assault against children and gave children the same protection against assault as adults have. All the Bill's improvements in state arrangements for children are undermined if children continue to be exposed to violence in their own homes. The Green Paper expressed concern about children witnessing violence in the home. How much more are they affected by suffering it themselves?
For too long under this defence children have been brutally punished by parents with impunity. No one wants to interfere with parents' right to discipline their

1229
children. It is most important for this to remain effective. Parents must be respected. Grandparents should be respected, and here I declare an interest—but there is also a wider social interest. It is the currently permissible physical degree of punishment which is unacceptable—that which amounts to assault—not just to the Joint Committee on Human Rights but to peoples, governments throughout the Western democracies and international bodies. The UK is out of line in this matter, and it is to the detriment of our children. I am sure amendments will be brought forward to suggest reasonable ways out of this quandary without creating any new offence, and I urge my noble friend to listen to the representative nature of the very many voices which will support them.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill and view it generally in a spirit of optimism. I have been fortunate in my life not to have been in any way the subject of any of the kinds of abuse that are effectively the subject of this Bill, although, having been to boarding school, I have seen a great deal of it happening at close hand. Thirty years ago these things were not regarded with the same seriousness. Currently, particularly due to my wife's work in prisons, I am conscious of how much of it goes on and in particular how many people end up in prison as a result of having their confidence and their lives fractured by this happening to them when they were children. It is an immensely destructive process and one which we are absolutely right to see if we can bear down on.
The Bill is asking a great deal in terms of how things will actually work in practice. We are setting high standards for agencies and organisations working together and working effectively. It is a difficult thing to make happen. It is hard enough to get government departments to work together let alone hope that this is going to happen in more than 100 local authorities with all sorts of different people involved at every level in each local authority. Keeping that all together is going to be a real task. I am not clear who is to do that under this Bill if it is not to be the commissioner. It does not seem to me that the commissioner under this Bill is being granted the right sorts of powers and the right sort of independence to make him a really effective guarantee or advocate for the correct and effective operating of this Bill.
The inspectorate, of course, comes into it. I shall learn a great deal today and as the Bill goes through—because I am not a specialist in this area—of how this whole thing is going to work. I think that I learnt a little from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, when he talked of the powers of the commissioner. However, I am certainly starting out with the feeling that I would much rather see someone whose independence was akin to that of, say, the Chief Inspector of Prisons; in other words, less hamstrung by the Secretary of State than this commissioner is at present—someone who is more able to take his own decisions.
In the end the Government get their own way. In the same way that they tipped Sir David Ramsbotham out of the inspectorate of prisons, they will eventually deal
1230
with the "turbulent priest" in the traditional manner. However, we ought to have someone who is capable of acting on his own. If something occurs which means that he really ought to look at an individual case within his mandate, to have to tiptoe off to the Secretary of State and ask permission is ridiculous. It puts the whole status of the commissioner at too low a level.
I would also like to see the commissioner being able to gather evidence properly. If you are to have someone operating as I hope he will operate, he has to aim to produce real evidence-based recommendations. That means a power of investigation and a power to get into the depths of what is happening. Again, it seems to me that he is being denied the powers necessary to do that.
I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Howe about the information clauses of the Bill. That is something that I have dealt with on other Bills and at other times. I look at it from two points of view: one is that I want to be sure it will work, because you will need a really effective information system to make all this work well. There will be a database of all pupils. It is something that the Government have already produced in order to compile value-added tables. You cannot do that without having a database of all pupils so that you can follow them from one school to another. So the structure is there somewhere. But to make sure that the thing actually gets the right information put into it in the right way and that the whole thing is consistent and usable is going to be a great challenge. Picking up what other noble Lords have said, it is also going to be a great challenge to make sure that the provision is used fairly and is fair to the child and to the child's parents. That is very hard to see with the Bill in its present state. I very much hope that we shall see some strong proposals coming forward from the Government on how that will operate.
My main concern about this Bill—as it is one of my noble friend's—is the lack of mention of parents and family. We are the ones who have responsibility for these children. We are the ones who have responsibility for their upbringing and all that is happening to them. To quote something said by the Minister, support offered early is what parents and family require. Most of the business of looking after a child is supporting the child within the family, and supporting the family. It is terribly important in all that that the first reaction of the authorities to a problem appearing is almost always one of support—that it should not be a case of saying, "Oh God, have we got child abuse here? Am I ringing the police? Who am I ringing? We must separate this child from the family and make sure nothing is happening".
Nine-tenths of the time, if not rather more, it is a problem that will be curable in the family. It is something which comes of a dysfunction in the family. It does not flow from any inherent wickedness in the parents but from some lack of capacity. That is certainly what one sees watching how prisoners deal with family relationships. They just do not know how to tackle them. The reason they bat their children around the ears is that they are not capable of coherently dealing with their children in any other way. But once you start to show them there are other ways of relating, they will prefer

1231
that. To deal with this problem by way of education and support is absolutely necessary if we are going to try to deal with it.
One statistic produced by the NSPCC, an organisation about which I have great reservations, is that 450,000 children are bullied in school every week. I do not know whether the Minister agrees with that figure; I do not suppose that she does any more than I do. However, even if one stretches the definition of bullying so that it might be true, the response to it ought to be one of support for both children involved and perhaps the families at the back of them. That is what will produce some effective response. At the end of the day, a very small proportion of those children will be subject to severe discipline, because that is what it takes to deal with the problem. Most of the required response is support.
By citing such figures, the whole debate is shifted into one of antagonism. The NSPCC figure on abuse is that one in 10 of us is abused as a child. That means that the average teacher is looking at three abused children in his or her class. If one thinks in that way, the whole thing becomes terrifying, and one gets into the sort of problem that the police have at the moment with the anti-racism disciplines imposed on them, where their response now to a complaint about a black officer is to put it into disciplinary proceedings straightaway. They are terribly cautious about trying to deal with things on a human level and then being caught out by charges of racism.
If one tells teachers that such terrible acts go on and that, at the slightest chance, they have to put the whole thing into the deep mechanisms of dealing with child abuse, one is raising the game to the point where support becomes extremely difficult, and where everyone expects that they will be tipped into the sort of nightmare that so many children and parents have been exposed to as a result of the abuse of the Munchausen diagnosis and similar matters. It is terribly difficult to get everything right. The only way is to make sure in everything we do that support is offered.
As a little illustration of that in practice, I remember looking at Greenhead College in Huddersfield in the early days of value-added statistics. It ran a system that involved measuring children at very regular intervals—twice a term—and using that data to understand who was teaching well and who was teaching badly. That was immensely popular with the teachers, because it was done with support. If a teacher was diagnosed as teaching badly, he or she knew that the response would be support. Immediately, colleagues would gather round and help. so it was a process of making matters better and making the teachers better, not one that would land criticism on them.
We must come back to the business of supporting the family and children within it. I would like something in Clause 2(3), which outlines the duties of the commissioner, to say that one of the factors that they must look at is the mechanisms for supporting children within the family.
I turn lastly and briefly to a couple of points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and indeed by others in the case of smacking and reasonable chastisement. The process has to be one of education.
1232
Why do we smack children? Because we do not know a better way of communicating at that moment. Why do we not know one? Because most of us have never been taught. I have learnt a lot from the programmes of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about how one can deal with problems arising in children.
Mostly, that is simply a question of experience and having the confidence to deal with such problems in different ways. Then smacking is definitely second-best because of all its side-effects, but otherwise it is the natural reaction. I hate the idea that we get to a point where someone is seen to smack a child and is immediately into proceedings for child abuse. That would be a real abuse of the system and society that we ought to be trying to create. To be more positive about what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, I entirely support her on parental contact, and I very much hope that we shall get something on that subject from the Minister in the course of the Bill
6.35 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I propose to make a few general comments on the Bill and then to concentrate largely on Clauses 9 to 12, which cover the local safeguarding children boards. I shall also say a few words about changes to the administration of local authorities.
I should like to endorse everything that my noble friend and others have already said on the deficiencies of the role allocated to the Children's Commissioner for England as compared to that of the commissioners in other parts of the UK. I am specifically concerned at the absence from the Bill of any overt reference to the international framework of children's rights within which the commissioner should work. That is particularly serious in that the most recent review of the UK's performance as a signatory of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, undertaken in 2002, was pretty critical of the UK record of compliance with the convention.
As many lobbyists have pointed out, the Children's Commissioner for England should really be fully independent of government, able to carry out investigations on his or her own volition, and responsible for presenting the reports of those investigations directly to Parliament. That argument is given added force by comment from the Children's Society, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford today, that the Bill needs amendment to ensure that the powers and duties proposed in it address the needs of all children, including the children of refugees, whose treatment within the UK has been specifically criticised under the convention.
The Children's Society also asks whether the duty on all main players to have regard to the need to "safeguard and promote" the welfare of children, as is the wording of the duty in Clause 7, is sufficiently robust to enable courts to test whether acts are consistent with safeguarding children and promoting their welfare. It asks whether there should not be a minimum requirement that decisions in the exercise of functions should not be detrimental to the well-being of children, which is a slightly different and perhaps stronger way of approaching the same problem.

1233
I recognise that not all the Government's policy objectives are reflected in the Bill, as much does not need legislation. However, a little clarification on some of those and the many other issues raised by noble Lords already will, I am sure, bear fruit at later stages of the Bill.
Many people and organisations have expressed worries about the effects of Clause 8, which is on information sharing. Those have already been reflected in the debate. Perhaps the most extreme reaction I have heard was my own, after time spent in two communist countries, that the idea had definite overtones of excess surveillance by public authorities of the citizen—Nineteen Eighty Four in action 20 years later, as it were. That reaction was quite over the top; I am sure that the Government have no intention to do anything of the kind. However, collecting information on every child, giving every child a number, and following them through to maturity has a slightly uneasy feel about it in some senses.
Many others have different criticisms to make, which have already been reflected in the speeches of other noble Lords and will no doubt come up again today. A really important one from the point of view of children themselves is the possible reluctance of young people to tell those in contact with them that, for example, they are taking drugs, for fear of that appearing on the record. Can the Minister reassure us that the point of confidentiality can be satisfactorily dealt with in regulations or by some other means? Like many other Peers, I was disturbed by the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the very widely drawn measures in the Bill on the matter. The Minister reassured us that she would respond to that.
I shall move on to the clauses on the role of local authorities and their officers and members, local partners and local safeguarding children boards. The Government must be pleased with the general reaction of the Local Government Association to their proposals, on which a lot of work was done before they came before us in the shape of a Bill. Nevertheless, a considerable volume of doubt and concern has been expressed by the LGA itself, and by many other people, on how the measures will operate in detail. For example, there are concerns around the funding of the new work, including the IT systems required, the training of staff and how a pooled fund will be constructed and managed.
Can the Minister reassure the House that the growth in national funding of which she has spoken will be sufficient? Perhaps we should remember that the National Health Service, one of the main actors in the implementation of the Bill, is spending £2.3 billion over the next few years on its own IT system. Can we be assured that all those IT systems will meld together in support of the essential work of the LSCBs and of their partner organisations?
What about the geographical scope of the local boards? Some people fear that it will be extremely difficult to put together local authorities with NHS partners, particularly in the case of specialist hospitals
1234
that may take child patients from all over the country, not just from the immediate local authority area. Is that why the Government have suggested the creation of a single LSCB covering more than one main local authority area? If so, how does the Minister envisage the practical working of boards over such a wide geographical area? Or do the Government envisage a future semi-regional organisation of LSCBs to match the future regional organisations of the new National Offender Management Service set-up? In either case, what would be the significance of the word "local" in the title of a new board?
There are also worries about the need for flexibility as to the exact manner in which the boards and the directors of children's services carry out their work. But many local authorities have already gone ahead with implementing, for example, the internal organisation required to satisfy the need to appoint a senior officer as director of children's services. Does the Minister feel that those different responses all satisfy the demands of the Bill? Do the Government welcome some flexibility in its implementation?
The important role of the voluntary sector and the Churches have been mentioned already by several speakers. I add my voice to those who wish to be reassured about how that role is envisaged by the Government and the structures available to help to form that role. Or do the Government expect the local boards to work out their own way of involving the voluntary agencies as part of a locally flexible approach to providing services for children?
Personally, as a former member of a county council, I am not in the least surprised at the appetite for a change to a better system of child protection that has been shown by many local authorities. Many models of the accountability and the status of a director of children's services have been tried by different local authorities. However, I hope that if those forerunners have useful comments to make about their experience, the Government will be willing to learn from them, even if that means—I do not know whether it will—changing the provisions of the Bill.
Another criticism of the list of partners and responsible organisations made by many people is that schools, as opposed to education authorities, are excluded. But as the control of the education authority over individual schools is gradually diminishing, do not those schools need to be involved? What about the private education sector? Children in private schools may come from wealthier families, although that is not always the case. Their right to enjoy the same outcomes as other children must be recognised.
One matter that was understandably not mentioned in the Bill is the status, pay and training of social workers who, whatever the name of the service, will still be dependent on their response to danger signals—albeit in co-operation with other responsible partners. It is well known that social workers are often overburdened with cases, cordially feared or disliked by their clients and are the subject of even more derogatory, unreasonable and less justifiable comments from the press. How will the Government

1235
secure social workers' wholehearted support for that change, which is likely to cause them considerable upheaval? Will the Government be able to explain to the public the value of social services in this context, support them in their new role and inform the public about the extreme value of that role?
The other day I spoke to a lawyer working in the courts on children's cases. She said that, at the end of the day, nothing can replace the contact between the social worker—or other professional—and the child. What can the Government do or advise to reinforce that role?
I look forward to taking part in the future stages of the Bill in the spirit of co-operation that has been indicated by other speakers. I hope that at the end of our work we will have an excellent Bill for this important sphere of activity.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Pendry: My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this debate, which promises to do so much for the wellbeing of children in our society.
I particularly wish to draw the Minister's attention to those parts of the Bill that relate to education and training. I shall refer to those sections in the hope that the Minister will, in the light of representations she has received, reconsider terminology that is too restrictive and allow the terms "play" and "recreation" to be recognised in the Bill to better reflect the outcomes for children that were originally included in the Green Paper. In her response, I hope that the Minister will take on board the importance of that distinction.
I welcome the Bill as an overdue attempt to bring about greater cohesion to the services and partnerships that work with and for children. We must never forget that children are vulnerable and depend upon their elders for many aspects of their development. However, we must not forget also that children are individuals in their own right, with varying degrees of autonomy, learning as they grow and developing their own personalities each day.
One matter is certain—wherever they are and whoever they are with, children will always engage in play. Put them in an empty room and they will play. Give them an empty cardboard box and they will play. Children engage in play as an involuntary instinct, like the blink of an eye, whether they are in the back of their parents' car, on an open beach or even in a classroom.
Through play, children learn their strengths and weaknesses, establish and develop their identity and learn to work with others. Play allows children to explore their imagination; it teaches them empathy, how to interact and make friendships; it teaches them what is socially acceptable and what is not. Many forms of play involve physical activity, improving the health of our children in an age of increasing obesity. Children do all of that for themselves—not necessarily with the help or intervention of other adults. It is a given fact that children will play, but it is not necessarily the case that the necessary environments and opportunities exist for every child to play.
1236
The Government's commitment to school sport goes some way towards creating such opportunities regarding learning through play and recreation. In 2002 the Government pledged to invest £450 million in school sport over three years to ensure that every child between the ages of five and 16 had access to at least two hours of high quality physical education and school sport by 2006. However, children also need access to unstructured play and recreation opportunities outside the school environment, where learning can occur naturally, rather than as a result of tuition, and where children can opt to play voluntarily, rather than through obligation. We need to intervene in safeguarding the opportunities for children to play, particularly for socially excluded children, and give credence to the invaluable role that play has in developing happy, balanced children.
I dearly hope that the Bill will recognise the contribution still to be made by local authorities in safeguarding the opportunities for children's play. The Children's Play Council rightly points out that local people are crying out for places to go and for things for children and young people to do, and yet play hardly features on the targets that the Government set for local authorities. Land-use planning, urban policy, transport, childcare and school-building programmes all shape children's opportunities. Therefore, I hope that, as a result of this legislation, the relevant partners will work together more closely to give children priority in those areas.
Playing fields still need to be better protected and, as the architect of Labour's policy on the protection of playing fields spelt out in Labour's Sporting Nation in 1997, I am yet to be convinced that that pledge has been adequately met.
In addition, there is a huge need for more accessible supervised settings for children in both urban and rural environments where children can play freely under a watchful, caring eye. Those settings, such as adventure playgrounds and after-school clubs, are often a focal point in a community and need highly skilled and qualified staff.
It is with that in mind that I welcome the development of a sector skills council for social care, children and young people, as set out in the paper, Every child Matters: Next Steps. I support the federated approach being taken to workforce development planning through the UK Children's Workforce Network. In my view, it is vitally important that specialist skills can be recognised in a joined-up approach that properly values the contribution that both volunteers and professionals make to the quality of life opportunities for children.
I know that SkillsActive's playwork unit has given a commitment to work with other organisations and sector skills councils in the new network to ensure that the right skills and training exist in the workforce to deliver safe, purposeful and high-quality children's services across both those sectors. I welcome this development as being a positive step for children. Therefore, I hope that the Government will also support the good work in both sectors by recognising play and recreation in the Bill before us.
6.52 p.m.
The Earl of Northesks: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her eloquent introduction to the Bill. We are all only too well aware of how important it is to afford our children the best start in life that we can. With that in mind, the good intentions of the Government with this Bill are beyond dispute. The Government's Green Paper, Every Child Matters, identifies the nature of the problem concisely. I quote from paragraph 2:
"The common threads which led in each case to a failure to intervene early enough were poor co-ordination; a failure to share information; the absence of anyone with a strong sense of accountability; and frontline workers trying to cope with staff vacancies, poor management and a lack of effective training".
It is evident, therefore, that one of the most important tasks before us is to improve the process of sharing information between all the agencies concerned—hence Clause 8, which will be my particular focus today.
I am bound to say that I approached the clause with a great deal of anxiety. There are many aspects to this but it is as well, first, to put it into some kind of context. I applaud the Government's desire to embrace and encourage information technology. As has so often been said, its potential benefits are huge, but that does not mean that we should be incapable of recognising some of the associated risks and pitfalls of too deep an adherence to IT—not least, the potential threats to privacy and confidentiality.
I fear that I detect in the drafting of the clause an assumption, verging on blind faith, that IT and database solutions to the problems of information sharing between the relevant agencies represent in the minds of the Ministers concerned an absolute panacea for all ills. At best, that is wishful thinking. It is as though Ministers, in arriving at their decision, have been dazzled by the lustre of IT without understanding either its limitations or the proper context of their proposals.
Not so surprisingly, IT activity by government, both centrally and locally, has grown exponentially in recent years. Specifically, the proliferation of databases is remarkable. Departmental IT systems holding information about us as individual citizens infest every aspect and level of our lives. Not in any particular order of priority or significance to today's debate, one can cite the Inland Revenue's databases, the Passport Agency, the DVLA, the National Health Service IT plan, the Criminal Records Bureau and so on. Of course, all that is quite apart from the Home Secretary's ongoing infatuation with the national identity card.
The volume of personal data that the Government hold about us, detailing the minutiae of our lives, is colossal. So far as one can tell, the vast bulk of, if not all, the information envisaged as being required under the terms of the Bill is already being collected and stored within existing databases. As is explicit in the analyses of both the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the Government, the problem here is not necessarily that the data are not available but, rather, that they are not properly shared by the agencies involved.
1238
It follows that the implementation of a stand-alone database, or databases, for the purposes envisaged in the Bill, with all the attendant resource implications, will not, as a matter of course, generate the improvements in information sharing that are so essential. Rather, it runs a huge risk of representing a wasteful and bureaucratic duplication of effort with absolutely no guarantee of measurable benefit.
Indeed, although it is a little confusing on the point, the analysis of responses to the Green Paper from the Department for Education and Skills does not seem to establish a watertight case for the establishment of a database and/or databases. At paragraph 2, rather blithely, it states:
"There was support for the proposals on information sharing, with a call for the development of national protocols. Most respondents…supported the proposal to introduce a unique identifying number for all children".
That is fair enough. It accords with the consensus that sharing of information among the agencies concerned is essential. And yet, at paragraph 22, it observes that,
"51 (9 per cent) respondents stated that there should be a national database to ensure that any agency involved with a child could update their records regarding concerns".
Moreover, paragraph 23 notes that,
"26 (7 per cent) [respondents] stated that a national database would be a useful tool to collect basic information about children".
Leaving aside the discrepancy between 9 and 7 per cent, that cannot be defined as a ringing endorsement of what the Government have come up with in Clause 8. Moreover, contrary to what the Government seem to believe, there is no specific equivalent between "information sharing" and "databases". They do not, of themselves, equate to the same thing.
It might have been possible to be a little more comfortable about the Government's proposals if one could have been assured either that they know what they are doing or that they know precisely what they want to achieve. Unfortunately, neither the drafting nor the explanation of the Minister inspire a great deal of confidence. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill tell us that the intention is that,
"local authorities or another specified body [will] establish and maintain a database or databases".
Those databases,
"might be set up at a local, regional, or national level".
Moreover,
"The detailed operational requirements will be set out in the affirmative procedure regulations…and as to more technical matters in directions and guidance issued by the Secretary of State".
In reality—here, I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Howe—the Government's intentions have no locus whatever on the face of the Bill. That point was confirmed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The clause is an empty shell. Action on Rights for Children is wholly correct in suggesting that,
"The Government appears to be seeking something of a 'blank cheque' from Parliament".

1239
Bluntly, this is unacceptable. The establishment and maintenance of databases of the scale apparently proposed are not narrow technical matters that can be left to secondary legislation. Rather, they have such profound implications for the rights and liberties secured by both the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act that the necessity of detailing their structure and scope in primary legislation is paramount.
Margaret Hodge, the Minister for Children, has given us insight into how any database established under Clause 8 may operate. She has suggested that a GP may place a flag on a child's file because of low birth weight. Subsequently, a nursery worker concerned about unexplained bruises may also place a flag on the file. It is conceivable that, taken together, those two incidents could signify abuse or neglect of a child, but equally they do not guarantee it. Nevertheless, it would seem that two flags on a file would trigger an inquiry by the relevant agencies. Whether or not justifiable, a stigma of' suspicion and doubt would, in all likelihood, overlay future judgment about the child's circumstances.
It is hard to see how such a mechanistic approach can properly work in the interests of either the child or the wider context of the family. To my mind it is an example of the tick-box culture writ large. Anyone of a cynical frame of mind could conclude that the proposition has been specifically designed to protect the agencies involved from accusations of negligence, rather than to protect the children who should be their proper focus. That lends particular resonance to the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that,
Bureaucratic activity cannot be a safe haven for poorly performing managers".
It has been suggested that one of the major shortcomings of the Climbié case was that none of the professionals involved had a relationship with her; that tragically professional involvement in her case was conducted at a distance. They had information but they did not know her. Put bluntly, a mechanistic approach can lead to a false sense of security. Over-reliance on the automaticity of database systems will, in all likelihood, entrench the failings of the Climbié case rather than correct them. I am much more sanguine than the Minister about how any database regime will operate in practice.
The context in which the interests of a child should be paramount is one that takes full account of the domestic and family circumstances of the child concerned. Relationships, emotions and interactions in such situations are hugely complex and to that extent reliance on IT solutions should not be a substitute for the active participation of all child service agencies in the actual lives of any children under their aegis.
I do not say that IT and databases cannot make a contribution—of course they can. I say that the contribution that they make should be proportionate and, more importantly, a buttress to active and direct participation in the daily lives of children by the agencies concerned. Regrettably, there will be instances when a suspension of the rights conferred by the Data Protection and Human Rights Acts will be
1240
appropriate and justified. On that front, notwithstanding that existing legislation allows for such facility, I await the outcome of the Bichard inquiry with interest. I do not believe that, as inferred by this Bill, such a suspension should be wholesale. Liberty puts the matter thus:
"The starting point for such consideration should be the presumption that each and every measure allowing rot information sharing needs to be justified rather than the presumption that information sharing is an unqualified good to which exceptions must be justified".
Indeed, it would seem that it is intended that unproven and unsubstantiated allegations of criminal behaviour, such as drug abuse, by parents or relatives will be recorded. Moreover, parents and family members would not have access to the files to check the veracity of any data held about them. Against the background of current concerns about the reliability of medical evidence, particularly in cases involving Munchausen's by proxy and shaken baby syndrome, it is as well to remind ourselves that false accusations can, and have, blighted the lives of parents and children. In fact, of course, we already know that the perpetuation of inaccurate data on children's case files, which on the surface would seem to offend against the Data Protection Act, is accepted practice even within the existing system. As Beverley Lawrence Beech of the Association for the Improvement of Maternity Services commented recently:
"The other problem we have seen is of social services departments blatantly defying the Data Protection Act, so that our clients are refused access to records to which they are entitled in order to challenge errors and misreporting".
Moreover, on 2 July last year, the Minister replied to a question from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, saying that,
"To expunge allegations of child abuse or neglect, including those which subsequently prove to be unfounded, from local authority records would undermine the proper function of social services' recording and the effectiveness of the area child protection committee".—[Official Report, 2/7/03; col 874.]
In effect, it is the Government's policy that inaccurate and unfounded data should not be allowed to continue to fester on any given case file. This explicit sanction for and institutionalisation of the stigma of suspicion, especially when the system gives no right of recourse to either correction or verification, is deeply worrying. Clause 8, as drafted, is likely to make the situation very much worse.
In the time available to me I have barely scratched the surface of the considerable limitations of the clause. A host of other issues remain: for example, a more detailed analysis of its interaction with the Data Protection and Human Rights Acts, interoperability and compatibility of IT systems, appropriate setting of the rights and levels of access to data and so on. Come what may, radical amendment will be required during later stages of the Bill. I look forward to that onerous task. For the moment I echo the observation of the Local Government Association:
"It is critical that in tackling the issue of information sharing, all agencies involved focus on managing cultural and behavioural change amongst professionals as well as technical processes".

1241
However it is implemented, the existence of a database will not of itself deliver the improvements in information sharing that are so essential. What matters much more than the technical processes are the cultural and behavioural changes.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, nothing could be more important than the quality of the lives of our children. They engage our present and they are our future. It follows, therefore, that a Bill dedicated to improving the lives of and services for children is greatly to be welcomed, and that is the overwhelming response from all involved with children. However, the next universal reaction is that the powers and authority invested in the Children's Commissioner for England are inadequate and significantly fewer than those of any of the other commissioners in the UK. The powers and effectiveness of this extremely important role should be carefully reviewed and significantly strengthened. The argument for that has already been amply discussed today. After all, a strong and independent voice is being sought. That is the logical outcome from the Climbié tragedy, the Laming report and the subsequent Green Paper. I hope that the Minister can give us reassurances on that.
At the heart of the Bill is the aim of improving the lives of children, young people and their families by trying to ensure that children's services are more effective, better co-ordinated, child-centred and of the highest quality possible. It has the enormously ambitious goal—both culturally and organisationally—of bringing together all agencies under one roof, with the sharing of information and the pooling of resources. While it appears to be both rational and logical, I would like to add a note of caution.
I am sure that I am not alone in your Lordships' House in remembering the social services departments of the 1960s when there was specialisation with child care officers (of which I was one), psychiatric social workers, hospital almoners, welfare officers, family service units, probation officers and so on. Then the Seebohm committee reported and the outcome was the birth of the generic social worker, all in the name of rationality and logic. Someone who had been the master of one trade was now required to be the jack of all. Many colleagues and I felt that something very important was lost; namely the focus and professional expertise which was very important to client and professional alike. It simply could not be forced into a one-size-fits-all service without losing that focus and specific expertise. That was in fact what happened. So when we talk about an integrated service for children and young people I am concerned that we ensure that absolute clarity is maintained on the role of the various service deliverers and that partnership means just that. Otherwise, the potential for the dilution of the service delivery and for confusion abounding is very real.
This concern is voiced by the Association of Chief Education Officers and by the Confederation of Education Service Managers, among others. Indeed, they point out
1242
that there is scant reference to schools in the Bill and no mention of teachers at all. Education is at the heart of children's services, and, given the new and important duty significantly to improve the education outcomes for looked-after children, this is an extraordinary omission. Social services must not engulf children's services, particularly education services, and the GTC pointedly endorses the Government's pledge to retain professionals' "individual specialisms".
In Scotland these days we have a director of children's services in many authorities, but a deputy director of education and a deputy director of social services, who work in distinct partnership, directly support that role. The planning, targets, funding and accountability frameworks and the way the structures finally take shape on the ground will crucially determine the success of the new children's services authorities and their "relevant partners". It will not be easy, and it will need all the current good will to succeed.
I have a particular concern in relation to children who are at risk of, or actually involved in, offending. This Bill has relevance for all children and their wide variety of needs, and it is for those at the most vulnerable end of the scale that this is most crucial. Young offenders are invariably those whose life experiences are the most deprived on virtually every index of measurement. It is possible to predict the path to offending of very many young offenders from an early stage.
The transition from being a troubled child to a child in trouble can be seamless, and the experience of the child as victim and the child as offender is often also seamlessly interchangeable. It is essential therefore that the management of these children's difficulties should also remain seamless. It seems to me extraordinary and highly undesirable that there is a separate companion document to Every Child Matters called Youth Justice—The Next Steps, thus separately identifying these particular children and young people. Not only that, but it refers to a,
"single main sentencing purpose of preventing reoffending".
That is a really regrettable shift away from the principles the Bill is supposed to enshrine.
Article 3 of the UNCRC states unequivocally that in all actions concerning children,
"the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration".
In Scotland, where children's panels deal with all issues concerning children in trouble until they are 16, the jingle we use is that "the child's need not his deed" is the primary consideration. But here, that apparently is not the case. Of course, preventing offending is vital wherever possible, but a welfare-based approach does not imply that the seriousness of offending is diminished or that soft options are preferred—far from it. In fact, it is in understanding and addressing the causes of the behaviour that prevention is most likely to occur.
Youth justice is also about care, but that is not the message we are getting here. I believe that it is essential that youth offending teams, who are at the sharp end of coping with those children who are both troubled

1243
and in trouble, should be required to be included in all the local partnership arrangements as key partners. I hope the Minister will give that serious consideration. Similarly, they should be on the list of bodies who make up the local safeguarding children boards.
It is to be welcomed that governors of YOIs—young offender institutions—and secure training centres are included on these boards, since it should encourage these institutions to focus clearly on the safeguarding of children and the promotion of their welfare. I hope this responsibility will be clarified and defined as a positive duty. Furthermore, the famous judgment by Mr Justice Munby last year established that the Children Act 1989 applied to children in prison, but not to the Prison Service, which means that the Prison Service does not in fact have a clear statutory duty to safeguard the welfare of children. Is not that shocking?
This Bill offers a real opportunity in Clause 7 to provide the full protection children in prison need. However, I must add, this really begs the question of the acceptability of the imprisonment of young children at all—as we do in this country, putting us at the top of the league of child incarcerators in Europe. With the best will in the world, STCs do not have child welfare built into their ethos in the way that local authority secure units do; and I question the morality of incarcerating children who are at the age and stage in their lives when one of the privileges to be earned for good behaviour is another teddy bear—as was the case in Medway STC when I visited a few years ago. But, at the very least, to include governors of YOIs and STCs in the structure of children's welfare should help to safeguard these most intractable and difficult but also most vulnerable of children.
The Bill covers a wide range of issues. Its aims and ambitions are clearly desirable, but the challenges it also presents are immense. If it succeeds in protecting and enhancing the lives of all children from the least to the most needy in ways which promote best practice and mutual co-operation between all agencies, then it will have achieved something of real importance for our society—its present and its future. I wish it well.
7.16 p.m
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on the Bill. It is long overdue. My remarks try to suggest improvements, rather than to criticise. I shall try to avoid repeating areas already covered by other noble Lords, although I should like to emphasise some points.
I start by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should underpin all policies for children and young people. The UK Government should demonstrate a commitment to the full implementation of that by enshrining the convention in the Children Bill and in all legislation pertaining to children.
The UN convention committee has repeatedly stated that the UK Government do not take promotion of the UNCRC or the monitoring of the implementation as seriously as they could. Previous
1244
reasons given for not incorporating the convention into primary legislation have not been observed in other countries, such as Switzerland. It has incorporated this on the face of its legislation.
I should like to point out that in relation to the Children's Commissioner for Wales the Welsh Assembly government enshrined the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in their secondary legislation.
I turn to the issue of maintenance of the child-centred approach and devolution. There needs to be a child-centred approach to all services for children and young people. The issues around devolution are therefore problematic for children in Wales where services are split between devolved and non-devolved departments, not least in the field of youth justice.
There needs to be clarity of responsibility and also opportunities for incorporating the views of Welsh children, Welsh children's organisations and the Welsh Assembly government into departments that devise policies that cover Wales. We await the report of the Richard commission regarding devolved powers because it may well contain comments that are relevant to the way the Bill has been written.
At the time of the establishment of the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales, the approach was to limit his powers to the areas of responsibility devolved to the National Assembly for Wales under the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999.
This means that areas such as youth justice, the benefits system and the police are excluded from the remit of the Children's Commissioner for Wales, although the commissioner does have the power to make representations to the National Assembly for Wales. Perhaps I could remind the House that the National Assembly originally wanted the Children's Commissioner for Wales to have a remit over non-devolved departments, and the late Lord Williams of Mostyn very helpfully worked hard to introduce a government amendment that allowed representation to the Assembly about any matter that affects a child in Wales.
Given that the difficulties experienced by children and young people usually do not fall neatly into devolved or non-devolved areas, or even into one area of service, the commissioner has sought to establish working relationships and memoranda of understanding with a number of bodies technically outside his remit. For example, regular meetings are held in Wales with the police and CAFCASS, and the commissioner has visited prisons. Those working relationships may be undermined if these policy and service areas are formally designated to be ones for which the UK children's commissioner would be the relevant authority.
I shall now discuss the powers themselves. The English model does not appear to be a truly independent structure; thus the commissioner cannot deal with issues over which the Children's Commissioner for Wales has a remit. The Commissioner for Wales should be able to represent the views of all children in Wales. The English commissioner would not have contact with Welsh

1245
children, so how could the post holder be a genuine champion for them? Children move around the UK, and everyone needs to know what they can expect from the commissioner, whichever country they are in. The ability to act on a child's behalf should rest with the commissioner nearest the child, and he or she must be able to do that with independence, wherever the child is. It is up to the commissioners to communicate with one another and with the relevant government departments, whether devolved or non-devolved.
I must ask whether the bureaucracy of the devolution settlement is getting in the way of the arrangements that would serve children best. In the clauses specifically dealing with Wales I generally welcome the decision not to restructure services, as we have suffered many reorganisations, most recently in health, with some loss of skilled staff and possible planning blight. It is therefore wise to build on current structures as they mature with experience.
My final point is on the defence of reasonable chastisement. I return to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and its underlying principles of independence, a human rights framework, strong investigatory powers, an impact on law and policy, and an effective remedy for infringement of rights. The physical punishment of children is not smacking. Looking at the data for children seen with bruises, there are those who get bruises from the rough and tumble of childhood, those with clotting disorders who need medical intervention and treatment for the underlying disease and those children who have been abused.
A case control study in south Wales collecting data on physically abused and non-abused children has shown that bruising is the common presentation of physical abuse in children, and that it is difficult to base the diagnosis of abuse on a distribution of bruises, but a formula based on the total length of bruising can give important pointers to the probability of abuse being the cause of the bruises.
We know that children who have experienced corporal punishment have their perceptions of violence altered. Violence escalates; it becomes accepted and normalised. A smack on the ears can result in deafness; a smack with a slipper does not hurt the hand of the person who inflicted the hit. The child becomes numbed emotionally and appears to react less and less to physical hits; yet the person hitting the child can interpret that as "dumb insolence" or the child becoming "impervious to punishment", so he or she hits harder and the violence escalates.
Children do not view smacking as trivial. In the words of a girl aged six, "It is inside your body that hurts". Children find the process of being hit frightening and painful. It teaches them that violence is a societal norm and that a way to cope with pent-up feelings is to hit out. Hitting children is the response of adults who have not learnt to control their own emotional response to what a child has done, and who themselves have not learnt the self-discipline that
1246
allows them to impart good discipline and good standards to children. I fully endorse the need for parenting to be taught to parents.
In January 2004, the National Assembly for Wales debated the subject. By 41 votes to nine, it passed a resolution stating:
"The National Assembly regrets that the UK Government continues to retain the defence of reasonable chastisement and has taken no significant action towards prohibiting the physical punishment of children in the family".
I will support the amendments to ensure that children are as protected as adults from being hit.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, we must congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill and demonstrating their strong commitment to children with the establishment of a Children's Commissioner. I was part of the advisory group brought together by the Gulbenkian Foundation when it first published a proposal for a children's rights commissioner in 1991. The report was entitled Taking Children Seriously, and that is what a commissioner should be about. It has taken time to get one. But having promised England's 11 million children,
"a champion independent of government",
as the Green Paper did, we must ensure that the legislation in Part 1 of the Bill really does create an independent champion.
There are worries. The first is the lack of a strong and clear function. The commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have functions requiring them to safeguard and promote children's rights and interests. Then there is the absurd provision, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in Clause 2(7), which states that the commissioner "may" have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As if anyone needs permission to have regard to a convention ratified by the UK Government with all-party support in 1991.
Clause 2(6) prohibits the commissioner from initiating investigations into individual cases, and Clause 4 allows the Secretary of State to direct the commissioner to carry out formal inquiries. It is only when following such directions that the commissioner has strong investigatory powers. Independence cannot be compromised, and commissioners cannot be directed by Ministers, of this Government or any future government. We will need to work hard to ensure that the commissioner is fully independent and has the appropriate powers.
Another issue that I wish to raise has a long history, too. We must use the Bill to remove the reasonable chastisement defence and to give children equal protection under the law of assault. That is long overdue. Lord Henderson of Brompton, whom many Members will remember with great affection, and I tried to remove the defence 14 years ago, when what is now the Children Act 1989 was passing through this House. Now we are to have another Children Act, and this reform must be part of it. We cannot keep children waiting any longer; it is embarrassing that we were the last country in Europe to

1247
end school corporal punishment, and we cannot go on defending it in the home. Removing the defence places children in exactly the same position as adults on the law of assault. Of course parents will not be prosecuted for minor assaults; there are adequate hurdles to prevent silly prosecutions. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Laming and Lord Lucas, will take comfort from that.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not expecting prosecutions before the magistrates' court, but I am certain that there will be notes on parents' files when it comes to the question of whether their children should be taken into care.
Baroness David: My Lords, I hope that that will not happen. We want to send a clear message that it is no more lawful to hit a child than to hit anyone else. We need the law to provide a safe basis for child protection and for promoting positive forms of discipline that work. That is important.
I hope that we will not hear any accusations that this is a nanny state reform. On the contrary, its purpose is to reduce the need for prosecutions and other formal interventions in family life. We can be confident from the experience of other countries that have reformed their laws that that will be the result. The levels of violence against children in the home in the UK are extremely worrying. The way to reduce that is to have clear law backed up with parent and public education. We accept that this is the way to combat all other forms of domestic violence; now we must accord children equal protection.
I hope that we will not hear attempts to compromise and define at what age children can and cannot be hit; with what implements; and on what part of their bodies. This House led the moves to end corporal punishment in schools, and I assume that the Government will allow a free vote on this issue, as they traditionally have. I am confident that we will finally discard the idea that children, smaller and more fragile than we are, should have less protection from being hit.
I may have sounded rather critical, but this Bill, which puts children at the centre of public services, is very welcome. I believe that the Bill will not only be good for children, but for local government, education, and the National Health Service, because it demands that local bodies co-operate to promote the well-being of all children. The Bill tackles the deficiencies in the co-ordination of local services, so well exposed by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in his report on Victoria Climbié.
Trying to get public services to work together better has been an agreed objective throughout my public life. The 1968 Seebohm committee, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, the report on local authority and allied social services, records that one of the reason for writing the report was:
"The problem of co-ordination between related but separately administered services".
This Second Reading debate is not the place to consider whether the Seebohm recommendation of a single social services department was correct, but it is
1248
the place to debate why in 2004 this House is still considering the better co-ordination of services, when everyone I know has supported better co-ordination for years. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why progress has been so slow.
It may be because rigid professional distinctions still persist, introduced in initial training of the teacher, social worker, health visitor, nurse and doctor. It may be because some boundaries are created by legislation. Local authorities provide school places for over-fives under education legislation, and children's day care for under-fives under very different legislation, which was originally designed to let local authorities support nursing mothers during the First World War. It may be because services have not been funded sufficiently. Co-operation costs money; locating health services in schools will not come cheap. The commitment by the Chancellor in his recent Budget that there will be 1,700 children's centres by 2008 and that eventually every community will have access to a centre is wholeheartedly welcome.
I hope that schools will be fully committed to the Bill's objective of getting local services to work together better. I was concerned that the general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association wrote in the Education Guardian last week:
"Heads are concerned that the Children Bill will lead to more work, more meetings and even more accountability. However worthy its aims, heads cannot afford to let this wider agenda take their eyes off the top priority of the quality of teaching and learning".
I hope that heads will co-operate. In order to keep the quality of teaching and learning as the top priority, it is vitally important for head teachers to work with local authorities and local voluntary associations to ensure that children get good services.
One issue that concerns me about the director of children's services post is that it must essentially be a management post with the prime objective of ensuring that services are well managed and accountable. Such a post holder may not have credibility with head teachers because he/she does not have the necessary professional experience.
As your Lordships will know, I have long been an advocate of children's rights. On the Second Reading of the Bill that became the Education Act 2002, I said:
"The time is now absolutely right for children and young people to be given a statutory entitlement to consultation about decisions in education that affect them".—[Official Report, 11/3/02; col. 593].
The 2002 Act did achieve this in Section 176 by a government amendment. Sadly, I do not find any such general right for children outside their school in this Bill.
We want children to grow up and take a full place in society. The earlier that we give them, through education, the chance to play that part, the more effective they will be when they become adults. We can make this good Bill even better as it goes through its stages. I hope that the Government will be in listening mode.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I fully endorse the views of the inquiry team led by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. What happened to Victoria Climbié must point the way to securing the future safety and well-being of the children in our society. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, describes a world of almost unimaginable horror. The cruelty described is beyond human comprehension. It demands action, and I am therefore glad that the Government have responded by bringing forward this Bill.
I am also grateful to the Government for taking on board the feedback that they received on the Green Paper. There is no doubt that the Government's original plans put too much emphasis on structural change, and not enough on local flexibility. The danger with emphasising structures is that they become mistaken for the end rather than the means. Improved outcomes must be the measure of success.
I sincerely hope that the legislation that we pass in this House will make a real and substantial contribution to reducing the incidence of violence against children in our society, but I add a word of caution. Good social work ultimately demands good social workers, and there simply are not enough social workers to go round. The workforce issues that the Government have identified are at least as important as what we must do to improve our systems. Vacancy levels, currently 11 per cent nationally and 20 per cent across London, are simply too high for us to be able to say that we are delivering the best possible service for our children and young people. We urgently need to deal with this issue effectively. Otherwise, any changes that we make through this Bill will be seriously undermined.
Part 1 of the Bill establishes the Office of the Children's Commissioner. The establishment of a Children's Commissioner is certainly something that many noble Lords will support. However, it is important that there is an independent children's champion operating at the highest level who can look out for the interests of children. My concern is that the Children's Commissioner is not provided in this Bill with the independence that he or she will need to do the job effectively. In particular, the Bill stipulates areas to which the commissioner should have regard. I should like to know whether the Government specifying particular areas in that way means that there are areas which are beyond the writ of the commissioner.
Furthermore, I suggest that the commissioner ought to be able to initiate his or her own investigations—currently prevented by the Bill—and that the Secretary of State should not have the right to demand that the commissioner carry out particular investigations currently allowed by the Bill. The reporting arrangements of the commissioner are also subject to interference from the Secretary of State. All this is liable to undermine the independent position of the commissioner, and thus confidence in the office.
As currently envisaged, not only would the commissioner have less power than his colleagues in Wales or Northern Ireland, he would also have less independence than some of the existing social care
1250
inspectorates. If we are going to set up an office of this nature, let us do it properly, and give the Commissioner the powers that he needs to do the job.
Part 2 of the Bill puts in place arrangements designed to improve co-operation between different agencies with responsibility for children. As Victoria Climbié and many other cases have highlighted, the work between and across agencies is at the heart of improving the way in which we deliver children's services. The gaps between these bodies are the dangerous places for children. It must be right that this Bill attempts to plug those gaps and ensure proper coordinated and joined-up working. As the leader of a large local authority, Essex County Council, I believe that it is right that local authorities should take the lead on promoting this kind of joined-up working. It is right that there should be a lead agency, and that responsibility can only, realistically, rest with local authorities.
Other than the absence of voluntary bodies, the list of agencies in the clauses of this part of the Bill is basically right. I would be interested, however, in knowing whether under Clause 7, on the duty to promote the welfare of children, the Government considered extending that duty to individual doctors. General practitioners and hospital doctors—as we have seen time and again—are front-line providers of services who have a key role to play in ensuring that children are properly protected. I simply do not know whether imposing a duty on PCTs and NHS trusts is sufficient to ensure that those duties are fulfilled by all doctors coming into contact with children. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that subject.
Clause 8 presents problems of which, I am sure, the Government are aware. Much of the Bill is extremely sketchy. In some places, that does not matter, but in Clause 8 it is vital. Clause 8 deals with the sharing of information across agencies through the establishment of databases. That is a huge undertaking and one that it will be difficult to get right. There is no doubt that the cost implications are significant. However, it is clear from the Bill that the Government have no policy on that. Clearly, the Government believe that sharing information is a good thing; we all agree with that. The point is how to do it. The Bill does not make that clear, because the Government simply do not know. It would be helpful if the Minister could let the House know, first, whether there is any likelihood of progress being made on that subject while the Bill is going through Parliament and, secondly, whether resources are likely to be committed to that important area in the next round of the Comprehensive Spending Review.
The replacement of the existing non-statutory area child protection committees with statutory local safeguarding children boards will be welcomed by authorities throughout the country. However, there must be a question mark over whether the Government's permissive funding proposals will be sufficient to enable those boards to go. There is no doubt that it is in the areas where relationships are worst that it will be most difficult

1251
to ensure that appropriate funding is forthcoming. In this case, an element of prescription from the Government might in fact be helpful.
The Local Government Association has raised the issue of whether the Government should make sure that all boards operate to national standards. Although I am a committed localist, I agree that some national standards might be helpful, if only to avoid confusion for organisations that have to deal with more than one board. In my county, for instance, the police authority will have to deal not only with the board for the county area but with the boards for Southend and Thurrock. It would be in the interests of all three boards if they operated to the same set of standards.
My only other question is whether the Government have considered whether there is an optimum size for the board. In Essex, with 12 district councils and 11 primary care trusts, the board could have upwards of 40 members. Could the Minister comment on board size?
I turn now to the requirement set down by the Government to have a director of children's services and a lead member for children. In my county, we are somewhat ahead of the game and already have a director of children's services, a position that covers the education authority and the children's social services functions. I recently appointed a Cabinet member for children. We also had one of the first children's trusts, so we are well ahead of any other local authority. We are trying to do the right thing, and we have been keen to take a more strategic, integrated approach to the delivery of services for children. Having said that, I do not think that the same recipe is necessarily right for all authorities. For example, where authorities already deliver excellent services in education and children's social care, how can it be helpful to force on them such major restructuring? It makes no sense.
Those points were made to the Government at the time of the Green Paper. I am pleased to note that the Government have taken many of them on board. The Bill is a lot less prescriptive than many local authorities had feared.
In the case of the lead member role, the Local Government Association has suggested that that duty could be extended to all authorities, not just children's services authorities. I am inclined to support that position, particularly as the Bill provides for local flexibility. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the Government have considered extending the duty in that way.
There is a lot to be gained from the Bill and a lot to be learnt from what authorities already do. As I said, my authority had taken on board many of the suggestions in the Laming report before we were asked to by the Government. The Minister said at the beginning that all local authorities should do that by 2008; in fact, Essex County Council has done it by 2004. There are several areas in which we might improve the Bill in Committee, so that we can make
1252
certain that there is enough local flexibility to make the Government deliver the services that we want. That said, I support the Bill.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, creating a Children's Commissioner for England whose job it is to promote awareness of the interests and views of children makes him sound like a public relations consultant. Worse than that, he will be very much under the guidance of those who employ him. He cannot act independently; he can act only on that which the Secretary of State allows him to act on.
We are asked, "We have only £2.5 million to spend; how much do you want?". That was the Minister's answer when we discussed the matter last night. I pay tribute to her for attending the Welsh meeting that we had last evening. How much do we want? I would have thought that parents in England will want as least as much for their children as those in Scotland and Wales do. I will be surprised if the parents of children in England are satisfied with a level of commitment that is one-eighth of the commitment of the National Assembly government in Wales to children in Wales and one-twelfth of the commitment of the Scottish Parliament to Scottish children. That is the level of funding that is being made available.
In February, 2001, we had the Second Reading of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill. I was proud of that Bill. It was a product of the partnership government in Wales, the Labour and Liberal Democrat government in power at that time. They had promoted it, and I knew fairly well what they wanted. My suggestion that I should address this House from the government Benches, as I represented the government of Wales, was squashed by the usual channels—I really do not know why.
At that time, I said that we wanted a Children's Commissioner who represented the whole child, not just part of the child. Secondly, I said that the Bill was a pale shadow of what the entire Assembly wanted—all parties—in that the Children's Commissioner for Wales was to be excluded from being concerned with devolved matters. I said in terms that the Children's Commissioner for Wales would not be able to comment on child poverty and that he would not be allowed to enter into the sphere of the Home Office. I think that I also said that it was possibly the Home Office that was resisting the suggestion that the Children's Commissioner for Wales should be involved in Home Office matters. The purpose of the commissioner, surely, is to embarrass Ministers and provoke them into action in just the way that the Chief Inspector of Prisons has clone so successfully—the present incumbent and her two predecessors. That was the sort of figure that we wanted.
We ended up with a Children's Commissioner who could, at least, take his own initiatives. We also had a commissioner who would protect the rights of the child. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, reminded us a short time ago, the UN convention was enshrined into the regulations to be made under that Bill. We ended up with a strong commissioner, strengthened by the concession that was made by the

1253
much lamented Lord Williams of Mostyn, who, I am sure, was doing only what he had wanted to do, when he said that the Children's Commissioner for Wales could, at least, address topics that were not devolved and make reports to the National Assembly, which could, if it so wished, carry the matters forward.
It was as a direct result of the amendment made by Lord Williams of Mostyn that, in the first year of his operation, the commissioner in Wales made a report on child poverty, notwithstanding the fact that social security was not a devolved matter. It is because of that amendment made by Lord Williams that in the programme for 2002–03 and ongoing, the commissioner was concerned with anti-social behaviour, which is essentially a Home Office matter. He covered the fields of education, welfare, and so forth. He was an effective and popular figure.
The devolution argument has reared its ugly head once again in the presentation of this Bill. Everyone in Wales—cross-party and the National Assembly—wants a commissioner who has the rights and authority to deal with all the issues that involve children in Wales and not an English commissioner pushing over the border. Someone suggested the words, "Keep your hands off Welsh children", but perhaps that puts it a little bit too far.
We want to ensure that the devolution division is not enshrined further. All the time, Ministers talk about the devolution settlement. The only settlement that there was on devolution was between one half of the Labour Party and the other half of the Labour Party. Ron Davies reminded us that devolution is a continuing process and not an event. The fact that in this Bill we welcome the devolution of CAFCASS to the jurisdiction of the National Assembly is an example of how things are moving on. We on these Benches hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his commission report tomorrow, we shall see the way forward for the process to continue, to develop and to give Wales the strong government that its people require.
We are distressed that this division is being emphasised between devolved and non-devolved matters when the Bill is being considered. We find that in Wales, there is no support for it. We find that the jurisdiction of the Welsh commissioner is to be diminished. As my colleague in Cardiff, Kirsty Williams, put it, it is a step backwards or potentially a step backwards unless your Lordships do something about it in the consideration of the Bill.
I am sure that there are many good things in the Bill as regards the provision of services and the integration and co-ordination of issues that concern children, which my colleagues have already addressed and welcomed. For Welsh people in this House and in Wales, there is a very considerable problem if we find that children in Wales will to suffer because of some artificial division between devolved and non-devolved matters. We want a children's commissioner that acts for every child in Wales with every problem that that child has to face. We want someone who is readily available and identifiable to whom children and their
1254
parents can turn for advice and help. With that in mind, I am sure that your Lordships from Wales and elsewhere will support our attempts to amend the Bill.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Bill, which is an ambitious reform of child welfare services. I congratulate the Government on pressing ahead with this much-needed programme of reform to protect the most vulnerable children in our society and to improve universal services for all.
I have particular interest in the Bill because I was recently appointed chair of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). As your Lordships will know, we work with children and families in the courts to ensure that the decisions that are taken are in the best interests of the children involved. I have come full circle. I started my career as a childcare officer in Manchester. At that time, I had direct experience of working with children and families. I know, at first hand, what an important area of work that is.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Laming—I think that I could call him my noble friend—for the work that he did following the tragic death of Victoria Climbié. It is a sad indictment of how little progress has been made in almost 40 years. The same lack of communication between agencies that was common when I was a practising social worker was still all too apparent in that tragic case. I used to supervise children in private fostering and I know only too well how important the proposals to tighten the regulation about that are.
Central to the Government's approach to the reform of public services is that services must change to meet the needs of the people that they serve. That must be the right approach. Integrating services and ensuring that there is more effective communication and information sharing between agencies must happen in order to develop a better service for the children and young people involved.
Clearly, there are concerns about confidentiality. I hope that everyone involved will remember that the welfare of the child must be put above all other considerations when we are considering information exchange. Of course, the establishment of children's trusts should facilitate that.
This is a comprehensive Bill, so I shall comment only on a few aspects. As we have heard, it sets out the transfer of CAFCASS Cymru to the National Assembly for Wales. I assure the House that CAFCASS will do everything that it can to ensure that there is a smooth transfer through effective partnerships between the Welsh Assembly and the staff and managers of CAFCASS. In recent months, there has been huge progress in service delivery in Wales, which is a real credit to the workforce there. It is important that transfer arrangements do not in any way jeopardise that progress.
In addition, in spite of different administrative arrangements, the need for co-operation and comparative quality standards between Wales and England must be assured. I urge the Government to learn the lessons from

1255
the past. It is widely acknowledged that CAFCASS was set up too quickly with inadequate funding. It is important that the transfer to Wales happens in a realistic timeframe, that there is proper consultation with staff and that sufficient funding is allocated for CAFCASS Cymru to succeed. Agreement about final implementation dates at as early a stage as possible will be vital.
As far as local safeguarding children boards are concerned, CAFCASS is delighted to be a statutory member of the boards that will replace area child protection committees. I welcome the measures to increase accountability and ensure the effectiveness of all members of the LSCB.
I should like also to take the opportunity to welcome the Government's response to the consultation on the Green Paper, Every Child Matters. I am particularly encouraged by the proposals on workforce reform. It is vital that the legislative measures we are debating to improve services for children are supported by a drive by government and employers to make social work a more attractive profession. It builds on the excellent work done by the General Social Care Council that was set up three years ago, which I had the honour to chair for six months.
The registration of social workers and other social care professionals, as well as the good practice guidance produced by the GSCC, will not only give the public more confidence but also improve morale in the social work profession. That is very badly needed. As we know, the statistics are worrying. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, quoted that the vacancy rate for qualified social workers stands at 11 per cent. In London, the figure is even higher at 20 per cent.
The Bill is about improving the framework for children's services to create better integration and information sharing. But I must remind the House, as everyone here knows, that no amount of structural change can deliver on its own. It will work only if we have the right calibre of staff in sufficient numbers to do this important work. That requires training and more resources in order to attract the best talent and, more importantly, to retain the best talent.
The poor image of social workers is a real issue. It is a challenging job and it is a profession that should command respect. It is about time that happened. We cannot spend our time complaining about social workers, then wonder why there are not enough to deliver this important service. As in any other profession, there will be poor quality social workers, and we must address that. But the vast majority are highly qualified practitioners who do an excellent job for the children and families that they work with under extremely difficult circumstances.
CAFCASS is an organisation for which standards of social work practice are of the utmost importance. Our practitioners are fully qualified social work professionals who, in the main, have worked in either local authority social services departments or the former Court Welfare Service. I want to pay tribute to our practitioners and the rest of the CAFCASS workforce. They do a difficult job day in and day out,
1256
dealing with the most problematic cases, such as those relating to care proceedings or contact and residence disputes.
The difficult history of CAFCASS thus far is well known, but I must emphasise that this is not the whole story, as the following testament from a parent illustrates:
"In the mad insane confused situation (in which we found ourselves], you stood back, were not swayed by emotion and took a reasoned approach …your ability to listen was coupled with the equally important one of keeping those involved aware of all that was going on. You managed to speak with the children in a clear and concise manner which they understood …you showed you were non-partisan and had only their best interests at heart. On behalf of the children, I can't thank you enough".
I want to touch briefly on two further points. First, I know that concerns have been expressed about the Children's Commissioner. It is vital that the commissioner is seen from the start to be a champion for children. I personally believe it right that the commissioner should not have investigatory powers in individual cases, given the scale of the task which awaits him or her. But the concerns of children's organisations must be addressed and I hope that more clarity about what is and is not expected will emerge as we consider the detail of the Bill.
I also want to draw particular attention to the issue of children with disabilities. It must always be remembered that the parents of children with a physical, mental or emotional disability have added problems. The Bill must take account of those special needs at every stage. For example, local safeguarding children's boards will need special expertise. The charity Contact a Family has stated that 31 per cent of parents feel that having a child with a disability can cause extra problems in a relationship, with the consequent knock-on effects of family breakdown and demand for services.
More certainly needs to be done to improve services for children, and that is what this Bill is all about. In summary, I congratulate the Government on leading this much-needed programme of reform. Putting children first is a vision we all share and must be a priority for this House.
8.2 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for missing the first 10 minutes of her opening speech. I had not expected the previous Bill to complete its course so quickly.
I welcome most sincerely this Bill and the principles it enshrines. The chief principle that I see in it is that of partnership working to achieve the outcomes we want for every child. I should like to take this opportunity to stress the need to achieve those outcomes for every child, including the children of asylum seekers, unaccompanied asylum seeking children, and children who are in trouble with the law. The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill currently making its way through Parliament causes me a great deal of concern. It is important to bear such children in mind.

1257
I warmly welcome the Bill and I want to cite an example of what may be its effects in changing the culture with regard to the provision of services for children. I recently visited a residential children's home for 12 children. Noble Lords may be aware that, in the past, educational outcomes for children in care have been poor. In 2001, 50 per cent of all children achieved five GCSEs at grades A to C, but the figure for children in care was around 5 per cent.
I paid a visit to the project after having been alerted to the educational success of the children. The south London charity responsible for the home had hired a teacher to tutor the children and to act as their advocate in education. It is the charity's policy always to commence legal proceedings if a school does not accept one of their children. Each year that must be done several times. However, the charity provides schools which take on its children with teaching assistants. Teachers are free to use the services of that assistant as they choose. That is an example of partnership working between the residential childcare worker and the teacher.
Added to that, the charity invests in support from the local child and adolescent mental health service. Once a fortnight, a clinical psychologist meets with the entire staff group to discuss the children and the impact on staff of working with these very troubled young people. Furthermore, a telephone service is provided, making it easy for staff to talk to representatives at CAMHS. The service has also trained the staff in the Webster-Stratton parenting model, with which some noble Lords will be familiar, to help them in their management of the children.
That is an example of partnership in action. What has it delivered? My goodness, last year all 12 children achieved at least one GCSE, while five achieved five GCSEs. In a normal children's home, only two would have passed one GCSE, and one would have achieved five at grades A to C. The project is working well.
As I have said, I welcome the partnership principle enshrined in the Bill. Partnerships between local authorities and the various other agencies working for children in the area will achieve the right outcomes. I welcome too the joint inspection of local authority services by the different inspection bodies such as Ofsted and other social services inspectorates. The Children's Commissioner will be under a duty to monitor the outcomes for children and to look at partnership working. All these things will work together to help to change the culture, encouraging it forward in the direction in which it is already moving. However, the Bill provides the impetus to achieve those aims.
I am concerned that we should not leave out from all these welcome improvements children who are in trouble with the law. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, that there is a separate document on children who are in the charge of the Prison Service. I think there was an acknowledgement in the consultation document Next Steps that, on
1258
reflection, it would have been better to combine all these matters into one document. I welcome that acknowledgement.
We have to be very careful that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past and seek to exclude and put away these troublesome children. It reminds me of the Bible story in which God, if you like, put his children out of Eden. I prefer the New Testament version, maybe not to turn the other cheek but to try to contain such children and work with them, rather than pushing them away into an establishment which cannot meet their needs; which cannot do much more than perhaps "warehouse" them. During the progress of the Bill, I shall be looking at how we can bind in the work carried out in the criminal justice system.
Again with regard to asylum seekers, today half a tonne of bomb-making material was found and several British citizens of Pakistani origin were arrested in connection with that find. At the moment, we are fortunate with the economic climate in which we exist, but if a terrorist atrocity takes place in this country and the economy starts to worsen, there will be all kinds of pressures to be cruel, if you like—or, as some people see it, to be firm—towards asylum seekers and their children. We will need to build sufficient measures into the Bill to ensure that such people are protected in the hard times ahead. The matter needs to be approached carefully and thoughtfully.
It has been brought to my attention that the Seebohm reforms, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, referred, which brought forward the modern social services. may have been in part the reason why in this country, until very recently, 80 per cent of residential childcare workers had no appropriate qualifications for working with children, whereas on the continent most of them have three years' training for working with troubled children. Apparently what may have happened is that the forward-looking and experienced people who were running children's homes were drawn into the leadership of the new social services. These people were the brightest and the best. It was expected that, in a few years' time, children's homes would be staffed by social workers who had obtained the new social work qualification. But that did not happen. It was expensive to train residential childcare workers to that level of qualification and it became the practice to say, "Well, this is really domestic work. It simply means feeding children and looking after them, so we will let it ride".
This has had terrible consequences. It is perhaps the reason why we have so many children in prison today. In this country there are 2,500 children in prison, only 775 in France and the figure for other countries is far lower. We have not invested in the care system in the past; we have not had good children's homes; and we have not equipped staff to provide the containment that such children need.
I hope that we will take the opportunity afforded by the Bill. I welcome the partnerships at local level that the Government are enshrining in the Bill. I hope that we will also look to see whether we can enshrine partnerships between different departments at central government level so that they, too, all work towards the common outcome of healthy children. I hope that

1259
the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health and the Home Office, all of which have the best interests of children in mind, will work together to achieve the outcomes that we all want. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, many noble Lords have said today how much they welcome the Bill. I, too, welcome it, especially as it will establish a Children's Commissioner for England. Having seen how successful the Children's Commissioner for Wales has been over the past two and a half years since the post was first established, it is good to know that the children of England will now also have a commissioner.
The Welsh commissioner's role and that of his team is very "child focused". The interests of the child or young person are always at the top of the list in whatever work they are carrying out and they are real champions for children.
If you look at the website of the Children's Commissioner for Wales if you have not, you ought to because it is a really good website you will see and appreciate how child centred is the whole approach. The website and the annual report are very attractive, easy to understand and very welcoming. This is very good for the children who use it.
The website gives children a chance to have their say through what is called "backchat", a name devised by children. It gives them a quick way of telling the commissioner's team about what really matters to them and lets them contribute to the work of the team. This is all done via the computer. As most children and young people have access to computers these days, this is a great way for them to communicate with the Children's Commissioner.
The commissioner and his team say:
"We want children and young people to be kept up to date with what we're doing even if they don't always feel like contributing".
They listen to and respect children's point of view. Will the English commissioner be able to do things like this? I believe that a Children's Commissioner should be a voice for and a champion of children. That is what the Welsh Children's Commissioner is. I hope that that is how the Children's Commissioner for England will be regarded—a champion for the children of England.
There are differences in the role of the four commissioners for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. One would accept that with the devolution settlement there would not be a "one size fits all". There are bound to be differences between the four countries of the UK.
I am particularly concerned about the differences between the Welsh and English commissioners. The Welsh Commissioner, in many respects, has greater powers to act on behalf of a child in Wales than the English Commissioner has to act on behalf of a child in England. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested that perhaps the Welsh commissioner's powers would be diminished, but in our briefing last night with the
1260
Minister she said that this should not and would not happen. I am sure we will all be watching her very carefully to ensure that that does not happen.
One of the best things about the Welsh commissioner is that he is independent. He is not answerable to politicians, and I believe that that has contributed to his success. One of the best things to have come out of the Welsh Assembly is the Children's Commissioner—it has been a great success. However, this is not the case with the English commissioner. In order to be effective, to work on behalf of children without having to refer back to a politician is, I believe, essential to the success of a commissioner.
The Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001 spells out the principal aims and widens the commissioner's role by giving power to review the effect of policies and delivery of services to children. It extends the commissioner's remit well beyond services directly provided for children such as social care, health and education, and includes areas—as it says in one of the reports—such as transport, the environment, economic development and agriculture.
The Children's Commissioner can consider and make representations to the Welsh Assembly about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales. This means that he can deal with issues such as Home Office-run juvenile offenders institutions, the family courts—I think everybody is very pleased that CAFCASS will be devolved to Wales—and other benefits, matters not within the remit of the National Assembly for Wales.
The annual report of the Children's Commissioner for Wales 2001–02 states:
"The powers of the Commissioner are designed to be sufficient for him to act as an informed champion of children and their rights".
Does this not say precisely what a Children's Commissioner should be if it is to be effective and work on behalf of children? I believe that that is so crucial for any commissioner—to act effectively in the interests of children. This should be the case for the commissioner for England. I know we are not sure whether it will be the commissioner for England or the commissioner for the UK, because he or she will have powers over the other countries of the UK. The differences between the commissioners for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland is that each is required, by law, to promote and protect the rights of children and young people, using the framework of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
One of the aims of the Welsh commissioner is to make children and young people aware of their rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. His job is to make sure that children know of their rights. As the Bill stands, I do not believe the commissioner for England would be able to do that. In the annual report of 2001–02, the Welsh commissioner spells out its core values. One is that:
"Children and young people should enjoy their full rights as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
In two areas—aims and values—the rights of the child
are underlined.

1261
The focus of the English commissioner is much weaker, with a general function to promote awareness of the views and interests of children. If the commissioner is to become an independent champion for children, the Bill must be made clearer, as it is Wales. As many noble Lords have said, the Bill places no duty on the commissioner to have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Bill should embrace that convention as does the Act for Wales. The Bill makes no provision for government or others to respond to recommendations made by the commissioner, unlike the legislation in Wales and in Northern Ireland.
The Children Bill offers great opportunities to help and assist children in many ways, but it is weak in a number of areas. I am sure that those will be debated further as the Bill progresses through your Lordships' House.
The Welsh commissioner provides us with excellent model. It was the first such post to be established. It has been running for two and a half years and it provides a good model for us to follow in order to see how effective such a commissioner can be, if given the appropriate powers to act on behalf of children and young people. I feel proud of what has been achieved in Wales for children and young people. English children should have at least the same measure of protection and support.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, my late-lamented, widowed mother would be absolutely delighted with the gender balance of this debate. I have looked around the Chamber and for most of the time, 14 women have been present and 13 men. I looked then at the order of speakers. Eighteen women and 17 men are speaking. That is particularly interesting because my mother, who brought me up from the age of three after the death of my father, also occupied a senior position in a comprehensive school. We used to discuss at the tea table all the events that affected children of all different backgrounds, many of them extremely poor. In many senses, therefore, I was brought up on this subject.
I warmly welcome the Children Bill and the creation of a Children's Commissioner for England, as well as the infrastructure that its different clauses set in place. Like many other Members of this House, I was personally involved in the House of Commons in Part 5 of the Care Standards Act 2000, which established the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I shall not repeat all that has been said about Wales, but I remind the House that the Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001 broadened the aims of the commissioner and promoted and safeguarded the rights and welfare of children in Wales. It is important to recognise that the Children's Commissioner for Wales came out of the terrible child abuse case in north Wales and its investigation by Sir Ronald Waterhouse. Everybody in Wales was absolutely shocked by the findings of that report. When we debated it in the
1262
House of Commons, we took the lead from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and many amendments in the Bill were proposed and carried out according to those principles. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has said, the Welsh Assembly enshrined the convention within its remit. Why not England? I do not understand that. Surely the case in England is great and fundamental. Children's rights must surely be pivotal to the Bill. They must not be diminished. I am concerned by the impact of the Bill on the rights of the child and, specifically, on the operation of the Children's Commissioner for Wales.
We have briefly discussed the whole issue of chastisement. All that I can say about my young education was that the weapon of child destruction was, in one school, a cricket bat. That is a long time ago, but none the less it is still painful to remember it. The importance of consulting children themselves is absolutely fundamental. The introduction of statutory powers to protect them is very important. We must not forget the whole issue of advocacy, which must underpin a lot of these matters.
There are anomalies in the Bill, especially as it affects the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I shall outline some. The system stems from a lack of primary legislative power in Wales. Hopefully, that will be put right by the Richard report. We spent a long time in the other place discussing that lack of power in Wales for the commissioner. We highlighted the fact that at that time, before discussions with Lord Williams, the police, the courts and all Home Office functions could not actually be in the remit of the commissioner. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, some of those problems have been overcome, and I am very pleased about that.
The relationship between the powers of the National Assembly for Wales and the commissioner in England, which is contained in this Bill, will need sorting out before problems occur. I refer to the fact that often children from Wales are imprisoned or in care in England. That was of great concern to us in the House of Commons, because the Children's Commissioner for Wales at that time could not investigate the state of the children who originated in Wales but were in care in England.
My main aim will be to assist the process of reform and to try to ensure that the four commissioners can work to the same principles. I am grateful for Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill, which will give the opportunity for constructive reform along with the action, which I believe goes in tandem, on the Richard report, which will greatly assist the process.
To finish, I quote from a submission by the Children's Commissioner for Wales about this Bill, particularly in relation to the devolved assemblies and parliaments in the United Kingdom. He said:
"A Children's Commissioner for England is likely to be given powers with regard to all bodies, as the devolution argument does not apply, and restricting children's rights by reference to government departments is unfair and cannot be justified. Therefore, it is only equitable that at the time of creation of the English Children's Commissioner the powers of the Welsh Children's Commissioner are extended to cover non-devolved areas. The alternative would be for an English Children's

1263
Commissioner to have powers over non-devolved functions in Wales, which would be inefficient and inappropriate, particularly post-evolution".
Those matters should be sorted out during the passage of the Bill. We should end up with a holistic solution.
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to speak in this debate and grateful to the Minister for her convincing and clear exposition. This Bill is not under the purview of the Home Office. The debate was opened and will be replied to by a Minister for Education. In that context, I should like to make a few brief remarks about children in trouble and how far they are in or out of the very positive and encouraging measures that we are discussing today.
Surely the starting point for a department for education or for any educationalist will be, whenever possible, to have schools not prisons and education not punishment. This Bill is an opportunity to try to close the chasm that has opened between what we want for our good children and what we do to our "bad" ones. I echo the regrets of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and other noble Lords in this debate that the "had" children get a separate document.
My "bad" children are, of course, in inverted commas. By that, I mean those who, early in life, get a label of "out of control", "troublemaker" or "persistent offender" and everything that we do to them after that reinforces that identity and pushes them through the seemingly predetermined path. How many long-term adult prisoners are the children of broken homes and the result of the failure of children's services? What proportion of the prison population comes from backgrounds where good children's services were needed and somehow failed them? The chasm between services for "good" and "bad" children is quite wide.
Changes in policy over the past two decades, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, so helpfully alluded, have moved policy for children in trouble further and deeper into the Home Office, which is a quite inappropriate location. Sadly, the Bill scarcely begins the clawback that many of us would like to see. The past two decades have also pushed us from being a country with very good procedures for dealing with children in trouble with the law to being a country receiving severe criticism from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and from those watchdog bodies that we have set up to inspect our arrangements, as well as from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of both Houses.
The UK Government have been one of the most stalwart supporters of the United Nations and of its work in setting human rights standards. We have much to be proud of in that regard. It is therefore distressing to be at the receiving end of such strong criticism as we have received from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child for our treatment of children in trouble with the law. It has criticised our low age of criminal responsibility, which it said could be raised "considerably", and it has
1264
criticised the amount of locking up of children that we do. All the international human rights instruments make it clear that locking up children should be a last resort and for the shortest possible time. Yet the number of very young children, 12 to 14 year-olds, in prison-like establishments has increased eightfold in the past 10 years. The committee has criticised the treatment of our children in prison for too much solitary confinement and use of restraints.
Our Government should be showing their support for the United Nations and the international order that it underpins by listening to those criticisms and using the Bill to rectify our deficiencies. It is very encouraging in this regard to hear of the developments in Wales to which several noble Lords have alluded. It is hard to understand why we are not enthusiastically in favour of the recommendation in the 10th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that Prison Service custody should no longer he used for Juveniles; that is, those under 18. The committee recommended removing all children under 18 from Prison Service custody into the care of people,
"whose outlook is firmly grounded in a culture of respect for children's human rights devoted to rehabilitation and care".
That recommendation is understandable in view of the reports from the chief inspector of prisons who asked recently:
"Can the detention of children in units of 60 and establishments of 400 really promote their welfare and development? What is the rationale or the proportionality of routinely strip-searching children on arrival in prison, particularly for a population more likely than the average to have experienced abuse? And if a child resists, can you justify him or her being held down b) adults, in painful wristlocks, and forcibly undressed?"
A report from eight inspectorates, Safeguarding Children, said:
"We identified the safeguarding of young people in Young Offender Institutions … as a major concern. Previous inspections have highlighted the very serious nature of the risks many young people face in these institutions and the extent of self-harming behaviour".
They go on to say—this is very relevant to our discussions tonight—
"This contrasts with the reported good quality of care and protection of young people including young offenders placed in secure accommodation provided by social services".
I hear that 250 juvenile prisoners have just been shipped out of Onley young offender institution to make way for adults. We need to compare that with the work to create security and stability in a unit or home run by a local area. Would anyone want a child of theirs to be treated like that and to be in a system where those whose short lives have already been full of instability and insecurity can be transported around the country like parcels looking for a depot in which to store them?
To start closing that chasm between services for good children and the others we need to ensure that Clause 6 is fully inclusive and that the arrangements include youth offending teams, and that area child protection committees should ensure that children in custody are safe, which is a recommendation of the eight inspectorates' report. It seems to me strange that a child from a local authority area should be sent to a

1265
state institution which is supposed to fulfil all the requirements of health and safety and has a duty of care and then arrangements have to be made by another body to ensure that the children are safe there.
Clause 7 needs to be strong enough to ensure that the Prison Service—for as long as children are in prisons, which I hope will not be too long—has a duty to safeguard the welfare of children. Perhaps through this Bill, therefore, by making some of these changes, we can begin to repudiate a comment in the Government's response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights regarding our adherence to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In their response the Government did not accept the criticism of the Joint Committee regarding our treatment of children in custody. They said:
"Children in custody are not just children. They have also committed serious and/or persistent crimes against the community".
So, one must ask, what are they if they are not children? The reply implies that they are criminals. However, the drafters of the Convention on the Rights of the Child knew that children could be criminals and that some children would commit acts against the law. That is why they included in the convention specific articles about how such children should be treated. When children are children, they are children, even if they have stolen a mobile phone or burgled a house.
Finally, as it is late, I shall simply signify my support for getting rid of "reasonable chastisement". Most of the children in trouble come from backgrounds of violence. It is hard to punish a child who has been punished all his or her life. That is why the approach in this Bill should be extended to all children, including the Home Office children.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, this important Bill is the fourth Children Bill to be introduced since the Attlee government introduced the Children Act 1948. I believe that noble Lords on all Benches in the House share the same basic objectives in our approach to the Bill; namely, to produce a very good Bill which will improve the services for all children throughout the UK and to seek to make sure—I do not think that we can put it any higher—that the scandalous failures of the past are not repeated. The Minister will be heartened that there are no party differences about those objectives. I am sure that she would have been particularly heartened by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
We welcome what is good in the Bill, and it has many good provisions. However, that does not require us to be silent about those provisions or omissions that are the cause of concern. Most of us will have read the document produced by the commissioner campaign group representing 16 leading children's charities in the UK, the briefing by the Greater London Authority and the joint briefing by the Children's Commissioners. It is fair to say that those bodies believe that Part 1 needs to be strengthened considerably. I hope that the Government will look with the greatest care at their submissions. That need
1266
not in any way be inconsistent with the very clear message that we heard this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
I should like to raise one or two issues that are the cause of concern in Wales and cannot be addressed by the National Assembly for Wales. I hasten to add that it cannot be said often enough that all children matter. Sadly, as has been pointed out, Part 1 perpetuates the distinction between areas of responsibility that are devolved and not devolved, an artificial distinction that emerged four years ago on the then Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill. That division has led to some worrying consequences.
In the time available, I shall give just one example; I could give many. It is to be found in the briefing material prepared by the Wales commissioner, which states:
"The Children's Commissioner for Wales recently held a public inquiry into how serious allegations of sexual abuse at a secondary school in Wales were investigated. Although he could examine all the documentation held by social services, education, the WJEC"—
the Welsh Joint Education Committee—
"and the school he did not have the power to enforce disclosure of the police internal review of their investigation in 1991. This document could have assisted the Inquiry".
The Wales commissioner made two requests to the police for disclosure of their internal review report, but it has not been forthcoming. As the responsibility for police rests with the Home Office and has not been devolved to the Assembly, the Wales commissioner could not demand its disclosure.
I have given that illustration to show that the UK Government cannot pretend that a division between devolved and non-devolved services does not lead to problems, and to show that it is important that the Bill address the weaknesses. However, the weaknesses remain untouched by the Bill. I have the greatest respect for the work of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and his staff, but I observe that his powers are not as extensive as those of the Northern Ireland commissioner. We may well explore that issue in Committee.
The great concern in Wales is that we may be losing an opportunity provided by the Bill to extend the Welsh commissioner's remit to improve the non-devolved services in Wales. I ask myself why the Bill perpetuates that artificial distinction between the devolved and non-devolved matters. My noble friend the Minister, duly briefed, may say, as I have heard other Ministers say, that the division results from a principle that underlines the Government of Wales Act 1998. I could accept everything that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has said about that and the reasoning needs to be challenged.
I wish to ask the Minister a question about the resources available to the UK commissioner for his work in Wales. In all innocence, I had assumed that he would at least have an office in Wales. But after looking up the final regulatory impact assessment of 4 March 2004 I now seriously doubt whether that is the Government's intention. Paragraph 51 of the assessment says that the annual running costs of the UK commission,
"are currently estimated at around £2.5 million per annum".

1267
That was the figure that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, gave. That is the budget for providing a service which potentially will serve 13 million children and young people. It is a relatively small sum. It is substantially less than the current total budget of £4.5 million for the Welsh, Northern Ireland and Scottish commissioners.
I acknowledge that it can be said that as long as Clause 2(1) remains in the Bill that the comparison is unfair, because we are not comparing like with like. Nevertheless, it reinforces the important point made by many speakers this afternoon that the role of the England and UK commissioner will be far more limited than those of the three Celtic commissioners. Can the Minister confirm whether it is intended that the UK commissioner will have offices in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland? Information on that issue will be welcome.
In a sense, I am pleasantly surprised when I read in Clause 2(7) and (8), that the English commission,
"may have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child",
because when the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill was in Committee we heard much from Ministers that it would be "decidedly odd" to put that convention into the Bill, because the convention was not part of domestic law. Some Members present will recall the debate that we had on 3 April 2001. But it is to the credit of the Welsh Assembly that it placed the commissioner under a duty to have regard to the convention. Would it be essential, in pursuit of the paramount interest of the child, to have exactly the same statutory duty placed on the commissioner for England and for non-devolved services?
There is one other matter that I will return to in Committee, regarding Clause 5, which is headed, "Relationship with other Commissioners". It is my understanding that the three commissioners believe that the wording of Clause 5 is inadequate as it stands. With the advent of children's commissioners in each of the countries of the UK, is there not a powerful case for the four commissioners to be consulted as a group by the Government on proposed legislation or the review of the working of existing legislation and policies? Can the commission be directly involved in drawing up the UK report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child who will know better than the four commissioners how well or otherwise the legislation and policies for children are working? That issue has been raised in the briefing material prepared by the Children's Commissioner for Wales and he has a very good point.
Although, like others, I have reservations about some of the provisions in the Bill and its failure to repeal the defence of reasonable chastisement, I have no hesitation in welcoming it as a first step on a long journey towards giving legislative content to the phrase, "Every child matters".
8.49 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for introducing the Bill today. She has been a good friend and I know that she
1268
is particularly interested in matters relating to children and young people. She can be assured that many aspects of the Bill will receive broad support from your Lordships' House.
There is a consensus that reform of children's services is long overdue. My own upbringing in an extended family gave me the safety net which ensured that family protection was available throughout the period in which I grew up. I consider myself fortunate. Many children growing up in our communities do not have the same support.
I recall my early days in Brighton when I was a councillor there. Some of us are old enough to remember the name of a young child—Maria Colwell. She was regularly beaten and abused by her parents and step-father and she starved to death. The details are too horrifying. The memory of a child scavenging for food in neighbours' dustbins is one that will remain with me.
That is not all. When I was a member of the Police Complaints Authority, I had the privilege of examining a number of cases involving children who were abused. I looked again and again at the files and found that no mechanism was available whereby we could have protected some of those children because many people simply refused to believe what was happening to them. I have never forgotten that in everything we do children's issues are of paramount importance, and the Bill goes some way towards dealing with those issues.
I have been a magistrate and have served in the youth court and family courts. The tragedy of broken families, abused children and adoption and care orders have made me realise that we need to aspire to the best legislative machinery for the protection and welfare of our children. Children are the unintended victims of our own ills.
As a civilised society, we must accept that, from time to time, cases will emerge which show that an improvement is required in the way that we tackle children's issues. That should not be the case but it will happen. We need to ensure that legislation is in place to minimise the harm done to our children. The Children Bill goes some way towards that and is a step in the right direction, but that does not mean that it cannot be better. For that reason, I shall deal with two areas of concern in the legislation.
The first relates to children of parents who have sought refuge in this country. The second relates to how we deal with children and young people within our criminal justice system. Perhaps I may quote from the briefing supplied by the Refugee Children's Consortium
"Refugee children are children first and foremost and should be accorded the same rights and protection as any other children in the UK".
For that reason, as the Children Bill will be running parallel with the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, we need to ensure that there are no discrepancies in the way that we deal with children's provisions in both these statutes. For example, as mentioned by a number of noble Lords, our

1269
Government have entered a reservation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, allowing them to pass immigration laws without reference to their obligations under the convention. I wish to ensure that appropriate amendments are made to the Bill, placing an obligation across government to demonstrate compliance with the outcomes framework for children in framing and implementing legislation and policy. Another example relates to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of refugee children. Clauses 7 and 9 are inadequate in this respect. Other matters relating to assistance and advocacy will require clear assurances from the Minister.
I now turn to the matters relating to the criminal justice system. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Linklater and to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, for raising these matters. On Thursday I shall raise the matter relating to Joseph Scholes. Joseph was a deeply disturbed boy who had disclosed a history of alleged sexual abuse from a very early age. On 24 March 2002 he hanged himself in his cell at Stoke Heath young offender institution in Shropshire. His death occurred just nine days into his two-year sentence for street robbery. Joseph's death and other tragedies like it raise serious issues about the ability of the present system to cope with society's most vulnerable young people and to provide them with a safe and secure environment.
The question that arises is how we can best identify any systematic failings and the lessons that should be learnt from them. It is important to bear in mind that we are talking about a disturbed boy who had a really unhappy childhood. It included his parents' acrimonious divorce, severe sexual abuse by family members; suicidal thoughts; and self harm. At the end of the process, political posturing about street crime and how crime involving mobile phones was distorting the statistics resulted in a two-year detention and training order. The rest is history. Almost everything that could go wrong, went wrong in Joseph's case.
We welcome the establishment of a Children's Commissioner with responsibility for seeking and representing the views of children and young people. However, we regret the fact that the powers of the commissioner will be considerably weaker than those of the commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Under the provisions of the Bill, the commissioner can carry out only a formal investigation at the direction of a government Minister. The Secretary of State—not the commissioner—will be able to decide whether to publish or to hold back the report of an inquiry by the commissioner. The commissioner does not have independent powers to access information, to enter establishments, to subpoena witnesses and to meet children in private.
We agree with the Government that the commissioner's primary function should not be to deal with individual cases. But the right to initiate and to carry out investigations into particular cases, which the commissioner considers have wider implications for children's rights, is fundamental to the commissioner's independence and effectiveness.
We would like to see the commissioner given independent investigatory powers. Those powers should explicitly include all areas of the youth justice system and
1270
secure establishments for juveniles, as this is an area of public policy that demonstrates particular disregard for the welfare and rights of children and young people. If we look at young people in young offender institutions, we find that half of them have a history of local authority care compared with 2 per cent of the general population; a quarter of them have suffered violence at the home; many (including a third of the girls in custody) have suffered sexual abuse; and many more have suffered emotional abuse from parental neglect. Nearly half have literacy and numeracy levels below those of an average 11 year-old and over a quarter have levels below those of a seven year-old. Eighty-five per cent show signs of a personality disorder; 10 per cent show signs of a psychotic disorder; and nearly half of boys and two-thirds of girls in custody have symptoms of depression, anxiety, and concentration problems, compared with one in 10 children in the general population. Those are shocking statistics.
I declare an interest. I am president of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. In a study called Wasted Lives published in 1998, NACRO researchers interviewed a sample of children under 18 in young offender institutions. They drew up a list of 11 risk factors associated with offending by young people such as physical abuse, sexual abuse, parental neglect, unstable living conditions, misuse of alcohol or drugs, school exclusion and family conflict. They found that on average the children in the sample had six of the 11 risk factors.
How does our youth justice system deal with these vulnerable, difficult and often disturbed young people? First, we use the criminal justice system too much for children. It is pointed out again and again that our age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10, an age that by European standards is astonishingly low. In France the age is 13; in Germany, Austria and Italy it is 14; in the Scandinavian countries it is 15; in Spain and Portugal it is 16; and in Belgium it is 18. In eastern European countries it ranges between 14 and 16. Below those ages child offenders are dealt with as children in need of compulsory measures of care, and where a court is involved it is a family court.
Secondly, we use custody too much for young offenders and on a more extensive scale than other countries in Europe. In most cases that means prison service custody with its 84 per cent reconviction rate within two years of release and its widespread problems of bullying, intimidation and—most tragically of all—self harm and suicide attempts. Most of the young people we detain would be far better dealt with by supervision programmes in the community—where necessary intensive supervision is in the community which can tackle the problems at the root of their offending. We now lock up on any one day around 3,000 child offenders in young offender institutions, secure training centres and local authority secure units, around double the number of a decade ago. Over the past 10 years successive governments have changed the law to make it easier for courts to detain children, both before and after sentence, at increasingly young ages and for less serious offences.

1271
It is true that there have been some specific changes for the better in the youth justice system. These include the establishment of the Youth Justice Board and local youth offending teams, together with the introduction of sentences such as referral orders, reparation orders, action plan orders and intensive supervision and surveillance orders. The Youth Justice Board has worked hard to halt the rise in the use of custody and to improve conditions for juveniles in young offender institutions.
However, important aspects of our treatment of young offenders, and, as has been pointed out, in particular our overuse of custody for young people, continue to flout acceptable standards of children's rights and children's welfare. It is vital that youth justice agencies should be fully involved in the Bill's measures to promote the welfare of children; for example, youth offending teams should be included among the agencies represented on the local safeguarding children boards set up by Clause 9 of the Bill. It is also crucial that the Children's Commissioner should have strong powers to take independent action to investigate all aspects of the youth justice system and to propose changes to meet the needs of society and of difficult, vulnerable and disturbed children.
Perhaps I may take one other issue, which is a matter of serious concern. When we talk about children, let us not forget that all children do not start from the same point. There is no level playing field for many of them. I include black children in care. While chairing a NACRO working party on black people and the criminal justice system, the question often posed to me was: why is it that if society and social workers care there are so many black children in our care homes? We must never forget that if we want a cohesive society, a society that is at ease with itself, lessons show that those at the bottom of the pile receive the most attention.
I have no doubt that the Minister, whose record for care and concern is second to none, will give serious thought to issues that I have identified.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, before I start I need to declare my interest as leader of Wigan Council. As such, I am a vice-president of the LGA and remarkably I find myself in agreement with its brief, which is not always the case.
As noble Lords would expect, I shall concentrate my remarks on Part 2. Like all in local government, I want to say how much I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government and my noble friend on the Front Bench on the way the Government have reflected the comments and feedback on the Green Paper. The result is a Bill that focuses on the outcomes the Government seek to achieve, clearly outlined in Clause 6(2), and is less concerned about dictating structural changes. Enabling powers given to local authorities and other partners should help them to produce effective local arrangements to meet the differing circumstances. I hope that spirit will continue in the subsequent guidance.
1272
I shall mention one omission—I think that my noble friend Lord Pendry also mentioned it. We must not forget the broader engaging activities in which children can get involved. I believe that art, music and sport are essential to young people to give them the opportunity to achieve their full potential, encourage personal development and, certainly in the case of sport, achieve healthier outcomes. Any partnership in my authority will certainly value those contributions and involve those, especially in the voluntary sector, who take part in such work.
I intend to concentrate on four aspects of the Bill: information-sharing, which other noble Lords have mentioned; accountability; inspections; and resources. However, before doing so, I shall give an example of good practice that occurs in local government. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, rightly focused on the bad, but there is some good practice and, for a change, I shall talk about my neighbouring authority, Bolton.
Bolton is doing excellent work in creating a pilot children's trust concentrating on children with disability in particular and, as a trailblazer initiative, as they say, Bolton Unlimited, for identification, referral and tracking, covering early intervention and prevention through to child protection issues. Its success has been recognised. It has received a three-star social services inspection, which commented that it serves children well, with prospects for improvement. Overall, the authority joins mine as an excellent council.
The key message from the Bolton experience is that it benefited from an incremental approach. Joint working between the council departments and other partners was based on earlier work. Effective integration working on the ground was put before structural change. It still has separate directors of education and social services. Bolton found that the challenge is not structural change in itself but changing working cultures. That is more difficult and needs to embrace the needs of all those who work with children, putting children first, not organisations.
To serve children, we need to build as complete a picture as possible. The experience of Bolton and my authority is that information-sharing is vital to achieve effective, child-sensitive services. For example, persistent truanting may be seen as a problem in schools, but may of course reflect a range of other issues. It may reflect a child with problems with health—perhaps drugtaking—or who is being abused. Of course, there are clear links between persistent truanting and criminality and other forms of anti-social behaviour. Unless the information held by various agencies is shared, the individual needs of any child cannot be assessed.
I understand the concerns expressed in different parts of the House about the development of information-sharing, but it is vital and we must make it a priority. It is an essential tool to achieve what we want. Our task is to overcome difficulties and manage the risk, not to say that it is all too difficult and go away.
The principle of clear accountability for children's services at both managerial and political levels is one with which we all seem to agree. A dedicated director of

1273
children's services and lead member covering the same responsibilities is one solution to clarify such accountability. But there are others. If the ultimate level of responsibility rests at the top of local authorities, a case can be made for the chief executive—an executive leader—taking accountability. So I endorse the Bill in allowing local authorities to make their own decisions, having regard to local circumstances.
However, if directors of children's services are appointed, should they chair the local safeguarding children board? I agree with the comments made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that they should not and that the chief executive is probably a better person, particularly because one of the board's functions is to ensure the effectiveness of what is done. Directors of children's services would effectively be judging their own performance. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate for them to chair.
The proposal in Clause 15 to join up inspection regimes is to be welcomed. Of course, whether it works well depends on the inspection framework that is drawn up. It should be clearly focused, as is the Bill, on outcomes, supporting change and providing practical guidance, not on structural management. I have a degree of nervousness that with nine separate inspectorates involved in producing the inspection framework, each hoping to have its own concerns reflected in it, the result may be an exponential rise in complexity. I welcome the comments that my noble friend quoted from Denise Platt. I encourage her to keep her eye on the issue and to ensure that it does not get out of hand.
The achievement of the objectives of the Bill would depend not just on the quality of the legislation, but on available resources. As the person responsible in my own authority for presenting and achieving the local authority's budget, children's social services always cause most concern. With unpredictable numbers of children for which the local authority must take responsibility and unpredictable needs, accurate budgeting is impossible. The recent upward trend in numbers coming to the attention of local authorities may be a reflection of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. Who knows where, or whether, it will reach a new plateau? The complexities of individual cases determine the costs. At an extreme level, my local authority is paying £4,000 a week for an individual case—£200,000 a year. One can imagine that a couple of such cases would blow a hole in any budget. Clearly, we need to be aware of that.
The Government have recognised and responded to the problems of the costs of children's social services in the recent settlements for local government. We should welcome that. However, we need to monitor the situation, particularly if numbers continue to rise, and to respond to pressures in order to ensure that we serve children, particularly those with the greatest needs.
As other noble Lords have mentioned, human resources are also vital. All social services face recruitment difficulties for children's social services and many resort to agency staff in significant numbers.
1274
That is unsatisfactory from every perspective. Again, the Government have recognised that, but solutions will be neither quick nor easy. I urge my noble friend to consider up-skilling existing support staff to professional standards. That is an untapped reservoir of talent, comprising people who understand the needs of children and children's services. We ignore it at our peril. Secondly, we need to develop career progression to enable frontline staff who become experts to stay on the front line and not to move to a back-office management job.
The Government propose radical changes to our children's services. Our task is to ensure that the changes meet the needs of children while ensuring that planning for the future does not damage services for the present. I commend the Bill and am happy to support it.
9.13 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, it must be particularly pleasing to the Minister to know that the overwhelming reaction to this long-awaited Bill is so welcoming, despite some reservations.
Long before the tragic Climbié case, it was clear that nothing less than a complete overhaul and reorganisation of the various children's support services was required. The report of my noble friend Lord Laming did an invaluable job. By exposing so clearly the lack of co-ordination between local authority services responsible for children's welfare, it was the final catalyst for change. Alas, it also exposed the dangerous absence of anyone within those services, even at the very top, who was willing to take responsibility for failure.
The resulting Bill is brave and far-reaching. The real challenge, to quote an apt phrase from the NHS Confederation briefing,
"is to focus on cultural change within organisations, so as to create and deliver a shared vision of better outcomes for all children and families".
As I am certain my noble friend Lord Northbourne will point out, and as other noble Lords have said, that must include those who take the greatest responsibility for children, and who are surprisingly not even mentioned in the Bill—I mean, of course, parents.
Of course, the degree of interaction proposed will require good will and co-operation from all the services and individuals involved. That is not always easy, vital though it may be. I welcome the decision to place a specific statutory duty on local authorities to form multi-discipline, child-centred teams of social services, education, health and other relevant groups, with that duty to work together to promote, as well as safeguard, the well-being of children. That is exactly what is needed. Rightly, the local authority's statutory duty to form such inter-disciplinary teams is absolute. That will, one hopes, reduce the postcode lottery element, and might make better use of the resources that are currently available, as the Minister said.
I am glad to see that there is flexibility in how these teams are to be structured. The Government have clearly listened to the representations that have been made that one size does not necessarily beneficially fit

1275
all. The decision not to be prescriptive about which discipline of the local authority provides the required Director of Social Services also makes sense. Choosing someone with the right personality and leadership skills will be of over-riding importance. However, the relevant partners to be involved and required to work together at this level—and incidentally in the new statutory local safeguarding children boards—should automatically include bodies such as youth offending teams, the voluntary sector, and, crucially, schools and teachers. I think I heard the Minister say that, but judging by some of the representations that have been made to us, it needs saying rather more clearly and specifically.
It is significant that the NUT—as the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, said—while enthusiastically welcoming the Bill, has pointed out that the role of teachers, like that of parents, is hardly mentioned. Teachers already feel stressed and over-burdened with bureaucratic procedures of many kinds. However, if these ambitious plans are to succeed, the co-operation of teachers and their willing participation will be essential, not least to ensure delivery of plans for the many more extended schools required, together with more concentrated help for more disadvantaged families. It is not only co-operation that is needed, but informed leadership. That is why I find it worrying that an NSPCC survey found that a quarter of newly qualified teachers had not received any child protection training. For those who did, it apparently consisted of just one hour's instruction.
In Every Child Matters, children and young people made plain the five results that they wanted to see. Whether those have been altered in the Bill, they are clearly good targets for everyone involved. I hope that there will be rather more guidance on how to measure success and failure. At present, it seems a little vague.
I am particularly pleased with the proposal that each local authority is to nominate a lead councillor with specific responsibilities for these services. It is important to have at least one local politician, as well as the professionals, identified as responsible and accountable for what is to be provided. This proposal echoes the thinking contained in the report of an inquiry that I chaired some years ago for the Local Government Management Board into the quality of care in residential homes. Our thinking was that if each councillor had adopted one or two such homes, visiting them regularly, sometimes without warning, many of the problems that were subsequently identified might have been prevented. I shall look forward to seeing the guidance promised by the Secretary of State of possible extra functions that the lead councillor might undertake.
Then there is the proposal to establish electronic databases. It is crucial for relevant and appropriate information about a child to be shared within and across agencies; I understand that. Obviously, it is sensible to use modern techniques, to prevent some of the failures of the Victoria Climbié case. However, as other noble Lords have said, that raises human rights issues, especially those relating to privacy, about which, incidentally, children have been particularly concerned. Equally seriously, there are worries about
1276
the speed at which ever new methods of hacking into the Internet are developed. We need to be alert, lest information stored in that way should fall into dangerous hands. I am sure, after listening, in particular, to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that we shall need to examine the issue in detail in Committee.
A further important point mentioned by the Minister is the new duty on a local authority to promote the educational attainment of children in its care—so-called looked-after children. As such children are frequently moved from school to school, it will be particularly important to pass on relevant information. The appalling lack of educational attainment in that group of children, who are already disadvantaged, is a disgrace to us all. Access to an independent advocacy service—due, I believe, to commence on 4 April—will be vital for all children but especially, I would argue, to that group. I hope that the service will be sufficiently independent. There is a further missing feature that I would like to see rectified. Surely, school governors, not just local education authorities, should be placed under a duty to promote educational attainment among looked-after children.
Finally, there is the proposal for a Children's Commissioner for England—the long-awaited "children's champion" that we have heard about this evening. First, will the commissioner be sufficiently independent? Like many of your Lordships, I find it puzzling that the powers that go with the job appear to be weaker than those given to the Children's Commissioners already appointed in the rest of the UK. It appears that the commissioner in Scotland not only has a stronger obligation than is proposed for the English commissioner to have regard to the views and best interests of children and young people but is required to adhere to equal opportunities principles and to be inclusive in her dealings. Those last two instructions are missing from the English commissioner's brief
It is essential for the English commissioner to have full powers to investigate individual complaints on his or her own account, rather than only when asked to do so by the Secretary of State. The case described by the noble Lord. Lord Dholakia, gives ample reason why that is so important.
In my equal opportunities days, we had a remit to enforce the law and to promote equal opportunities. We had—needed to have—independent powers to conduct formal investigations and take up individual complaints with wider implications. The only constraint rightly was our budget. The route taken had to be the one that we believed to be the most effective. That is very different from being able to investigate an individual complaint only if the Secretary of State asks for it to be done.
I am also uneasy about the commissioner's apparent lack of independence from the Secretary of State in other ways. A number of children's organisations and some of your Lordships this evening have pointed out that the Bill contains no provision for the Government or others to respond to recommendations made by the

1277
commissioner. Surely, the annual report should go straight to Parliament and not be routed via the Secretary of State.
I end by congratulating the Minister and the Government on such a brave and imaginative Bill. There is much more of importance to mention, and we must all hope that the allocated resources will be sufficient to deliver this ambitious plan. Hook forward with eager anticipation, as, I am sure, do many of your Lordships and the Minister, to the many hours that we will spend examining the Bill in detail, during its progress through your Lordships' House.
9.25 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to consideration of a Bill that is specifically about children. I, too, look forward to the many long hours that we shall spend on it. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Group on Children, which is following the Bill carefully. It is very encouraging to have so many noble Lords wishing to speak on children's issues. That confirms the interest that is always shown in your Lordships' House about child well-being.
I have rarely received so many briefings on a Bill: I can think of two exceptions. The number of agencies supporting children is impressive. They are always organised and determined. As far as I am aware, they are all delighted that we have a Children Bill to discuss. I know that the Bill will be given thorough scrutiny in your Lordships' House. I know that the Minister is attending a large number of meetings in order to get a sense of the concerns.
The Bill comes as reinforcement to the policies and legislation already put forward by the Government to improve the lives of children, which stretch across a number of areas. I am immensely grateful to the National Children's Bureau in particular, those who service the All-Party Group on Children—for its work in extracting child impact statements from the various legislation. There are an awful lot of them.
We must make sure that it all hangs together. Only yesterday in your Lordships' House, I asked a Question about the National Service Framework for Children, which drew other questions about how policies would be cohesive. Much has been said today, so I shall confine myself to two issues; that is, the issue of confidentiality in relation to information sharing and the issue of where drugs and young people fit in the children's agenda, under Clauses 6, 7 and 9.
I know that appropriate information sharing is essential, but I should like to raise confidentiality. As regards sexual health, which has been mentioned earlier, concerns were expressed by the Brook Advisory Centre, which provides confidential advice and services to young people. Clearly, it has grave concerns. Of course, the voluntary sector often has a different relationship with clients from the statutory sector. It is important that that relationship with young people is sensitive and known to be confidential.
1278
During the well-known Victoria Gillick case some years ago, young people were sufficiently worried about the issue of confidentiality to stop seeking advice on sexuality. As a result, the number of teenage pregnancies rose. The Brook Advisory Centre and the FPA are worried that the intention is to regulate that information about young people in contact with sexual services be shared. The concern would remain, even if only use of the service was shared, without including any case details.
That confidentiality is of great importance to young people has been well supported by research. It is acknowledged by the Teenage Pregnancy Unit. Consensual sexual activity between young people should not be a cause for sharing between agencies. Of course, if matters of child protection are involved, that is a different matter. The young person's consent is vital if we are to be seen dealing fairly and openly with young people.
We have a national sexual health strategy, chaired by my noble friend Lady Gould. That strategy must not be undermined by lack of clarity in the Bill. It is vital to give careful thought about which agencies will be required to contribute to the proposed databases and what information will be collected and shared. I know that we will take that matter into account when amending the Bill or drawing up guidance.
As regards drug use and young people, I must declare an interest as chair of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. Drug use is increasing and becoming more complex. It is associated with other issues, such as mental health, under-achievement, homelessness, crime, sexual abuse and unemployment. It becomes a social exclusion issue. Among 16 to 24 year-olds, 30 per cent have used drugs in the past year. Those who truant from school are more likely to be users. Crime and drugs are often linked, and I am glad that a number of noble Lords have raised the issue of young offenders.
Many young people experiment and take risks, including with drugs, but do not continue into adulthood. However, some do, and we need not only to emphasise prevention and harm reduction, but also treatment. The Health Advisory Service report on substance misuse in young people recommended that drug misuse commissioning should be integrated into local child and young person planning systems to aid the development of appropriate service provision. Recent educational initiatives on personal, social and health education have emphasised the need to make young people aware of the dangers associated with drug use. "Young people" is one of the strands of the Updated Drug Strategy of 2002. The strategy states:
"All agencies, whether they be schools, youth offending teams or social services departments, need to work together to solve the whole problem".
Progress is being made and further funding of £50 million for drug action teams to be used as a pool treatment budget was announced last week. However, extra funding is not enough without collaborative action. Statutory guidance should include substance misuse references to ensure that local partners such as directors of social services are embedded in the work of local safeguarding children's boards or children's trusts.

1279
Quality and inspection issues should be child-focused and consistent. Integrated inspectorates will be needed to focus on substance misuse issues. In workforce planning, competencies should be child-focused and include substance misuse at all tiers. I have always felt that multidisciplinary training is very effective.
Substance misuse should fall within the development of identification, referral and tracking systems for children, and it will need to be included in the Common Assessment Framework. In the past, substance misuse has not been mentioned and has been lost as any kind of priority. We need to ensure that substance misuse is not forgotten. Perhaps an individual serving on the children's board should take responsibility for substance misuse and should be a member of the drug action team, which already works across agencies.
I am not yet sure how we should organise things for the best within the Bill, or in guidance. I just know that we must be certain that a Bill for children takes substance misuse on board. Parents' organisations are also concerned about the number of parents who are at crisis point because of their children's substance misuse problems. Parentline plus will shortly publish research on this.
This is an important and symbolic Bill and I am optimistic about its outcomes. It reinforces the importance of children at the heart of society and I look forward to participating in all its stages in your Lordships' House.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I wonder if I could trouble the Minister on an administrative point. Can she give us any guidance on when the Committee stage is to commence? There was a rumour that it would start in the first week after the Easter Recess, in which case we would have to table all the amendments before the beginning of the Recess. The Minister indicates that that is not the case, so I shall carry on with my remarks.
I pay tribute to the Government's commitment to children and I wish that I could feel entirely comfortable with this Bill. However, there is much in it that we shall need to try to amend. As many noble Lords have said, it will give us a castrated Children's Commissioner. While the list of children's priorities is in itself excellent, we must be aware that there may be things that children do not demand as priorities but which are none the less necessary for their welfare in the longer term. It will impose a new layer of costly bureaucracy. If that bureaucracy is to work, it is incredibly important that the Government set aside sufficient funds to remedy the current drastic staff shortages in many social services departments. In that context I shall quote my noble friend Lord Laming in his report on Victoria Climbié:
"Front-line staff in all the services were said to be under pressure because of increasing workloads, high vacancy rates, inadequate information technology and administrative systems, and inadequate training".
My own experience suggests that there are terrible shortages in social services, both in the residential area and in many of the more difficult inner-city areas.
1280
However, I wish to concentrate on one aspect of the Bill which I regard as important. It perhaps relates mostly to Clauses 6 and 8 and to Clauses 9 to 12, which set up structures for children. It seems to me that those structures have two rather distinct objectives: first, to safeguard children at risk, especially those at risk of abuse in the home; and, secondly, to promote the wellbeing of all children, including that of the majority of children who are not at risk of abuse in the home.
In one important respect these two objectives are difficult to reconcile—and that is that, as regards the first objective, parents are, as it were, the potential culprits and therefore cannot be taken necessarily fully into the confidence of social services and the various other authorities; whereas the second objective, that of promoting the welfare of children who are not at risk, can best be achieved by working closely and in partnership with parents, engaging their support and their enthusiasm and listening to what they say their children want and what they want for their children.
For centuries, both the law and practice in England and Wales have relied on parents as the primary providers of care, education and well-being for the nation's children. Over the past 100 years, the state has taken over some of those functions in areas such as education and health. In the Children Act 1989 we find enshrined the concept of "parental responsibility". Today, as we know, parents have rights and duties in law in relation to children, and yet the Bill does not once mention "parental responsibility". It makes no attempt to explore or define the new interfaces it creates between parents with parental responsibility and the various children's services it establishes or which are already in place.
Let us get matters in proportion. There are more than 12 million children in England today; there are fewer than 30,000 children on the child protection register but 30,000 children on the child protection register is 30,000 too many. I would not like noble Lords to think for one moment that I underestimate the importance of the problems created by child abuse, particularly child abuse in the home. For 16 or 17 years I worked in a voluntary capacity with children who had been through such an experience and I saw their lives so often destroyed by it.
It is right that the Bill should do everything that can be done to protect children from abuse, but it tries to do more. As many noble Lords have pointed out, it is exciting that the Bill is trying to do more. It is trying to look outwards and is saying, "Let us try to make life better for all children, including those who are at present at risk of abuse". It aims to promote the safety and best interests of all children.
For the vast majority of children there are huge advantages in being involved with the efforts of the commissioner and the various authorities set up by the Bill to enhance and improve the well-being and best interests of children. It would be a great pity if the Bill ended up sidelining the potential positive role of parents. I believe that, with a little thought, the wording of the Bill can be amended to ensure that the two objectives of the Bill can be reconciled. I hope that we will be able to achieve that at the Committee stage.

1281
Noble Lords have referred to Clause 8 at some length and I shall not enlarge on what they have said, except to say this. Those with parental responsibility for a child are in a special position in relation to information about that child which can be crucial to their ability to help it.
In this context, I quote from the British Association for Adoption and Fostering. It says in its brief:
"The best information, referral and tracking system we have is parents or other family members who know their children, understand their needs and take action to meet them".
it is scarcely fair that parents who are liable under legislation introduced by this Government to go to prison or at least to be fined if their children truant or are responsible for anti-social behaviour in the streets should be denied the information which could have helped them to help their children not to behave in those ways.
Experience of your Lordships' House tells me that when the Minister comes to sum up she will attempt to soothe me with assurances that parents and parental responsibility will be dealt with in guidelines.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: No, my Lords.
Lord Northbourne: Well, my Lords, I will say anyway that had she been going to do that, I would be hard to convince. I believe that parents and parental responsibility are crucial ingredients in the welfare of the vast majority of the nation's children. It is not enough that they should be cast a sop in guidance.
Finally, it seems dangerous that the message the Bill is sending to parents is this: "We don't wholly trust you; we think you don't matter very much; we don't think the role you play in promoting the safety and well-being of your children is sufficiently important that you should be mentioned in the In my opinion, that is a very foolish message to send. Parents are already unsure what government and society expect of them. The Bill will add to that uncertainty.
9.42 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome this Bill and to take part in the Second Reading debate. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree with me when I say that I wish it were taking place at a more family-friendly, child-friendly time of day.
Like other noble Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the Bill and for the process that led to it. Many Members of this House are fond of saying that Bills that are thoroughly consulted upon, discussed by experts and practitioners and, in this case, children and young people, before they see the light of day are better Bills as a result. And I believe that that is the case with this Bill.
I have been particularly impressed by the work of the Interagency Group and by the briefing From Vision to Reality that it has circulated, written as an outcome of its negotiations with the Government. I think it is to the enormous credit of my honourable friend the
1282
Minister for Children, Margaret Hodge, that she has sought to take with her the major players in the statutory and voluntary sector in the development not only of the Bill but of the reform of practice and institutions. This may well have created the basis for real and meaningful partnership, which bodes well for the future.
That is not to say that the Bill is perfectly formed in its present state. I am sure we will seek to make improvements and seek clarification from the Government. But I do believe that in its essential parts and framework, it is pretty good.
I am also grateful for the range and breadth of the briefings that I have received about the Bill, as my noble friend Lady Massey told us. It tells us that there is huge interest in the Bill and places greater responsibility on all of us to get it right.
There are three issues I wish to raise this evening: the role of the voluntary sector; the Children's Commissioner: and the absence in the Bill of making contact safe in situations of domestic violence.
The voluntary sector's role in the planning and delivery of children's services is not visible in the Bill. The voluntary sector does not appear on the face of the Bill, yet voluntary organisations—large, small and medium—play an important role in the provision of services. Indeed, in some fields, voluntary organisations provide the bulk of services—for example, family support. In talking about two cases which illustrate the point well. I declare an interest as someone with a close association with NCH.
NCH, the children's charity, runs the Warren Park children's centre in partnership with the Royal Borough of Kingston. It is a single, purpose-built site offering a range of activities and support services for children with disabilities in the borough and their families. Those services include residential respite, shared care, summer play schemes and after-school provision. About 100 children a week, aged from five to 19, use those facilities. The partnership is with Kingston social services, but the local health authority is also involved and provides paediatric services on the site. That project was set up seven years ago with a 20-year contract. It is a fantastic example of long-term planning. The parents of the children took an active part in the design of the site and the buildings and made a successful bid to the New Opportunities Fund to build a special garden and play space. Indeed, next week, Minister Stephen Twigg is coming to open a new state-of-the-art suite of ICT facilities for the disabled children at Warren Park. That facility is the product of a partnership between a number of large IT companies and NCH. It is a good example of how the voluntary sector can lever in money from partnerships with companies for the benefit of local children who might otherwise lack those opportunities.
The second project that I shall mention is one called "Families First" in Tower Hamlets. It is run through a partnership between Tower Hamlets social services and NCH and it provides support for families and children where the children are at imminent risk of being admitted to care due to crises within the family such as abuse, neglect and family conflict. Just a few

1283
weeks ago, an independent evaluation of the service was launched in the House of Commons and I was privileged to attend it. It showed an 88 per cent success rate with families identified as being at risk in that way and referred to the project. The service thus helped to keep families and prevented children being admitted to care. Many of the project's users are from the Bangladeshi community and its methods have been shown to work well across cultural and other boundaries. The project's three-year contract is coming up for renewal and all parties involved with it wish it to continue. Tower Hamlets and NCH are both pleased with the work done.
The Government say that they wish to promote the role of the voluntary organisations that deliver services and that they will express that in guidance to the Bill. Obviously, though, that will not carry statutory force. NCH and many other voluntary organisations providing similar services are concerned that voluntary organisations of all kinds should be involved in the planning and delivery of children's services. I strongly believe in a level playing field in terms of local commissioning. The commissioning process must be fair, open and transparent, and based on principles that take both quality and cost into account. That is in the best interests of children, young people and their families and I am not yet convinced that the Government's intentions to progress the role of the voluntary sector through guidance will achieve the outcomes that we all seek.
The second issue that I shall raise is the role of the Children's Commissioner. I shall not address the powers of the commissioner as have other noble Lords, but I broadly support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. How will the commissioner for England be able to cater for the large number of children whose views he will seek to access and represent? How will he best be able to reflect the diversity of London's children, for example? There are 1.62 million children and young people in London. That is two and a half times the number in Wales, three times the number in Scotland and one and a half times the number in Northern Ireland. Something similar could probably be said of my home county of Yorkshire. Forty one per cent of London's children belong to black, Asian and minority ethnic groups and, between them, they speak 300 languages. My plea is that aspects of London and regional government are taken on board when the work of the Children's Commissioner is being decided. Perhaps I may suggest that consideration be given to an assistant commissioner for London and for other regions or that appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the particular concerns of, for example, London's children can be taken to a national level. The region represents a practical and effective level at which consultation mechanisms for engagement with children and young people can be developed.
Finally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has already said, those of us who are concerned about child contact arrangements are disappointed that that was not taken up in the domestic violence Bill. Progress to ensure children's safety in cases of
1284
domestic violence has been painfully slow, so it is disappointing that the Children Bill does not include a provision to strengthen the safeguards for children in the context of contact following the separation or divorce of their parents when domestic violence is involved.
I support the principle that children benefit from having continued contact with both parents, but it cannot automatically apply in cases of domestic violence and abuse. In such cases, it is universally accepted that the child's welfare must come first. However, the current law is not framed in a way that supports that principle. For it to do so, the Children Act 1989 needs to be amended. I enter a plea that we are joined up about this process and that this issue is satisfactorily resolved once and for all in this Bill, although I welcome the efforts of the Minister for Children to address the problem through the pilot projects that she has launched recently. I welcome the Bill and look forward to supporting it in its passage through your Lordships' House.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I wish to make just two points about this Bill. First, children in England appear to be less well served than those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Secondly, refugee and immigrant children may be treated worse than all other children.
The commissioners appointed to act as champions of children where devolution applies are required to protect children using the UN convention. The English commissioner, on the other hand, has the weaker task of promoting the views and interests of children. He or she will have no independent legal powers to investigate. That can be done only at the direction of the Secretary of State, who can publish or withhold any inquiry report. Here I agree, in his absence, with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but speaking from an English point of view.
The situation seems most unsatisfactory. Why are the Government discriminating against England in this way? What we know about children's needs in England is far from encouraging. There is an uncontrolled explosion of sexually transmitted diseases among young people under 18—a point that has not yet been mentioned in this debate. A large proportion of those in prison or youth custody have previously been children in care. Most residential care workers are unqualified or poorly trained, and we rely too much on agency staff. Here I agree with my noble friend Lord Listowel. There is an acute shortage of good foster parents, more or less throughout England, which leads to breakdowns of fostering placements. We have too much bullying and child abuse, including deaths, and too many serious problems in children's homes.
In those circumstances, one would expect Her Majesty's Government to give more rather than fewer powers to the English commissioner. There is therefore much explaining to be done. In particular, why will the Government and local authorities not have to respond to the commissioner's recommendations? Why can the commissioner not bring legal proceedings on behalf of a child?

1285
On the question of refugee and immigrant children, I emphasise that when they are in this country they are a national responsibility and should be treated and protected as well as any other children. In particular, they should not be detained or separated from their parents, except perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances. The Bill should be widened to include the National Asylum Support Service, accommodation and deportation centres and those who deal with children at ports of entry.
Particular care is needed when children arrive unaccompanied or travelling with an adult who is not their parent or habitual carer. There is a risk that they are being trafficked for purposes of exploitation. To guard against this, the child and the adult should be listened to and spoken to separately and sympathetically, with the help of good interpreters when that is needed.
On all the points that I have mentioned, I trust that the Government will bring forward or accept amendments to improve the Bill. The test of the Government's good intentions regarding incoming children will be their willingness to withdraw their reservation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding immigration legislation. It is an important point that has already been made by the noble Lord. Lord Dholakia, and I happily and wholeheartedly support it.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her cogent introduction of the Bill. Perhaps I should declare a possible interest as the chairman of a diocesan board of education. I greatly welcome the Bill. It is good for children and it is good for Wales. It is a Bill with a major, practical and influential input from the National Assembly for Wales. It is history of a kind. It is the National Assembly at its best. The Welsh Office was set up in 1964 and so much has flowed in so short a time-scale from that historic moment in the history of Wales.
Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill, concerning children's services, advisory services, support services and registration, apply to Wales alone. In these parts, the Mother of Parliaments and the National Assembly for Wales have worked together. Parliamentarians, Ministers, professionals, civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen have all brought forward generally wise measures for the greater good of children. This surely enhances the reputation of the National Assembly. Indeed, Parts 3 and 4 are a landmark in the development of the National Assembly. Parts 3 and 4, and the manner by which they were arrived at, undoubtedly enhance the reputation of the Assembly in Wales. In Clauses 20 to 38, the people of Wales, through their National Assembly and through their representatives in Westminster, are making an historic declaration of intent to safeguard the most vulnerable children and young people in our communities.
This Second Reading debate, with its powerful Welsh clauses, is taking place on the eve of the publication of the report of the Richards commission. This is significant in itself. It is also symbolic, whatever the long-term outcome, of the commission's report
1286
which, one presumes, makes proposals for change. For over a thousand years, and many more, the Welsh nation has been in existence in one way or another. Our National Assembly is very young: it is but five years old, if that. Yet it has accomplished much already. Parts 3 and 4 will add to the Assembly's capability and will further facilitate its acceptance by its own people in the governance of Wales. It is only right that the Assembly should have been free in this measure to determine its own approach to enhance children's services in Wales.
I understand that this measure does not in any way erode the existing powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. But I think that we need an assurance from Ministers that that is the case, because I would judge it to be a core commitment by the Government and by the department to the people of Wales. I hope that by the end of the Second Reading debate there will be no doubt whatever.
I am glad that England will also have its own commissioner. I pose the question: are the English commissioner's powers sufficient? I pay tribute to the work of Mrs Julie Morgan and her collaborators for their recent work in helping to bring about the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales. This was clearly a decisive initiative. It certainly pointed the way for further legislation.
I also express the hope that Dr Hywel Francis is successful in piloting through another place his Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill. At the heart of his Bill is great compassion. It, too, could be a landmark, as is this Children Bill, and as were the successive measures concerning disability.
Concerning the Bill overall, are all guardians ad litem, previously self-employed, now to be employed on a contractual basis? Do Ministers believe that there are sufficient guardians ad litem to do the work that is necessary? How will the Welsh language be deployed to the advantage of children and professionals who acknowledge Welsh as their first language?
In the event of family breakdown, are there provisions in the Children Bill to facilitate mediation between parents to reduce the trauma to children over their future relationship with both parents? That is not necessarily a rhetorical question. Regarding the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, commonly referred to as CAFCASS, are there any plans to set up suitable child contact centres under the umbrella of CAFCASS where supervised contact can take place between the child and the non-resident parent, in addition to those currently run on a voluntary basis? What plans are there to provide effective liaison between the Family proceedings Court and CAFCASS area managers?
To reduce delay, what prospect is there of increasing the number of court reporting officers in order that reports to the Family Proceedings Court in respect of private law applications can be completed more quickly? In one county that I know of there is a 12-week delay. I pose that question with regard to England as well as to Wales.
To conclude, when this Bill is enacted, as surely it will be, and after enduring Committee scrutiny, it will face the supreme test in a harsh real world. That is, it

1287
is to be hoped that there will be sufficient moneys to facilitate our objectives. It is to be hoped that on the ground in our county seats of local government there will be sufficient wise and qualified administrators and social workers alongside the excellent voluntary organisations that deliver children's services, for example, the NSPCC. Barnardo's and NCH. Then we shall need time but above all we shall need the financial and professional resources to deliver.
10.4 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, along with many other noble Lords I welcome the Bill and commend the excellent way in which the Minister introduced the issues with such clarity.
It is a small Bill with a large heart for at its core are the good intentions of this Government towards our children for their health, safety, achievement, fun, economic well-being and their right to make their own unique contribution to our society—in the words of Every Child Matters,
"the right of every child to fulfil their potential".
But what we shall be testing during its passage through this House is whether or not the heart of the Bill,—and, dare I say it, that of the Government?—is big enough to ensure that those children who face disadvantage receive the services they need to reach their potential in a timely and appropriate manner.
What will be different this time round, given the years between the deaths of Dennis O'Neill and Victoria Climbié, to stop vulnerable children falling through the net of care? Dare I say that we will not prevent every child's death? We should always remember that. Parents will continue to kill their children. We must ensure that every care is taken and effort made to prevent those deaths where we are in touch with the children and have the capacity to make a difference.
Where then should we place our trust on behalf of those children, and what opportunities are available through the Bill? Much emphasis has been placed this evening on the role of the new commissioner. I shall be somewhat blasphemous and confess to some scepticism about focusing all our hopes in one man or woman. There is a Childline publication entitled Everybody's Business, and child protection is everybody's business, but I welcome the commissioner and hope that he or she—it might just be a woman, despite the language used in the House this evening—will bring a greater urgency to meeting children's needs.
I recognise that England is different from the devolved administrations. Like two noble Lords who have spoken, I would have preferred a commission rather than a commissioner, with assistant commissioners in the regions matching devolution and able to respond to local people and needs. I accept that, at the moment, it is a milestone to have one commissioner. Even that will raise contentious issues. The key question will be whether the commissioner will be free enough from central control to reflect the views of children when they conflict with those of the Government, and to have the ability to press
1288
Ministers into accepting proper responsibility for children in departments such as the Department of Health and the Home Office.
One item that I would identify for the job description would be the achievement of better policy co-ordination. With that, we might have seen the national service framework produced in synchronisation with the Children Bill and the Green Paper. Can the Minister say how that will fit into the overall package? Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, did not seem to have an answer to a question on that.
Can we place our trust in the new safeguarding boards? Ensuring that the area child protection committees are placed on a more solid and consistent basis is welcome. However, like others, I ask the Minister why the voluntary sector, one of the main primary partners in service delivery, is not m the Bill. It often brings exciting new ideas to the local situation. The "Stop It Now!" programme is an example of working with local services to develop a public health approach to sexual abuse. The programme is not only innovative, but an example of partnership between voluntary organisations at central and local level with government departments. I hope that the omission of voluntary sector services will be rectified through amendment.
The Bill is said to set a framework within which services can blossom, but we should never place our trust in structures. Implementation is what will count and if that is to succeed there must be adequate skills and resources as well as the will to make the approach work. The research of Hedi Cleaver shows how implementation has been adversely affected when staff and working technology are missing. Her work has also shown the impact of constant reorganisation on staff morale, staff commitment and the continuity essential for children and families. Recent writings underline that it is not necessarily co-ordination that will make the difference to improve outcomes, but a well-trained, confident workforce, professional supervision and continuing support. At some point this must provide a review of career progression so that the best practitioners remain in contact with families and are not siphoned off to what someone called a back office. Can the Minister reassure the House that all such issues will be given appropriate attention in the new framework of development? I shall not make any further comment on the shortage of social workers, except that the Bill will not succeed unless that issue is tackled.
There needs to be good working technology. Having had the experience of several failing government computer systems, I remain concerned about the maintaining of databases and the sharing of information. Much personal data are already stored on a variety of systems in local authorities and we must ensure that that information is properly shared. The Bichard inquiry will illustrate that yet again. But I have a real anxiety that information about children is becoming universal and we must not over-react in a way that brings other dangers. All investigations into child deaths show that it was not data that were at fault, but the recognition of what the information

1289
meant, who else should know and how the information should be shared. No amount of clever, over-inclusive machinery will change that. There also needs to be a confident, well trained workforce that is able to recognise danger and how to act upon it.
In my years at Childline, I listened to children's concerns about what was known and being said about them and their families without them knowing the content. They care deeply about confidentiality as well as protection. It is an area to be treated with care and sensitivity, especially when we know there are those who would wish to gain access to that data for very different reasons.
I welcome the broader context of services in which the new framework is set. It is what the old children's departments, where I cut some of my social work teeth, lacked. Partnership has been talked about and encouraged for decades. We have had rafts of working together-type procedures. Again, how does the Minister see that process being different? How will we ensure that children in the justice system are included and given the care to meet their potential when they are separated from the mainstream services? Will the Government address mental health services and the shortage of children and adolescent services for a generation that is in greater need of such mental health support than ever before? Will there be a particular focus on helping disabled children face the barriers to their development and their protection? What about working with leisure and fun services? As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, one of the pillars of the Green Paper was "enjoying". That has been lost in the Bill and it is sad that we cannot find a way of reflecting the joy of childhood on the face of the Bill.
I have some reservations about the strong focus on education. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, must have read a different Bill to the one that I have read. It is exciting that there will be more community activity in schools where plant can be used for other purposes. But many children do not want their problems and those of their families to be aired in schools. Indeed, the noble Baroness said as much at a recent meeting. For many people school can be their one safe haven. Others, especially looked-after children, can feel alienated from the school and face further social exclusion. I am also concerned that priorities for children in need of social and other welfare services do not lose out further in the battle for resources, although I strongly welcome the provision to promote the educational achievement of looked-after children. Can the Minister say how welfare services will receive proper priority and will that be influenced by the role of the new director of children's services and the lead member? Will there be greater definition of those roles to ensure the inclusion of the whole spectrum of services?
The dominance of education can also be seen in the inspection regime where, it seems, that Ofsted will lead inspections. The integrated inspection framework must reflect the various skills and knowledge that each inspectorate brings. Together, CSCI, Ofsted, the Audit Commission, CHAI and other inspectorates
1290
provide the first real opportunity to gain a coherent picture of what is happening in a geographical area in all the services that relate to children.
Time is too short to mention private fostering, but that seems always to be its fate. I simply ask how the proposals in the Bill will be monitored and what it will take for the Government to bring in stronger measures, or at least to set up some kind of investigation into the complex issues raised, before another child is harmed.
Children, including the children of asylum seekers, as we shall discuss on Monday, deserve the best that we can achieve for them. This Bill will help, but only if it is set in a sustained package of other activities. I recognise and commend the effort being made by the Government to give all children, together with their families, a better chance in the future. I look forward to debating the Bill further.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this important Bill. Before I entered your Lordships' House, I worked with families whose young children had been brutally murdered. We worked together to see that justice was done and campaigned for reform of our public institutions so that tragedies such as theirs were less likely to happen to any other child.
I refer, of course, to the murders of two young people—Roland Adams and Stephen Lawrence. They were both children. Unfortunately, Stephen and Roland became famous because of the terrible ways in which they died and not because of the remarkable young people that they were. That was very sad: we know the names but not the people. The same can be said of Tyra Henry, who was in local authority care when she was brutally murdered by her father, and I fear that that is now the case with little Victoria Climbié. In life, no one had heard of Victoria but, in death, she has become a symbol for child protection reform in the same way that Stephen and Roland have become a symbol for reform of race relations law.
Victoria's death was not at the hands of racist killers; it was at the hands of family guardians who were entrusted with her care. I want us to think carefully about whether the Bill would have helped in this case because Victoria lived with relatives who were not registered as childminders. I believe that we need to note that point. It is hard to imagine how anyone could subject a nine year-old to the extreme torture that she endured, and how they could hit her with a bicycle chain, tie up her naked body in a bin bag and leave her frozen in her own excrement in a bathroom without heat, light or food. We all agree that it is too horrible to bear, but I believe that we need to remember why children such as Victoria Climbié have become such a focus for the nation's sense that "something must be done".
It is very easy for us to start using these children's names in a matter-of-fact way. They become part of the jargon of reformers and slip into modern discourse, almost coldly, ignoring the human tragedy behind them. We must not forget what horrors lead to

1291
these individual deaths and we should think of those when we, as decision-makers, ensure that lessons are learned and translated into good legislation.
I worry that Victoria Climbié may end up being just another name in the long history of terrible tragedies. There have been many attempts to tackle this issue by making authorities more responsive and more effective. Your Lordships may remember the case of Maria Colwell. She would now be 37 had she not died in 1974 when she was only seven years old. Her bruised and battered body had been pushed down the hill from her Brighton home to the local hospital by her stepfather in a pram that she herself used to carry coal. Her body was described as being painfully thin. She had been subjected to a terrible beating. Her death and the subsequent inquiry became a landmark in child protection reform.
In the 30 years since, countless volumes have chronicled the lives and deaths of children: children killed by adults who were expected to care for them and children failed by agencies who were charged with protecting them. It would be wrong to say that such inquiries have made no difference. As a result of the recommendations, practices have been tightened up and agency co-operation has improved. Sometimes the systems work and yet it has become increasingly clear that, as they failed a child 30 years ago, so too often they fail children today, such as in the case of Victoria Climbié. It is four years since Victoria died and we must ensure that the changes made by this Bill will really protect children better. Let us ensure that the name of Climbié becomes a watershed in child protection reform. Let us grasp the nettle of reform.
I am pleased that under the Bill each local authority will be required to appoint a director of children's services and a lead council member with responsibility for children. I particularly welcome the proposal for a Children's Commissioner for England, which I hope will give England's 12 million children an independent representative and advocate. However. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the commissioner's powers are to remain less robust than the powers of the other UK commissioners. There seems to be some doubt on that point. I also ask her why the commissioner cannot have independent authority to undertake public investigations and even order judicial inquiries into individual cases where there is relevance to a number of other children who are set upon and who lose their lives simply because of the colour of their skin. Such questions are asked by black British citizens and I should be grateful for a response on their behalf.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that electronic systems would supplement face-to-face work. Barnardo's warns that the Bill's reliance on electronic and other systems to share information about children at risk of abuse is no guarantee that children like Victoria will be protected in future. Barnardo's, like other noble Lords, says that that is,
"no replacement for good professional practice",
and it argues that face-to-face work between professionals is the key to keeping children safe. Barnardo's says:
"One of the key failures in Victoria's case was that no one took the time to ask her what was happening".
1292
It goes on to say that under the Bill the only person tasked with talking to children is the Children's Commissioner. Replacing one system with another, without attention to high quality contact with children, will not protect them any better and will be no substitute for good professional practice and training. I add that some of those practitioners need to be culturally sensitive in a multicultural society. I shall be pleased to hear the Minister's response.
Overall, I welcome the Bill, but I encourage people to talk not only to registered voluntary groups but also to those from different cultures who are trying, without help from the state, to give support to families whose children suffer from neglect. Some parents do not know how to cope with today's children without using corporal punishment. They do not agree with corporal punishment but they know of no other way.
I make a plea that in passing the Bill we should look seriously at what it will give to parents—especially single parents, who have to keep a roof over their heads, food in their children's stomachs and who do so without much help from the state as to how to bring up their children.
The Bill gives us a chance to create a safe haven on earth for children. Childhood must be a period of innocence and love. I hope that the Bill will protect vulnerable children and prevent terrible deaths like Victoria Climbié's from happening in the future and that it will especially spare the noble Lord, Lord Laming, the trauma he so stoically endured to bring us the report.
10.25 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in what has been a very long list of speakers, I had hoped that I would be able to stand up and say that everybody has said what I was going to say and then sit down. But, unfortunately—or maybe fortunately—that has not been the case. I propose to confine myself to concerns about which I have spoken many times in your Lordships' House; those sick children who are not believed. I readily acknowledge the need for this Bill and that it has many good points.
As well as being a joyful and rewarding experience, parenting, and particularly motherhood, can be full of very natural feelings of intense anxiety and of inadequacy. I would ask noble Lords to bear that in mind as we progress through the various stages of the Bill. I would also ask them to bear in mind the fact that all family units are different and that individual members within that unit are likely to be very different. More and more frequently we seem to be expecting parents to be perfect and children to develop uniformly.
Clause 7 of the Bill carries the very laudable heading, "Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare". I would have thought that this should always be the prime concern of anyone responsible for caring for children. We know and readily accept that a very small number of parents and other informal carers offend against this principle. We seem less willing to accept the possibility that some professionals, to

1293
whom the protection of children is delegated by Parliament, may also offend against children in their care. So often we hear that complaints have been made for some considerable time before an offender who has abused children is brought to book.
Mental and physical abuse by carers, whether they are parents or professionals, will eventually come to light if it is serious. There is, however, what I believe is another form of abuse, which has been going on for a very long time and is only just coming to light. That is the excessive use of the power conferred on professionals and so-called "experts" to condemn families to the most extraordinary strain and privation. Sick, indeed often very sick, children are forcibly separated from their parents on the basis that the child is not really sick; it is the mother's own attention seeking that has caused her to seek the help of the very professionals who condemn her. I recognise that there are occasions when this is true, but I believe that the incidence of what has been known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy—now being discredited—is relatively rare. I accept that in these cases it may be necessary to remove a child from his parent or parents. What I cannot accept is the perpetuation of unsubstantiated data, which is endemic.
False records destroy lives. At the very least, parents are prevented from seeking medical, educational and social services help because they carry the Munchausen syndrome by proxy label; a label which can never, ever be expunged, as I have established in your Lordships' House. Over the years I have encountered numerous heartbreaking cases of extreme deprivation caused by professionals. Attempts on my part to obtain justice for these families have met with statements that all the correct procedures have been followed and that therefore nothing can be done. No one seems able to grasp that the process started from the wrong premise. As we are seeing with recent High Court cases, all is not well and has not been for some time.
Some experts proselytise their own personal view to bolster their reputations, despite copious contrary evidence. What concerns me most is the large number of individuals who will be given responsibility for communicating with each other about children. Currently, even when there is irrefutable proof that an entry on to the social services database, Samson, is incorrect, I have been told that the reason it cannot be expunged is that it was an opinion given by an expert or professional person at a particular time. The fact that the suspicion of that person could not be proven was irrelevant. Will the Minister say whether the new database will replace Samson?
With so many more people being required to record their findings about the welfare of a child, I am seriously worried about the quality, accuracy and relevance of the entries. The roles of officials concerned with current child protection cases are not always clear. They have a long history of failing to co-operate and of communications breakdowns. They also have a long history of failing to protect where they should, and of interfering where they should not.
1294
There seems little in the Bill, just as there is little under current procedures, to allow a parent or other carer to object to the admission of evidence that they believe is untrue or unfair. The Secretary of' State is to control the information to be contained on any database by regulation. He will regulate the individuals who will be given access to the database for the purpose of adding or reading information. Nowhere can I see any mention of a person or persons to be responsible for checking that the information is correct; for dealing with appeals against the entry of incorrect information; or for deleting information that is untrue or inappropriate.
I totally understand the Government's desire to prevent the occurrence of cases such as that of Victoria Climbié. The children to whom I refer do not fall into her category. None the less, there are several thousand families blighted by the stigma of suspicion who have had their home and social lives severely disrupted; children who no longer trust their parents, or, for that matter, any adult; parents who can no longer work in their chosen field if it involves children; and children whose recovery has been seriously retarded, simply because one professional or expert disagrees with another. Let us ensure that we get it right for those families as well as for all the Victorias.
Let us learn the lessons of the recent past. Let us recognise that human frailty may not always be a danger to the welfare of a child. Let us not lose sight of what social work should be. Social workers should, and must, be given the means and be expected to work to support the fabric of our society. Co-operation is so much better than confrontation for all concerned.
10.32 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, as I rise, I notice that we are all in breach of the House of Lords curfew order. It is a somewhat daunting honour to sum up in a debate in which there have been so many distinguished contributions from so many noble Lords with a wealth of experience and expertise. In the time available I cannot span all the contributions made.
I wish to pick up the one constant theme throughout today's debate. Whether noble Lords have been critical—many of them have, on issues such as the independence of the commissioner, the lack of inclusion of refugee children and the omissions of youth justice and youth offending—it is clear that there is common agreement in this place that we wish to seize this opportunity to get it right for all children. I hope that the Minister will accept the criticisms that have been made in that spirit.
The Minister and her ministerial colleagues in another place are to be congratulated on trying to break the ineffective cycle of the past 30 years, in which the tragic death of a child has been followed essentially by one thing: restructuring. It has not worked. What is heartening, particularly for those of us who took part in a debate in this House about a year ago organised by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is the extent to which the Government have looked at other models, such as those set out in the ADSS paper Tomorrow's Children. It includes models such as those in Vermont

1295
and Missouri, which have taken as their basis the realisation that, for about the past 30 or 40 years, the fundamental premise of social services has been wrong. Many times, social services have sought to replace parents and carers when things go wrong, without recognising that children live in, and will return to, diverse communities after statutory intervention has happened. At the heart of this Bill, there is a welcome recognition that the aim of all statutory intervention ought to be to make all children's lives as normal and happy as possible. That is a very welcome change.
It is easy to forget that good child protection never makes the headlines. Much has been done effectively for children, and there has been a great deal of co-operation between agencies, which by its nature has never received any attention and has been difficult to evaluate. Our fundamental task in this Bill is to look at each proposal in it and to evaluate the extent to which it will enhance or compromise the capacity of staff with experience of working with children—and volunteers working with children—to bring about so much of what they already do in many cases, which is provide good outcomes for children.
In order to do that, there is one thing that we must do right away. We must establish what the word "partnership" means. Partnership is a word that is bandied about extensively these days, and it is little understood. Sometimes, it seems that partnership is a group of people who attend umpteen meetings and eat lots of samosas, in the hope that they will eventually see some of the government money that is on offer. Effective partnerships are meetings of people from different organisations with different skills, different expertise and sometimes different priorities, who come together to contribute and to learn from each other for a particular reason. Our task in this Bill is to enable that to happen as efficiently and effectively as possible.
The Government have rightly been applauded for not attempting to restructure services. I make a plea that they would continue to do that, and not restructure services by default when the resources that should come with this Bill are eventually rolled out to local level. It is easy by default to favour some structures and not others. The key test of whether this Bill works is the extent to which it is noticed and understood by people who in their everyday lives have nothing whatever to do with the care system. They are the people who, by and large, know that children are vulnerable in their daily lives. That is a key test for us.
Clause 6, on the duty of co-operation to improve well-being, has been widely welcomed. However, having had the joy of sitting through many health Bills that have passed through your Lordships' House, there was some familiarity in the proposals. Given that experience, I urge one word of caution. Since 2000, older people's services have been organised under Section 31 Health Act flexibilities. It is evident they have worked best where agencies with different agendas have come together with a clear objective of what they are trying to achieve. In the world of older people's services, the NSF has been the bedrock of good participation. There is no reason to believe that
1296
children's services should be any different. I echo the comments of many noble Lords that one of the acid tests is the extent to which voluntary organisations, which are close to and involve users, are there on equal terms with the statutory services.
Clause 7 places a duty on agencies and their partners to carry out safeguarding activities for children. The area child protection committees worked well, to the extent that the agencies in any area had a commitment to them and had the capacity to be a part of them. There is no reason to believe that the local safeguarding children boards will work any better if the constituent parts do not have the resources to make them work.
Deservedly, Clause 8 is the part of the Bill that has attracted strongest and most comment this evening. I believe, as we all do, that co-operation between agencies is an essential part of child protection. Nobody can argue that timely and accurate communication between parents, neighbours and different authorities is anything but the essence of good childcare. However, we are unconvinced that Clause 8 will ensure that.
Clause 8 is founded on the misconception, which was reiterated in paragraph 1.46 of the Laming report, that data protection and human rights legislation inhibits the exchange of information about people, particularly about vulnerable children. That is not true. Schedules 2 and 3 to the Data Protection Act 1998 explicitly state that information sharing is permissible to protect the vital interests of the person in respect of whom the information is held. The case of Victoria Climbié demonstrated that the lack of knowledge and understanding among care professionals of the Data Protection Act got in the way of good practice. More than anything, it demonstrated the dangers when professionals do not communicate effectively with each other. We believe that a database on which there is vague, unsubstantiated information that is not acted upon could compound the problems, rather than solving them.
I read Clause 8 several times. Each time, I tried to read it as though I were a different person: a parent, a health visitor or, crucially, a neighbour worried about a child. I cannot see how there is, anywhere in the system, a clear path between a vulnerable child and an outcome that would help them.
Nowhere in Clause 8 is consent mentioned. Inevitably, there will be times when agencies cannot talk to the children or to their families. Increasingly, good children's services are based on user involvement and on consent. The clause will act counter to that. The provisions in Clause 8 are unnecessary. Resources would be better spent enabling professionals in different organisations to understand the workings of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998 and how they can be used to help vulnerable children.
Finally, I turn to Clauses 37 and 38, which relate to private fostering. The noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, was right: private fostering always gets left off the end. Not this time. At last, those of us who

1297
sat through hours and hours of the Adoption and Children Bill can see that private fostering, which Sir William Utting, BAAF and others have struggled for so long to bring to our attention, is included. We know that children from some communities, particularly west African and Chinese communities, are sent here by their parents. Their parents are not neglectful or careless; they are people who, in their own tradition, understand that looking after children is the responsibility of the whole community. For whatever reason, they do not understand how dangerous that can be in our community, which is very different. They are people like Victoria Climbié's mum and dad, who sent her here because they believed that she would have a better life.
The longer we dodge the issue of full registration of private fostering, the longer we will be guilty of condemning some children to being the most vulnerable in our society. It is crazy that, if someone wants to leave a child with a childminder for a day, the childminder must be registered. If they leave the child with somebody else for an extended period, nothing need be done to make sure that the child is safe. In those clauses, the Government have registered an interest, but that is not strong enough.
We will be happy to support the Bill, but we will not do so uncritically. It is a good Bill, but, after 30 years and so many attempts, we owe it to children to send not a good Bill but a fantastic, effective Bill to another place. For those reasons, I too look forward to many hours in Committee.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the Bill. But the Minister will not be surprised to learn that there are parts of the Bill about which we shall need to talk in greater detail in Committee. All in this Chamber welcome the Bill. The briefing papers that I and, I suspect, all noble Lords have received, indicate that everyone welcomes the Bill.
However, as we know and as our overcrowded prisons testify, the law does not stop wrongdoing. Perhaps it is laziness, poor management and, in some instances, a shortage of care workers that causes some of the problems. While the Bill will rectify some problems, there are practical implications that will arise from the Bill. Sadly, children have always been abused, unduly chastised and neglected. No law—not even swingeing penalties—will completely stop that. Good law can ensure that people of conscience, members of social services and other authorities have the power to intervene, to stop and sometimes to prevent the ill treatment of children.
The Bill presents a framework that has the potential to make considerable improvements. We welcome that. The establishment of the Children's Commissioner and the naming, at the local authority level, of a director of children's services will enable greater cohesion of the efforts to help children at risk. Indeed, that has been welcomed all around the Chamber.
1298
However, the Minister will have realised immediately that there are many noble Lords who are disappointed by the restrictions being placed on the Children's Commissioner for England. My noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Lucas, Lord Hanningfield and many others—I cannot name everyone—highlighted that point in their comments. Why has this decision been taken? Why? should England be different? I know that the numbers are greater, but that does not belittle the problem: probably, it accentuates it even more. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us why that decision has been taken.
Many noble Lords have referred to the fact that the first stop should be with the parents or family. However much legal framework we try to put in place, it is important that we do not fail to recognise that. I shall return to that issue shortly. My noble friend also clearly expressed concerns that around one child dies each week as a result of abuse, totalling about 80 deaths each year, which is 80 too many, and that a quarter of child rapes are carried out by someone known to the family. That is terrible, and, whatever else we may be able to do in the Bill, we must try to rectify it.
Many noble Lords referred to individual cases from personal knowledge where abuse and failure of the system has been highlighted. I cannot pick up on all of them. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said that we must trust families and that we must help and support them in any way we can. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, said that if we are not careful, we will send out the message that we do not trust families. I know that the Government do not intend to do that, but we must be aware of that as we go into the detail of the Bill.
Many noble Lords expressed their disappointment at the restrictions being placed on the Children's Commissioner for England. Perhaps I may now pick up some direct points. I shall not go any further into the issue of the UN convention except to say that we have concerns. I was particularly pleased that so many noble Lords referred to the role of voluntary organisations, which have a very important part to play. It is implied that they will be included, but they are not actually referred to in the Bill, as was mentioned by many noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, mentioned in particular the need to include the youth justice system. I totally agree with her. Having read the report of the debate held last Friday, which I was not able to remain for, I saw that some very sound words of advice were included.
I was pleased to note that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford reminded us that the Churches are some of the largest organisations dealing week in and week out with thousands of children. Churches and other communities have an important role to play in helping to tackle these tasks. We need a much better understanding of the relationship between voluntary organisations and charities which, over recent years, has improved.

1299
I turn to the question of children at risk. I was very moved by the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in particular when he referred to refugee families. To that I want to add a word on behalf of the children of disabled families. In some ways they are the most vulnerable children and often cannot speak up for themselves.
The fact that we have over 3,000 children in prison was referred to both in the debate last week and again today. That number has doubled over the past 10 years, which is most troubling. I, too, am disappointed that the two issues have been separated in this way.
I turn to the financial implications of the Bill, an issue that was mentioned by several noble Lords. I have to put the question to the Minister: is she confident that sufficient money will be allocated to local authorities to enable them to deliver the hopes and aspirations laid out so clearly in this legislation?
The aim of "education, not punishment" is quite right, so perhaps the Minister—it is appropriate that she is responding because she is responsible for schools—can explain why schools have been almost excluded from our debate. Schools play an extremely important part in children's lives and often provide the only place where, in some cases, a child may find a little sanctuary. I would be grateful if she could refer to that point.
I turn to the issue of information sharing before moving on to information and data, about which several noble Lords expressed their concerns. A difficult balance will have to be struck between making sure that sufficient information is available for the task in hand to be completed and maintaining the privacy and security of the data. That is a huge challenge for the Government to undertake. Perhaps the Minister will enlarge on that point when she winds up the debate. I shall be interested to hear what she has to say.
My noble friend Lord Northesk raised several issues on this matter in his very full contribution, and I shall not repeat what he said. However, he also raised the question of flags to define when children are at risk. As an amateur, my concern is that while a flag may be flown, I am not sure how you then assess whether any action has been taken. It does not matter how many flags are flying if no action results; it is a wasted opportunity. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could give us a little more detail on that point.
I want to ask one or two direct questions about Clause 8. There are gaps here. Too much is to be left to regulation and guidance, without parliamentary input. No doubt we shall cover that in Committee. I am concerned that the establishment and operation of the various databases is not to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, it appears that we are not to have any influence over the four data processes: the creation, amendment, access and destruction of data held on children. Who will be responsible for setting up each of the databases and the rules governing their operation? Will it be a national database or will there be local databases feeding into a national base? That is not made clear. Who will be allowed to add, amend or
1300
delete information? Who will be able to access the information held on the databases and what rules will govern that access? Who will delete the completed records'? What rules or anticipated rules will there be? Will they be mandatory or will exceptions be made?
More importantly, will young people have access to their own information? What access will families have to the information held on the lists? Is it envisaged that each LEA will have a local data base containing information on each child at the authority's schools? Will the name of a child coming to the attention of one of the other authorities for a serious reason "go forward" to the national data base'? I realise that we will debate these matters at length in Committee, but they are so important that it would not be right if I did not refer to them now.
Who will ultimately expunge the records, or will they carry on throughout a child's life into adulthood? These are questions which are certainly not tackled within the Bill. I am not the only one who is frightened that these personal records may be held by the state for time immemorial. This could have real repercussions on jobs, insurance and many other aspects of daily living. I believe that the Bill has great possibilities and that it is in all our interests to make sure that we get it right.
But let me put in another plug for the voluntary organisations. From 1961 until 1976 I worked with the Women's Royal Voluntary Service in Leicestershire, where we established many projects with children and families, whether they were to do with clothing, hospitals, holidays or the setting up of a new centre at the Glen Parva borstal. Then, as now, families and particularly children were in need of help, but it was so important that we helped families to help themselves. In that respect, I pay tribute to Margaret Harrison who, during my time in Leicester, formed Home-Start, from which an immensely important organisation has grown.
We are today addressing a real need. I accept that it is an appalling commentary on a civilised country that such a Bill is necessary but, sadly, it plainly is. The Bill has many good intentions. Many queries have been raised during this Second Reading and we look forward to debating them in Committee. I believe that we are all determined to produce a sound, workable Bill that will improve the safety of, and provide a real opportunity for, all our children. I support the Bill.
10.57 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it has been a privilege to spend these hours in your Lordships' company debating this important Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford, Lady Walmsley and Lady Barker, have ranged across the issues and raised their concerns; they have argued within a supportive framework and environment and it will be a privilege to debate the Bill with them.
We have had the expertise of the noble Lords, Lord Laming and Lord Dholakia, of my noble friends Lady Pitkeathley, Lady Massey and Lady Howells of

1301
St Davids, and of the noble Baronesses, Lady Howarth of Breckland and Lady Stern. Their expertise is based on experience and I pay tribute to their work. They will contribute greatly to our deliberations.
My noble friends Lady Whitaker, Lady David and Lady Thornton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, Lady Linklater and Lady Howe of Idlicote, are all campaigners who are persistent in their determination to pick up issues of concern. They will make me work harder and will challenge your Lordships' House to ensure that the Bill is as good as it can be.
My noble friend Lord Pendry, the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Hylton, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, all come to us with a particular expertise that adds new dimensions to the work that we have ahead of us. I welcome their contributions in terms of those additional dimensions.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, always raises issues as a champion of looked-after children. Long may be continue in that role. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, equally plays his part as the voice of parents. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, always raises the issue of the particular families with whom she is most concerned and I pay tribute to her for that.
Many noble Lords focused their attention on our links with the Commissioner for Wales. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Livsey of Talgarth, and my noble friends Lady Gale, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Jones all gave important insights into how they think the relationship will work—or, dare I say, will not, in their view, work as effectively as it might. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford made, as always, a unique and special contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh represent, in a sense, our crucial partners in this enterprise—local government. I pay tribute to their work in their local authorities of Essex and Wigan and for the remarks of my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh about his colleagues in Bolton.
Noble Lords raised many overarching issues: the Commissioner and the role of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the role and the chair of the local safeguarding children boards; the involvement of the community and voluntary sector; information-sharing powers and how they will work; reasonable chastisement; play and enjoyment; who is required to co-operate and who is required to safeguard our children; the criminal justice system and its place in this; and the role of our relationship with our colleagues in Wales. I shall reflect on all these points; I shall not endeavour to deal with all of them this evening or we will be here far too long. I will comment on some and will, as is my wont, write to all noble Lords who raised any questions that are not dealt with.
I begin with the Children's Commissioner, because many noble Lords raised concerns connected to this post. I recognise the tireless campaigning of such as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I begin by saying how happy I am that we are creating this position. I aspire, as the noble
1302
Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, to having a children's champion, independent of government, promoting the awareness of the views and interests of children, raising the profile of issues, paying particular attention to gathering and representing those views and making sure that they are accessible to all children, particularly, as many noble Lords outlined, those who are most vulnerable and least able to have their voice heard. I refer to children who are disabled, children in care, children in the mental health care system, children who are refugees, children in the criminal justice system. We do not seek to define vulnerability in set terms, but we wish the commissioner to be proactive in gathering and representing the views of these children.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, that we want children and young people to be directly involved in the recruitment of the commissioner. We will aim to make that group as representative as possible.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that the Commissioner is a crucial driver in our agenda for transformational change in children's services. We have discussed the importance of the outcomes that children identified. It is imperative, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, to focus on the outcomes rather than the process if we are serious about placing children at the heart of what we do. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, referred to the changes in interpreting the outcomes that children identified within the way in which the Bill has recognised them. This is the first time that what children have said has been directly translated into a Bill, and I am sure that noble Lords welcome that—it is important. However, I understand what the noble Baroness has said—we are after the same thing, dare I say, and I am, as always, happy to discuss this.
My noble friend Lord Pendry reminded us about play; my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh talked about arts, music and sport being important. We believe we capture those in the language of social wellbeing, but, again, we are happy to discuss this and make it as clear as possible.
The powers we give the commissioner are in relation to the strategic role he or she is meant to play. The commissioner will decide his or her own work plan—it will be based on the views of children and will report to Parliament via the Secretary of State in the normal procedural arrangements for laying reports before Parliament.
I can assure the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Howe, that the Secretary of State will not amend the report in any way. It is also an arrangement that we believe will encourage parliamentary debate which we think is a critical part of the overarching way in which we approach this.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lady Gale spoke about the importance of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I can assure your Lordships that this will form the backdrop for the commissioner's work if he thinks it

1303
appropriate. But we strongly believe that the views of children rather than the rights agenda should drive the commissioner's work. I say to my noble friend Lady Whitaker that we expect that the commissioner will play a role in advising the Government as they produce their report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Noble Lords spoke about the relationship with the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I join them in applauding his work and I look forward to seeing more of the work of the recently established committee in Northern Ireland and soon-to-be committee in Scotland. The job of the Children's Commissioner is different. We have made that clear in the way that we have framed the Bill and I am sure that we will deal with those differences in great detail in Committee.
However, the establishment of the new commissioner will advance the interests of children not only in Wales but also in the devolved administrations. I point out to my noble friends Lord Jones and Lady Gale that the post will not ill any way undermine the service that children in Wales receive from their commissioner. The Welsh commissioner will not be prevented from commenting on non-devolved matters, as he does at present. However, I submit that children in Wales will have an enhanced voice in Westminster.
The proposed legislation places a duty on the English commissioner to take into account the views and work of the other UK commissioners when looking at matters which affect children in their areas. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that we will expect the commissioner to work closely with the devolved commissioners, taking advantage of all that there is to learn from that expertise. We believe that he is likely to choose to formalise that consultation through methods such as a memorandum of understanding. That is a matter on which the noble Lord. Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I touched in our meetings yesterday.
I assure my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that we have no plans for offices in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for the English commissioner, which may be a relief to some noble Lords. I take on board the remarks of my noble friend Lady Thornton about regional commissioners. Local government can do what it wishes to enhance the way in which it supports child protection, but we will of course keep all of those issues under review and no doubt return to them.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Linklater and Lady Stern, raised the issue of a separate consultation on youth justice. We want to make it clear that we published the documents the one alongside the other. They are "a suite of documents" and are not meant to be seen as separate. They were published in that way so as to be more accessible and to make clear the different elements of the Bill. However, in Every Child Matters: Next Steps, we summarised the plans for youth justice in that one document. We believe that the Bill ensures that police and youth justice systems are included in local partnerships. The duty to co-operate covers the police authority and the local chief officer of police, local probation hoards, and youth offending teams via the local authority. The duty on agencies to safeguard
1304
also includes police authorities, local chief officers of police and soon. I refer noble Lords to the Bill to see how we have brought together the concerns that noble Lords have raised about those working with offending or at-risk-of-offending children.
As noble Lords have said, co-operation to improve the well-being of children is an important part of the Bill. I acknowledge the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about the word "partnership" and I agree with her that what happens is important. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, "partnership" is a critical word, because we are trying to establish the way in which agencies will work together on the commissioning, delivery and integration of services for children.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford indicated too that we should make it clear that we need to involve a wider group of partners than that named in the Bill. Our statutory guidance—it will be statutory—on the new duty will make it clear that local authorities should involve others appropriately. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, that there will be an appropriate engagement with schools. As I have already indicated, youth offending teams, which will be multi-disciplinary, will be represented through their constituent bodies.
It is very important to us that we recognise the voluntary and community sector. That point was raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, and my noble friend Lady Thornton. They are key players in ensuring that our partnerships work and that we bring specialist skills together, as well as in understanding where needs are not met. I accept the remarks of my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids about culturally appropriate approaches to children and young people and recognise all the points that she raised.
We also expect to ensure that children and young people and their families, as well as schools and faith organisations, have a strong voice in those partnership discussions. A number of noble Lords raised that as an important point. It is impossible to capture them on the face of the Bill. It is much better to do so through statutory guidance.
Noble Lords generally welcomed the safeguarding duty. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, was concerned about schools. In fact, schools are already covered by Section 175 of the Education Act 2002. Noble Lords will remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, who is not in her place, was instrumental in bringing that forward in the light of the Lauren Wright case.
The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Dholakia, referred to duties on asylum and immigration services. We believe that they have to be balanced against the need to maintain effective immigration control. We take seriously their responsibilities towards children, but we would have concerns about a specific duty in legislation, which we believe might cut across existing procedures. We shall be happy to discuss the issues, but we do not believe that that would be the right way forward.

1305
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to primary care trusts and GPs. The duty sits with the primary care trusts, but through the contracts that exist with GPs, we shall ensure that the terms require safeguarding and protection of welfare. They will cover all professionals who are delivering primary care, not only GPs. Equally, the noble Baronesses, Lady Stern and Lady Linklater, were concerned about prisons, secure training centres and youth offending teams. They are specifically within the safeguarding duty.
The information-sharing clause, Clause 8, may take up several hours of debate in your Lordships' House. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that it is important that we recognise that under the Data Protection Act information sharing is possible. I agree with that wholeheartedly. However, the purpose of Clause 8 is to ensure that professionals know who to talk to to allow them to exercise their functions.
Victoria Climbié was known to two housing departments, four social services departments, two child protection teams of the Metropolitan Police Service, a specialist centre managed by the NSPCC and was admitted to two different hospitals because of suspected deliberate harm. We are all agreed that we need to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. As my noble friend Lady David said, there has been slowness in progress in this regard; one of the reasons is that we need to get better at finding ways in which people may find out who else is involved with a child and its family.
The purpose behind this part of the Bill is to improve the ability for those professionals to be able to communicate with each other and to be able to do that effectively. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said clearly that we need a cultural change, and I could not agree more. We need to support that. These databases are one part of what needs to happen, to ensure that we are giving the information so that practitioners feel able to find out who else is involved.
I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, who I notice is shaking his head. I am not dazzled by IT—I never have been. It is a tool that we should use, because it can be very effective in helping professionals who need to know information and to be able to use it properly. It is an important tool. The noble Earl described the number of consultation respondents who did not like information sharing. However, crucial consultation responses came from the Local Government Association, the NHS Confederation and the Association of Directors of Social Services. They said that the proposals on identification, referral and tracking are fundamental to achieving the maximum benefit for vulnerable children and their families. Identifying children across the spectrum who are in need of service provision is crucial to ensuring that children receive an appropriate service.
I cannot stress too strongly that the purpose of having information on the database is so that all practitioners involved with a child can work together
1306
to address the child's needs. In that spirit, we hope that voluntary sector agencies will provide their details when dealing with a child and contribute to discussions about concerns according to their professional judgment. Our intention is to permit that through the clause. There will be no requirement in law for them to do so, except of course when they are carrying out statutory functions through a contract with a children's service agency.
We realise that signalling a concern can be seen as a sensitive issue. We will make clear in regulations how access to information over and above the basic details can be made available only to those for whom it is in the child's best interests to see it. I stress again that there will be no case information on the database: no part of any case record relating to young people of organisations such as the Brook Advisory Centre—to mention an organisation that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Massey referred to. None of that information will go anywhere near the databases, which will be accessible only to practitioners working with a child who need information about who else is involved in order to do their job. No substantive information from practitioners will be filed on the database. As I indicated in my opening remarks, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, reminded me, we are mindful of the comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, as I said to noble Lords, we will consider them in detail before Committee and come back to your Lordships' House.
Local safeguarding children boards are an important part of what we are attempting to do in the Bill. I understand what my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said about the way in which these should be chaired. We have decided that that should be a locally decided matter. Each board will need to think very carefully about who is most appropriate. We are encouraging local agencies to think about that now. We believe that it is very important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, asked about the ability to cover more than one area. This a common piece of legislation, meant to deal with the issues of very small areas. I shall give specific examples of that in Committee.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Linklater and Lady Howe of Idlicote, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, spoke about youth offending teams. The parties within youth offending teams are covered within the local children safeguarding boards. Therefore, de facto, youth offending teams are too.
I turn in particular to those involved with drug action teams and working with children and young people in substance and drug abuse raised made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. The constituent organisations involved in drug action teams, who the noble Baroness knows are the police, local authorities, probation services and primary care trusts, will be bound by this new co-operation arrangement and will therefore be represented. We envisage that the substance misuse agenda and the relevant support

1307
services for children and young people will be given due attention locally and will be embedded into that wider partnership.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that parents are the most important influence in a child's life. We need to provide backup and support to help parents and carers to support their children. However, as noble Lords would agree, ensuring that we support parents is not really a matter for legislation. In the Department for Education and Skills, we are rightly proud of the work that we are doing in this area through Sure Start, the family support grant programme and the new provisions in Clause 47 that enable us to pay into the parent fund, which will help to build capacity in the community and the voluntary sector and help us to recognise parents. I shall say that at all stages of the Bill if that will help noble Lords to understand that is critical. There is no desire to move away from that.
In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we expect that the director of children's services appointments will be made at chief officer or deputy chief executive level. As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, rightly pointed out, we have good examples where these positions are already in place. There is some flexibility in the way in which different authorities have approached this. For example, there is one authority where the position covers all of education and social services, for both children and adults, and others where libraries or adult education have been brought in to it. These are good examples and I commend the examples given by the noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Smith of Leigh, as being places that the noble Baroness might visit to see what is happening. In that context, we welcome the statement put out by the NSPCC and the Local Government Association. We believe that it supports the vision behind the Bill.
A number of noble Lords talked about issues around inspection and lead members. With permission, I shall write to them on those particular issues as they were specific and not matters of great concern. Copies of my letters will be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House.
On the issue of private fostering, I say to the right reverend Prelate that it is important that he understands that the four year sunset clause is the end. It is not that we will wait for four years. We have thought very carefully about whether to go for a registration scheme, with the possibility that it might drive people underground, or to look at some good examples where, by appointing people directly responsible for this, local authorities have dramatically increased the number of people coming forward. We have decided to look at that first. We reserve the right to take action, if need be, to do what we have said we will do within that sunset clause.
The national service framework is critical. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, will know, it is now jointly owned by the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. It will play a key role in driving up standards. It is a critically integrated part of the work that we are doing.
1308
I shall not allow myself to finish without mentioning looked-after children as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, rightly referred to them. We need to ensure that local authorities do the things necessary to support the achievement of looked-after children well, consistently and in a sustained way. We believe that the guidance and the duty that we have laid on local authorities will make our expectations very clear. We think that is the most appropriate way forward. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that we believe local authorities are the right place to put that duty. They all work closely with schools and will be aware of what is happening.
Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Thornton, raised the issue of child contact and their concern that they had wanted it to be brought forward. We have no 'plans to legislate on that in this Bill. We are committed to contact between children and parents where it is safe and in the best interests of the child. As noble Lords will know better than I, it was picked up in the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Section 120 amends the definition of "harm" in the Children Act 1989 to include, for example,
"impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another".
I gather that during the recent Report stage of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill my noble friend Lady Scotland announced that Section 120 will commence in January 2005. That will mean that courts will need to take these matters into account when making contact arrangements.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of the defence of "reasonable chastisement". It is vital that children are protected from violence and abuse with adequate safeguards—a point made by many noble Lords. In fact, the current legal framework provides that protection. The kind of punishment that results in injury is clearly not reasonable chastisement and as such is already against the law. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that the Government do not want to interfere with the legitimate and necessary rights of parents to create a supportive environment for their own families in their own way. As noble Lords have recognised, discipline and self-discipline are essential parts of that. We shall not legislate to create any new offences in that regard. Nevertheless, I understand the concerns that noble Lords have expressed. We are prepared to give careful consideration to any amendment brought forward on that issue. In particular, we shall want to consider whether they constitute a ban on smacking, which we would not support. Depending on their effect we shall consider allowing a free vote at the relevant stage of the Bill.
We shall have many more and interesting discussions on these provisions. To help with the process I shall share with noble Lords further written information on the proposed content of guidance and regulation in time for Committee stage. I am confident that the expert scrutiny that is the hallmark of this House will ensure that the legislation meets our high expectations.
Throughout this debate we have talked about the importance of listening to children and we have reflected on what they are telling us that they need. I

1309
was much taken with the test set by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and reflected in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids: whether this Bill would have helped Victoria Climbié. I think that the information sharing databases would have enabled the many agencies that came into contact with Victoria to have made contact, and not least identified that she was not at school. I believe that the duties on individual services to promote children's welfare—police and nurses on the ward—would have encouraged these professionals to pay more heed to Victoria and her needs, not just those of the adults. I believe that the establishment of the post of Director of Children's Services would have led to a stronger culture of multi-agency working as part of the wider reforms referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. The workforce strategy that we are developing would have improved supply, skills, leadership and the motivation of those who dealt with Victoria. I also believe that the common assessment
1310
framework would have helped agencies to share information which would better have supported that cross-agency support.
None of us underestimates the importance and challenges of the agenda, but taking these steps is crucial. It is vital that we succeed. As my hero Nelson Mandela says:
"There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children".
I believe that the Bill reveals us in a good light. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time.

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill
Bill returned from the Commons with an amendment which the Lords had insisted on disagreed to but with an amendment proposed in lieu thereof; the Commons amendment was ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eleven o'clock.

  DCMS: Director of Sport
  DCMS: Director of Sport
  Mental Health Act 1983: "Nearest Relatives"
  Mental Health Act 1983: "Nearest Relatives"
  NHS Continuing Care: Restitution Payments
  NHS Continuing Care: Restitution Payments
  Centre for Policy on Ageing
  Centre for Policy on Ageing
  Smallpox Vaccination: Medical Staff
  Smallpox Vaccination: Medical Staff
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Fruit Production in UK
  Fruit Production in UK
  International Plant Protection Convention
  International Plant Protection Convention
  Foot and Mouth: Payments to Contractors
  Foot and Mouth: Payments to Contractors
  Railways: East-West Rail Link
  Railways: East-West Rail Link
  Rail Freight Interchanges
  Rail Freight Interchanges
  Crossrail
  Crossrail
  Tourism Ireland
  Tourism Ireland
  Northern Ireland: Taxis
  Northern Ireland: Taxis
  Zimbabwe: England Cricket Tour
  Zimbabwe: England Cricket Tour
  Sudan: Darfur
  Sudan: Darfur
  Children: Birth Families
  Children: Birth Families
  School Sport
  School Sport
  Erasmus
  Erasmus
  Asylum Applications: Legal Aid
  Asylum Applications: Legal Aid
  Immigration Appeal Tribunal
  Immigration Appeal Tribunal
  Northern Ireland: Sub-Post Offices
  Northern Ireland: Sub-Post Offices
  Gas Supplies
  Gas Supplies
  Nuclear Energy
  Nuclear Energy

  Maghaberry Prison
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  I wish to announce that with effect from 31 March 2004, in accordance with the powers conferred on me by Rule 5(1) of the Prisons and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, that part of Maghaberry Prison site, formally the site of Maze Prison, is removed from within the boundaries of Maghaberry Prison. The area to be removed is indicated on the site map, which I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses, by the words "area to be removed from the site of Maghaberry Prison".

  Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland: Annual Report and Statement of Accounts 2002–03
  Baroness Amos
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland annual report and statement of accounts for 2002–03 has been deposited in the Library of the House today.

  Defence Housing
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I announced in July 2003 that the Ministry of Defence was conducting a business process review of the management and delivery of defence housing (2 July 2003, Official Report col. 20WS). The review has been completed and I have placed a copy of the final report in the Library of the House.

  This work has been part of a co-ordinated approach to the future direction of defence housing. It supports detailed work to improve accommodation through the defence housing strategy which, as set out in the defence White Paper supporting essays, will direct the future provision of housing for Service personnel and their families worldwide. It also takes forward work from earlier internal and cross-departmental studies. The review has focused primarily on delivery and
  WS 58
  management of defence housing in mainland UK, but it includes recommendations on our living accommodation overseas that might be considered in the future.

  The main conclusions were that some improvement could be made to the processes involved with the management and delivery of defence housing. It was also recognised that we could benefit from the synergies within Defence Estates (DE) and the Defence Housing Executive (DUE). A number of recommendations have been made to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes and organisations involved in delivery of defence housing, the most significant of which are:

  DHE and DE will merge from 1 April 2004. Initially DHE will be absorbed into DE as a self-contained business unit but over time head office processes will be merged.

  The chief executive of DE will become responsible for the delivery of defence housing in mainland UK.

  To protect the interests of Service personnel and their families a dedicated housing customer care function will be maintained within DE with suitable governance arrangements.

  Initiatives to improve customer care, particularly the housing prime contract for England and Wales, will continue.

  Arm's Length Bodies
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  Three new regulatory bodies, which will operate at arm's length from the department, come into being on 1 April: the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI), the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI), and the Office of the Independent Regulator (OIR). The inception of these new bodies will change the department's role in the provision and inspection of healthcare and social services. The effects that this will have on accountability arrangements are set out below.

  The role of the OIR is to authorise, monitor and regulate National Health Service foundation trusts (NHSFTs). The independent regulator is directly accountable to Parliament, and the department will not be able to comment on the details of the OIR's day-to-day management. For any questions that might arise in this area, we would provide information on the independent regulator's behalf, but not directly.

  NHSFTs are themselves independent of the department, and are directly accountable to their local populations and to Parliament. Because of this independent status, and NHSFTs' separate and local route of accountability, we will no longer be in a

  WS 59
  position to comment on, or provide information about, the detail of operational management within such trusts. Any such questions will be referred to the relevant NHSFT chairman.

  Notwithstanding these changes, matters of national policy (including the statutory framework for the NHS, and its resources, standards and targets) will of course remain the responsibility of the department. We will therefore continue to respond directly on these issues. We will also continue to respond directly on the services commissioned by the NHS locally, as these remain the responsibility of primary care trusts.

  As with the OIR, CHAI and CSCI are independent of the department. We will therefore provide information to Members on behalf of these bodies about their activities, but not directly. One area of their operations warrants particular notice. The department has traditionally responded directly to parliamentary business on the performance star ratings system. From 1 April, it will be CHAI's and CSCI's responsibility to devise the form of performance ratings, and their criteria and methodology. The department will approve the criteria devised.

  NHS Charges: Income-based Help
  Lord Warner
  My honourable friend the Minister of State (Ms Rosie Winterton) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  We have laid before the House regulations to increase the income level at which people are entitled to full remission of National Health Service charges. payment of travel costs, National Health Service sight tests and optical vouchers, that is full help through the National Health Service low income scheme. Currently, people are entitled to full help through this scheme when their income is equal to. or less than, their requirements. From 6 April 2004, people will be entitled to full help if their income exceeds their requirements by up to 50 per cent of the prescription charge. This will mean that people whose income is only marginally above income support level will now be entitled to full help.

  Entitlements to income-based help with health costs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are a matter for the devolved administrations.