asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, access to Downing Street has been controlled for security reasons for many years. Given the range of possible threats to Downing Street, the gates currently provide the most efficient and cost-effective means of controlling access. If at some time in the future the threats were to diminish sufficiently to allow us to reconsider the status of the gates, we would of course do so.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, up with which, as he will know, at least one former celebrated occupant of No. 10 would not have put. Does he recall that, even in the Second World War, when Britain's very survival was at stake, access to Downing Street was not obstructed? And is he aware that, even when the police went on strike and marched there in 1919, our deeply symbolic open access to Downing Street was not curtailed, and indeed that Lloyd George negotiated with the strike leaders from a window at No. 10?

Again, if security gates are so crucially important at one end of Downing Street, why is comparable provision not equally important at the other end? Finally, is my noble friend aware of the widely-held view that we lost something very special when the existing barrier appeared and of the widely-held concern that the barrier seems now to be increasingly regarded in Whitehall as permanent?

My Lords, I think that none of your Lordships would wish to have gates at the Whitehall entrance to Downing Street. We would all prefer to go back to the time when the Prime Minister lived in a house which was immediately accessible. Indeed, I cherish a photograph of my youngest son, taken some 30 years ago when he was campaigning for nursery education for all, holding up a balloon outside the door of No. 10. It has taken 31 years for this Government to achieve what he was campaigning for at that time. There is a difference between the front and the back of the building. After all, the back is protected by a considerable flight of steps, which would make access for bombers difficult. But the whole House will sympathise with the views expressed by my noble friend

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the gates may well be needed to hold back the crowds who want to cheer the friendship between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister?

My Lords, the noble Lord must have been watching television on 1st May last year.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he should strongly emphasise "not yet"? Is he aware also that there are too many dissident elements now under the umbrella of the so-called "real IRA" operating in the north and the south of Ireland and no doubt lurking in London and other parts of Britain? Therefore I emphasise most strongly that no security fences should be brought down.

My Lords, my noble friend is right. There is a continuing threat from the dissident bodies who rejected the Northern Ireland agreement. Indeed, it is plain that they regard their objective as an attack on the British Cabinet. To that extent my noble friend is unfortunately right.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, regardless of security, the gates add considerable distinction to what is otherwise a slightly dingy little street?

My Lords, it is a personal view, but I do not agree. They are grossly over-elaborate for the rather elegant Georgian buildings in Downing Street and even over-elaborate for the less attractive buildings in Whitehall.

My Lords, is my noble friend saying seriously that assassins cannot run upstairs?

My Lords, not when they are carrying heavy bombs.

My Lords, the Minister says that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, must have been watching television on 1st May last year. I was watching television on 2nd May last year and saw cheering hordes in Downing Street. At that time I thought it signified the fact that the gates were no longer going to be operable. Is it the fact that they are flexible, depending upon whether or not there is something to celebrate?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct; I should have said 2nd May and not 1st May. The gates are flexible in the sense that, if notice is given—for example, if a petition is to be delivered to No. 10 notice can be given to Charing Cross police station—access will be made available to delegations for that purpose, as indeed access was made available on 2nd May last year.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the reason the gates were opened on 2nd May last year was to let the previous occupant out so that the new occupant could get in?

My Lords, I believe the horrible tradition we have in this country is that the departing Prime Minister leaves by the back door. I do not care much for that tradition either.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, I was encouraged by my noble friend's Question to read the new pamphlet on pensions distributed by the Department of Social Security. It presents the basic information about a complex matter in a clear, friendly, balanced, accessible and rather jolly way. I was impressed by it.

If my noble friend believes that the information in the pamphlets is in any way incomplete or less than balanced, I shall be happy to ensure that the contents are reviewed in time for the next edition.

I agree that it is very pretty. But does the Minister agree that pensions contributors, still reeling under the misselling scandal which affected millions of them, do not want prettiness, but precision? Does she accept that it is a grave imbalance to leave out of the picture the fact that only one of the pensions options set out in the pamphlet—namely, SERPS—as against occupational or personal pensions, guarantees by law that the contributions will be uprated in line with earnings during the building up of the pension and that the pension, when in payment, will be price-indexed? Surely that is not a minor omission. Will the Minister kindly arrange for somebody to look at the whole text to see whether or not there is an imbalance in the almost neutrality of the Government between private insurance companies and their state earnings related pension scheme'?

My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct that SERPS has many advantages. That is one of the reasons why the Government are proposing to keep it as an option. As my noble friend said, SERPS is fully indexed; it is portable, it is cheap to run and it is safe against misselling. Those are important considerations.

Nevertheless, SERPS faces real difficulties in today's labour market. It does not cover the self-employed, people who are intermittent, part-time or temporary contract workers and, unfortunately, after the adjustments made to it by the previous administration, it is not of sufficient adequacy to ensure a comfortable old age. In forward projections somebody on a state pension of SERPS is likely to be receiving under 10 per cent. of average earnings by the year 2050. That is why those considerations and others will be reviewed later this year. I am happy to reconsider the entry in the leaflets in relation to SERPS and its indexation.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the expression of her noble friend Lady Castle "not prettiness but precision" might be a good new motto for this Government?

My Lords, it is important to be precise and I do my best within this House to be precise. But we also know that information is useful only in so far as it is understood and accessible to people. One of the problems for the DSS—I am sure that I do not speak just for myself when I say this—is that DSS detail is obscure, difficult, complicated and intimidating. That is why so many people, including elderly people, do not take up the benefits to which they are entitled. If "pretty" is a shorthand for making something accessible and friendly, then it should not be at the expense of precision. We need it to ensure that people know their rights.

Is not the reason why the state pension is due to decline to 10 per cent. of average earnings the fact that the previous government abolished the link for the uprating with the movement of average earnings, which incidentally I introduced when I was Secretary of State, which is no doubt why Mrs. Thatcher abolished it? Is it not worrying that the only thing the Government propose to do in the lifetime of this Parliament is to extend the means-tested benefit—an improved form of income support—to the poorest pensioners when we need to get back to pensions as of right and which are adequate for people to live on?

My Lords, my noble friend makes two points. The first concerns the adequacy of SERPS. She is right to say that it was sliced away by the previous administration. To restore those slices—in other words, to reinstate the value of SERPS to what it was in 1978 when my noble friend had the pleasure of introducing it into our lives—would, by 2030, cost £29 billion extra a year. That is what we are talking about. That is why the Government do not feel that it is appropriate to go down that road.

My noble friend asked whether income support is an adequate alternative to raising the basic state retirement pension. At this stage we are not suggesting that these are alternatives. We are saying that we have a problem of poorer pensioners now; they are not in the labour market, but already dependent on pension; they are not claiming income support and are well below the poverty line. As my noble friend will know from yesterday's Question, we are seeking to raise their income support entitlement so that they have a basic pension of at least £75 a week from next April. But, for future pensioners, we believe that the right way to proceed is to continue to build the economy in order to produce decent jobs so that people can enjoy a decent second pension in their old age.

My Lords, perhaps I may take the Minister back to her original Answer. As someone with an acknowledged interest in these matters, why did it take the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, to prompt her to read this pamphlet?

My Lords, I read a great deal of literature. This pamphlet came out a few months ago. I was not aware of the new cover or the rewriting of it. The content is the same as the basic DSS pamphlet but it now has the charter mark for the Plain English Award. I think it is delightful. However, if I were to bring to the House all of the literature produced by the DSS, I would need a couple of wheelbarrows or more.

My Lords, while we speak of pensions as of right, will the Minister undertake to look again at the Goode Report on the regulation of private pensions to consider whether enough has been done to implement the safeguards it proposed and, in particular, whether it should be impossible for employer trustees to dismiss employee trustees or pensioner trustees?

My Lords, that is, if I may put it this way, a hang-over question from the Pensions Act 1995, with which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and myself and others of our colleagues were very much concerned at the time. In a way we are waiting to see whether the fears we expressed at the time have been realised. I have not been made aware of any such fears being realised. That may be because, although it has happened, I have not been briefed to that effect. However, I will check to see whether my honourable friend Mr. Denham in another place, who has responsibility for that portfolio, has had any information to suggest that our worries, as illuminated by the Goode Report, have come to light and whether we need therefore to review this matter.

My Lords, the pamphlet refers to a variety of choices for second pensions. Is the Minister aware that great concern was expressed about the effect the abolition of the advanced corporation tax credit would have on individuals, businesses and local authorities with regard to pension provision?

My Lords, I wondered whether we would be revisiting ACT, as indeed we have. The Government's position has been made clear on several occasions. We believe that the best basis for a secure second pension is the nature of the economy, the quality of its growth and the security of its investment. Since 1992 the value of UK equities has risen by 107 per cent. Two-thirds of that has been capital growth and only one-third dividend growth, In other words, the value of the pensions we receive has depended on the capital increase in growth, which in turn depends on the investment in, the nature and the strength of our economy. What matters for someone's pension is the health of the economy, which in turn determines the investment record of the pensions portfolio, which in turn also reflects whether an individual may have a secure job and can build up that entitlement. It also depends on the investment track record of the individual pensions manager. It is perhaps worth noting that ACT represents just one-tenth of the difference between what a good pensions manager will do and a poor pensions manager will do to the same type of fund.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the economic situation in Japan is clearly of great importance to the recovery in Asia and the world economy as a whole. The UK, with its G7 and EU partners, has been actively engaged with Japan offering advice and encouragement as it seeks to resolve its economic problems. The economic and financial situation was discussed by heads of state at the Asia-Europe meeting in London, at the Birmingham G8 summit and by EU Finance Ministers at the Cardiff European Council. Officials have participated in extensive discussions, most recently at a meeting in Tokyo on 20th June between G7 and Asian Finance Deputies.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. But does he agree with me that, despite the importance of the Japanese economy to British and European economies, our response has been pretty inadequate, particularly in relation to that of the US and China, not least because of Europe's preoccupation with preparations for the single currency? Does he further agree that the sooner the single currency is in operation, with Britain as a full participant, the sooner Europe will be able to punch its weight in international financial affairs?

No, my Lords, I would not agree that our response has been "pretty inadequate". Clearly, the United States has a particular interest, but we have been fully pulling our weight with our European partners. However, the fundamental fact is that we have no status to intervene with the Japanese economy any more than the Japanese have to intervene with ours.

My Lords, my noble friend said that we have been offering advice and assistance. But have the Japanese Government indicated any intention to abandon some of their disgraceful restrictive practices which over the years have prevented people like us from exporting more to Japan?

My Lords, I think my noble friend is referring to alleged restrictive practices of a considerable time ago. The difficulty with British exports to Japan is much more in relation to the ability of the Japanese to pay rather than restrictive practices.

My Lords, given that Japan has the second largest economy in the world, that its foreign exchange reserves stand at more than 200 billion dollars, that its personal savings are around 10 trillion dollars and that eight of the world's largest 15 banks are Japanese, does the Minister agree with Chancellor Kohl's assessment that, if Asia is ailing now, then Europe will be ailing tomorrow?

My Lords, I can broadly confirm the accuracy of the noble Lord's figures about the Japanese economy. Our immediate concern with the Japanese economy is not about its overall strength. Even pessimistic forecasters are looking to a decline of only 0.9 per cent. this year and some increase next year. Our particular concern has to be with the stability of the Japanese financial system and, as the noble Lord rightly said, the importance it has in world financial markets. That is the crux of our concerns.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while we talk about what the rest of the world can do to help Japan, in fact what needs to be done is for the Japanese themselves to sort out their financial system? We have given them great encouragement to do so. When a new Prime Minister has been appointed, we hope that the new government will do that. Does my noble friend agree that in the end everything will depend on whether the Japanese Government have the courage to take some very tough decisions, which they must take? Otherwise any assistance from the rest of the world will be meaningless.

My Lords, my noble friend is right, as I indicated in the answer I have just given to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We have welcomed the "Comprehensive plan for financial restructuring" which the Hashimoto Government introduced earlier on this month. We have welcomed the "bridge-bank" plan which will help to ensure that the collapse of one bank does not bring about the collapse of others. My noble friend is right in that we need credible and rapid action. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 3rd July,

"We look forward to the speedy implementation of these measures, and the steps necessary to restore the health of the financial sector and stimulate demand. This will be vital for sustained economic recovery in Japan and Asia as a whole".

My Lords, following up the answer which the Minister just gave, will he confirm what I believe he said; namely, that he agrees with the view of every economist that I have read which indicates that the one thing that is necessary in Japan above everything is a significant boost to demand—probably by significant tax cuts? Does my noble friend agree that the financial world is very mystified as to why that is not happening? Does he further agree that that is what should happen and that the Government will press the Japanese Government to do that?

My Lords, I agree very strongly with the noble Lord. What is needed in Japan is good, old Keynesian counter-cyclical measures. Perhaps one of the problems that the Japanese have is too much devotion to monetarist heresy.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I, and I am sure a number of people, agree with him that the Japanese must deal with their economy themselves? It depends on their psyche, traditions and so on. Does he agree that if the single currency led to a recession—as it may very well do if the strict Maastricht criteria were applied—that would do enormous damage not only to the Japanese economy but to the economies of Europe and the world?

My Lords, I disagree with my noble friend as strongly as I disagreed with the contrary view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby.

My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend has just said, but does he believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with what my noble friend said a few moments ago?

My Lords, about Keynesian counter-cyclical policy? Yes, indeed.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, many of your Lordships will be aware of General Abubakar's statement of yesterday, 20th July. We welcome his commitment to the restoration of democratic civilian government by May 1999, after free and fair elections in early 1999. We also welcome his undertaking to respect human rights and democracy, including the release of the remaining political prisoners. This is the best news that we have had from Nigeria for a long time.

The time has now come to re-establish dialogue between Nigeria and Britain and the wider international community. We will be working to secure the agreement of EU partners that members of the Nigerian Government should now be allowed to visit EU member states where that would help General Abubakar's programme and promote constructive dialogue.

My Lords, I consider that an excellent response. I understand that Tony Lloyd has also reacted to this news. Not least, Britain's business community will breathe a sigh of relief. Has not General Abubakar acted in a responsible manner since taking office, driving Nigeria towards democracy on a firm foundation within a realistic timetable? Should we not now be extending our hand of friendship, not least with our European partners, most notably France, and easing restrictions commensurate with progress?

My Lords, we are still considering what more we can do to support General Abubakar and his political and economic programme. His emphasis on transparent and inclusive political and economic processes is extremely important. The Nigerian people have made it clear that they want action and not just words. General Abubakar has set out a detailed plan of action by which they, and the international community, will be able to monitor progress. Britain is ready to help General Abubakar and his new administration with speedy and credible implementation of this difficult but essential programme.

My Lords, given recent developments, can the Minister update the House on the prospects for Nigeria's future participation in the Commonwealth?

My Lords, as noble Lords will know, Nigeria was suspended from the Commonwealth for its non-compliance with the Harare principles of good governance. We shall be willing to look at re-admittance once Nigeria returns to compliance by restoring the democratic, civilian government, which they will be doing next year. That is implied by last night's statement. The next steps are through the Commonwealth ministerial action group. It is for that group to come together and to look at what the Commonwealth as a whole should be doing in order to help Nigeria in this much welcomed initiative which the general has taken.

My Lords, I believe that the whole House will join the Minister in welcoming recent announcements from Nigeria. Does she agree that the situation remains unstable? There are slips between cup and lip. Until these changes are in place, does the Minister agree that existing asylum seekers from Nigeria should be given the benefit of the doubt and not returned there?

My Lords, it will be action and not words that count in relation to Nigeria. We must be as encouraging as possible of the reforms which the general announced yesterday. For example, we welcome the release yesterday of a further 10 political prisoners. They were civilians charged with being involved with a coup in 1995. We shall be looking very closely at these questions. I am unable to say anything enormously helpful at the moment to the noble Earl as regards asylum. I am sure that he will understand that yesterday's statement will have to be examined very closely by Her Majesty's Government and within the Commonwealth, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and in the EU as well, as I indicated in my original response to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there is now a real possibility that British Airways will be able to recommence its flights to Lagos?

My Lords, General Abubakar's statement is fairly lengthy. I shall make arrangements for a copy of the speech to be put in the Library of the House. I can tell the noble Viscount that there was a commitment in the statement to restore air links. I do not know whether that specifically covers British Airways. More light may be shed on that by the whole of the speech, but I am not clear on that point. I hope that I shall be able to give the noble Lord a detailed answer in a letter.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review for criminal justice.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 34 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 34A. In speaking to those amendments, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 35 and 35A, 198 and 198A-C, 199 and 199A.

As amended in this House at Third Reading, the Bill no longer provides for local decision-making on school organisation matters; nor for adjudication where there are objections to these or to local admissions arrangements. I invite the House to agree with the continuing view of another place that that is not the right way forward. I also invite the House to accept the words restored to the Bill, which comprise those amendments to these provisions previously agreed in Committee.

We have covered the ground on this issue in some detail on more than one occasion. We have listened carefully to the points made, both here and in another place. We have also sought to explain why we continue to believe that the Government's proposals are desirable and an improvement on the present arrangements, and how they will work in practice. There is, I hope, agreement between us that we are right to pursue local decision-making on school organisation. These are local issues and ought to be capable of being decided locally.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope—I see that he is not in his place—and his noble friend Lady Maddock have argued that such decisions should be taken by the democratically elected local authority. I entirely agree with them that LEAs are, and must continue to be, key players in school organisation matters. Nothing that we propose reduces their contribution to decision-making in this important area. Local education authorities can already decide their own proposals where they attract no objections. That will not change. But I must say to the noble Baroness that LEAs have never been the only decision-maker in the system, even at local level, and we do not believe that it would be right to make them so now. For example, LEAs cannot in the current arrangements decide their own proposals where they attract objections; nor can they decide any proposals made by voluntary or by grant-maintained schools, as the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Ripon and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, have reminded the House from time to time. At present those proposals must come to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. That external input is significant.

It helps to maintain the balance between local partners in providing places locally. It is because we want to maintain that balance that we believe that a school organisation committee is the way ahead.

School organisation committees will bring together all the main partners in school provision at local level to consider and, wherever possible, agree proposals to provide sufficient and appropriate school places. The committees will be able to disagree with LEA proposals, although they will not be able to reject them unless the LEA group on the committee itself agrees. That, too, demonstrates the balance between partners that our proposals secure; ensuring that all partners in local provision get an equal say. I have said before that I hope—indeed, that I expect—the new arrangements to make it more likely than now that final decisions, with which all parties are satisfied, can be reached at this stage. But whether or not we call it a veto, any group on the committee, where it feels sufficiently strongly, will be able to ensure that a proposal is referred to the adjudicator for decision.

The adjudicator will look again at proposals, comments and objections and the reasons for disagreement at local level. He will consider all cases in the light of principles set out in public guidance from the Secretary of State and, as appropriate, in the school organisation plan and the code of practice on school admissions. Adjudicators will be able to receive representations, including from Members of another place or this one; and will decide whether to take oral representations. But the key point is that the adjudicators will make an independent judgment on each case. They are a necessary part of the system. This may also be the right place to remind the House that without adjudicators there is no mechanism for securing final resolution of local disputes about school admission arrangements. Such a mechanism is essential to our manifesto commitment, implemented elsewhere in the Bill, to make school admissions arrangements at local level more coherent and transparent for parents and children.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will issue guidance on the consideration of school organisation plans and school organisation proposals. Both school organisation committees and adjudicators will be required to take that guidance into account in reaching their decisions. Also, both school organisation committees and adjudicators will be required to be satisfied that adequate financial resources will be available to implement proposals if they are approved.

I do not accept, as some have argued, that these arrangements are more bureaucratic and less transparent than what we have now. There is always a balance to be struck between due process and equity on the one hand and speed on the other. The Government's proposals do the minimum necessary to ensure, first, that all the key players at local level are fully involved; secondly, that a context for decision-making is provided through a school organisation plan setting out in broad terms the future needs of the area; thirdly, that individual proposals are explored properly by those who have to implement and live with them; and, fourthly, that final decisions are made independently where it is not possible to resolve differences at local level.

These new arrangements are, in the Government's view, the right way to secure local decision-making on changes to school organisation. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the view reiterated in another place, that these provisions on school organisation committees and adjudicators should be restored to the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.

My Lords, these Lords amendments were moved originally from the Liberal Democrat Benches. We are extremely disappointed that the Government are not prepared to listen to the overwhelming view of this House on school organisation committees and adjudicators. The Minister has said that this is about local decision-making. Those are precisely the arguments that were advanced not only from the Liberal Democrat Benches, but also from the Conservative Benches. It is not often that I find myself with the Conservatives defending the right of local democracy, but in this case the Conservatives were wholeheartedly behind us.

I am not convinced by the arguments which the Minister has advanced today. The noble Baroness made great play of the fact that this is local decision-making. We believe that local decisions should be made by locally elected members of local councils. We have been told that in this place we cannot have a view about, for example, the issue of fees because we are not an elected body. Precisely the same argument is being used here in relation to local education authorities. The Minister said that no powers will be taken away from LEAs. However, the reality is that if somebody objects to the plan, it will not be the LEA which will make the decision on it because that decision will have to go to the local adjudicator. I am not convinced—I am sure that many others are not convinced—that the Government have listened carefully to our views on this matter.

The adjudicator is the subject of another amendment. We are told that those provisions involve the devolution of decision-making and that that decision-making will be independent. However, most of us are concerned above all lest the line of democratic accountability be lost. At present, decisions about school closures are made locally and, in good authorities, after much consultation. If there is still disagreement, the decision then comes up to the department and the Minister. Others have a democratic right to lobby their Member of Parliament and to meet Ministers. Admittedly, the Minister said today that Members of Parliament and your Lordships would have the right to lobby the adjudicator. That was not clear from our earlier discussions. However, I maintain that that is not the same as democratic accountability which runs right from the bottom to the top.

I know that others will be very disappointed that the Government have not listened on this matter. We had a good number of discussions earlier. The Government had the opportunity to make this advisory. The arguments put forward by the Minister today spell out why this should be an advisory body and not a body that in the end can override the decision of a democratically elected local body. That was our original objection and it remains our objection.

We do not intend to press this matter any further today. However, it will be interesting to see how matters turn out. If one person on the schools organisation committee objects, an enormous amount of bureaucracy will have to be gone through before a decision can be taken. I sincerely hope that for the sake of everyone in our schools the Minister was right when she said at earlier stages of the Bill that this would not happen very often. If it happens very often there will be total chaos. It is another layer of bureaucracy that will not achieve what the Government intend. We are with the Government in their intention to involve people other than the local council in best practice, but it should be advisory, and that is where we differ on this matter.

My Lords, I stand up again enthusiastically to support all that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has just said. In some ways I am sorry that the matter is not to be pressed any further because the arguments used by the Government here and in the other place are just plain wrong. The only defence that has been put up by the Government is that this proposal will improve local decision making.

Perhaps I may give an example with which I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, agrees. One considers all of the processes that a local education authority has to go through in order to come to a view about some form of reorganisation in its area, whether it be mergers, closures or whatever. There must be consultation and the matter goes through the appropriate sub-committee, working party, full education committee and then the full council. Normally, in the past the decision of the council has gone to the Secretary of State. Let us for a moment imagine what happens with the proposals in place. It will no longer be a decision but a recommendation. That will go to the organisation committee. If the organisation committee comes to a different view from that of the local authority and the one dissenting voice is the local authority itself the matter is then even further removed because it has to go to an adjudicator who cannot possibly be local to every single community in the country. There are to be only 20 adjudicators which means putting two or perhaps three local education authority areas together. Let us say that the adjudicator comes to a view that is consistent with the majority view of the organisation committee, not the minority view of the local education authority. The decision that is binding will not be the view of the most local democratically elected councillors. There is nothing more local than the local authority and the local authority must come to a decision. I find it deeply depressing.

I am sorry to invoke the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who has given such distinguished service to local authorities but has not come to their defence in this matter. This is a second-guessing body which is undemocratic, unelected and not local. It cannot be argued that the FEFC is local. It may be that a rather remote person is put up by the FEFC to operate in a local area. The notion that this is done in the name of local democracy, transparency and openness cannot be argued by the Government. This is not a democratic proposition. This second-guessing, unelected body will be there at the expense of the budgets of local authorities which would be better spent in the classroom on our children. Those budgets will be top-sliced in order to pay for accommodation, membership, attendance and all the trappings that go with the setting up of the organisation committee and the office of the adjudicator. I do not find that consistent with good local government.

Local government will be deeply depressed by this proposal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has said, we shall also be watching very closely to see how it works out in practice. Local decisions particularly in relation to mergers, closures and reorganisation are always sensitive matters and lead to tension in local communities. The responsibility for making those decisions should remain with locally elected members with an appeal to an elected member of the Government. The decision should not lie with an adjudicator against whom there is no appeal whatever.

My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, intended no discourtesy in referring to me by name. I know that from her long experience as a member of the previous government she is fully aware that Ministers may not speak in support of government policy in departments for which they do not speak and for which they have no responsibility.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, tell the House of the essential difference between this matter which affects the education system and those matters dealt with by the many quangos which were instituted by the previous government, of which she was a member? I was a member of Teesside Urban Development Corporation. The noble Baroness played a very important part in those bodies. I believe that the noble Baroness is objecting to something that the previous government did dozens and dozens of times. Does the noble Baroness accept that she owes the House an explanation as to the essential difference between the matter that she is now pressing and the matter to which I have just referred?

My Lords, I can provide the noble Lord with a precise answer. First, there was no other adjudicating body beyond the urban development corporation. The noble Lord will be aware that I served on the Peterborough Urban Development Corporation. I also served in the North-East of which the noble Lord is a well known and well respected resident. There was no second-guessing of the local authority. The area of responsibility of the urban development corporations was very clear. The corporations worked in co-operation with the local authorities and did not second-guess them in any sense. These are decisions taken by local authorities which do all of the spade work: they carry out the consultation work with local parent groups, local schools and governing bodies. After that work is done it is passed to another body that tries to come to a decision. If it does not come to a decision it goes to an adjudicator who is one removed. There is no comparison between this proposition and the way in which development corporations operated.

My Lords, I am very sorry that neither of the noble Baronesses on the Benches opposite has been convinced. I had hoped that I might have persuaded them—perhaps it was a forlorn hope—that the Government's proposals were the most effective way of securing local decision making on school organisation. However, I am surprised that anyone should seriously argue that the existing system—I emphasise that it is the only other option—is to be preferred. There is a local partnership in the provision of places and our proposals enable that partnership to make decisions in spite of the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Maddock and Lady Blatch.

Where agreement cannot be reached we believe that it is right that there should be an independent means by which a decision can be arrived at. That is what the adjudicators will provide. I suppose that there is just a difference between us as to how often agreement will be reached. Both noble Baronesses are exceedingly sceptical about it. The Government are rather more confident that these committees will be able to reach agreement for the most part. Where that is not possible it is important that the adjudicators who will be trained and expert people are able to reach decisions on the basis of the facts of each case and the principles set out in the guidance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made reference to the Further Education Funding Council. It might be right for me to clarify here that the FEFC will not have a vote on any matters relating to pre-16 issues. Post-16, the FEFC has a statutory duty to secure sufficient education, and it is therefore entitled to play its part in school organisation committees. The Government will endeavour to ensure, wherever they can, that any FEFC representative is knowledgeable about local matters—something about which the noble Baroness was concerned.

My Lords, I listened to what the Minister just said. That has not been made clear during the course of the Bill. Does it mean that if a decision comes to the organisation committee, which has no bearing on the diocese, the Church does not have a vote? If it is a decision that does not involve governors, for example, does it mean that governors do not have a vote? I had not heard that interpretation of how the body will work. My understanding was that it is an organisation committee with a number of different interests represented, and that each section has one block vote. It is deemed to be a committee for all purposes flowing from the organisation development plans.

My Lords, the FEFC obviously has a special role to play on school organisation committees, because it is concerned with post-16 education only. Therefore it would be right to restrict its voting power in a way that is different from all the other members of the school organisation committee.

As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, pointed out when summing up on Third Reading, everyone is a local person somewhere. The current arrangement provides that where there is an objection by a local person to a proposal for change to school organisation, the decision on that proposal is removed immediately from the local arena to my department in Sanctuary Buildings. Wherever possible, local decisions should be taken by local people. The arrangements we have put in place should encourage them to search for ways to build and secure agreement. That seems to us to be a sensible approach. The committees provide a way in which that can be achieved, with adjudicators as a necessary and responsible longstop, in what I believe will be a limited number of cases where it cannot be achieved. I invite the House to support that view by reinstating the relevant clauses and schedules in the Bill, and ask that the House does not insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 35 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 35A.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 35 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 35A—(Baroness Blackstone.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 42 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 42A. I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 43 to 49 and 43A to 49A. We have listened carefully to all the arguments advanced by those who wish to maintain a system which permits a number of schools to be grouped under a single governing body. Some noble Lords have offered judgments about the appropriate administration of schools. Others have emphasised a wish to maintain the traditional governance arrangements of their local schools. We have thought hard about the points made, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. But I am afraid that we have concluded that, in this case, our wider policy objectives of modernising the role of governing bodies and sharpening their focus on raising standards require us to stick to our guns. I shall be asking the House to confirm that view, as reiterated in another place.

In a system where the governing body is there to take the lead on the day-to-day management of the school, I can see the argument for saying that it is more convenient for some schools which share a site or indeed a common history to be grouped under a single governing body. Our discussion would then be about the best system to facilitate this. However the focus of governing bodies is not day-to-day management, but strategy.

Even with the best of intentions, it is inevitable that a single governing body, with responsibilities for more than one school, may be more easily side-tracked into considering cross-school management issues. We want each and every school to have its own governing body because that is the best way to ensure that the governors focus on our number one objective of raising standards. A dedicated governing body will have more direct responsibility for the performance of pupils of a specific age range and will be able to exercise this responsibility more effectively precisely because they are able to focus on those needs. It will also be more directly accountable to parents and others for the performance of the school.

There is another reason why we believe that grouped governing bodies are an increasingly outmoded idea. The Excellence in Schools White Paper made clear our commitment to strengthening parental representation on governing bodies. I had thought that this was one area where there was a strong measure of agreement between both sides of the House. By definition, a dedicated governing body will benefit from full parental representation; grouped governing bodies can offer only a diluted version. All those are significant considerations, and important reinforcing elements in taking forward the Government's standards agenda.

I have particular difficulty with Amendment No. 45. Subsection (2) of that amendment makes it clear that in the case of a community or community special school the local education authority can propose to the Secretary of State that it should have a grouped governing body with one or more other schools whether or not the school objects. Indeed, if the proposal relates to two primary schools the consent of the Secretary of State is not even required—the LEA can just go ahead. In either case the LEA is required to consult the schools first; but it is not required to observe their wishes on the matter. That is not acceptable to us. We believe that schools are, within the scope of the law, best placed to decide for themselves what co-operative arrangements they should enter into.

We also believe that those who have argued for a different approach have overstated the difficulties our proposals will cause the schools in question. We see no reason why governing bodies should not be able to make their own arrangements for cross-representation and joint discussion.

It has been suggested from time to time that an education action forum in an education action zone would be acting as a grouped governing body for a significant number of schools. I have to say that this is a somewhat bogus comparison. In contrast to the amendments proposed in this House, in an education action zone no governing body will have such arrangements forced upon it. It will determine for itself whether it wishes to contract specific responsibilities or cede the majority of its powers to the forum. It is also the case that these arrangements are not permanent but are limited to the life of the education action forum—a period of three to five years.

I do accept that there is something to be said for maintaining the status quo on this issue. No one has any wish to fix something that is not broken. But on balance we have concluded that grouped governing bodies are a potential inhibitor of the much more fundamental policy objectives which underpinned our manifesto last year and were set out in the Excellence in Schools White Paper. Our priority must be to enable governing bodies to focus on promoting higher standards of pupil achievement; to sharpen their accountability for the performance of their school, and to improve parents' representation on governing bodies.

My Lords, I am speaking to the amendment as I moved it in Committee and on Report.

I am extremely disappointed, and despite the eloquent argument from honourable friends in another place, it seems sad that the Government were unable to accept a small amendment. After your Lordships made the decision and sent the issue back to the Commons, the governors, teachers, pupils and everyone else in the community was thrilled. That joy will now turn to sadness. A system which had been in place since Elizabethan days and had served the community well, making a centre of excellence, will now be disallowed. The Government have been mean and heavy handed in their rigidity. They think that they know best. I see it as a sad day for local democracy. However, I do not wish to push the matter further.

My Lords, I wish to refer to something that was said in the Commons. Will the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, say whether I am breaking the rules?

My Lords, I am not aware that there is a direct written rule. I think that it is unusual for two people to speak from the Front Bench on the same issue, but I stand to be corrected.

My Lords, I look to the Clerk for advice. I do not believe that I am breaking any rule.

I believe that any person in the House is free to comment on what was said in another place when considering these amendments.

My Lords, I was relying on advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when I was on the Bench now occupied by the Opposition.

My Lords, I have no wish to break the rules of the House. I wait to be advised. I understand that I am in order.

I rise to defend my noble friend Lady Seccombe. In another place the Minister of State for Education said at col. 467 of the Official Report that he rejected the Lords amendment as it was "wrong-headed and foolish". I do not believe that my noble friend was being foolish. Nor do I believe that the House was being foolish when it passed the amendment. The school to which I refer goes back to medieval times. Two small schools shared a site for a long time, with a single governing body. It was only through the constraints of the site that the school became a separate infant and junior school. They continued with a single governing body. The Minister said:

"[The amendment] fails to recognise the important role that school governors play in raising standards; not the old approach that governing bodies used to have, but the new approach outlined in the Bill, giving every governing body the responsibility to raise standards".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/98; col. 467.]

I understand that this governing body is as responsible for raising standards in one part of the school as in another. It accepts that full responsibility. If Ofsted or some external body found it wanting in its responsibilities, it would be culpable and would accept that responsibility. However, to my knowledge it is an excellent school. It has never fallen down on the job and its primary responsibility is to raise standards in both parts of the school.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, raised the issue of action zones. That has been a criticism. The noble Baroness said that where governing bodies of schools in action zones cede their powers to another body, they do so voluntarily. That is precisely what that school is doing. The two schools wish to have a single governing body. The schools have ceded voluntarily to one governing body. In their wisdom, the Government have decided that they would prefer to second guess what that school wants. In rejecting the amendment the Government have come to the conclusion that they know best for that school.

During the previous amendment, the noble Baroness talked about flexibility, local decision-making and democracy. The rejection of the Lords amendment flies in the face of flexibility, local democracy and local decision-making. That is a great pity.

However, I spoke primarily to defend my noble friend and the majority of the Members in this House who voted for the amendment: that they were neither foolish nor unwise in determining that amendment.

My Lords, I have given a number of reasons why the Government object to the amendment. Those objections were put to another place and were fully endorsed last week. I must now ask this House to agree with that view and support the Government. I therefore ask the House not to insist on their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 43 to 49 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 43A to 49A.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50A to Lords Amendment No. 50. I speak also to Lords Amendment No. 52 and the reason numbered 52A.

I hope that the House will recognise that the Government have shown themselves ready to listen to genuine concerns in this House and to respond positively, while at the same time not cutting across other aspects of government policy. We listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I note that the noble Baroness is not in her seat today, although I understand that she may well be there tomorrow.

My Lords, it is unfortunate. My noble friend Lady Young understood that the Statement was going to be taken after the preceding amendment. She is not present because she thought that there was to be another Statement. I think it unfortunate that we have pressed on with the amendments without informing this Front Bench.

My Lords, we would normally break at the appropriate point in the Bill. I regret that any misinformation has been spread, but I do not believe that that went through the normal channels.

Before I begin on the amendments themselves, I can announce that we have inserted a reference to spiritual, moral, social and cultural development into our draft statutory guidance on home-school agreements in recognition of the concerns of the House on that front.

The main considerations which have helped us to frame the amendment are, first, that the Government acknowledge the importance of pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, and the right of parents to have an opportunity to discuss such matters at the annual parents' meeting.

Secondly, we recognise that parents have many other concerns about their children's education which deserve equal treatment. It would not be appropriate, in our view, to send a message that those other matters are of secondary importance.

The Government's first amendment builds on the proposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in Committee by adding to the list of items that parents may discuss at their annual meetings. The noble Baroness's reference to the school's aims and values remains. Her other reference—to pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development—is reflected in the wider description of the purposes of education set out in subsections (d) and (e) of the revised clause.

We have added two further items which we believe are of particular concern to parents: pupils' standards of achievement and the school's contribution to their behaviour, discipline and general well-being. The final word would embrace concerns about, for example, pastoral care, health and safety, and security.

It may be helpful if I explain why we have not simply adopted the noble Baroness's words. We wanted to describe pupils' entire educational experience in as clear a way as possible. While Section 10 of the 1996 School Inspections Act uses the phrase,

"spiritual, moral, social and cultural development",

the broader description in Section 351 of the 1996 Act refers to,

"the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school, and of society",

and preparation for,

"the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".

We have used that wording here, but with one addition. Subsection (e) of the revised clause refers to preparation for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life and citizenship. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear over the past year his commitment to the development by schools of a proper sense of citizenship in their pupils, and I know that that is welcome to many noble Lords. We believe that this approach removes any doubt that this provision covers social development in its fullest sense.

We have also applied this wider description to the school, rather than just the curriculum. This makes it consistent with the noble Baroness's amendment, which reflects the whole-school approach to spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. We believe that the revised clause will help signal to parents the range of issues in which they have an interest. We hope that it will help encourage as many parents as possible to attend these meetings, and to contribute their views on the way their schools are run.

I believe that that is a generous and constructive response to many of the points made by noble Lords in Committee. But I am afraid that we have not been able to go so far in considering the noble Baroness's other specific proposal for a statutory requirement to produce an annual statement by the governing body on these matters. The Commons' amendment therefore deletes that responsibility and I ask the House to sustain it.

Writing a proper annual policy statement is not a "back of the envelope" job. It demands careful thought, discussion and consultation. And the accumulation of such duties rapidly becomes a burden on governing bodies—particularly the most conscientious—which we owe it to them to police with vigilance.

In any case, we would prefer to encourage schools to tackle the issues, rather than have them divert their energies in producing a standardised report. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's draft guidance, currently being piloted in schools, sets out a thorough approach to developing and implementing a whole-school policy. We are not convinced that a statutory requirement to produce an annual statement would add any significant value. Governing bodies can produce such statements should they so wish.

The QCA pilot is just one of the elements feeding into that part of the national curriculum review concerned with "preparation for adult life". The Government intend that the curriculum should give higher priority to this in future. We attach great importance to pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. And we are left in no doubt about the importance your Lordships attach to moral and spiritual development in particular.

I hope that your Lordships will accept these amendments in the spirit they are offered. I commend them to the House.

My Lords, it is with great regret that my noble friend Lady Young cannot be here to discuss the amendment. She expected a Statement to be made at this time and, unfortunately, is at a meeting. I believe—as perhaps does my noble friend—that the Commons amendments dilute the original intention of her amendment.

Traditionally in English history, the first style of education was purely Church-based. Spiritual, moral and social development was seen within the context of revealed Christianity. When state education was first introduced in 1870, the schools took spiritual, moral, social and cultural development still within the context of Christianity. Even those teachers in the new state schools who did not believe in revealed religion still saw their teaching as within the ethic of Christianity. Many noble Lords who are of my age will remember that their teaching, even in a secular state school, was of this type.

The Commons amendment is more in the tradition of French secular education and is therefore a break with the English tradition. In France, after the Revolution, there was an absolute division between the religious Catholic schools and the state schools. In the state schools there was introduced at the beginning of every morning a pattern of teaching which I believe was called morale. It was designed to give republican secular virtue with no mention of the Christian basis. It sprang from good citizenship.

I am not against good citizenship; nor am I against people jumping around in gymnasiums and being fit; nor am I against good discipline. But my noble friend's amendment was not about all those virtues. It was about developing what can only be described in the old phrase as "the interior life". Schools devoted themselves to developing a sensitivity to the richness of the world and to all that lay in it.

I do not want to give a sermon. I believe that there is a strong secularisation within the amendment. It is very much against the traditions of English education. We have never had a tradition of republican citizenship and for better or worse it cannot be built up at a time of moral confusion such as now exists. It would have been far better to have stayed with my noble friend's amendment and allowed it to develop in the schools.

I cannot but remember that many noble Lords opposite, with notable exceptions, voted against my noble friend's amendment. Therefore, one must be somewhat mistrustful of its expansion, which to my mind appears to dilute its intention. Furthermore, I hope that your Lordships will not think me cynical in saying that if one wants a school to value a certain aspect, it is often good to require that it should report on it.

In conclusion, the amendment is a dilution of my noble friend's amendment. It turns to a secular tradition which has no roots in this community. It is outside the context of what my noble friend proposed. It is unfortunate in coming from a party which owed more to Methodism than Marx and I believe that it is a bad amendment. I shall press it no further.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has given us an interesting exposition of British and French educational history. However, he is reading far too much into the amendments which we propose. I cannot see that he can draw the conclusion that we are seriously diluting the decision of this House on the basis of the amendment tabled by his noble friend Lady Young. Indeed, in most respects the wording is the same. Our amendment clearly refers to spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development. I believe that the noble Lord is reading too much into it.

Statements made in another place and elsewhere by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State show clearly that we attach great importance to spiritual development, as does the House. As I indicated in my opening statement, we must bear that in mind in developing the national curriculum and its outcomes. If behind the noble Lord's accusation of secularisation he believes that we are squeezing our religious education, it is no part of our strategy. I am happy to confirm that we have no plans whatever to get rid of statutory religious education in our state schools. Apart from anything else, it can make a significant contribution to the spiritual and moral development we are discussing here.

The decision of the Commons and of the Government not to require a report on the matter does not in any sense undermine its importance. In other instances, noble Lords opposite have argued that we are imposing too many bureaucratic report-writing duties on schools and we have applied that criteria in this and other respects.

The new clause in Amendment No. 50A recognises the main concerns of this House. We have considered them and tabled an amendment which in no way represents the revolutionary change in our school curriculum that was suggested by the noble Lord. As one who, one way and another, owes a great deal to Methodism and to Marx, I believe that we have struck a balance between the secular and spiritual aspects, both of which are important in a child's development and preparation for adult life. That is why we have written both spiritual development and citizenship into the clauses. That is the correct indication that we should he giving to schools and the noble Lord greatly exaggerates the implication. I commend the amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 52 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 52A.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 139 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 139A. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 140 and 140A.

The Government's position on independent schools is clear. We want to put aside the divisions of the past and to foster partnerships between the maintained and the independent sectors. Partnerships involve mutual benefit to both sectors. We are supporting pilot partnership schemes now. The regulations provided for under this clause will allow LEAs to foster similar partnerships, developed at genuinely local levels between schools. We shall be consulting on those regulations in due course. But buying full-time places for particular children in the independent sector is not a partnership. It should not be necessary for LEAs to ship out their most able children to the independent sector in order to fulfil those children's needs, and LEAs should be directing their resources towards ensuring that that is not necessary.

The Government's intention in introducing these provisions into the Bill, as I have said in previous debates and as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear in another place, is to prevent the replication of the assisted places scheme at a local level. Provision for pupils with special educational needs will not be affected by these proposals. We do not build partnerships between the maintained and independent sectors by funding places to take children wholly out of the state sector. A child does not need to take the whole of the curriculum at an independent school in order to benefit from its facilities for a particular activity, any more than a pupil at an independent school could only benefit from, say, language facilities at a maintained school by studying full time there. The partnerships that we have supported are based on precisely this sort of imaginative co-operation between the two sectors, and we shall look to see them flourish. I give noble Lords the example of a partnership of three schools in Kent—one maintained and two independent—in which all the schools will develop their modern language provision by building on the maintained school's excellent ICT facilities, and the independent schools' very good existing links with schools in Europe.

I repeat that the regulations we intend to make will do nothing to inhibit partnerships of that kind. I hope that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches opposite in particular will be reassured that local education authorities will continue to have the discretion to develop such partnerships within the policy framework that I have outlined. They will have every opportunity to explore the detailed implications of this further with us when we consult on the regulations later on.

Having said that, I make no apologies for reiterating the Government's view, which I believe noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches share, that the thinking behind the assisted places scheme is divisive. The Education (Schools) Act 1997 provided for it to be phased out, in keeping with our manifesto commitment to do so. These provisions flow from that commitment: we are clear that local assisted places schemes would be equally divisive. I do not believe that it is appropriate for this House to revisit last year's debates in this way. LEAs should be, as the Government are, devoting their resources to the benefit of the many and not the few. That is what the regulations under this clause will secure, and why another place has offered privilege as its reason.

My Lords, as the Minister said, the reason given by the other place for disagreeing to our amendment was that,

"the amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons",

and no further reasons have been given. However, that is not so; indeed, there is no way at all in which the amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the House of Commons, so it is not true. Moreover, there is an arrogance about producing that and no other reason. The Minister knows that that is not the case, and I shall explain why. This is not new Labour, this is true Labour: the mean-spirited politics of envy.

Perhaps I may tell the House the history of this sorry saga. The abolition of the assisted places scheme was approved by both Houses of Parliament. Local authorities, which are obliged to provide for all the children in their care from the least to the most able, turned their minds to ways of providing for bright children from low-income families where they could not provide a fast-track academic education. At least one enterprising local authority—namely, Surrey—created a partnership with the voluntary and the private sector and established a scheme which would not increase local government expenditure at all. But such was the blind prejudice of the government that a clause was inserted in the Bill to prevent local authorities introducing such a scheme.

My understanding is—it certainly was when I was a member of a local authority; and, indeed, has always been—that local authorities have an obligation to meet the educational needs, special or otherwise, of all children within their area of responsibility. The special needs of some children derive from learning difficulties, while those of high ability may benefit from a fast-track academic curriculum. Indeed, the schools Minister is supposedly seeking ways to address the educational needs of very bright children, even to the extent of saying that they should be treated differently. However, having attacked assisted places, grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and selection, I have to say that one has to take such intentions with a pinch of salt.

When the assisted places scheme was abolished, those of us who disagreed profoundly with the Government nevertheless had to accept that Parliament as a whole had endorsed that proposition. What was extremely disappointing was the totally cavalier way in which the Government reneged on their commitment to those families whose children were awarded places at schools which catered for primary through secondary age ranges. Reassuring letters were written by Ministers and reassuring public statements were made by Ministers and indeed by the Prime Minister, but still children were made to abandon an assisted place prematurely. That is another example of rhetoric not matching practice.

When the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke on the last occasion when the matter was discussed, he said that 140 applications had been received and remained to be considered for keeping assisted places and that 100 applications had been acceded to. My understanding is that that is not correct. If the Minister cannot correct the situation today, I hope that he will write to me and say whether those 100 applications have been agreed to.

The point of the amendment passed by the House of Lords was to allow local authorities to address the educational needs of the full spectrum of children from the least to the most able by having the flexibility to use public and/or private provision. Indeed, the scheme advocated by Surrey Country Council was particularly enterprising. It brought together in partnership the voluntary, the private and the public sector at no extra cost or even at a lesser cost, thus producing a saving to the local authority. The idea was to establish a fund by voluntary contribution to provide bursaries for bright children from low-income families to attend independent schools. The cost to the local authority would in fact have been equal to or less than the cost of educating the child with the authority's own schools. So the Government's claim to financial privilege is simply misplaced.

When referring to local authorities' wishes to assist able pupils to receive education within the independent sector, the schools Minister claimed:

"Regulations made under Section 518 of the Education Act 1986 already give local education authorities the discretion to pay the whole or part of tuition fees … and other expenses relating to the attendance of a pupil at a fee-paying school".

The schools Minister went on to say:

"If the local authority wants to use the money that it raises locally for this purpose, that is for it to decide. It"—

that is to say, the local authority—

"will be held accountable by Surrey people, it that is how it wants to spend money from the education budget. The authority has the freedom to exercise that power".

That is precisely what the House of Lords amendment would have achieved.

However, my honourable friend Nick St Aubyn in the other place referred in Committee to the partnership scheme in Surrey and invited comments from Ms. Estelle Morris, the schools Minister. She said,

"The department looks forward to receiving details of those plans and to hearing how children can be given more opportunities than at present. That is exactly the sort of co-operation that we want to see".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A. 5/2/98; cols. 346-7.]

The Minister went on to say at col. 351 on the same day,

"We welcome the partnership that is clearly being made in Surrey with the private sector, that is exactly what we want in the interests of children".

How can the Minister endorse the enterprise of Surrey County Council and then insert a clause in the Bill to outlaw such a scheme? There are a number of authorities—I believe that Bromley and Surrey are among them—where it would be more tax efficient to purchase places in the independent sector than to build extra classrooms and provide extra teachers for these children coming back into the state system. As I said, the reason given is plainly wrong. I ask the Minister to reconsider the reasons given in another place.

At col. 505 of Hansard on 15th July the Secretary of State for Education referred to a "manifesto commitment". The manifesto commitment—with which I take no issue at all—was to abolish the assisted places scheme in order to pay for more teachers to meet a class size pledge for five, six and seven year-olds. That has been done and the money is being saved at the moment, although as we all now know from the comprehensive spending review, it will not be enough. However, the manifesto pledge did not state that no local authority will provide for bright young children from low income families within the private sector. That was not a manifesto commitment. The Secretary of State then said in the same column,

"The debate is not about reaching partnership agreements".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/98; col. 505.]

It is precisely about reaching partnership agreements between local authorities, the voluntary sector, the private sector, the independent schools and the families. In the same column the Secretary of State said,

"we should not waste each other's time. Enough time has been wasted in this Session putting this and other Bills on the statute book".

I do not regard considering and reconsidering Bills as they go through both Houses of Parliament as wasting time. I regard it as part of the democratic process. But as we know, that process irritates the present Government. They do not like it. They regard serious consideration of legislation as a waste of time. That is not a view I share.

My honourable friend Mr. St Aubyn in another place put it succinctly. I end my comments by quoting what he said at col. 506 on 15th July:

"Labour Members may ask what this has to do with the amendment. That is a very good point. The amendment does not ask the Government to rediscover or reproduce that £40 million a year. It simply asks the Government to accept that local councils, with the support of local schools, parents, charities and sponsors, should be allowed to take advantage of the chance to give some local children for whom the idea is appropriate their best opportunity in life. That chance should not be denied by the prejudice that Labour Members have displayed not only in this House but in another place".

I disagree profoundly with the reasons given by another place; namely, that this is about financial privilege, when not one single extra penny of taxpayers' money at national or local level is to be spent as a result of meeting the terms of the House of Lords amendment.

My Lords, perhaps I might say a few words as this was my amendment which I was rather surprised to win at the time. I was also surprised at the reason the Commons have chosen to give for rejecting it. If this is the extent of financial privilege, which the Commons now claim, I suspect that any reformed House will wish to challenge them on it at an early stage. That seems to me an extraordinary extension of the idea of Commons' financial privilege, and in this context, as my noble friend has said, a considerable arrogance, which I am delighted to say was not shared by the Minister opposite who chose to give us, in her terms, a reasonable explanation of what lay behind the rejection of this amendment.

I start by being fairly positive in my reaction to most of what the noble Baroness said. I am delighted that the Government are promoting a series of partnerships between independent and state schools. I hope that much good may come of this. I see considerable scope for that. It is a way forward. But what has been done as a whole by this Government is to increase the apartheid between the state and the independent systems, to increase the gulf and to make it harder to achieve one system with slightly different ways of managing schools and slightly different ways of looking at schools, which is what one understands from the Government's election manifesto is their eventual ambition.

If a local authority were to purchase a place at an independent school for a pupil, it would be doing no more than it already does with state schools or foundation schools, or whatever they will become, in that it would provide education for a child at an appropriate school. Within the state system parents have a great deal of choice, which this Government support—and, I hope, are increasing in this Bill—to choose which school they send their child to. The local authority is obliged to respect that choice and to provide the funding to the school the child ends up at. I cannot see any fundamental difference in providing £2,500 a year to an independent school or to a state school, if that is the school the parents and child happen to choose.

I cannot understand either the justification for the following. If, for example, there was a scheme in Winchester, Winchester schools could benefit from the facilities of the great independent school in that town. That would be nice for them, but there may be a child in Southampton who is peculiarly suited to the facilities which are on offer there to develop his own particular talent, but he would be denied that opportunity just because of where he lives. That is a philosophy which punishes the poor for being poor and living in poor areas which happen not to be next to good schools. Those children are denied the opportunity to attend schools which may not have great academic records but which offer facilities which are peculiarly suited to their talents. I pursue this much more from a basis of supporting what is best for the child rather than what is best for a political philosophy or what is best for a school and local authority system. I would like local authorities to have the discretion to look after the children in their area as best they see fit. I am sad that the Government oppose that but I suppose I must accept that there is a basic difference of political philosophy. I hope that the Government may one day come round to my way of thinking.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has mentioned political philosophy. I suggest that it is his political philosophy, which is clearly shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that set up a scheme that this Government consider is highly divisive and which supports a small number of children who occupy more expensive places—in terms of the taxpayers' commitment—in independent schools when LEAs have a duty and obligation to provide adequately for all children, including those who are very able.

However, I am grateful that the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, was at least able to support the idea of partnerships, although the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I am afraid, did not, or certainly did not comment on them. There is absolutely no intention by the Government to create an apartheid between the two systems. Indeed I believe the assisted places scheme contributed to an apartheid by removing bright and able children from state schools and thereby denying those schools the opportunity to educate them and to educate them well. No, our proposals are not about apartheid. They are about bringing the independent sector and the state sector closer together. The right way to do that is not by plucking out bright individual pupils, but by creating a genuine partnership within which large numbers of pupils can mix together and benefit from the best that the state system can provide and the best that independent schools can provide. I utterly refute the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that this is the mean-spirited politics of envy. It certainly is not.

Nor can I accept that able children will suffer as a result of these proposals. LEAs can, and do, enable the brightest children to fulfil their potential. They would be insulted by some of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

The objections that the Conservative Party has to these proposals are a clear attempt to undermine government policy on the abolition of the assisted places scheme and to undermine provision in the maintained sector. I invite noble Lords opposite to accept that this is not an appropriate issue on which to challenge further the clearly expressed views of the elected House.

I now turn to the issue of privilege. Perhaps I should explain that it is not the Government who decide whether an amendment passed in this House and then considered in another place is a matter of privilege. It is the Speaker of the House of Commons who has ruled that these amendments involve matters of privilege. That is because they are telling LEAs how they may or may not spend their money. So questions of public expenditure are involved. The convention is that, where privilege is used, it is the only reason used.

The noble Baroness referred to a scheme in Surrey which was commented on and described by her honourable friend Mr. Nick St Aubyn in another place. The Government have invited Mr. St Aubyn to provide further details of the scheme but up to now they have not been provided. A scheme will be outlawed only if it replicates the assisted places scheme. From the information that we have, it is a local assisted places scheme. I understand that the education committee in Surrey has delayed consideration of it for the time being until the legislative position is clear.

The noble Baroness also asked about individual applications. That point is not particularly relevant to this amendment, which relates to local APS schemes. However, I understand that 100 out of the 170 individual applications have been dealt with extremely flexibly and the Government have used their discretion in favour of the parents.

Our approach makes a clear distinction between the demands of national policy and the scope for local action. As I have said, the regulations that we have proposed will not inhibit LEAs which want to form genuine partnerships with the independent sector. We have a mandate based on a clear manifesto commitment to phase out the assisted places scheme. A local scheme is no less divisive than a national scheme. It is not an appropriate use of public money. Our firm intention is that the regulation should stop LEAs going via the back door and replicating the scheme locally. I therefore ask the House not to insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, it was my intention to insist on this amendment. I shall, however, bide by the Speaker's ruling in another place. I do not know whether there is now a mechanism for a Member of this House to ask a question. Where an amendment does not involve the extra spending of one single pound, how is it that financial privilege can be invoked? This scheme was intended to save, not spend, money. The noble Baroness gave another reason; namely, this would involve telling local authorities what to do. The amendment did not involve telling any local authority what to do. It was intended as an enabling power for the local authorities. So I—

My Lords, the standing order is entirely clear. The noble Baroness is able to ask a question for clarification. My noble friend the Minister is not responsible for the Speaker's decision. I am absolutely staggered to hear that the noble Baroness proposed to divide the House on a question of financial privilege.

No, my Lords, the noble Lord has got it wrong. I said that I do not intend to divide the House. I accept the Speaker's ruling that it is a matter of financial privilege. My understanding is that financial privilege is always invoked where extra funding is involved in an amendment. As I understand it, no money was involved in the amendment that was passed by this House.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 140 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 140A.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 198 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments numbered 198A to 198C in lieu thereof.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 199 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment numbered 199A in lieu thereof.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 237 to 240 and Amendment No. 244 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 244A in lieu thereof.

I hope that we shall bring our debate today to a positive conclusion. The amendments proposed by the Government provide a way forward that is a workable compromise on the issue of minor authorities. We have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by noble Lords as the Bill has made its way through Parliament. The case for minor authority governors in some schools has been made with skill and persistence. Our amendments now take account of that case within the context of our wider proposals for restructuring governing bodies.

As the House requested, governing bodies of community and voluntary primary schools will, under these proposals, have no option but to appoint a minor authority nominee. An additional place will be available for that purpose.

I do not want to go over the history in detail. Suffice it to say that we have always wanted those with the greatest interest in the success of a school to be guaranteed representation. In adopting that approach we did not intend removing minor authority governors from governing bodies where that arrangement has worked well. There was every reason to suppose that the governing bodies would continue to invite them onto that governing body under the new framework. We certainly had no wish to under-estimate the valuable contribution that parish and town councils make to many primary schools. I am sorry if our proposals were interpreted in that way.

The government amendments build sensibly and constructively on those that were proposed in this House. First and foremost they provide a legally watertight version of those original amendments. That is not intended as a criticism of the amendments. I say that before the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, admonishes me yet again. But, for example, when challenged, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, accepted that the original amendments failed to address the particular issue of Welsh community councils. The Government's amendments deal with that and other such issues.

Secondly, and more substantively, the government amendments provide for a more flexible mechanism than was proposed in the original amendments. Those original amendments would have restricted the nominating minor authority to the parish in which the school is situated. The position is frequently a good deal more complicated than that. A school's location may well be an historical accident. For example, where schools have merged, the location may depend on which of the previous schools was able to expand, or on the availability of building land for a new school to serve several villages, rather than on the location where the majority of children who attend the school happen to live. Furthermore, the original amendments would not have allowed for district council representation in an area which is not covered by a town or parish council.

Our approach allows all authorities which are minor authorities at present to continue to be minor authorities. In short, the appointment mechanism which we propose is much more likely than that put forward by this House to permit every school affected by this issue to work with the minor authority with which it has the closest relationship.

The Commons' amendment places the responsibility with the school governing body—where it should be—for settling its membership in a speedy and practical fashion. Where a primary school serves more than one minor authority, it will be for the governors to decide which authorities are the most appropriate to nominate governors. They may wish to invite a single minor authority to provide the nomination; in many cases, there will be that obvious choice. In some cases they may wish to invite more than one minor authority to nominate. That will not prevent minor authorities agreeing on a nominee, where they are able to do so, among themselves. In what I would expect to be the very few cases where minor authorities do not agree and more than one nominee is put forward, it is the governing body which will decide between them.

Someone has to take the decision in these circumstances, and the school governing body is best placed to make that choice. I do not believe that it is possible to defend the mechanism whereby failure to agree on a joint appointment means that a fundamentally local decision would end up being taken by the Secretary of State. We shall ensure that governing bodies have guidance to help them through the appointment process in a sensible and brisk manner.

I hope I have made it clear that the Government's amendment deals with the points made in this House and puts forward a mechanism which is positive and workable. I hope that the House will welcome it on that basis. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Lord and his colleagues in another place for responding on these amendments. We heard a very different speech today from the one we heard from noble Lords on the Benches opposite when these amendments were discussed. They saw no reason for them and were vigorously opposed at each stage of the Bill, until finally the House took a view about the matter.

However, there is a problem. I spoke at length yesterday with an official in the Department for Education. The amendment is not as generous as would appear from the manner in which Mr. Byers spoke to it in another place, nor as generous as would appear from the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke to it today. It would be helpful if what the official said to me on the telephone could be repeated on the Floor of the House and recorded in Hansard. In these matters Pepper v. Hart will be important.

It is unfortunate that the initiative has been left with the governing body. It seems to me that, if it had been left to the mix of minor authorities, whichever they may be, whether they be district councils or parish councils, they could be given the opportunity to come together to determine their nominations. If it were a single nomination, that would be the nomination and the school would be bound to accept it. If, however, they came to a view that they wished to put forward more than one name, it would then be for the governing body to make the choice. Instead, it is the other way round. The governing body will simply approach one of those minor authorities. If that minor authority presents a representative, irrespective of what the other minor authorities think, that is the appointment that is made. I believe it is a great pity that that is the case.

When I spoke to the official on the telephone, I made it clear that we were pleased with the amendment and with the extra co-optive place for the minor authority representative. But I was told that the guidance which would go out to local authorities—not the regulations, because the primary legislation would not be consistent—would include a recommendation that, where possible, governing bodies should not approach just one of the minor authorities but should approach them all, encouraging them collectively to come to a view about their representative, and that, if there were a single nomination, that would be the nomination that would be accepted by the school.

A passage in the letter which the noble Baroness sent to me states that, where all the minor authorities collectively determine a single nomination, the school would be bound to accept it. That is not in the legislation; that is not in the amendment. What the official said to me was that the guidance which would go to local authorities would be to encourage minor authorities themselves to come to a view about who the representative should be and only in the event of its being more than one nomination would the school make the choice.

That is a view also held by the National Association of Local Councils, which, I believe, is also very pleased that the Government have gone the extra yard to accept the right of minor authorities to be represented on the governing bodies of their primary schools. But the council, too, would like to send out guidance which, I hope, would be consistent with the DfEE guidance to schools, encouraging them, where possible, to invite the minor authorities collectively to come to a view as to who should represent them on the governing bodies of primary schools.

I live in a village which has the primary school which serves many other villages. It is true that two or three of those villages have about an equal number of children who attend the school. It may well be that the minor authorities collectively will come to a view that they should rotate the membership on the governing body between those villages that have comparable numbers of children attending the school. That would make a great deal of sense. But it may not always be consistent with what the governors want. That is the concern I have about putting governors in the driving seat in this amendment.

Nevertheless, I thank the noble Lord and his colleagues in another place for conceding what I believe was a very important amendment which was supported throughout the whole country.

My Lords, perhaps I may say how much we on these Benches welcome this amendment. We spent a lot of time pushing the Government and I am very disappointed that they did not start to lean earlier. I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said. At this stage, when amendments have been tabled in the other place and come back here, we are pushing to obtain clarification. The matter could have been sorted out much earlier if we had been listened to. We have debated the matter at great length. It is now clear that there is no disagreement between us, except perhaps on the detail. I repeat that I cannot understand why the Government were so intransigent and why they appear to be so unsure of themselves when they have a huge majority and, by all accounts, are still popular out in the country. This measure does not change the direction of the Bill one iota. It is something on which everybody, it now appears, is agreed; yet here we are, at this very late stage, concerned about one or two minor details.

We welcome the improvements. I had always understood that the point of going through legislation in stages was to improve it as we went along. We could have made some of these improvements earlier. We particularly welcome the fact that Wales will be included and are appreciative of the fact that an extra governor will be co-opted. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that there is a worry about paragraph (4) of the amendment. As the noble Baroness said, we are not sure where the authority lies.

I received a copy of the letter which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. That letter contains a passage which I believe it would be helpful to have confirmed on the Floor of the House. I quote from the letter:

"Consideration would allow the governors to decide on the minor authority or the authorities who would be able to make nominations".

I believe that this is the key phrase:

"Whilst it would be open to the governors to approach only one minor authority, if all the relevant minor authorities wished to continue to co-operate by putting forward an agreed nominee, the governors would have no choice but to make the appointment".

I believe it is important that that be confirmed in the House today.

I do not agree with the proposition that it is difficult for different authorities to come to an agreement about school governors. I have been a member of a local authority in which we agreed with other local authorities of different tiers on the nomination to represent us on governing bodies. It is not difficult and it is not an excuse not to confirm that this can be the situation. We welcome this amendment, though I am amazed that the Government could not introduce it earlier.

My Lords, if the only thing we are to be berated for is coming back at this late stage, I am happy to accept that criticism. However, all sides of the House must recognise that in this case, it is the Commons listening to the Lords and coming back with a better amendment. I would have thought it could have been more graciously accepted.

On the question of who decides and whether the minor authorities can agree among themselves, it is the case—this confirms what was said in the letter from my noble friend the Minister—that the governing bodies will decide who to approach and there will be guidance for them, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, to interpret the provision. However, it will be for the governing bodies to decide who to approach.

Within that context it is clearly possible and desirable, if more than one authority is involved, for the minor authorities to reach agreement among themselves as a matter of practice. The comments of my honourable friend Stephen Byers and myself referred to that kind of informal agreement. In those circumstances, the governing body would adopt the proposition agreed between the various minor authorities.

In the few cases where no agreement is achieved, the governing body must have the final responsibility for deciding; otherwise, we shall need to include a whole new structure of decision making between the minor authorities. We consider the governing body of the school to be in the best position to decide. Though there may have been some criticism of that, the local authority associations considered the amendment to be sensible. They are grateful that we are proposing change and indicated that they hope that the Lords agree to the amendment. I hope so too and commend the amendment to the House.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hoped he could agree with the official who spoke to me on the telephone and would make it clear that, where the minor authorities came together and presented a nomination—we are not discussing where they disagree; we have already referred to that and in that case it would be a decision for the governing body—then the governing body would be bound to accept that nomination. Those were the words of the letter and it would be helpful to have it on the record for the purposes of the governing body.

Guidance will be sent out to governing bodies to encourage the minor authorities to produce a nomination and the governing body will only resort to making the appointment in the event of there being disagreement among the minor authorities. That was what the official said on the telephone and felt that it was possible for that to be confirmed on the record today. If it is not, then our worst suspicions are realised once again.

My Lords, I am not sure that it is proper to quote a telephone conversation with an official.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I quoted the words of a letter sent from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It would be helpful if the Minister could either confirm or deny those words because the whole matter hinges on it.

My Lords, I thought I earlier confirmed what was written in my noble friend's letter; namely, that where the governing body approached a number of minor authorities and they agreed on a nominee, then that nominee would be appointed to the governing body. I thought the noble Baroness was trying to push me to say that the minor authorities could decide who they were in the first place; whereas the amendment provides that the governing body, subject to flexible and positive guidance, would decide which minor authorities to approach. If those that were approached then agreed, the nominee which emerged from that process would be bound to be appointed to the governing body.

My Lords, I am sorry to be pedantic about this but that is not consistent with the words on the page of the letter. The words on the page of the letter say that, where the minor authorities come together collectively and produce a nomination, the governing body would be bound to make that appointment. If the governing body does not want to make that appointment but wants to make another appointment under the legislation as it is in the Bill, it is free to do so. That is what we were told, not only by the words on the page of the letter signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, but also by the official on the telephone. I do not know why I cannot refer to that 'phone call; it was extremely material to our understanding of the amendment.

My Lords, I thought I had already said that, where the minor authorities have been approached by the school and they agree, then the governing body is bound to accept.

My Lords, the difference is that we are not talking of the minor authorities being approached by the schools, but the minor authorities themselves coming to a view about their representative, not having already been approached by the governing body. In that situation they can actually present their own nomination.

My Lords, I believe that we are dancing on a pin head. However, the intention is clear. Under the guidance, the governing body would approach as many authorities as were relevant and those authorities, if they agreed among themselves, could produce a candidate which the governing body would be bound to accept. If further clarification is required, no doubt another letter can proceed.

My Lords, before we move to the Statement on criminal justice, I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review and the criminal justice system.

"May I open by expressing my gratitude to the Liberal Democrats for accommodating this Statement on their Opposition Day, and say that I am making it not least in response to representations from them?

"In our election manifesto we promised to reform the criminal justice system, to tackle youth crime and to reduce levels of crime and disorder. I therefore welcome the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review which has targeted resources where they are most needed to deliver these manifesto commitments. The Home Office will receive an additional £3 billion over the next three years. This money will be invested in modernisation and reform to help us build the safer, fairer society to which we are committed. Across government, the Comprehensive Spending Review represents an end to short-termism and will allow departments to plan with greater confidence over a longer period.

"We need first to improve the performance and management of the criminal justice system overall. We have to provide clear, strategic direction to ensure that the different parts of the system work efficiently and coherently together. So, for the first time, the Government have agreed new over-arching aims for the criminal justice system. These are: to reduce crime and the fear of crime and their social and economic costs; to dispense justice fairly and efficiently, and to promote confidence in the rule of law.

"These aims will drive government policy and planning for the criminal justice system as a whole. To modernise the services we shall be: establishing joint strategic planning across the system as a whole; improving and integrating services' information technology; and aligning their boundaries more closely. I have today placed in the Library a copy of a more detailed statement about these plans.

"To oversee these structures, the Prime Minister has asked me to chair a new ministerial group, which will include my right honourable and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General and my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

"But the criminal justice agencies cannot by themselves deliver the safer society we all want. If we are to make an effective attack on crime and its causes, we need to work in partnership right across government and beyond.

"The Crime and Disorder Bill therefore provides for statutory partnerships to analyse local crime problems and then draw up strategies to reduce crime and disorder at local level. The new antisocial behaviour order will tackle the problem of criminal anti-social neighbours, who can make life a misery for those who are affected by them.

"The Crime and Disorder Bill radically reforms the youth justice system. It establishes new multi-agency youth offending teams, a new police final warning scheme and new court orders. These will ensure that young offenders make reparation to victims or the community and their parents take greater responsibility for their offending behaviour.

"A new national Youth Justice Board will be established. This will administer a development fund for local programmes including bail supervision and mentoring. The board will set standards for the youth justice service.

"We will also be taking forward a programme of work to reform the quality and delivery of secure accommodation for sentenced and remanded juveniles. In the short term, this includes work which the Prison Service has in hand to improve the care and quality of regimes for young people held in young offender institutions. In the longer term, we aim to provide for greater coherency and efficiency in the delivery of secure accommodation through extending the role of the new Youth Justice Board for England and Wales to include the commissioning and purchasing of places. Additional resources are being made available for new secure facilities and to improve the constructive regimes for juveniles when our new detention and training order comes into force in 1999.

"As part of these changes we will deliver our pledge to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. When we came to office we found it took on average 142 days from arrest to sentence. The Lord Chancellor and I have worked hard to persuade the youth courts to introduce fast track schemes and over 160 schemes have been introduced or are planned, compared with just 12 when we took office. We shall be using some additional resources to ensure our pledge is fully delivered within the next two to three years.

"In our manifesto, we said we would be tough on crime and its causes. Individuals have to take responsibility for their criminal behaviour. But we also recognise that crime breeds where there is family breakdown and social exclusion.

"For many years, governments have concentrated on the effects of crime, to the detriment of its causes. But we can only make a long-term impact on crime and disorder by concentrating on both.

"Since the 1920s, the underlying rate of crime has risen at about 5 per cent. a year. There have been two periods when it has fallen: one from 1948–53, the other since 1992. The first proved short-lived; the danger is that the second may too. Increases in crime have, to many, appeared inexorable. 'There is nothing you can do', is the claim; 'It is a fact of life'. The assumption has been that 'nothing works'—that nothing could be done to reverse this long-term rise in crime. I disagree.

"As part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, therefore, I asked the research and statistics department of the Home Office to undertake a thorough investigation of all the available national and international evidence to identify 'what works' to reduce crime and disorder. Its conclusions are included in a report, entitled Reducing Offending, which I am publishing today. This report provides concrete research evidence that we can make a difference. It shows that investing resources where it matters can have long-term benefits in reducing offending. It also shows that the most cost-effective strategy for reducing crime has three strands. These are: to promote a less criminal society, by preventing young people from becoming criminals, and investing in measures which reduce the opportunity for crime; to prevent crime in the community, by acting on the social conditions that sustain crime, and by effective policing; to use sentencing policy effectively to change the behaviour of offenders, including drug users.

"I am therefore pleased to announce today that the Government will be investing £250 million over the next three years on a crime reduction strategy which draws on the findings of this research. This will be the first time a centrally co-ordinated programme of such magnitude, based on comprehensive research evidence, and with built-in evaluation, has been put in place anywhere in the world. As a result we should be able to make a significant contribution to reducing crime and the number of victims.

"This programme will tackle the social causes of crime through long-term investment in children, families and schools. We will target crime prevention measures on crime hotspots, and reduce the opportunities for crime. There will be new investment to tackle burglary. We will help the police target their efforts to reduce the pattern of repeat attacks on the same victims. And where prevention has failed, the Prison and Probation Services will work with offenders to help cut reoffending rates.

"Some of these initiatives—for example, with children and families—will take up to 10 years to make an impact on crime. But even these programmes will have earlier impacts on the factors which predispose people to later criminality. But some measures will work quickly—for example, burglary prevention makes a speedy and tangible improvement to people's lives as the Safer Cities programme of the previous administration illustrated.

"As well as proposals to tackle crime and its causes, the Government will give more attention to the needs of victims and witnesses, particularly those who are vulnerable or intimidated. We will provide extra resources to improve services in the magistrates' courts and for the support of victims. The strategy I have described should do much to lessen the impact of crime and the misery it causes.

"The Comprehensive Spending Review for the Home Office also makes substantial additional provision for the Police, Prison and Probation Services. Currently, the police spend £7 billion a year. We will be allocating an extra £1.24 billion over three years. But this has to be accompanied by improved efficiency, with the savings recycled into frontline policing priorities. The police settlement will therefore include targets for efficiency improvements of 2 per cent. a year. Part of the additional funding for the second and third years will be dependent on the police achieving these targets.

"For the Prison Service the settlement provides an additional £660 million over the next three years. Some of this money will be used for additional prison capacity to meet the pressure of rising numbers, and to clear the backlog of urgent repair and maintenance.

"But prisons will only fully protect the public if they not only incarcerate prisoners securely during their sentence, but also reduce reoffending on release. So we are providing for a significant increase in purposeful activity in the next three years. There will be more sex offender treatment programmes; extensions of the welfare to work pilots in prisons; improvements in education for juveniles and adults; and increases in the number of probation officers providing throughcare support. To meet part of the costs of these initiatives, I am looking to the Prison Service to implement a new efficiency strategy. Every pound saved will go back into the Prison Service to help fund more programmes to reduce reoffending.

"For the Probation Service, next year there will be an additional £18 million of grant instead of the £6 million cut planned by the previous government. In total, the settlement gives an extra £127 million to the Probation Service over three years. This will enable the service to take up important new responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Bill, such as extended supervision of sex offenders and involvement in the new youth offending teams. The service will be required to make further improvements in efficiency. This drive will be reinforced by improved joint working between the Prison and Probation Services. We will shortly be publishing a consultation document on our proposals.

"Taken all together, the measures I have announced today will help bind and strengthen our communities, build a safe, just and tolerant society and make Britain a better place to live".

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating his right honourable friend's Statement. I wish to make a few general points and then I have some questions to put to the Minister. Naturally, I can agree with the proposition in the Comprehensive Spending Review that the job of the Home Office is to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and the responsibilities of all are respected. After all, that is exactly what my right honourable friends and noble friends sought to do while they were in office. I have some serious concerns as to whether this spending review has made it possible for the Home Office even to begin to meet this objective over the next three years.

There is a second, more general, but nonetheless vital issue of whether any of the spending review can be carried through effectively against the background of the economic downturn which has begun to hit the United Kingdom as a direct result of this Government's policies.

The Government inherited a healthy economy last year but are already squandering that inheritance. The report published by Ernst and Young points out that the Chancellor's ambitious spending plans will make it very difficult to reduce interest rates—all at a time when the UK economy is heading for a sharp downturn.

The Statement makes great play of extra funds to be allocated to Home Office responsibilities. Of course, I shall, along with other noble Lords, look forward to examining those figures more closely when time permits. I note that the presentation of figures in the spending review itself, which was published last week, is novel, to say the least. Pieces of the Home Office budget are dotted around all over the place in the document, making it very difficult to judge which sums are separate and which overlap or indeed duplicate each other.

I also note the reference to a new ministerial group which is being formed and that the Home Secretary has placed in the Library of the House a detailed statement of plans to modernise services. I am disappointed that we have not had an opportunity to see that statement along with this Statement. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to debate it at a later stage, perhaps in the spill-over of this Session.

There is much that I would welcome in the projects proposed by the Home Office both today in announcements made in another place and, I understand, announcements to be made by the Home Secretary at a special event at the Café Royal. I certainly welcome those projects and also those already announced in the Crime and Disorder Bill. It is sensible to encourage better parenting; it is sensible to try to reduce truanting. It is of course sensible to try to reduce anti-social behaviour. In all of those objectives it is sensible to involve local authorities, the Probation Service and the non-governmental organisations in all the crime reduction strategies. They all have valuable expertise to impart. It is not sensible to launch strategies such as this without a proper assessment of their costs, and that is exactly the trap which this Government have jumped into head first.

The Chancellor has combined being spendthrift in some departments with concealing the true costs of services in others. In the Home Office that means that costs have been off-loaded to service providers, many of them charities and non-governmental organisations. But there are serious implications, too, for the budgets of local authorities and of the Probation Service. I am aware of course that the Minister has referred to the additional £18 million which has been granted to the Probation Service. I welcome that. I am sure that it will make very good use of it.

The Statement also makes a passing shot—or attempts to make it miss its target—about the fact that, had we remained in office, there would have been an alleged £6 million reduction in budget. I happily accept that we were always prudent in setting budgets. The Minister might ask, "What is new?", in perhaps not going as far as allowing the Probation Service £30 million which it sought from this Government on this occasion.

What is new is that we did not, unlike this Government, seek to transfer to the Probation Service a huge raft of new tasks and then fail to fund them. The Statement refers to the fact that the extra £18 million is intended to cover the extra costs of tasks transferred under the Crime and Disorder Bill. I look forward to seeing precise costings of those because I suspect that at the moment they cannot be covered effectively by £18 million. After all, I note that last week the Probation Service itself was saying that the cost of supervising sex offenders for an extended period would be a great burden which would certainly require more than £18 million extra for their budget.

What is the Government's estimate of the extra costs which will be incurred by the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Bill and their other pronouncements on the work of the local authorities, including their social services departments and Victim Support? The noble Lord made reference very properly indeed in the Statement to the welcome changes that will be introduced—I hope in the near future—to the support given to witnesses in court. Certainly those extended services will put a strain on Victim Support. There will be costs loaded onto charities and on organisations like the citizens' advice bureaux.

In passing, as always, I make a statement of a small personal interest. It is small only because it is not paid but great because it is an interest as president of my local CAB. I have asked these questions throughout the passage of the Bill, but I have not as yet received any satisfactory answer.

I welcome the idea of mentoring announced today. The Youth Justice Board will fund this network of mentors—older friends and adults to act as role models. That is an excellent idea. That will be under the chairmanship of Mr. Warner, who is soon to join the Government Benches in this House. No doubt we shall welcome him here, especially as his recent experience as special adviser to the Home Secretary will no doubt give him a unique insight into the aspirations of the Government.

Mr. Warner will be responsible for leading the volunteer mentoring project. Volunteers are not free labour and they should not be cheap labour. Do the Government's estimates of the costs of the mentoring scheme include the full costs of the following: recruiting, security screening, goal setting, monitoring of performance and the outcome of the mentors' work? Volunteers work best when they are well managed and that costs money. For over half my life I have worked in the voluntary sector and I have learnt that to my cost at first hand.

As regards the police, how do the Government intend to achieve the efficiency savings referred to in the Statement? There has been reference to this on the ITN Newsline on the Internet. The implication there is that the Government have told the police forces that they are to prevent people retiring early and that they are not to go on sick leave. Has the Minister any information as to whether such advice has been given by the Government to the police?

The Government have already warned police forces, as mentioned in the Statement, that some of the projected cash increases will be withheld if efficiency savings of at least 2 per cent. are not achieved. What kind of efficiency savings will the Government insist on without jeopardising the security of the public? I notice in the Statement that there are references to hot spots and that police patrols should be targeted at times when crime is expected to occur.

I wonder what the Minister intends as regards those who live perhaps in bungalows in leafy streets in Hampshire. I carefully avoid the county in which my mother lives so that I can deal with the matter with impartiality. I wonder what the Minister intends for police patrols there where the incidence of crime is luckily much lower than it is in inner cities and where it is more difficult to predict where crime will occur; and it is certainly more difficult to predict repeat crime on the same victim. Will such areas and people perhaps not qualify as hot spots? Will they not receive the same attention and protection from the police as they currently do?

I noted in the spending review document itself that the large, real increase in the Home Office budget for 1999–2000 reflects the Home Office taking over responsibility for support costs for asylum seekers from the DSS and the Department of Health. I read that in paragraph 11.5 on page 61. I am being rather pedantic here. I mention that particularly because I noted earlier on that, when responding to the Statement in another place, the Home Secretary replied to my right honourable friend Norman Fowler that he was mistaken when he said that earlier on on the radio. But this is something stated in the spending review itself.

The Home Secretary went on to say that next week a White Paper would be issued on immigration and the asylum system, with full costings. I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some indication today as to the true situation concerning the budget that has been taken from the DSS and the DoH and transferred to the Home Office. I am confused as a result of what appear to be two different types of statement from the spending review and today's Statement.

I also note that the Home Secretary has said that he will make a Statement next week about the White Paper. In my two years here this is my first ever Statement. I find perhaps an embarrassment of riches if the Home Office is to impose two Statements in two weeks on me, but perhaps I still look forward to it.

As regards asylum seekers I note that in my previous incarnation as a spokesman on social security, noble Lords on the Government Benches, when they were in Opposition, criticised us vehemently for withdrawing income support from asylum seekers who did not make their claim at the point of entry. Do the Government intend to reinstate those benefits? If so, where do those costs appear in the spending review? Since, after all, the Home Office appears to have taken over those costs, they should be reflected in its budget if they are to be reinstated.

Any sociologist would tell the Minister that the behavioural changes upon which the Government are depending to achieve those efficiency savings are unpredictable at worst and take a long time to achieve at best. The Statement refers to 10 years. For the sake of the criminal justice system and the public, I hope that the Government achieve those objectives, but I fear that they may not. To me, the spending review remains a bundle of inconsistencies, contradictions and conjuring tricks. I believe that the country deserves better than that.

My Lords, I shall not tour the horizon quite as widely as the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may thank the Home Secretary for the tribute that he paid in another place to my colleagues there for their assiduity and interest in these matters.

The key to the Statement comes in paragraph 15, which states that for many years, governments have concentrated too much on the consequences of crime to the detriment of its causes. In that key statement we see a change of tack which we very much welcome. It is certainly a change of tack from the empty rhetoric of the previous Home Secretary. However, I shall not make party points because it is a welcome change of tack.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister a few questions. I understand that the new Grand Committee which is to oversee strategic planning will include the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which is probably a very wise move. Will membership of that committee encompass also the departments of state relating to education and employment and the environment? Surely the input of such other departments at the earliest stage will be important in achieving the right answer.

Perhaps I may refer to the point made by the noble Baroness about promises of cost-effectiveness with regard to the police. The police should understand that, although Parliament and the public are willing to vote them extra resources, we want to see cost-effectiveness. The recent report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Accounts into police illness and early retirement shows certain deficiencies in terms of management and accountability which the public will rightly want to see put right if the police are to have extra resources for fighting crime.

Perhaps I may put to the Minister one point which is not covered in the Statement but which we on these Benches would very much like to see addressed as part of the review. There still does not seem to be any sense of urgency about bringing our ethnic communities within our system of justice in terms of police recruitment and—perhaps this is even more important—police retention of recruits. We also need to bring members of our ethnic minorities into the Probation Service and the judiciary. Our justice system must not be something that is "done to" our ethnic minorities; it must be something of which they are a part. About 20 years ago in another place, I asked questions about the efforts being made by the police to recruit members of our ethnic minorities. I still feel that all our police forces are lagging behind on that. That issue could well be considered as part of the review of the whole system.

My only other doubt about the review is that there is always an element of "up the down escalator" about putting more money into the Prison Service and arguing—we support this—that it should be for education and rehabilitation when at the same time we are piling more and more people into the prison system and when that overcrowding will eat up those extra resources. Anyone who wishes the programme well should ask Ministers to what extent they can retain the extra money that is going into the system for the good works that they want to see carried out rather than spending it simply on holding the system together.

The Minister will be well aware that we on these Benches have always been tough on cheap rhetoric and on the electoral causes of that cheap rhetoric! Therefore, we support the thinking behind the Statement. The Minister and, I am sure, the whole Home Office will have read today's Evening Standard, which reports that a recent poll shows that the present Home Secretary enjoys an almost unprecedented level of public support. I believe that that public support and confidence should be used by the Home Secretary to educate and to lead. If that is the intention behind the Statement—I believe that it is—we on these Benches welcome it as a step in the right direction.

My Lords, those were characteristically generous closing words from the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Part of the virtue of these proposals is that they were not produced simply as a knee-jerk reaction. They were carefully considered by my right honourable friend Jack Straw and his colleagues in opposition over a period of time. The noble Baroness is right that one of those colleagues was Mr. Warner, who has an extraordinarily distinguished record as a director of social services and as the producer of a notable report. I believe that the Home Secretary is fortunate to have an independent adviser of that quality.

It is true that the Home Secretary has had a good deal of public support. I believe that that is because people appreciate, as he undoubtedly emphasises whenever he may, that one of the duties of government is to provide a calm, settled life for people in all parts of our community so that they can have the opportunity to lead fruitful lives themselves and enjoy the legitimate hope that their children's lives may be better.

I do not deride or despise the calm leafy suburbs. People living in them have every right to proper consideration. However, we know that levels of certain crimes are much higher in inner-city areas than in the leafy suburbs. We owe a duty to those areas of our inner cities and to those who live in what are called, in that appalling phrase, the "sink estates". They have been overlooked in terms of practical consequence and results for a very long time. Their schools have been poorer. Their social services have been weaker. The delivery of the ordinary amenities and conveniences of every-day life has been lacking. The Home Secretary has said time and time again that he will not turn his back on those areas.

The joint statement was placed in the Library today. It is extremely important. Noble Lords will not have had the time to study it, but it is intended to show that we mean business. The group is chaired by the Home Secretary. One member is the Lord Chancellor, another is the Attorney-General and a further member is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so it is not pie-in-the-sky. Vast amounts of money are spent by the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Prison Service and the Probation Service—historically in rather competitive isolation, one against another. We shall not be able to do anything unless we move forward on an integrated basis.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is right that that ministerial group does not include the Department for Education and Employment or the other departments that he mentioned. However, as part of the crime reduction strategy, there will be a separate ministerial group which will have a much wider membership and include the Departments for Education and Employment and for Health. I take the noble Lord's point entirely. It is intended to be a focused, strategic group, but it is not intended to stand without assistance from other colleagues. I touch briefly on the work of that group, recognising that noble Lords will not have had a chance to study it. What is intended—it is a self-imposed discipline and is the only way in which to achieve results—is the production by that group of a three-year strategic plan, an annual forward business plan and, of critical importance, an annual report of performance against objectives. If we can make that work we shall take a very important step on this very difficult journey.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked generally about ethnic minorities. In this country we have been shamefully slow in dealing with the problems of ethnic minorities for a very long period of time. We shall provide extra grants to organisations which are not limited to those available to local authorities under Section 11. We are consulting with the Commission for Racial Equality on its recommendations and encouraging the establishment of a European monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia. We have already abolished the primary purpose rule which was a cause of significant complaint.

Not least it is extremely important to recognise the significance of the step taken by the Home Secretary and its inevitable consequences. Knowing the difficulties, he set up a public inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. It is not for me to pre-judge or even guess at the conclusions and recommendations of that inquiry, but there is no doubt in my mind that as a matter of absolute moral certainty in five or ten years' time we shall look back at those recommendations, first, with a feeling of deep shame and, secondly, it is to be hoped with the ability to do better in future. For too long one has heard, "I do not have a racist bone in my body. Neither I nor my organisation is racist". I do not believe that there is any senior police officer in the land who disagrees that the police have a long way to go. Of course it is a matter of persuasion and changing attitudes. The first important step to changing attitudes is to get to the truth, which in the Lawrence case is deeply ignoble.

As to the Prison Service, the comments that have been made are well justified. Part of the extra money is to be spent on additional places. I have never been one to say that it is all the fault of the previous government. I simply observe the objective fact that custody as a sentencing alternative in the Crown Court has substantially increased. That form of sentence has also significantly increased in the magistrates' court. The Government have the constitutional obligation to provide prison spaces if independent judicial tribunals want to impose those sentences. As we have sought to do under the Crime and Disorder Bill, with the philosophy shortly set out in the spending review, it is much more fundamental to see whether we can stop small children of 10 years getting into a system which everybody in this House knows causes them to be recidivists, offers them no benefit and puts upon the public purse an enormous burden in terms of both finance and fragmented societies. We are however going to spend £79 million, which is quite a sum, on improving constructive activity including education, which so many of your Lordships have rightly stressed in recent times. An announcement will be made very shortly by my right honourable friend Mrs. Taylor about access to drug-testing and treatment programmes in prison. Perhaps that is best left for her announcement.

The noble Baroness began in a way to which I am well accustomed; namely, constructively and reasonably. However, she was led into social misbehaviour when she commented on the whole of the Comprehensive Spending Review and raised the question whether we had inherited a marvellous situation and whether Sodom and Gomorrah—doom and destruction—lay just around the corner. I do not think noble Lords would expect me to join that particular jousting, because the noble Baroness is a politician and I am not—presently.

Very important questions arise as to how resources are to be provided and divided up. On the transfer of resources from the DSS and Department of Health for asylum support, the costs are provisional at present and more work needs to be done on the details. As to the Probation Service, we do not anticipate that the full costs of the Crime and Disorder Bill will be incurred in year one. For that reason we have built in £18 million for the first year, £42 million for the second year and £67 million for the third year, making £127 million in total. We believe that that is sufficient to meet the additional burdens that are placed on the Probation Service.

It must be borne in mind that when the review of the Prison Service/Probation Service relationship is finally concluded there will be savings, in part because of efficiency and in part because if crime falls there will be a reduction in cost. It is impossible to state categorically the exact fall in particular crimes by year one, year two or year three. As the extremely important document Reducing Offending points out, some trends are underlying and cannot be pinpointed. I believe that this is the first time that such a comprehensive review of ways of dealing with offending behaviour and preventing it has been produced anywhere in the world.

The costs of monitoring and vetting offenders are covered in these estimates. A particular question was raised about police efficiency. That is a perfectly reasonable question. The noble Baroness asked how we would achieve the 2 per cent. efficiency savings. Part of the answer lies in the product of the Public Accounts Committee. The chairman of that committee, the right honourable David Davis, who has done notable work, points out that there is an enormous variation in the performance of police forces. The controller of the Audit Commission has said that more money does not always buy better policing. There are enormous differences in performance within similar forces which I find difficult to explain. For example, in 1996–97 Surrey received a 4 per cent. increase in expenditure per head of population. Kent received 2 per cent. However, Kent's detection of violent crimes and burglaries increased by 9 per cent. and 20 per cent. respectively, whereas in Surrey the detection of violent crimes and burglaries dropped by 5 per cent. and 18 per cent. respectively. I do not know the answer to that. I do not know the fundamental reason why a large authority like the Metropolitan Police has a considerable number of officers taking significant sick leave. Nor do I know why there should be an enormous variation between one constabulary and another in terms of how much of the annual budget is paid out for early retirement of officers. Many if not all of us find the figures extremely alarming. There is an enormous amount of work to be done, bearing in mind that we do not have or wish to have a national police force in this country. Nevertheless, police authorities and chief officers of police have a duty to account prudently, efficiently and appropriately for the expenditure of public money. I do not know all of the answers to those questions, but that there are serious issues that create great concern in the public mind cannot be denied.

I am grateful for the general welcome given to this matter by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The Home Secretary does not pretend or claim that this is anything more than a determined first beginning, but it certainly is determined. I do not believe that over the past 25 years such a beginning has been made in the Home Office. That is perhaps one of the reasons why at the moment—I strike out the words "at the moment"—the Home Secretary enjoys enormous public confidence and support.

My Lords, in developing this policy, will the Government bear in mind two matters in relation to young offenders? The first is that custodial sentences should be regarded by the courts as a last resort. The other factor closely related to the first—this is not a matter so much for the courts as for the Government and persuasion—is that the responsibility of parents should be increased. They should bear in mind that there are powers to make parents pay fines and compensation for damage or loss. I hope that those two factors might help.

My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord said. I know that we share the experience of having sentenced many young people. Most sentencers genuinely wish to look at a custodial outcome as the very last weapon at their disposal. The Crime and Disorder Bill is trying to go beyond the stage of sentencing what is still a child of 16 and to see what led that child to being in the dock, with a custodial sentence contemplated. That will almost inevitably be the final incident in a long history of offending. I think that most people would find that to be their sentencing experience.

If a child is running wild late at night, why is that? If a child is not attending school properly, why is that, and how can we deal with it? Because there is no doubt that poor school attendance and low educational achievement lead to a significant part of juvenile crime. That is how we have structured the Crime and Disorder Bill which, by and large, received a good welcome in your Lordships' House. There is no doubt that parents have to be involved, which is another significant and deliberate aspect of the Crime and Disorder Bill under which we can have parenting orders, where parents who may not be sufficiently equipped to be good parents will be encouraged rather than bullied or threatened to see whether, as I said earlier, their children's lives may not be better than were their own.

Equally—I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally—this is not just a Home Office point, because it depends upon education. It is of great importance that my right honourable friend Mr. Blunkett is putting such emphasis on a broad education in schools to include parenting responsibilities. I know that that is jargon, but it is jargon that contains an important point. I agree with the noble Lord.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the heavier use of imprisonment as a penalty, and longer sentences. We all know that that is what is happening. Will the Minister explain why the Statement makes no reference to non-custodial sentences, to getting mentally ill offenders out of prison, or the long-standing question of access by all prisoners to the NHS?

My Lords, I did not say longer sentences. I said that Crown Courts and magistrates were using imprisonment more readily than they formerly did. It is not right to say that the Statement does not consider alternatives to prison, because it spends a great deal of time on increased investment in the Probation Service, for instance. It does not include the question of access to NHS facilities. I think that I answered that Question yesterday in a different context. There are arguments on both sides. The noble Lord is right: the Statement does not mention that point.

The whole of the Crime and Disorder Bill, which is the Government's flagship strategy in dealing with the prevention of crime, seems to me to devolve entirely upon alternatives to prison. The whole construct of the Bill is to try to deal with people at a young age, before they go to prison. The Statement has to be seen in the context of what we have already done and what your Lordships have, as I think I said earlier, almost unanimously approved.

We deal with children in a non-custodial way, but there are children who will go into custody and there are adults who will go into custody. It is our duty as a civil society to provide better régimes for them, not least productive activity and education. The Statement deals with that issue. There will never be a time in this country when some people will not be in prison. Our aim should be to have as few people in prison as is sensibly consistent with public confidence in the judicial system and public safety and security.

My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that modest sums of money might make a difference in our prisons? While I do not suggest that this is one of the major issues, will the Minister look favourably upon charities such as Natural Justice which is looking at the link between diet and violent behaviour, particularly in prisons?

My Lords, I can agree with two points that the noble Lord has made. I recognise his enormous experience in this area. First, volunteering and charitable work is important; and, secondly, it can be achieved at a relatively modest cost. We intend to provide over £5 million to support volunteering. I cannot deal specifically with the question of diet. I am aware that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has frequently asked Questions, orally or in writing, about that. I cannot say that there is anything in the Statement that points to that. It is an important question, so I will have further research done and write to the noble Lord, if that is helpful, and put a copy in the Library.

My Lords, I hope that the Minister heard the name of the charity which is Natural Justice.

My Lords, I did.

My Lords, it would be churlish not to pay tribute to the Government for their good intentions, so ably expressed by the Minister. Without studying the proposals in detail, it would be imprudent to offer any view as to whether they represent a repudiation of the disastrous policies pursued over the past few years by various governments, which won almost universal condemnation in your Lordships' House, as illustrated in the debate initiated recently in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Allen.

My Lords, I believe that they are a repudiation. What has bedevilled us in the past is that every approach has been made piecemeal, often as an over-reaction to a limited problem. In the Crime and Disorder Bill we are looking at the causes of crime, and setting out the statutory purpose of that new regime; namely, to prevent people offending. The Statement of course does not recite the whole philosophy behind the Crime and Disorder Bill. I do not think that it could have. It is saying that we must look at the judicial system; the sentencing regime; the prison régime; the Probation Service regime; and alternative community disposals, all in the whole. I do not believe that that has ever been done before; it certainly was not done in the past 20 years.

My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his ability to make this historic Statement, as I believe it to be, this afternoon. I pay tribute to the part that I know he played in making possible this Statement and the policy that is contained in it. Am I, as an amateur politician—my noble friend referred to his being in that category—permitted to dream for a moment, that the subject of crime, the causes of crime and how to deal with it, could be taken out of the political arena?

I do not think that the nation will enjoy the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, from the Front Bench opposite. It is only fair that I allow her to hear what I am saying.

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. No discourtesy was intended. It was merely a matter of referring to the timing of the next Business. I do apologise to him that I was not paying attention.

My Lords, no one would ever accuse the noble Baroness of being discourteous. However, I venture to suggest that she might refrain from making such political speeches in the future, which I do not think that the nation would appreciate in view of its great concern about crime, its causes, and the way to deal with it.

I have just two observations. I borrow a phrase used by my noble friend the Minister who said that he obviously would not wish to anticipate the results of the inquiry into the Lawrence case or the recommendations that might be made. The reputation of the police—the people who represent law and order to the man in the street—which in my youth was so high, is suffering a deterioration unworthy of the great traditions that the majority of the police still uphold.

Quite apart from enquiries being made into early retirements, sick pay, and so on, I hope that when communicating with the heads of the various police forces it will be emphasised by the Government that the conduct of the police is of supreme importance in connection with the battle against crime. I yearn for the day when the police were regarded as the friends of school children and others alike. They were the honoured guests of schools. Their bands played and school children and youngsters loved them. I wonder whether that position can be still be secured.

I have only one other question. Expenditure was mentioned in connection with much that would help with juvenile crime. However, I found no reference in the Statement to the encouragement and extra financing of youth clubs. One of the chief causes of crime is the lack of activity for youngsters, and especially the young unemployed. The youth clubs are doing a wonderful job. They deserve to be helped.

My Lords, my noble friend is right: there was no specific reference to youth clubs. But again one goes back to the Crime and Disorder Bill, and considers the strategies with which local authorities, voluntary organisations, chief officers and police will be involved. I am happy to reaffirm that there is no doubt that all voluntary organisations, including youth clubs which do such useful work, will be included in that co-operative regime.

I can say no more about the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence except this. I do not think that it can be doubted that the present Home Secretary has an absolute commitment to doing away with that endemic vice, not simply in setting up that inquiry, but also in the introduction of the offence of racial harassment. Having listened with care to amendments that both my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, wished, we were able to respond in a firm and constructive way.

My noble friend Lord Mishcon referred to me as an amateur politician. I assume that he refers to the extremely modest remuneration that Ministers in your Lordships' House receive. It is not a perfect amateur but very close to it. I chided the noble Baroness gently because I am happy to say in all honesty that in every contact we have had across the Dispatch Box and, more importantly, in private letters and conversations, the noble Baroness has never sought to make these matters a party political football. I believe that she was led for a moment into temptation; and, as Oscar Wilde said, the one thing to do with temptation is to give into it.

My Lords, I declare an interest, as I have done before, as a member of a probation committee. It is not a financial interest.

First, I welcome the reference in paragraph 30 of the Statement to increases in the number of probation officers providing throughcare support. That has varied over the years as prison officers manage their budgets. Are the Government telling us that they have some method of ring-fencing the budget for probation officers within prisons?

My second question relates to the additional annual grant to the Probation Service. At first glance it is an enormous improvement on the year on year reduction in real budget from which the Probation Service has been suffering. However, it would be useful if the Minister will tell us the likely percentage increase year on year. Is this a real increase, or is it an increase that has to be discounted by inflation?

My Lords, it is a real increase. The figures I have given start at £18 million as opposed to a cut of £6 million increasing to an additional £127 million, with factors for anticipated inflation—the Treasury factors—taken into account.

As regards ring-fencing and further working, the relationship between the Prison Service and the Probation Service will be part of the review.

A consultation document will be published shortly. That will set out the Government's proposals more fully. I dare say that the question of funding, and whether or not specific funding should be ring-fenced will be addressed there. In effect, the provision for the service mentioned in the context to which the noble Baroness referred will be ring-fenced. However, one should wait, I think, for the fuller consultation document. The Home Secretary firmly believes that it is artificial in many ways, and certainly inefficient and often not productive, to have the Probation Service in one box and the Prison Service in another. The boxes are not different. It has always been my view that they are different aspects of the same spectrum of dealing with people who have offended. They are the same people who have offended, whether they are in prison or outside—sometimes as a result of a sentencing decision and sometimes not.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

My Lords, before your Lordships agree to move into Committee, I feel obliged to make similar remarks to those I made on the last Committee day. In the words of F. E. Smith, your Lordships will have taken cognisance of the position of the hands of the clock. They will see that the hands of the clock are not in the position one would expect them to be at the beginning of a Committee day on an important Bill.

It is almost six o'clock. One would normally expect to start this Bill today shortly after three o'clock. It would be bad enough, but something one could put up with, if this had been the first day on which we had made a late start; but it is not. In fact, we are marginally better today, starting at three or four minutes to six than last Tuesday when we did not begin until ten past six. On Thursday we did not begin until five minutes past seven. For three out of the four days we have had truncated Committee days.

As I said last Thursday, we agreed—I stated quite clearly at Second Reading that I had every hope and expectation of it—that we would clear the Committee stage of this Bill before the Recess with something like eight Committee days. This is now the fourth Committee day and we have had only one complete day. I make no complaint about Statements. They are an inevitable part of the parliamentary process; we are used to that. However, it is the other business, albeit agreed through the usual channels, that the Government need to squeeze into the programme which is causing this important Bill to start at such a late hour, and therefore for important issues to be discussed late into the night.

It is not satisfactory. Before we agree to go into Committee, I wish to log again the fact that we are now well behind any undertaking I made at Second Reading to complete the Committee stage of the Bill in eight days or before the Recess. I hope that the Government will take some account of this when discussing the pattern of future business for the Bill.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to make one point. Harking back to the earlier stages of our proceedings this afternoon, has the noble Lord talked to some of his very voluble colleagues on the Benches on which he sits?

My Lords, the noble Lord refers to earlier stages of our proceedings this afternoon. I thought perhaps he was meaning previous stages of this Bill. I have not talked to them, but my noble friends are fully entitled to make the points they wish to make on important government business; and, frankly, whatever time today's business took we would still have an erosion of the fourth day in Committee on this Bill.

My Lords, I think that excessive volubility is to be deplored if there is now a complaint about the time factor.

My Lords, the alleged difficulties that we find ourselves in are a consequence of the weight of business to an extent and perhaps to a stringing out of business beyond the time that is absolutely necessary. However, I understand that these matters and the programme have been discussed between the usual channels, and I do not think there is cause for the type of comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. If I could make just one plea, is it this: it is still possible for us to make progress expeditiously.

My Lords, does my noble friend still expect to complete the Committee stage this month, without unacceptably long sittings?

My Lords, that is a matter for the Chief Whip—who happens, by perfect happenstance, to arrive in the Chamber at this very moment. I have an answer ready if he does not.

My Lords, could I ask my noble friend whether he has heard my question, and will he be able to answer it?

My Lords, I did not hear the question but I am prepared to answer it.

My Lords, I asked my noble friend whether he still expects to complete the Committee stage of this Bill this month without unacceptably late sittings.

My Lords, it is fair to say that it will be quite difficult. I have not heard what has gone on, but I can guess. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has made a point about the late start on the Scotland Bill today and the progress, or lack of it, that might be made. I can only repeat the answer that I gave on the last occasion when he raised this point. I sympathise with him. But I hope he understands the problems that I face with the Northern Ireland Bill, to which I have had to give priority because it has to receive Royal Assent, as part of the peace process, before the Summer Recess. There was at one stage a discussion as to whether we should continue the Scotland Bill during the first week of August, and it was agreed through the usual channels that this would not be the case and that we would not sit in the first week of August for reasons which I know the noble Lord understands.

I can only suggest that we make the best progress that we can today. I understand the problem; of course I do. I have been in Opposition for enough years to understand that some years a big Bill comes along and it is started late in the evening. I hope the House will understand the problem that I face with Northern Ireland legislation and the landmines legislation, all of which has been agreed through the usual channels and between the parties. This legislation, it has been agreed, must be completed by the Summer Recess. We have had to fit in a major Bill around this one. I apologise and I suggest that we now continue with the Committee stage and make all the progress that we can. As always, the usual channels will be in constant touch over the progress of the Bill.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is true that there has been a great change of heart in this House? It used to rise in August so as to prepare for the grouse season. Has this now been changed for fishery?

Ah!

My Lords, the noble Lord perhaps has some information that I do not have. It is interesting to remember that in an equivalent Session during 1979 there was a government who had similarly come into office after a long period in Opposition and during that summer they actually sat until 8th August. We have decided that we will rise on 31st July, for reasons which the House understands, and we are coming back on 5th October.

I apologise again for the problem and I suggest that the best thing we can do, now that we know the reason for it, is to make all the progress that we can on the Bill. Let us see where we shall be next week. We have the rest of today; we have Thursday; we have next Monday, next Tuesday and next Thursday; and with the brevity and succinctness of which I know the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is a past master, aided by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, I am sure that we will finish the Committee stage.

moved Amendment No. 136:

This matter relates primarily to the situation of a Minister of the Crown, and particular provision is made for someone who remains a Minister of the Crown. The issue which seems to me still to require clarification is that of someone who has been a Minister of the Crown and has dealt with matters covered by this clause but where that person is no longer a Minister but a Member of the House of Commons. In such circumstances, am I to understand that for the purposes of hearing evidence the Scottish parliament could not require that individual to attend but would be able to require him to attend so long as he remained a Minister of the Crown? If I have understood that position correctly, it does seem to me to be a rather curious anomaly. Clearly the House of Commons must be taken as being on notice that one of its Members might be required to attend. They have already dealt with this provision. Given the change of Ministers that there may be, perhaps as soon as the end of this week, those no longer in office might have evidence which a Scottish parliament considered appropriate for its deliberations. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that matter.

I support the amendment. I believe that enabling the Scottish parliament to ask United Kingdom Ministers, who are answerable to the electorate through a different set of elected representatives, to submit to questions, whether on small or large issues, merely because their responsibilities overlap in affecting devolved matters is asking for trouble and confrontation. This Parliament and the Government have an enormous responsibility to reduce the areas which invite confrontation, provided that the parliament works as is intended.

I see from the notes on clauses that Ministers of the Crown include Treasury Ministers. One can imagine a Chancellor of the Exchequer of a Conservative government being summoned before the Scottish parliament, which is perhaps Labour or SNP dominated, to be questioned about why the grant from Westminster is so small and results in Scottish income tax being raised by 3p. in the pound. According to my reading of the Bill, that could happen. Could the Prime Minister be summoned to be questioned about the Government's policies, vis-à-vis the policies of the Scottish parliament and how they conflict?

On reading the Bill, it appears that the policies which have evolved from the thinking of the civil servants in the Scottish Office have not been adequately tested for their political effect by the Government or by the House of Commons. I can understand people's belief before the Bill came to Parliament that this part would work well. But the political effect is likely to be fairly catastrophic for the good working of the Scottish parliament and Westminster together. I believe that the Government should consider the amendment because it is very important.

We do not follow the argument that the provision in the Bill will create further tension or difficulties. If a Minister of the Crown outside Scotland has functions or responsibilities relating to devolved matters concerning Scotland, the Scottish parliament should have the power to require him to attend. It is a simple question of accountability. There is no reason why anyone—particularly someone of importance as regards Scottish matters—should not be accountable. We believe that the Bill is rightly specific on that and we oppose the amendment.

Does the noble Baroness consider that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is accountable to the people of Scotland through their elected members to the Scottish parliament or to the Westminster Parliament? How can she use that argument?

The noble Baroness has made her point. I do not wish to offend the dignity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anyone else, but I point out that when a Minister does not want to answer questions the answers are most vital and necessary.

The amendments raise the issue of the circumstances in which a Minister of the Crown may be summoned before parliament. As I explained earlier, under the Bill as drafted, those who are responsible only for reserved matters cannot be summoned in connection with those matters, although they can of course be invited to attend and to submit documents. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, thought that that was appropriate if they wished to attend in response to an invitation. For UK Ministers and civil servants, we have in particular had to be careful to avoid what might be described as "double accountability". We absolutely accept that Ministers of the Crown exercising functions in reserved areas will be using resources voted by the United Kingdom Parliament and should be accountable to it, and to it alone, and not to the Scottish parliament.

We have also ensured that where it is provided in, say, an executive devolution order under Clause 59 that the Scottish Ministers must be consulted or their agreement sought about the exercise of a function by a UK Minister which concerns a reserved matter, that in itself provides no basis for summoning UK Ministers and their civil servants before the Scottish parliament. Similarly, they will not be summonable in relation to a function which they share with Scottish Ministers by virtue of Clauses 52, 53 or 59. For those functions they will be rightly accountable to Westminster.

Bearing in mind the principles underlying these provisions, I have to say that the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord go further in restricting the power of summons in relation to Ministers of the Crown than we think is justified. They would prevent the parliament from being able to call Ministers of the Crown to give evidence to the Scottish parliament in any circumstances. In particular, they would prevent a Minister of the Crown from being summoned where he exercises a function in relation to devolved matters concerning Scotland instead of the Scottish Ministers. In reply to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that would apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

There will continue to be what are known as "cross border public authorities". These bodies will have responsibilities for devolved matters in Scotland as well as matters elsewhere. Examples include the British Tourist Authority. Appropriate arrangements for their control and accountability will be made under Clauses 83 and 84. In some cases concerning those bodies, it will be appropriate for ministerial functions in relation to devolved matters concerning Scotland to be exercisable by UK Ministers. For example, it may not make practical sense for a ministerial power of direction, say of the form of accounts, to be split between the Scottish and UK Ministers. Rather, it might be more appropriately exercised by a UK Minister after consultation with the Scottish Ministers. In that case, it makes perfect sense for the Scottish parliament to be able to summon UK Ministers.

Another example of circumstances where it would be appropriate for a UK Minister to be subject to summons would be where he exercises a function in relation to a devolved matter in Scotland instead of a Scottish Minister by virtue of an Order in Council under Clause 98. For example, it could be administratively more convenient for a UK department to conduct certain statistical surveys for the whole of the UK. In that situation, it would be appropriate that the UK Minister ought to be capable of being summoned to the Scottish parliament.

If the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord were to be accepted, the parliament would not be able to fulfil properly its role in holding Ministers to account for their functions in relation to devolved matters. I hope the noble and learned Lord will agree that that would be an undesirable outcome.

Finally, I should perhaps mention that the matter was raised in another place. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman, Mr. Jenkin, welcomed government amendments to Clause 23 precisely in order to clarify the issue we are now discussing. Mr. Jenkin offered the view that the Government had "responsibly addressed" the issue of double accountability, which he explained had prompted the Opposition to put down in that place amendments similar to those we are now considering. There appears to be a change of heart on the part of the Opposition.

I hope that with that explanation, the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I addressed a specific matter in relation to former Ministers. In drawing together Clause 23, I believe that there must be some risk of that. I am not saying that it is necessarily a bad thing that such a Minister, if he has evidence to give, should not be summoned before the Scottish parliament. However, as it impinges upon the privileges of this Parliament, I believe that the issue should be spelt out clearly in the legislation.

I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. Indeed, I meant to deal with that position. Clause 23(1) allows the parliament to require any person to attend to give evidence or produce documents relating to any matter mentioned in subsection (2). There is no exemption for former Ministers, but the question is whether such an individual would have much information of relevance to the parliament. There would also be an issue of parliamentary privilege of a Member of Parliament whose first priority must be to the House of Commons. In practice, it is anticipated that the parliament in that situation would proceed by invitation.

I am sorry to press this, but I do think that the matter of parliamentary privilege is most important. The practical way that the noble and learned Lord has spelt out is indeed what I would guess would be the way that the two parliaments would satisfactorily resolve matters. However, it is possibly a matter of keen conflict. We cannot allow proceedings and our debates to go forward on the basis that relations between this Westminster Parliament and the Scottish parliament will always be amicable. I am sure that the entire membership of this Chamber would wish that to be the case, but it might not always be so. Therefore, it seems to me that we must clarify the matter.

I am slightly amused by the way that the noble and learned Lord has relied on the wise words of my honourable friend Mr. Jenkin in another place. Bearing in mind the way that his colleagues normally regard what Mr. Jenkin and others say and how they are criticised up hill and down dale for not understanding the Bill, it is mildly amusing that the noble and learned Lord should now seek to turn Mr. Jenkin against me.

The intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, illustrated the purpose which lies behind the amendment. She said that it was a simple question of accountability. If it is supposed that Ministers of the Crown will be accountable to the Scottish parliament, then I perceive that there will be serious difficulty in the years ahead. If Ministers of the Crown do not wish to answer a question, they will, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, theoretically be open to prosecution in a Scottish court under the provisions of the next clause.

We are discussing an important matter. Having raised it tonight, I had hoped that a more constructive response would be more forthcoming. However, the noble and learned Lord gave a number of explanations as to why he considered such a power was necessary. Therefore, rather than put the matter to a Division this evening, I intend to read most carefully what he said. As presently advised, I believe that it will be necessary to revisit the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I should inform Members of the Committee that if Amendment No. 137A is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 138.

moved Amendment No. 137A:

This is an amendment in which I know the Law Society of Scotland is interested. Consequently, we shall all be interested to hear the Minister's reply.

I am bound to say that I also think that the phrase to which the amendment draws attention is in need of clarification. In addition to the reasons given by the noble Earl, the word "tribunal" is used elsewhere in the Bill. It appears in a number of places in Schedule 6, where a court or tribunal is required to deal with matters in particular ways should devolution issues arise. I can see the point to which the words are being directed. It may be that a distinction is being drawn between private tribunals—and I am thinking in particular of arbitration tribunals—and public tribunals. It is possible that there is a better way to define the kind of tribunal to which the provision refers; for example, by reference to the definition in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971.

However, the point arises as to whether the word in that context is intended to have the same meaning in Schedule 6. It will be of great interest to those who sit on any kind of tribunal to know whether they are obliged to fulfil the duty imposed upon them under Schedule 6 to deal with devolution issues in the manner which is there set out. I support the suggestion that the phrase is in need of clarification. I do so not in any way to be obstructive, but simply in order to ensure that everyone can understand what the Bill seeks to do.

I rise to express my support for the noble Earl's amendment, which raises the same issue as that contained in Amendment No. 138. When the Minister replies, it would be most helpful if he could us some examples of tribunals which exercise the judicial power of the state and of others which exercise a power of the state that is not judicial. That is where I have some difficulty. It would be of considerable assistance to know whether there are certain criteria by which one would work out which tribunals fall within the term which is used in Clause 23(6)(c).

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, anticipated, the question of tribunals which exercise the judicial power of the state is distinct from private tribunals such as arbitrations. However, they may also be distinct from certain administrative tribunals which do not exercise the judicial functions of the state. That is the distinction which is sought to be drawn in this provision.

Perhaps I may advise Members of the Committee that there is a precedent for this phrase. In particular, there is reference to tribunals exercising the judicial power of the state in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. That is where the phrase has been borrowed from by parliamentary draftsmen.

In answer to some of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I should point out that the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and children's panels would all be tribunals exercising the judicial functions of the state. The issue of children's panels was specifically raised in another place. It was explained then that they would be included in the category of tribunals exercising a judicial function of the state. As I have already said—and I take here the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon—tribunals not exercising the judicial function of the state would, for example, be private arbitrations in relation to a commercial contract, or certain administrative tribunals which did not have a judicial function.

Subsection (6)(b) makes it clear that a "judge of any court" cannot be summoned. As I have said, this would include a judge of the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights. As regards administrative tribunals which exercise judicial functions of the state, I have in mind such tribunals as social security appeal tribunals, immigration appeal tribunals or industrial tribunals. They are also tribunals exercising judicial functions of the state. With that explanation I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I raised an issue about Schedule 6. I appreciate that is not the matter we are discussing now, and it may not be a matter which can be dealt with immediately, but I would be grateful if the point I raised could be attended to because of the possible doubt about a difference in meaning in the two contexts.

I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. I would prefer to reflect upon that and come back to it when we discuss Schedule 6, or I may write to the noble and learned Lord on that matter before then.

This is a probing amendment. I believe that we have made some progress. We may return to it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 139:

We on these Benches have some sympathy with the noble Earl's amendment but we are concerned as to whether a two-week time delay would be helpful in the event of a witness being required to give evidence during an emerging crisis.

I, too, have some sympathy with what the noble Earl has said. If someone from Cornwall, Carmarthen or Carrickfergus is summoned to Edinburgh to appear before the Scottish parliament to give evidence, will his travel and accommodation expenses be paid?

I would certainly expect that to be the case. That is the normal situation with the citation of any witness to any court. I appreciate that the Scottish parliament will not be a court, but I do not see why it should be exempt from those normal rules. As regards the amendment, I, too, have considerable sympathy with the noble Earl's point. We have no argument whatever with the proposition that the parliament should exercise its powers in a responsible way and that appropriate notice should normally be given. However, I do not accept the amendment for the reason given by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. There may be circumstances where there is particular urgency or expediency to require the witness to attend and produce documents much earlier than within two weeks. For that reason it is not appropriate to lay down a period of two weeks' notice in every case.

Clause 24(3) states that there would be a general defence of reasonable excuse. Therefore if a particularly short period of notice was given to a witness to appear or to produce a document, he would have the defence that he could not comply for a good reason. I am reminded that Clause 25(4) makes specific provision to allow the parliament to pay expenses of witnesses, as it chooses. Therefore the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, appears to be covered by that.

I hope I have understood all this correctly. If a Minister of the Crown is required to appear before the Scottish parliament, and in the event he is required to be in his own Parliament at Westminster, who wins?

In that situation I am sure that the Minister of the Crown would be able to claim parliamentary privilege here and would not be required to attend. However, I anticipate that normal channels would operate and that the Minister of the Crown would advise the Scottish parliament of the difficulty and an alternative date would be set.

I have considered Clause 24(3) but that concerns an offence that has been committed. That is rather different from what we were dealing with under Clause 23. I want to make certain that a witness has some time in which to produce documents. I rather hoped that the final phrase of my amendment,

"unless he waives that requirement"

might have covered that. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will consider this between now and Report as I feel that a witness should not be expected simply to turn up in court the next day with all his papers. From a practical point of view that is not an easy thing to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 139A:

I support my noble and learned friend's amendment, but with this restriction. I do not know why he requires that it should be only,

"in a court exercising jurisdiction of the United Kingdom in which the person resides or works".

It would seem to me more appropriate if the amendment stopped at "United Kingdom". Perhaps I may explain my point.

I take as an example a particularly vile Scotsman who lives and works in Scotland but travels to a place in the north of England and purchases for the purposes of distribution north of the Border particularly vile child pornography. It is not difficult to think that in those circumstances a Scottish parliament, faced with such a scourge, would decide to examine the issue in order to determine where such pornography was purchased and how it was distributed. One of the first questions that the parliament would wish to ask such an individual would be: where did you get it; from whom did you purchase it? In such circumstances he might also be committing, or solely committing, an offence in England. I can think of other examples where an individual would be committing an offence only in England, and where he would be entitled in those circumstances not to answer the question.

There are two ways to approach this matter. It could be approached in the fashion proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, by adding the reference that he is able to decline to answer the question if able to do so in any court in the United Kingdom. An alternative route would be to say that any answer he gave before the Scottish parliament was not admissible in a court of law in any other part of the United Kingdom. The preferable course would be not to restrict this provision merely to Scottish courts but to extend it throughout the United Kingdom. That would be a more appropriate way to arrange matters.

The thinking behind this provision was that we considered it right that the parliament meeting in Scotland and making laws for Scotland should, in requiring someone to give evidence, recognise the same rights of refusal as are available to a person in the Scottish courts under Scottish law. To take the example given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, if the individual appeared in a Scottish court and was asked the question there, an issue would arise as to whether he had to answer it. We do not see that the rules should differ in any way in relation to the proceedings of the Scottish parliament. Accordingly, we are not minded to accept the amendment.

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I shall go away and refine my examples. I can think of a number of instances where I can see, legitimately, the Scottish parliament wishing to investigate a matter that it regards as a social evil, or some broader matter where the only criminal activity identified takes place south of the Border. As I understand the matter, under the Bill as presently drafted if the criminal offence were committed in Scotland, he would not have to answer that question. It would be a matter on which he was entitled to refuse to answer in Scotland.

It would seem more appropriate that if he has the right to refuse to answer that question in any court in the United Kingdom, he should be entitled to refuse to answer it before that part of the Scottish parliament that wishes to ask him questions. If the noble and learned Lord wants me to go away and refine my examples, I have little doubt that, without too much fertility of imagination, I shall manage that.

While my noble and learned friend is refining his examples, I think I should take away the amendment and refine the drafting. Clearly, certain words were left out, as will be obvious to more than one noble Lord.

I did not feel that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate gave a full answer. I hope that while my noble and learned friend and I are reflecting so, too, will the Government. This seems a perfectly innocuous suggestion. Time and again Ministers have said that they are prepared to look constructively at ideas which do not in any way attack the integrity of the Bill. This seems a very good example. I hope that when we return to the matter on Report, it may be possible to reach agreement on all sides. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 140:

Wales apart, in this case it is very important that the Bill should be clear to ordinary people. One can be fined up to £5,000 for refusing to take the oath. It would be terrible if there were a misunderstanding because someone did not know that he could affirm, perhaps because he had not read the 1978 Act. That is a point on which the noble and learned Lord should be flexible.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, explained, it is unnecessary to have a reference to "affirmation" in terms of the Oaths Act 1978. The Government of Wales Bill deals with a different type of assembly. But for the Scottish legislation, we have taken to heart the suggestions of noble Lords opposite that we should not put in unnecessary provisions.

If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate expects me to believe that, not having heard that very cogent argument from myself and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the first day of Committee, he has another think coming.

I regret once again that a small suggestion which would make clear to the people of Scotland the procedure to be followed is rejected out of hand. I cannot see how it makes any difference whether one is a member of the assembly in Wales or the parliament in Scotland as regards this small matter. One begins to gain the impression that on even the smallest of details this Government, who claim to be a listening Government, are not paying any attention whatever to what is said in this Chamber. There are more important matters than this on which to divide the Committee. However, it is a matter of regret that I have not received a more constructive response on such a small issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 142:

The amendment raises an important point, on which we have been interested to hear the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Clearly there is a delicate balance to be struck between the independence of the Lord Advocate in exercising his prosecution function, an independence which both the courts and Parliament recognise, and his political accountability. As the noble and learned Lord observed, Clause 26 is one of a number of provisions in the Bill which safeguard the independence of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. However, the Lord Advocate will be politically accountable to the parliament.

There are some circumstances in which it will be right and proper for the Lord Advocate to answer questions and give information about particular cases. I would cite as a precedent the former Lord Advocate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who explained to this House in 1982 the reasons why a case had not been prosecuted. That case became known as the Glasgow rape case.

However, it is also right that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General should be given a discretion to decline to answer questions or to produce documents relating to the operation of the system of criminal prosecution in a particular case if he considers that it might prejudice criminal proceedings in that case or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest to disclose the information. It should clearly be within the discretion of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General to decide when to decline to answer a question or to produce a document on these grounds.

The noble and learned Lord raises a very interesting point. It is an aspect of the wider question as to the extent to which anything said or done in Parliament should be the subject of judicial proceedings and also of the wider question, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, referred in previous proceedings, in relation to the question of interim interdict.

I agree that this is a matter which needs careful reflection. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are considering the matter at present. We shall look carefully at the point raised by the noble and learned Lord to see whether any amendment to the Bill is needed which is consistent with what is in the Bill. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that we are a listening government. With that explanation, I trust that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.

I was hoping that the noble and learned Lord would give a much more robust answer and indicate that in no circumstances whatever might the decision of the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General be reviewable in a court of law. But I can understand his caution.

I am sure that my noble and learned friend and the Committee are grateful to the Minister for indicating that this matter will be reflected upon further by the Government. However, the one aspect of it that I hope will be clearly within the focus of their reflection is the difficult point raised by my noble and learned friend in relation to human rights legislation. As we are all grappling to understand what will be the potential extent of the right to have decisions by the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General reviewed in courts, perhaps I can put the noble and learned Lord on notice that when we return to this matter, we will expect a specific answer on that issue.

I wish my advocacy was always as effective. I am genuinely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for a constructive response. This is an important issue. It is a question of balance. I believe that at the present time the balance is not quite right. However, I am reassured that the matter will be looked at again and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 143:

I wish to support my noble and learned friend with regard to these three amendments. We have now reached the three most important clauses of the Bill—I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, nodding in agreement—which define the legislative powers of the Scottish parliament. The detail is vast—around 30 pages of the Bill are involved—and is largely contained in Schedules 4 and 5.

As a background to the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend, I draw attention to Clause 27(7). That is to be welcomed because it makes it abundantly clear that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is to remain sovereign in legislative matters. In order to put that beyond doubt, we should accept the amendment which seeks to replace the word "section" by the word "Act" as proposed by my noble and learned friend.

As my noble and learned friend says, Amendment No. 145 is simply a drafting amendment. But Amendment No. 146 is fundamental for the removal of doubt. In England and Wales, as well as in Scotland, there will no doubt be controversy from time to time when it may be alleged that a conflict exists between the national law and the European Convention on Human Rights. It is right therefore that we should include the new subsection (8) in order to remove any such doubt. The new subsection (9) and the new subsection (10) are essential in order to clarify the matter. These three clauses are necessarily very complicated. It is right that Amendment No. 146 should be there in order to clarify matters.