asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we are not convinced that there is any need for such an amendment. There are more signatories to the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol than the European Court of Human Rights. That has allowed a comprehensive and relatively co-ordinated approach to be taken worldwide to the question of identification and protection of genuine refugees. We are seeking, along with the rest of our European partners, to establish minimum standards in core areas of asylum practice and procedure as required by the Treaty of Amsterdam.

My Lords, will my noble friend accept that that reply is inevitably a little disappointing and that there will be a great deal of hope in the Council of Europe that the Government will be able to look seriously at the recommendations that have been made there? Will he further accept that, at a time when there has been a great deal of debate about the abuse of asylum and about the treatment of asylum abusers, there is a tremendous need to reassert the principle of asylum in a world where there is still too much tyranny, oppression, torture and fear? Does he not agree that in Britain we have a distinguished and honourable reputation and record in this respect and we look to the Government to enhance it in future years?

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in his summation of the situation. We have a long and honourable record in this respect. It was for that very reason that the Government took steps last year to introduce a new Immigration and Asylum Act. We wanted to ensure that our measures, procedures and practices were fair and right and that they treated people properly and took careful account of their individual circumstances and of those unfortunate and sometimes tyrannical regimes in other parts of the world. The legislation sets out that fairer and firmer framework on which people can justifiably rely.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. On Monday I asked him whether there are any ways in which a genuine asylum seeker can enter this country legally and claim asylum. Does he not agree that our immigration and asylum laws are devised to keep out ineligible people rather than to protect the legitimate right to come here and claim asylum under the UN charter on refugees?

My Lords, I believe that our procedures are right. They are strong and robust and that is in the best interests of race relations and of a sound and secure immigration and asylum system. That is the way we intend to operate in the future. There are legal ways in which people can come here and claim asylum status. We think that we have the balance right in terms of the law and the way in which it should be approached. We also believe that our system protects the interests of genuine refugees and works to exclude those who are simply moving here, quite understandably, because they see the United Kingdom as a very pleasant place to settle as economic migrants. We think we have that balance right.

My Lords, given the fact that we are already bound by Articles 2 and 3 of the European convention, can the Minister tell us to what extent the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would extend any right of appeal? Will he bear in mind that any extension of that right of appeal will absorb the time in the appeals process at present intended to be saved by the provisions of the one-stop appeal in the Act which is about to come into effect?

My Lords, the noble Lord has touched on an important point. Our view is that if we were to incorporate the proposals referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, well intentioned as they are, it could act to confuse the current situation. What we do not want to do is to introduce other layers of appeal that would further protract the system. That is what we were trying to get away from in introducing the Immigration and Asylum Act last year. We want those practices to be properly incorporated and to become effective because we believe that they are in the best interests of all concerned.

My Lords, while I share the pride of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in the principle of asylum, perhaps I may ask the Minister what the Government will do when the number of people granted asylum becomes so large—before long it could reach 100,000 a year—that it will not be reasonable to ask the British people to put up with the social and financial problems which that would involve.

My Lords, I cannot accept the alarmist picture painted by the noble Lord. Yes, in the past two or three years there has been a steady increase in the number of people seeking asylum within the United Kingdom. But we believe that the measures we put in place last year will discourage unfounded asylum claimants and enable us to concentrate our time, energy and resources on properly processing those who are fleeing unpleasant regimes in all parts of the world. If one looks carefully at the statistics, one sees that the bulk of the problem is undoubtedly concentrated in certain parts of Europe, such as the Balkans, and in Afghanistan, Somalia and other places where there have been profound problems for people living in those countries. They are seeking to claim asylum in other parts of the world which are far safer; and that is understandable.

My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the Government would support the creation of the additional protocol that would be necessary to give effect to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Judd?

My Lords, for the reasons I outlined in my initial response, we do not think that we should. We feel that the approach we have adopted is proportionate, right and consistent and that it works well, particularly with our European partners.

My Lords, am I correct in reading into the Minister's first Answer the fact that there are no countries which are members of the Council of Europe which do not subscribe to the United Nations convention, which mainly governs asylum? If that is the case, the only effect of following the course set out by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would be, as my noble friend Lord Elton suggested, to extend the appeal system, probably by two years or more. We know that there are great delays at the Strasbourg court. Therefore, the Government are quite right to resist it. Indeed, I believe that they should resist it even more firmly than the Minister suggested.

My Lords, the noble Lord is essentially agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in his analysis of the situation. That is a conclusion which we broadly accept and support. We do not want further confusion in our immigration and asylum system. We have sorted it out. We believe that we have firm, fair and proper procedures in place and we think that that, and working carefully with our European partners to solve some of our common problems, is the best way forward in this policy area.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the course suggested might also complicate our present opt-out under the Schengen agreement, which would presumably need some renegotiation? That also could be a difficulty.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has touched on an important consideration which is part of our thinking in this area.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government have a well-developed agenda of action to prevent children from becoming involved in prostitution, to divert children out of prostitution and to re-integrate them into society. That includes the publication in the spring of new guidance on children involved in prostitution. In the summer, we shall be publishing our national plan to combat the commercial sexual exploitation of children.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for what I am sure is intended to be a helpful reply on a very serious matter. Does he agree that more than mere guidance is needed? Will he also accept that, so far, the criminal justice system has by and large failed to protect a very vulnerable group of people? Will the Government therefore ask police and prosecutors to act more strongly against pimps and other exploiters and abusers so as to bring them to justice?

My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great wisdom and knowledge in this area. He touches on part of the weakness in the current system. It is for that reason that we have given careful consideration to the guidance. In its new form, it will stress the need to pursue with the utmost severity pimps in particular and others who exploit children in prostitution. The guidance has been carefully drawn up in consultation with the police and the CPS, who fully support that approach. Our new guidance, Working together to safeguard children, published in January, makes it clear that local protocols should be developed under the child prostitution guidance to protect children in prostitution, and that that should be entirely consistent with area child protection committee procedures for safeguarding children. We should also pay tribute to the important work undertaken in this field by the NSPCC and particularly by Barnardo's, with its "streets and lanes project", which is now beginning to divert young children, particularly young girls, away from prostitution.

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of recent media reports concerning the enormous influx of prostitutes from the former Soviet Union, some of whom will be very young? If so, what are the Government doing to prevent that happening in the future?

My Lords, we are aware of those kinds of problems. Immigration officials and the police service are taking careful account of them in their counter-measures. It is an international problem. We need to work carefully with our European partners to try to prevent the influx of such problems and to deal with them. We must also make sure that our services are geared up to cope with such problems. They place a great strain on local services and the local police services.

My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about those who organise prostitution rings, which involve boys as well as girls. The Minister has mentioned guidance. However, is there a strategy whereby a police unit, for instance, could get at those who organise the rings and are at the heart of the trouble?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to say that a firmer attack is needed on prostitution rings, pimps and others who organise the commercialisation of sex in that way. That is referred to in the guidance and will form part of the national plan which will be rolled out in the summer. We have set ourselves firmly in support of that approach. It must be integrated: it must involve the law enforcement agencies, local authorities—in terms of both education and social services—and the independent and voluntary sector. Together, they need to work harder to tackle the problems so that we can drive these people out, particularly from inner-city areas.

My Lords, what are the penalties for pimping children under 17? Is the Minister aware that the age of those involved in prostitution is becoming lower and lower, and that there are children of 12 and 13 involved in prostitution to feed their drug habits?

My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General tells me that he believes the answer to the first question is seven years. As to the second important point, the statistics and information that I have reviewed in preparation for this Question suggest that there is a problem among young girls. We are well aware of that. The statistics are encouraging in the sense that they do not suggest that the problem is getting worse. However, we should be mindful of the fact that statistics can be interpreted in various ways. We must ensure effective and robust local strategies involving all the agencies in order to tackle the problem in the localities. That is the best way forward.

My Lords, has it not always been a reality throughout history that, unfortunately, many young people will drift into prostitution through economic necessity, actual or perceived? Child poverty is a big problem in this country and the Government are rightly addressing it. Where does that come in their action plan to tackle child poverty?

My Lords, that is an important contribution to the debate, but our general approach picks up those issues. As the noble Viscount rightly says, we have put in place measures which are beginning to reverse the long-term impact of poverty, particularly among young children. That is why we have increased child benefit and introduced the working families' tax credit and a whole battery of other measures. The noble Viscount is right in saying that poverty is a big contributor. However, there are other contributory factors. There is no doubt that children who come through the care system are vulnerable, as are those in one-parent families and in families where there is a history of abuse. The strategy takes account of all those elements. The attack on poverty must be co-ordinated, particularly as it impacts on children, and we must make sure that our care and law enforcement agencies work effectively together to tackle one of our most profound problems.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, our embassies are required to fly the Union flag— in fact, it is the diplomatic flag, which is the Union flag with the Royal Arms in the centre surrounded by a green garland— on all working days during office hours. High Commissions fly the normal Union flag, similarly on working days during office hours. Only on rare occasions, when local circumstances require it, do posts depart from that practice.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that comprehensive and entirely satisfactory reply. Is she aware of a recent broadcast report of the flag not flying over the embassy in Brussels and the embassy, when asked for an explanation, allegedly producing a number of fanciful excuses or reasons, including one to the effect that it would offend our European partners? Will the noble Baroness confirm that that was a routine piece of media trouble-making having no basis whatever?

Yes, my Lords. What is reported by newspapers as having been said or not said by unidentified sources is notoriously unreliable. The point about the Union flag not being flown outside the embassy in Brussels is true. The position of the flagpole meant that it was difficult, if not impossible, to see any flag being flown. The embassy is now flying the flag in accordance with the rules. The embassy was already flying the flag on nominated flag days, but not on other days because it was not easily seen. We are now taking action to ensure that the flag can be visible on all working days.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that throughout the European Union the Union flag is to be found flying upside down—a symbol, at best, I understand, of distress? Alternatively, it is an insult to the British Crown. Will she take steps to ensure that our European Union colleagues are advised accordingly?

My Lords, I am not aware of instances of the British flag being flown upside down. If that happened anywhere by accident—I would be very surprised, given the expertise of the Diplomatic Service in our embassies abroad—I am sure that it would be corrected.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are more ways to fly the British flag than to haul one up a flagpole? Is it not more constructive to pay tribute to the work of our embassy and High Commission staff around the world in promoting our country, sometimes in situations of great personal danger?

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that question. I agree that Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service works hard at home and abroad to further British political and economic interests, frequently in difficult and dangerous circumstances. I am sure that the whole House would wish to express gratitude and admiration to the professionalism and dedication of the Diplomatic Service.

My Lords, I understood my noble friend to be referring to residencies other than embassies, such as other bureaucratic buildings in Brussels, which tend to fly our flag upside down. Does the Minister agree that our embassies in such locations should take on the job of ensuring that our flag is flown the right way up?

My Lords, I shall take away this point. I am sure that our embassies will examine the matter. I would have thought that, when noticed, attention would be drawn to any such incident.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there are some practical reasons involved? I was in Guinea following the French withdrawal. All the street names had been removed. I arrived by lorry just before nightfall and the only way I could identify the British embassy was to look for the flag, which fortunately was flying. While there are practical reasons, I heartily endorse the noble Lord's comment about the immense courage and value of the service.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. I am sure that she also agrees with me that there are times when for security reasons it is wiser not to display the British flag prominently.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reassuring replies. Can she be further reassuring by telling the House that in future no British embassy will ever be decorated like the tailfins of British Airways aircraft?

asked Her Majesty's Government:

No, my Lords. The proposed regime in the Financial Services and Markets Bill is designed to tackle three types of behaviour: broadly speaking, dealing on the back of information unavailable to the rest of the market; giving a false or misleading impression of supply or demand; and behaviour which distorts the market, such as squeezes on the supply of an investment. The Chancellor's remarks on Internet access pricing fall into none of those categories.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer but beg to disagree with him. The statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an interview with the Financial Times on 16th February caused much confusion in the market and resulted in a 7 per cent (£5 billion) drop in the value of British Telecom shares. Does the Minister agree that that must be categorised as "misleading" and that, according to various categories in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, it would be an abuse?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is entitled to her opinion about legislation which is before Parliament. No doubt she will express that view as we proceed with the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Certainly, there was nothing misleading about the Chancellor's statement. What he said was legitimate comment given his responsibilities. Competitive telecommunications are essential for the development of the knowledge economy in the United Kingdom. If the Government were not to say anything that might under any circumstances affect market prices, they would say nothing at all.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be a singular misfortune for this country as the development of the Internet proceeds apace if the price of access to it was significantly higher than in other countries?

My Lords, my noble friend is entitled to hold that view. The Chancellor said that to promote competition Oftel would ensure that other operators were prepared to provide their own broadband services over BT's local loop by July 2001. That is a statement of fact, and I imagine that it attracts the approval of my noble friend.

My Lords, as someone who agrees with the thrust of the remarks by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does the Minister accept that, nevertheless, where there is a system of regulation this is more a matter for the regulator than the Chancellor?

My Lords, that is entirely right. If, as seems highly unlikely, anyone considered this to be a case of market abuse, it would be a matter for the Financial Services Authority, and the House would not expect me to express a view on it.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has added the regulation of utilities to his already substantial Whitehall responsibilities?

My Lords, there has been no change in the responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Like other Ministers, he expresses views on a wide range of issues, not all of which are his responsibility. It is entirely proper that he should do so; otherwise, one would not have joined-up government.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in the guise of protecting the public, there is a tremendous amount of interference in all areas, even in supermarket prices? Does the noble Lord also agree that to say that all financial decisions should be made for us is to go too far?

My Lords, I cannot imagine on what basis the noble Baroness draws those conclusions from the statement of the Chancellor which made no reference to supermarket prices or to decisions about pricing being taken for us.

My Lords, my question was a follow-up to the question about the various regulators.

My Lords, my response to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, was that market abuse was a matter for the regulator, not for us. The Question is about market abuse, and I am not aware that any reference has been made to supermarket prices.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that, as a result of the Chancellor's statement, some £5 billion was wiped off the value of BT's shares? Does he also agree that if a person had read the interview with Gordon Brown in the first edition of the Financial Times and had sold shares short because the market had not yet been adjusted, that would be market abuse in the terms of the Bill now being considered on the basis that he would be using information not generally available to those in the market as only very few people would be likely to read the first edition? Is not the problem how the Chancellor let people know what he thought?

My Lords, there are two answers to that. First, it is apparent that the noble Lord has not read the formal correction published in yesterday's Financial Times which said:

"The Treasury has asked us to point out that in last week's Financial Times interview the Chancellor said that it was David Edmonds, the telecoms regulator, who had put forward the view that unbundling the local loop could happen sooner than July 2001".

In those circumstances, we are not responsible for what appeared in the first edition of the Financial Times. Secondly, even if there had been anything in any way dubious about it, which there certainly was not, the London Stock Exchange published, via its own regulatory news service, the Chancellor's speech at the same time as it was issued to the press. Every single practice was correct.

rose to call attention to the number and nature of task forces and similar bodies created since May 1997; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for giving us the opportunity to discuss and debate task forces. First, I declare an interest. I was the chairman of the task force on youth justice that operated between June 1997 and July 1998 and I am a member of the ministerial task force on the Government's response to the children's safeguard review. Both those experiences were totally positive.

I also speak from the perspective of having been a senior civil servant for more than 20 years. I have worked in local government and have chaired health authorities and a government inquiry as well as a task force. I have seen government from those different perspectives. The one thing I can say unequivocally is that all governments of whatever political persuasion need all the help they can get from outsiders in bringing about change. Relying on the traditional machinery of Ministers and the Civil Service is not likely to be adequate.

I want to make two contextual points relating to this Government's use of task forces. First, we should bear in mind the reductions in the senior Civil Service they inherited. In the two years prior to 1997, the previous Government conducted senior management reviews in all the major departments which led to a 20 to 25 per cent reduction in the senior Civil Service. This represented a significant reduction in the policy capability available to the new Government in 1997. Before people get too excited about the increase in the number of task forces involving outsiders and the number of special advisers, they might reflect on the reduction in government policy capability left by the previous government.

Secondly, there is inertia to change in the Civil Service machine. I say that as having spent more than half my working life within that machine. There is a strong philosophy of continuity across different governments; there is a strong culture of departmentalism; there is a lack of direct operational management experience among many senior civil servants; and there is considerable gender and ethnic imbalance in senior posts. These all raise doubts about how well equipped the current Civil Service can be to run modern government on its own in terms of policy advice and operational implementation of change.

Perhaps I may give your Lordships a quotation from John Major's autobiography. His account of the 19 departmental responses to a minute he sent to them about action on the Citizen's Charter appears at page 252. He states:

"The response from most departments was slow in coming and weak in genuine content. Some failed to address the key issues of service quality, real or surrogate competition, local delegation of power and improved accountability, and appeared to believe that institutional change within Whitehall would see me off. Wilfully or carelessly the point was being missed".

That is not the current Prime Minister, but the nice Mr Major, writing about the government machine five years before the 1997 election. Some of his concerns appear to have been echoed by Sir Richard Wilson and his Permanent Secretary colleagues in their proposals for reforming the culture of the Civil Service.

In the context I have described, I believe that it is totally reasonable for a reforming government, elected overwhelmingly on a change agenda after 18 years outside government, to enlist the help of a lot of outsiders using methods like task forces. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that it could be deemed to be a dereliction of duty on the part of the Prime Minister and his colleagues if they had not done so.

I have looked at the number of task forces established since May 1997. The use of these has not been as excessive in relation to the scale of the problems to be tackled as some have suggested. Drawing on the information from the House of Commons Library at December 1999, I make it that 47 task forces have been established in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and nearly one-third of those seem to have reported and been wound up.

What is interesting is the membership of these task forces: 46 participants were Ministers; 162 were civil servants; 256 were from the wider public service; 80 were from the voluntary sector and 178 were from the private sector. This does not strike me as an overwhelming mass of businessmen sweeping through government. This actually shows Ministers and civil servants being exposed to a fair spread of expertise and backgrounds in grappling with difficult issues. I consider that the Government should be congratulated, not sniped at, for the way in which they have opened up government in this way.

I have some problems with the approach adopted in the Democratic Audit document. My sense is that they have spread their net much wider than task forces and have included many advisory groups and internal reviews that do not have the same change and implementation orientation as task forces. All governments conduct internal reviews; all governments use advisory groups. There is nothing very new about that. However, sweeping all these together in a piece of work about task forces seems to twist the argument a little.

I believe the document, Ruling by Task Force, is rather misleadingly entitled, probably so named as a way of boosting sales. Task forces do not rule; they make proposals to Ministers, who take decisions, announce those decisions and then answer publicly for them. The Democratic Audit report goes on to talk of people being, "invited to the party". That is pretty loaded language. My experience of task forces is that not a great deal of partying goes on. They are constructed to do a time-limited job of work. The Democratic Audit report appears to suggest that they should be set up to be representative. I would suggest that task forces should be judged by whether they are fit for purpose and whether they deliver a good product at the end of their labours, not whether they are representative or conform to Nolan/Neill-type rules for quangos in their appointments. The Democratic Audit document simply does not begin to engage with the issue of effectiveness, which is the measure by which I would judge task forces.

Finally, I want to say a few words about my own experience of task forces. First, there was the ministerial task force on the children's safeguard review established by Frank Dobson. That led directly to the Children (Leaving Care) Bill currently before Parliament and owes a great deal of its success to the commitment of Frank Dobson to improving the lot of children in care and exposing the government machine to outside influences, including a child who had been in care and who sat on that particular task force. I would suggest that care leavers' loss will be London's gain in due course.

Secondly, the youth justice task force that I chaired had 18 members, of whom three were civil servants. It worked for a little over 12 months. In that time, it produced ideas for the Government's White Paper on youth justice reforms, proposals on youth court reforms and a host of practical proposals for implementing changes at local level. It was able to do this because nearly all its members were people with direct, practical experience of the system being reformed. They served as independent-minded individuals, not as representatives.

The result was two pieces of legislation—the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999—where the practical implementation of youth justice legislation had been thought through in advance by people with practical experience of the system. This has led to widespread local support for the changes being introduced. Throughout the period of its work, the task force advised Ministers on the basis of what it thought was right and practical, not on what it thought Ministers wanted to hear. All the task force's reports were laid in both Houses of Parliament, though I cannot claim that I was overwhelmed with questions as a result of that piece of open government.

In conclusion, I would say that our system of government requires a continuing leavening of outsiders to help with detailed policy formulation and practical implementation. This work needs to be done more frequently before legislation is produced. Task forces are an effective model for doing such work, provided that they are appointed on a fit-for-purpose basis and not on a representative basis.

My Lords, rather like my noble friend Lord Warner I, too, have felt it important for governments of all political persuasions to have available to them all the advice they can get. I have also long been an admirer of the British Civil Service. With very occasional exceptions, its integrity, loyalty and intellectual firepower have served governments and the British people well for a century or more. But the apolitical strength of the Civil Service, both actually capable, and intended to be capable, of serving governments of different political parties (even when one party has been in power for as long as 18 years) suggests to me that—certainly for the present Government and governments in general—they would be wise to supplement Civil Service advice with advice from others. That advice can come from many different sources.

Since the 19th century (although there may have been one or two before that) all governments have, from time to time, appointed Royal Commissions and departmental commissions to draw, at least in part, on the world outside Westminster and Whitehall in order to examine a broad area of policy that could benefit from a wide-ranging review. The former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, did not much like Royal Commissions. I recall that there was a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, but apart from that commission, I do not believe that she appointed any others. However, her view was, I believe, an aberration in recent times. It has not been the norm in modern British politics and, I would say, it is not desirable either. It is useful and sensible for governments to draw on the knowledge and experience of the wider community. However, Royal Commissions and departmental committees are given limited terms of reference and, because they must produce a report by a certain date, their lives are finite. Once they report, they have completed their work.

In some areas where there is a need for more ongoing and developing policy and advice, in particular in specialised fields, more permanent bodies need to be established and have been established by many different governments. The one I know best is the Law Commission, first set up in 1965 by the Labour Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, to keep under review all of our law and to publish reports on the need for reforms and change. The members are paid; there is a paid staff and it carries out the kind of detailed, long-term work that a mainstream government department, whose priorities must focus on more immediate day-to-day concerns, is not geared up to doing. The Law Commission pioneered a system of working papers (Green Papers) to ensure that every possible viewpoint would be canvassed before it composed its final report. That is a technique, or method of working, which has been followed by government departments and many other public bodies. In other words, the Government's advisers on law reform themselves seek out advisers.

Then there are individual special advisers, in particular those with political experience close to that of the party in power, who have increased in number under the present Government, as noble Lords opposite frequently remind us. I believe that the present Government have adequately answered the criticisms. To my mind, special advisers provide part of the help and assistance any modern government require if they are to fulfil their election mandate, and in particular if they are— to echo the words used by my noble friend Lord Warner— a government of change.

To my mind, task forces are simply another source of help and advice, but they are closer to Ministers and officials than are the traditional Royal Commissions or departmental committees. They have the advantage of being set up informally and flexibly, with broad terms of reference, to assist a particular Minister or department. Members are unpaid and, like Royal Commissions, their work is made possible by the apparently infinite capacity and willingness of people in so many walks of life to contribute something from their own knowledge and experience to government and to their fellow citizens. That feature of British life, which accounts for the longstanding success of our system of lay magistracy, our jury system and our prolific and invaluable voluntary organisations of all kinds, is surely something that we should cherish. Task forces involve a partnership between government and non-government interests to find solutions to specific problems.

Task forces do not run Britain: they do not govern Britain. They are not a subversion of democracy. They are helpmeets for our democratic institutions and the way in which they work provides a useful addition to the advice of individuals. That is because, by bringing individuals together in a task force, they can spark off one another so that the advice of a task force may be better than the sum of the advice of the individual members.

Of course, there could be a danger that task forces and, for that matter, consultation more generally will delay, prolong and even stultify effective decision-making by government. No doubt government is wary of that, and Parliament and this House must be wary of any ministerial procrastination, excused by assertions that the matter is one for the such-and-such task force. There may also be a danger that consultation with a task force will become exclusive and confined. However, there seems to be no sign of that. Typically, Green Papers and opportunities for comment are available to all. Surely, as a general point, the best decisions are those that are informed by full consultation but are also expeditious.

Politico's (the excellent bookshop which many of your Lordships know in Artillery Row, not far from here) recently published the book to which the mover of this Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, referred. It is called Ruling by Task Force: Politico's Guide to Labour's New Elite. It provides a helpful list. As my noble friend Lord Warner said, it goes beyond task forces in the strict sense. It has a fuller list of all kinds of advisory boards and is most useful as an index. I was rather disappointed to find that I was not in the index because being a member of a task force is obviously a popular activity.

Of course, the title of that book is highly exaggerated, as I hope the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, will agree. It must be rather irritating for some people to read "Labour's New Elite"; for example, David Mellor, chairman of the Football Task Force; the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, chairman of three task forces; and the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, chairman of the Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools. The truth is that the great majority of members of task forces are simply people with appropriate skills and experience. Of course, a number of members of task forces are Labour people; indeed, some sit on these Benches. However, there is really very little evidence here to back up charges of cronyism, let alone charges of heads in the trough.

It seems to me much more surprising that a Labour Government should appoint a former Conservative Chief Whip, the excellent Sir Alastair Goodlad, to be the well-paid representative of the Government in Australia—our High Commissioner there, no less—than that they should seek the unpaid advice of various Labour Party members in developing Labour Party and Labour Government policy, as individuals or as members of a task force that is comprised also of members of other parties and of none.

The authors of the guide call for more transparency, as does the noble Lord, the mover of this Motion. Of course, I agree. However, the authors of the book made a good start in drawing up the list and, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, says in his preface, the guide will be,

"an invaluable source for politicians, journalists, and … most importantly, for the concerned citizen".

My Lords, I am very pleased to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, on initiating the debate. I see that he has been trying to do so for a few weeks, and I believe that this is a very useful occasion. He was, of course, characteristically modest about his own contribution to the book, which I suspect will be referred to repeatedly. My noble friend Lord Borrie quoted from it—Ruling by Task Force: Politico's Guide to Labour's New Elite. Indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, was responsible for commissioning the study through his involvement with Democratic Audit.

I shall speak fairly briefly today about my own experiences as vice-chairman of the Football Task Force. Yes, I appear in the index from which, certainly, my noble friend Lord Borrie, is missing. I shall not go into detail because your Lordships were kind enough to listen to me just over a week ago when we discussed the report of the task force on commercial issues.

I start with a more general point about the task force process. I agree very much with what both my noble friends said concerning the way in which task forces have come about and the contribution that they have made. However, it is also important to bear in mind that it is a phase which is now coming to an end. Yesterday, I talked to a very senior civil servant who has worked in two departments. She has been involved with task forces in both. Her view was that after Labour came into power in 1997 and the task force process began, there was a great increase in that process of outside bodies. I am not sure whether Mr Barker is right that 318 task forces and external bodies were set up in those first two years; I have not counted them all. However, undoubtedly there was a great increase in the process.

The civil servant described to me that it was like opening a window and letting fresh air and light into departments which had found that they were almost in a bunker, and had been for perhaps four or five years. With the windows closed, the people inside the bunker were not able to receive or to take on board any outside advice. I believe that it has been a helpful process for the windows to be opened in that way, allowing fresh air to come in. Of course, the process is now drawing to a close: the task forces have limited lives and those that are not task forces are being turned into non-departmental public bodies, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, described; and quite right, too.

Perhaps I may say a little about the process with which I was associated in the Football Task Force. I suppose that from the beginning the two feelings that I had about it were of clarity and enormous confusion. The clarity was that the commitment to set up a task force on football was in Labour's election manifesto. It stemmed from a clear concern about what was happening in the game and what was happening to supporters' interests, particularly as commercialism in the game developed. Therefore, the need and commitment were clear. The task force was also given clear terms of reference. I shall not bore your Lordships by going through them. Indeed, I referred to them in my speech last week. However, there were seven in total and each of the seven was addressed in the various reports which the task force published during the almost two and a half years of its existence.

The confusion stems from what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has described as "a near fatal beginning". Perhaps that is over-selling the point a little. It is echoed in what Mr Barker describes in his book as,

"the most dramatically flawed of all the many task forces … Its design and launching by the … Department for Culture, Media and Sport [has been] described… as an 'almighty civil service cock-up' because it arranged the Task Force's membership before consulting its designated chair … David Mellor".

When Mr Mellor protested that the leading officials of' the football world should be effectively witnesses rather than members, he was overruled. Mr Barker says in colourful language that that risk was compounded by the football barons—the football authorities —who claimed that Mr Mellor's chairing of the task force was just as illegitimate as was, indeed, their membership. They felt that the former Cabinet Minister who had been responsible for sport policy had become an irresponsible, populist journalist and broadcaster on football issues, playing to the gallery. With that kind of beginning and background, it was perhaps surprising that we got off the ground at all.

One of our difficulties was in relation to membership. Certainly, if we were to start again, I would go down the route described by my noble friend Lord Warner and pick people who serve on task forces as individuals because they are capable of making a contribution and are known and respected in their fields, rather than because they are representatives or, in the case of our task force, effectively delegates from the industry which we were supposed to be examining.

In the foreword to our final report, Mr Mellor described the process as:

"The lions were to lie down with the lambs, a decision Sir Humphrey would surely have characterised as courageous".

Of course, it sowed the seeds for the eventual conflict that meant that on the commercial issue—perhaps our most important report—we were not able to reach a unanimous conclusion. We were able to get round the problem to a substantial extent by appointing what we called a core group of largely independent members who got on with the work in the first few months of the task force's life. We only brought in the representatives of the industry rather later. After that uneasy beginning, there was a period of harmony in which we were able to work together, particularly on the earlier reports on racism, disabled access and football and the community. That was because we had by then a good mixture of independents alongside the official representatives.

Another area of confusion we encountered related to our budget and the way in which we were to be paid. If we were again to go into this process, it would be set out very clearly at the beginning. We were living a complete hand-to-mouth existence, never quite knowing if funds would be available to pay the researcher and administrator whom we hired at a very modest salary. Indeed, latterly we had a young man working for us who did it for nothing because he regarded it as a useful part of his academic studies. Even though we had four reports to publish and an extensive programme of visits to various areas of the country as part of our public consultation, the total cost was still less than £130,000. As the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said during the debate last week, that was the reason why we did not seek to ascertain the basis of football regulation in places such as Hawaii, Bali or the Seychelles but, instead, concentrated on less exotic places such as Sheffield, Birmingham and Newcastle.

There was a debate about whether or not the income for the task force could be supplemented by sponsorship. I recall that the then Minister was rather keen that that should be the case. However, the task force members felt that to take sponsorship from any source would have tainted our independence, and I believe that that was right. The members took the view that the task force was a government body for which the Government should accept responsibility and therefore fund, and I believe that that was undoubtedly the right view. That in the end was what we did with a very modest budget.

The other area in relation to which we encountered immense confusion was over the time-scale in which we were supposed to work. The officials who set us up, who were dealing with an election commitment but clearly had not much experience of this sort of activity, rather thought, like the generals in World War I, that it would all be over with by the first Christmas. The intention was that we would meet on a few occasions in London, see some people, publish a report and then quietly go away after about six months. But our extensive terms of reference meant that that would have been quite impossible, and certainly not possible if we were to do our main job; namely, to hear what people in the country felt about the industry into which we were looking and the things that needed to be done to it. In the end, therefore, our life was extended for rather longer than I would have liked. I would have preferred us to have finished our work by the summer of 1999. It was extended to two years and five months and, of course, we finished in December.

Our administration was also very much on a shoestring. We had immense assistance from the Football Trust. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who was the chairman of the Football Trust when the task force was set up and whom I am pleased to see in his place today, was enormously helpful in ensuring that at least the task force had a base and a place in which to hold its meetings.

The publicity that the task force received was also an important part of our activity. It was very much a task force that needed public response and publicity. Each report was published with the aid of a press conference, which on almost every occasion was attended by the Minister and attracted great media attention. I had some correspondence with my noble and learned friend the Minister who will be replying to this debate, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, about whether or not it would be possible for the task force's reports to be published by the Stationery Office. That did not prove ultimately to be possible. However, I am pleased to say that certainly our report on commercial issues has been made available on the department's website, has been sent to every Member of Parliament and is freely available in the Libraries. Anyone wishing to read it has a chance to do so. The openness of the task force process is an essential element of it.

Other noble Lords have referred to some of the weaknesses in the system, one of which is the point about accountability. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that last week's debate on our task force's report on football is the only one that has been debated in your Lordship's House. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, nods in agreement. It is desirable, as a matter of course, that task forces which attract great public interest should be debated in this House, and ideally in another place as well.

The other area of importance, if a task force is to have any lasting value, is following up and implementing reports. We have no machinery for doing that. We have disbanded. The report has been sent to the Minister and the Minister will now engage in consultation with the various interests involved. If those reports are to have value, it is important that there should be some mechanism for watching whether or not our recommendations, which were accepted by everyone at the time, are implemented. For example, one very important recommendation on racism was implemented immediately by the passage of a Private Member's Bill, with the support of the Government, to make racist chanting an offence. That is a positive development. However, there are other recommendations which need to be considered and implemented, particularly in relation to ensuring that clubs comply with the requirements for disabled access and so on.

To sum up, our experience was that the process was worth while. We had a dreadful beginning, caused by confusion and possibly inexperience on the part of many of the people involved, but there was a determination to get at the heart of the issues and study what we were given to examine. We were thus able to produce four worthwhile reports which have been generally well received and, I believe, accepted. However, I accept entirely the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, about the need to move on and to say that the task force now needs to be replaced by something different.

My Lord, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton for introducing this debate. My remarks are at least intended to be relentlessly non-partisan. I do not believe that we are talking today about the deeds or misdeeds of a particular government— more about a parliamentary and Whitehall culture.

I shall make a few remarks from the vantage point of what I would describe as a life mission to explain to the poor, anxious, confused citizens, what the heck we do here in their names. I founded and have for the last 10 years been the chairman of the Citizenship Foundation, and that is indeed our principal purpose. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will forgive me if I look at this debate from the vantage point of the man and woman in the street.

The first thing I say is that task forces do, of course, feed through into legislation. They are intended to produce recommendations. As the last speaker made clear, one of the aspects of a task force's output may be to see the extent to which governments take notice of and implement their recommendations. There has developed—I will not call it a game— a tradition of the effectiveness of task forces being partly measured by the number of their recommendations.

With regard to the feed-through of task forces, whether they be properly so called or are of that nature, whether they are 295 established in two and a half years or a great deal fewer, the nature of our present form of government is, I fear, to legislate a great deal too much and to legislate in a manner that is far too complex. Let me give a few statistics. In 1998 we produced in Westminster 2,500 pages of new, mainstream statute law. We produced 1,000 pages of secondary legislation. To that must be added 10 feet of shelf space of European directives and regulations for that year, another 3,000 pages of mainstream law reports and as much again of specialist law reports; and all this before we come to consider governmental guidelines and the like which are of a quasi-statutory nature.

Although these statistics may seem pointless, they demonstrate that the sheer output of this place is grotesque. I am sure that we would all agree that the Bills which we nightly have to try to track, amend and debate are often way beyond our ken. Even we lawyers, who are supposed to understand the parliamentary and drafting refinements, are often lost with the legislation of which we are guardians.

My impression— and it is not just my impression but the impression of all those in the citizenship field—is that over the years, the impact of that on the public mind has been deleterious in the extreme. Perhaps I may refer to the book published only a fortnight ago by Professor David Buckingham of the Institute of Education. He spent a great deal of time trying to assess the relative state of mind and knowledge of under-25s in this country vis-à-vis politics and the political process. The conclusions do not surprise any of us in the field but they are depressing. He reports an almost total lack of identification with the formal political process; a good deal of identification with single issue pressure groups of one kind or another— charities and so on; but as to what we do and say here and in another place, today, this week and this year, there is an almost complete—wilful, it might seem— disregard.

He describes the state of mind as being one of a sense of exclusion by ordinary young adults from that political process. I am afraid that I concur with that. The report carried out by Essex University and Duke University, a five-year study of the extent to which citizenship is a reality or not in this country as compared with America, reached broadly the same conclusions. Indeed, the situation in this country in terms of civic engagement and civic mentality was a good deal worse than in the comparable communities within the United States.

Therefore, as a matter of urgency, we must cut back on the number of task forces we set up, whatever name they may have, and we must cut back also on the amount of legislation that we put out, however urgent it may seem. Of course that cannot be done in isolation. It must be done in concert with a return of powers to local communities.

All governments say that and try sincerely to do something about it. However, it is an extraordinarily difficult problem to address in the global age. But I say with some passion that very often we use the words "efficient" and "effective" in relation to government and legislation in a way that is more an assessment of our own efforts—the amount, sophistication and, as we may think, the well-judged nature of the legislation—than of its impact on mother earth.

I am afraid that there is an extremely unfortunate dislocation between business standards and values and democratic standards and values. Men and women in the street tend to be extraordinarily slow to even become aware of what we do in their names. They are extraordinarily slow on the uptake in relation to the new agencies which are created for their benefit. For example, the regional development agencies are an extremely important new tool of central Government's attempts to regionalise. They are virtually unknown to the man and woman in the street virtually a year after they are up and running.

One of the greatest conundrums with which we must try to grapple is that the very people for whom the legislation is most intended—the poor, the disadvantaged, the dispossessed and the disabled—are the self-same group who are the slowest to take on board change. Their lives, in so far as they have any rootedness, significance or any sense of place and identity, are often most bound up with the small aspects of local government and local autonomy— what is left of it—with which they can identify.

Therefore, I put it to the House that the pace and volume of change emanating from this place is wholly inconsistent with what I would call real democratic effectiveness. Until we take note of that, we are driving ourselves into an extremely dangerous corner. It is no accident that the mass of young adults do not identify with politics; do not have a sense of ownership of it; and feel excluded from it. It is no accident that Professor Buckingham calculated that only 40 per cent of the under-25s turned out to vote at the epoch-ma king general election in May 1997. It is possible that fewer than 15 per cent of them voted in the Euro-elections this May.

We cannot ignore those signs, much though we may wish to. They are indubitable and have huge consequences for us. I suggest that one of those consequences is in relation to the work that we do in task forces.

I conclude by commenting on observations made by the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Borrie. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, said that "a host of practical proposals for implementation at local level" had come forth from those task forces; and indeed they have. There is a host, a flood, of them. They flood the citizenry. It is no good saying that they are damn good proposals. In my view, the only test is whether they hit their target; whether they are taken up and understood; whether, on the ground, they achieve the purpose of those who put them forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that "every possible viewpoint" will be canvassed in relation to those task forces and consultations. I must tell the House that consultations are becoming ineffective. There is a sense of incredibility about most consultations undertaken by government. Those who should respond to consultations are often too busy to do so. Those who would do so do not believe that it is worth while to do so because they believe that the Government, or the task force, or whatever, have made up their minds and do not really want to hear their views. They believe that they are merely going through the motions. That is untrue; it is not fair; but that is how far too many of our fellow citizens see it. It is no good us saying that that is rubbish. They think that.

I take the case of the Access to Justice Bill, which is an extremely important measure in relation to legal aid. There was a great deal of consultation. I believe that five consultation documents were issued. The last and most crucial of those was sent to every firm of solicitors in the country— 78,000 solicitors. How many responses were received on this biggest shake-up of legal aid since it was introduced? There were 30. That is among a professional group.

I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will have something to say about that, because he is involved with that Bill. I am really not trying to score points. I am merely trying to point out realities. Consultation is not working. Let none of us delude ourselves into thinking that the glossy brochures have done the trick. The latest three, Wiring It Up, Adding It Up— and what is the other one, Blowing It Up?—were published this year. They cost £18 each. It is all very well saying that they are on the Internet. Many people do not have the Internet, particularly the less confident, the poorer and less connected members of our society. They do not have it. One of those brochures costs 18 for 105 pages. In response to a question from me last week, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that there are a lot of pages. Indeed, there are but it is £18 for 105 pages.

Let us take the House of Lords reform process and the Royal Commission's consultation. That was not serious. There were seven meetings outside London with an average attendance of 100. Those meetings were not advertised and the press was relied upon to tell local people about them. What does that tell us about the extent to which consultation is working and the extent to which it is believed in? It does not tell us much that we really want to hear but we should hear it. However difficult are the issues which I have raised—and I raise them in a constructive spirit—I hope that we shall somehow get to grips with them before it is too late.

My Lords, I join noble Lords in welcoming the debate instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. I am not a member of a task force, nor do I chair one, although I am on the receiving end of much of the work carried out by task forces in the area of social exclusion. I want to share with the House my experiences of the outcome of some of that work.

While I fully respect the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, I disagree with him in his attempt to try to caricature task forces as surrogate Royal Commissions, "little Neddies" or the NEDC. Task forces are entirely different.

I have been fortunate enough to have been a member of the NEDC and I was privileged to be a member of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords. My experience of working with task forces is completely different and has been much more invigorating.

I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, says about the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, but there will be another opportunity to take issue with him on that.

Task force work is untidy, but to caricature it in that way is to misunderstand the nature and intention of the work. I am privileged to be chairman of a housing corporation which is on the receiving end of the work of the Social Exclusion Unit and of related task forces. The corporation welcomes that opportunity. The establishment of such task forces has opened doors for the corporation in ways that were not possible before.

Before one responds by saying that that is the fault of civil servants, or departments, or organisations, or non-departmental public bodies or politicians, one must remember that on run-down estates there are issues of poor health, poor education and poor housing. Those matters are not disconnected. One problem cannot he dealt with without dealing with the others.

The establishment of task forces has enabled us to make those connections and to deal with them in a way that is not distant from those whom we serve—and all those in public life serve. We can now analyse problems (often the easiest part), establish what needs to be done and set up the processes by which the solutions can be carried out. I believe that Ministers from government departments do not work together simply because that is a requirement, but to achieve quite rigorous targets, for instance, in neighbourhood renewal. The management of an area cannot be carried out without including those who live there.

The term, which I do not like, "joined-up thinking" making the connections—is used in relation to anti-social behaviour. In Liverpool neighbourhood renewal is needed and in May of this year there will be a conference. A Minister from the Home Office will work with the local authorities, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ourselves, and the people who live there. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool will chair one of the groups in the area. Anti-social behaviour will be discussed. Young people will be involved and we shall learn from each other. It is hoped that government policy can be changed. It is not just about legislation. With respect, I suggest that the outcome of the work of the task forces has more to do with policies and priorities than enacting legislation. It is about learning lessons and getting better information.

As a result of the task force on teenage pregnancies— a concern of us all—work is carried out on the ground with the Department of Health, the DETR and the housing corporation, in providing homes and working with the young women. At the same time, it provides education for the potentially vulnerable young women who may be the teenage mothers of the future.

The issue of people sleeping rough has also come out of the work of the Social Exclusion Unit. In the 1970s I was a member of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. In those days we used to refer to people who slept rough as "people of no fixed abode", which is the term that I prefer. Nevertheless, the issue was the same. The issue is still with us. Now, as a result of the task force, we have not only budgets and policies, but also work is carried out across government with civil servants being accountable and having to deliver against set targets with improvement year on year. Such issues cannot be dealt with in three or six months. It will take years to improve the present situation.

The Egan Task Force was one of the first to be set up by the Deputy Prime Minister accountable to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. As a result, money is now being spent in the area of construction that is changing the nature of how we construct houses in Britain. The construction of homes in Britain can be as much as 30 per cent more expensive than current comparable work elsewhere. That was the result of work carried out by a task force. No one can say that that is not positive. A housing corporation on the receiving end of such work welcomes that. There is a responsibility to ensure that taxpayers' money and private sector funding that matches it is invested in a way that meets the requirements of that task force.

As to the nature of task forces— the second aspect of the debate I enjoyed the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, when he talked about being parachuted in. He also referred to the title of a book, Ruling by Task Force: Politico's Guide toLabour's New Elite. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would be willing to be parachuted into some areas where renewal is needed.

A public service is being provided that will work with the people of the area. The next time I meet those people in the run-down estates who have come to believe that no one cares about them I can tell them that they now have an opportunity to be asked for their views, rather than public policy telling them what will happen. They are now the elite. I am sure that they would be delighted to be given that badge of honour.

That wide public policy of development involves different government departments in a much broader and a much more inclusive way. How we develop public policy, how we set our priorities and most important of all how we deliver them and monitor the outcomes of the delivery of such services are also involved. We should not do that from the point of view of the politicians, or indeed from the point of view of the task force, but from the point of view of those on the ground who arc affected by the changed policies.

I welcome the debate and the establishment of task forces. They are able to move more quickly. The "little Neddys", the NEDC and the Royal Commissions all have a tight framework within which they are required to work. That is not the steel ring that applies to task forces. Noble Lords will probably have heard of the Holly Street development in Hackney, which is a part of London that some people have given up on. There has been a rebirth of that community. Some of it resulted from the work of a task force, although the previous government started the process.

In quietly getting on with it, the Deputy Prime Minister has held two full meetings since the scheme was launched to tell people what is happening. That does not simply mean asking people like me. At those meetings, of which there is another on 6th March in London, we have with us the tenants and the people involved on the ground. With due respect, that is the real difference. We shall not all succeed, but we are trying. My experience of task force work related to the Social Exclusion Unit has been a positive one. It has not got everything right, but who has? However, it is making a real difference to the people whom we all serve. I have no cynicism about the role of the task forces that have a fixed term of life.

My Lords, the whole House will feel gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, for bringing forward this subject for debate today. A goodly number of us delayed our holiday to express our gratitude in person and those who opted for deferred gratitude will see it expressed on their behalf when they receive the Official Report in the morning. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, also for supporting, through the Rowntree Reform Trust, the work of the Democratic Audit under Stuart Weir and Tony Barker on the admirable report which provides us with the factual information without which this debate would be much impoverished.

Noble Lords may know how it feels when one has been standing at the bus stop for hours and two come along at once. That happened to me with these bodies. I had spent 18 years doing little more than criticise governments and then I was invited, within two weeks, to join, first, the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly and the Jenkins committee on the electoral system. In my case, a third bus then came along a hit later when I was invited to join the Davies panel on the financing of the BBC. I am inclined to treat that one rather like the old Soviet photographs of the politburo in which people were brushed out as their stars waned; after Monday's announcement an awful lot of Davies is extinct, but I had the pleasure of serving on what was a good panel.

I use the term "task force" widely, but there is now a proliferation of titles which is quite bewildering for the layman. There are Royal Commissions, committees, panels—been there; got the T-shirt—task forces; inquiries and working parties. Although distinctions can be drawn, it is not clear that they are consistently drawn. The terminology could do with a hit of sorting out.

There are times in life when a quantitative increase in something means that a qualitative change has taken place. I have no doubt that in the past few years the growth in task forces has amounted to a qualitative change in the way we are governed. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, referred to it as a "revolution"; that is barely over-egging the pudding. It is an inevitable revolution for two reasons.

The first involves the changing nature of the British Civil Service. I can assure the House that I shall not launch into one of those panegyrics common in this Chamber on the virtues of the old British Civil Service, turning into a lament that it has been laid low by either Margaret Thatcher, John Major or Tony Blair. But I have no doubt that it has changed. For one thing, as noble Lords pointed out in this debate, although the numbers are not precise, it is clear that there are fewer of those keen, young principals (as they then were) who in the past could make their career by taking over one of the task forces or working parties and shaping its work. It was interesting when I was on the Davies panel, the secretary to the inquiry—the admirable Paul Heron from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport—had the full range of his other policy work to do at the same time as he was solely responsible for guiding that panel. As I said, fewer people are available.

Those people are also different in nature. We were admirably served on all the bodies on which I served, but the modern civil servant is much more open to public opinion and is much more interested in learning. In the old days when one wanted to know public opinion one would say, "I will ask the Permanent Secretaries when they meet next week", because Whitehall received their opinions as the opinions of the public. The new breed is much more open. I compare the work of the Civil Service today in those working parties and commissions with that of the 1970s when I was involved in government. In the case of most civil servants, the ability to write concise policy papers setting out the options between which decisions have to be made is not as good as it then was by a long way. Therefore, they no longer have the monopoly on the skill that is crucial to the work.

That is the Civil Service side; on the other side, policy can no longer simply be made in Whitehall because the world has changed. Twenty or 30 years ago we were an island in that we could do most policy work in a vacuum in Whitehall; we had specific command over factual information; information was kept secret and a little élite was able to control events. The world today is not like that. It is open; it is global; governments must carry people with them and not just lay down the law. The world is highly complex. The consequences of that were ably spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. In this modern environment we cannot simply have a Whitehall monopoly. We have to open up the system. That is what the growth of the task forces achieves—and it is an achievement to be welcomed, not deplored.

But like so many of Britain's constitutional revolutions, this one was not planned or thought through; it is something we fell into. I should therefore like to devote my remaining remarks to how we can improve a system that has grown ad hoc and make the new system more effective in the future. I shall do that by taking a number of examples because I am supposed to speak for 12 minutes and not 12 hours.

First, little central guidance is given to the task forces. When they start their work, they are each asked to invent their own wheel. A specific example of that is that if one is running a modern task force, one wants to consult the public and ascertain public opinion on a specific subject. We did that on all the bodies with which I have been involved. There are well-known techniques for doing that, such as employing the Cabinet Office's people panel, public opinion polling, focus groups and consultation meetings. There are various devices, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. By the time I reached the third group, I found it time-wasting to have to go again through the arguments for and against different techniques without any use of the corpus of knowledge which exists as to which are the right ways of measuring public opinion depending on the answers one wants to reach. We had to devote a lot of time to that, but it could have been dealt with by central guidance. A lot of time could have been saved and the work helped.

The second point is a thorny subject, but fortunately I no longer have to declare an interest: payment. Almost all the bodies are now unpaid. Royal Commissions used not to be unpaid, but they are now unless one can fix things. Ministers do not want to spend money unnecessarily and rightly point out that there is no shortage of volunteers for those bodies. That is correct. People will become members for nothing. But there are certain costs to the non-payment rules. It is fine if one has a generous employer, a private income or a pension; it is not so fine if one is not well off. The people available to do the work reduce if there is a firm rule against payment.

Another disadvantage to non-payment is that it is difficult to put moral pressure on people to attend the vast numbers of meetings involved if we know that every time they attend a meeting, they lose money. Also, if there is no payment, the representatives of the special interest groups are keen to come along, but those involved as mere representatives of the public good may be less inclined to make the financial sacrifices involved. So although we do not need to pay people to appear on task forces, there should be greater flexibility in that regard. We heard this morning the phrase, "invitations to the party". I am afraid that this party is a little like tea at the Ritz; that is, it is open to those who can afford it. That is undesirable.

The third point that I should like briefly to make on improving matters concerns the follow-up process. Of course, this varies but, broadly, unless I made considerable efforts to find out what was going on regarding the various reports in whose creation I had been involved, no one would have contacted me to tell me. That is plain daft. By the time you have finished doing one of these things intensively for a long period of time, you know quite a bit about the subject. Indeed, with due deference to those sitting on the Bench in front of me, you may even know a little more than Ministers, although they must of course bring their political judgment to bear in such matters. Sometimes when you press for information you find out that Ministers are debating X, Y and Z to which you devoted a good deal of your time and, if someone had called you, you would have been very happy to explain why the report came to its conclusion and why the arguments that people are reconsidering from scratch are not viable.

My final point concerns timetables. A difficult syndrome arises here. Ministers get the idea that they must have a report. They then sit around for many months deciding who to put on the committee, how to structure it, and so on. It takes ages and everyone enjoys thinking of appropriate names. However, after spending months setting it up, they suddenly realise that they promised the report by a certain time. They then say that the committee must have a very tight timetable and that it must report within, say, six months. Once the report is received, they then spend a very long time considering its findings.

Of the three reports in which I have been involved, two had manageable timetables and one did not. The Royal Commission on long-term care was promised in the Labour manifesto. For reasons that I understand, it took eight months to establish and we were then given a frenetic timetable for getting a really complicated piece of work accomplished in just over a year. I do not believe that we should have accepted that timetable, but that is what we were given. Of course, a year later we have not received a response from the Government because, quite understandably, they cannot respond until they have some more money to spend under the Comprehensive Spending Review. People should be much more aware of that syndrome. Although Ministers will do what they will do, it is important that that aspect should be considered with some seriousness when such bodies are established. Realistic timetables within which to get the work done must be set.

I have just given four examples. I could give the 12-hour version, but I do not think that noble Lords would welcome spending part of their holiday listening to me. However, I have one practical proposal to put to the Minister. We now have the Centre for Policy and Management Studies—another remarkable and welcome innovation in government which is in a position to look at such matters under the leadership of Professor Ronald Amann. I very much hope that we will set in place the machinery that will enable the Government to look at the experiences of the task forces that we have had; to talk to the civil servants and, indeed, to the members of the task forces; to talk to the recipients of such reports; and, on the basis of the experience of how things have gone, to say how this revolution—for that is what it is—could be made into a revolution for the better, and not for the worse.

My Lords, the whole House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, for having introduced the report to which he referred. Having read it three or four times, it seems to me that he made a most remarkable summary of its contents. I am bound to say that in general—and possibly in opposition to four or five of my own colleagues, which is not unusual—I support the noble Lord's conclusions.

Of course, when my party came into office in May 1997, after, unfortunately, having to endure 17 years in opposition, no one can dispute the fact that there was a great shortage of experience on the ground; namely, experience of government, of administration and, indeed, of business administration. Therefore, in my view, the Government were right to seek what assistance they could in the urgent circumstances that accompanied their coming into office. It is all a question of degree. There can be no doubt that many task forces have achieved the most admirable results and that, in general, they have had a very benign influence on government—or perhaps I should say a benign influence on Ministers.

I observe that distinguished former civil servants now in this House have not been reluctant to praise the forces to which they now belong and the new vocations they have assumed. However, their enthusiasm for a new situation can always be exaggerated. I have in mind, for example, my noble and very good friend Lord Borrie. With the greatest respect to him, when he said that such task forces cover a very wide spectrum of people—indeed, many types of people—I thought that he was possibly pushing it a bit. All this has to be carried out against a context.

We should remember that we are discussing task forces, the details of which have been put forward in the document, Ruling by Task Force. All this falls within a context in which there are no less than 165 companies—outside task forces—with representatives on secondment to Her Majesty's Government. These are not included within the task forces. Some of the companies represented are not entirely unknown; for example, the Bank of Ireland, the Rover Group, British Telecom, the inevitable Arthur Andersen, British Nuclear Fuels, the British Petroleum Company, and so on. Representatives from all those companies are already on secondment to government.

Therefore, when we consider the number of people who are on task forces we should remember that they are comparatively limited in number. In task forces at present there are no fewer than 1,107 persons representing business interests; that is, 35 per cent of the total number of people involved, which is about 3,000. No fewer than 1,107 are representatives who come direct either from private companies—whether they be producers, retailers or whatever—or trade associations. That is an overwhelming majority. I do not altogether complain about that, but it is the effect upon parliamentary democracy that bothers me.

After the last great war, which lasted only six years, we formed a Labour government without task forces. However, we had some of the most remarkable achievements in British history. We did that without task forces. There was a certain degree of opposition, not least, I have to report to the House, from a Civil Service that possibly differed slightly from the one that we have had during the past two years—but that is another story. We had a democratic government composed of democratic representatives, most of whom had had experience in the forces. They were quite capable not only of formulating but also of enacting, passing and putting into operation some of the most beneficial legislation to the country as a whole that has ever been achieved.

This time, we were in opposition for 17 years, and it is a bit difficult. Indeed, as I know very well at my age, time passes quickly. At present, we have a situation involving civil servants and private interests. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will know, they are not generally on the Northern Irish scale, which tends to have minimal representation for private interests. It is assumed for all practical purposes that the moment they pass those portals after appointment to a task force they suddenly become politically neutral. They go through a cleansing shower, as it were, which immediately washes from them any kind of deep political convictions they may have had before and become virtually political innocents—as white as driven snow—in terms of all kinds of political belief or any deeply held political conviction.

Does this really accord with the facts? Of course it does not. The degree to which they are able to suppress their political inclinations in favour of the general good, or even the technical good, or the strictly business good is, of course, a matter for them. However, I venture to suggest to your Lordships—

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord in the middle of an interesting speech, but I hope that he will be kind enough to address the whole House as opposed to the Benches behind him.

My Lords, I am a sensitive man and I sense the opposition behind me. Therefore I venture to direct a good deal of my attention to that. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that I have the greatest possible respect for his intellect. I felt his intellectual vibrations even though I did not address him personally.

The question is: what account should we take of this? The practice I am discussing certainly will not be abolished and business interests represented on task forces will not change their political beliefs—it is unreasonable to expect them to do so—any more than those who represent companies and are seconded to the Government will change their political beliefs. What we have to try to do, if we can, is to make quite sure that our parliamentary democracy—which it has been my pleasure to support for my entire political life—maintains its strength and is not inhibited in any way from exercising the political will, as distinct from the means of achieving the political will. What I am worried about—I hope that many noble Lords may also be worried—is any diminution in the authority of the political arm of the political organisation in power and of parliamentary democracy. At the moment I cannot see that happening because the task forces are responsible not to the Prime Minister—although there may be a more tenuous link than we think because, as we all know, there are many spin doctors about—but to Ministers. However, they are not responsible to the public.

We must find a way in which Parliament and its Members can become more closely involved with what the task forces are trying to do so that genuinely effective advice is given to Ministers which takes into account not only technical factors that may be involved—I refer, for example, to motor firms that are represented—but also ensures that the political aspect of Parliament is also represented. This may, of course, be accomplished through parliamentary Questions and through having special Select Committees whose tasks comprise supervising and questioning task forces. That is another solution.

However, one thing has to be done. There must be accountability. Over the next few years—the quicker, the better the powers of parliamentary democracy must be re-established. I regret to say that even in the past three or four years I have seen them slipping away from Parliament and the people. Therefore I am bound to share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, whose approach to this whole matter and whose intellectual honesty I deeply appreciate. I support practically everything that he said. If there is no passion in this matter at all: if we continue to speak with forked tongues; and if we perpetrate generalities rather than precisions, that will not be good for our country. I hope that the noble and learned Lord who will be responding on behalf of the Cabinet Office will pay attention to some of the points I have ventured to make. I wish him and the Government well, but unless parliamentary democracy is maintained and strengthened, in the final analysis it will all be for nought.

My Lords, I echo the words of everyone who has spoken so far in stating my great gratitude to my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton for introducing this important issue in this relatively short debate. The issue of task forces has become a subject of increasing debate and some concern outside your Lordships' House. It is right and timely that we should now debate it here.

Five of the six speakers from the Government Benches have spoken strongly in support of task forces. The one exception, of course, is the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who is almost as formidable an opponent of task forces as he is of the European Union.

I should start by saying that I am a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was formerly the Nolan Committee and is now the Neill Committee. Last month we published a report which looked, among other things, at task forces. I am afraid that what I say today will plagiarise rather heavily what is published in that report.

We were mainly concerned with the method by which the outside members of task forces are selected for appointment. In its first report the committee recommended an open and fair appointment system for non-departmental public bodies—which is government-speak for quangos. Those quangos cover an enormously wide field. They cover the Neill Committee itself and, for example, the Parole Board, trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Crown Estate Commissioners and National Health Service trusts.

Broadly speaking, the Nolan proposals for the making of appointments to quangos have been accepted. However, the Nolan proposals never applied to departmental groups, as opposed to non-departmental groups. Departmental groups are those which are set up, metaphorically, within the walls of a government department to do a task set by that department, and which report to the department. Those groups go under many names: reviews, task forces, expert committees and working groups. I believe that the confusion over the names accounts for a good deal of the disagreement as to the number of such bodies which exist. Because there is no definition of them, some estimates are much larger than others.

If these groups are wholly internal—that is, members consist entirely of civil servants—the problems we have been discussing today do not arise. The problem arises when outsiders are brought onto these bodies in significant numbers. That raises questions of cronyism or of giving a privately selected group of supporters access to power and certainly to influence.

It is, of course, right that the Government should be entitled to call in outside advice. However, let me quote from our report to explain what it is that the Committee is concerned about. In chapter 10, paragraphs 8 and 9, the report states:

"It is understandable that a new Government with a firm commitment to carrying out its manifesto should wish to review many issues. It is also for the Government to decide upon what sources of advice it wishes to draw".

It goes on to say:

"It is as well, however, to be aware of the concerns to which this policy can give rise. The creation of a dialogue with privately selected groups can raise suspicions that this dialogue is deliberately excluding other partners in the process of government".

One has to recognise the principle of proportionality when one is deciding how to choose members of these groups. It is plainly inappropriate to apply the quite elaborate Nolan procedures to a group, for example, which is set up to report on some specific issue and which may meet a half-dozen or a dozen times before it finishes its job and is wound up.

The Neill Committee thought that the vital factor in drawing the line was the duration of the task force. It selected a dividing line of two years. A body which is expected to last for more than two years and which includes a number of outside members should be treated, in effect, as a non-departmental public body and should be subject to the rules of appointment of such bodies. Outside members should be selected on the Nolan principles. Bodies which originally were not planned to last for more than two years but which have done so should either be wound up or converted into NDPBs.

Governments must be able to go outside the career Civil Service for advice. Members of the Civil Service are, to a large extent, generalists rather than specialists. The noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, have pointed out the importance of being able to go to outside specialists. On issues such as football, people outside the Civil Service know far more about the subject than those within it.

Task Forces should not be used to undermine the role of the Civil Service. We have to balance the right of the Government to choose their own advisers against a danger of relying on a charmed circle of friends and allies. We believe that there is no need for current alarm but it is an issue which needs to be kept under review. Task forces are a valuable tool of government and do good work but, as my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton pointed out, we need greater access to information about their membership and to the reports which they produce. We need to ensure that the task forces do not expand and increase their responsibilities in a way which would mean that they start taking over the role now played by quangos, which have stricter rules of selection and greater independence of government.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, on introducing this debate. The issue here is one of democratic accountability and I am extremely glad that he was able to raise it. I should say at the outset that, as it is a timed debate, one did not like to intervene in the speeches of other noble Lords. That would have taken time from them and would have been totally inappropriate.

However, I should say in general terms—as did the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington— that I wholly disagree with most of the noble Lords on the other side who spoke about the value of task forces. Not one of those noble Lords spoke about the issues of transparency and accountability. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, referred to those matters in a totally non-political way; I congratulate him on that. Unfortunately, I can never be as non-political as he is. I wish I could be, but somehow my words do not come out that way, as much as I would like them to. It is just one of those things.

What a rousing picture the electrifying phrase "task force" conjures up! I liked the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, described it. I have written in my speech about worthy members of the task force sliding down a brass pole and dashing off in their people carrier with lights flashing and siren sounding, saying, "Quick, chaps! We have got to sort out the problems of the ruddy duck". There really is a "ruddy duck task force", although it is now known as the White-Headed Duck Task Force because the white-headed ducks are the victims of the ruddy ducks.

Let me say, unequivocally, right at the outset, that I certainly do not denigrate the efforts of the 2,500 or so members of the various task forces. On the contrary, those who are not on the public payroll as civil servants or working in wider categories of public service generally give their services without remuneration—a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey— because they feel that they have something to offer in the way of experience and knowledge.

I include among these worthies a number of noble Lords opposite, some of whom are involved in more than one task force or similar body. Some of them—but not all—even give their services at considerable expense to their shareholders, to whom they owe their first duty and undivided attention. Last weekend, the Sunday Times reported the disastrous slide in the share prices of companies chaired by some of the most active of "Tony's Cronies", who are involved in task forces and quangos to the detriment of their day jobs. Of course, your Lordships would not expect me to mention them by name, and I should not dream of doing so.

But, however admirable, selfless and praiseworthy the personal motives and ambitions of those involved undoubtedly are, they are unwitting accomplices in something that I regard as quite sinister that is, a plotting between No. 10 and Millbank Tower which has something to do with marginalising Parliament. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is surprised by that. He will not, of course, intervene because it is a timed debate. That marginalising is a part of downgrading the influence of the other place.

Of all the noble Lords who have spoken in support of task forces, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, mentioned "accountability" once. But the accountability is to a Minister, not to Parliament. That is extremely dangerous. The more people who give their services free and do what they think is a splendid job, the more dangerous it becomes.

In the end, Parliament has been downgraded. The Prime Minister now appears at Question Time on one occasion a week, not two, and he has missed 95 per cent of votes since last November. I know that he is a busy man, but it is important that Parliament should know what are these task forces, who serves on them and to whom they report. It is not enough that they should report back to Ministers. As I said, the task forces are appointed by Ministers.

Few people know that these task forces exist, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Certainly few people know about the 2,500 members and what their business interests might be.

My Lords, I apologise for intervening. I shall not complain if the noble Baroness exceeds her time. The noble Baroness asked what are the task forces and who are members of them. The Cabinet Office publishes a list of all task forces and the names of their members every six months. That is the answer.

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, recently asked how many task forces there were, the Minister said that there were 38. I believe that there are 318. It would seem that not even the Government know how many task forces there are.

No, my Lords. The noble Baroness is completely wrong. There are 46 task forces and 270 ad hoc reviews and advisory groups. As has been pointed out, the problem is not identifying these groups, but the name that one attaches to them.

My Lords, later on in my speech I shall ask what is a "task force".

My Lords, it is a body which advises the Government in areas of policy.

My Lords, the reports are not published unless the Minister requires them to be published. In fact, in a Written Answer of 25th January the noble and learned Lord said:

"It is for individual Ministers to determine the publication arrangements for reports prepared by task forces".—[Official Report. 25/1/2000; col. WA 190.]

The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, made the point that the reports should be made to Parliament. However, that does not have to be the case if the Minister does not wish it to be so. I notice that the noble and learned Lord the Minister is nodding in agreement—at least with that point. This is an extremely serious matter. It is not something to be pushed aside. We have not had anything like this before, with reports going back to the Minister, and Parliament—this House and another place—not knowing what is going on. That should cause us worry.

When a task force is up and running and a Minister is questioned about some alleged shortcoming or other, he can say that he is well aware of the problem, that he has set up a task force to look into it and that it will report in due course. But it reports to him in due course; it does not report to anyone else. That is just a new gambit of, "It's not my fault, guv".

I made a point just a few moments ago on which the Minister argued with me so charmingly across the Dispatch Box. I was then going to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on behalf of the Cabinet Office, provided a list of 38. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, had asked in a Question for Written Answer on 11th November (at col. WA 242 of the Official Report) how many task forces were in existence. That was where I found that figure. The list does not include the new and more recent all-powerful "ministerial panel at the heart of government that will examine regulation across numerous government departments", which was appointed last November with the noble Lord. Lord Haskins, at its head and with a staff of about 50. However, more or less at the same time—that is, last November— according to the Sunday Times, the Cabinet Office was admitting that it did not know the actual number and refused to give details of their members. I do not know how we will get to the bottom of this.

My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that the noble Baroness should not believe everything that she reads in the newspapers.

My Lords, it might be helpful if the noble and learned Lord knew the answers and did not give the figure of 38 or whatever it was.

My Lords, the answer was set out on 11th January in the press release given by the Cabinet Office and I shall give the answer again today as to how many there are. The problem is not one of where are they: it is one of definition.

My Lords, that may very well be the case, but it seems to me that they are increasing in number at a very speedy rate.

The University of Essex independent research group, Democratic Audit, claimed that there were no fewer than 318. That was also last November. Perhaps it would be a good idea to set up a task force to count how many task forces there are. That might be quite useful. The Government have set so many targets. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a target that it should reach at least five of its six targets.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that she could do what I did, which was to ask the Library to give a list of the task forces, with all the categories of people on them? She could then add them up. If she did that, she would have no difficulty. Does she accept that?

My Lords, as a matter of fact, I have already done that. I have all the information in front of me. The point I was trying to make—the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made the same point—is that the ordinary man or woman on the Clapham omnibus does not know about all of these things; does not know who is on them; does not see the reports from them; and does not know what is going on in his or her name.

In view of all the points that have just been made, I ask: when is a task force not a task force? The Minister gave me a very quick reply across the Dispatch Box and I am sure that that is correct. But another answer is: when it is a tsar: We have a so-called "drugs tsar", the excellent and highly qualified Keith Hellawell. His brief is to sort out the drugs problem, but since his appointment it has got worse. His solution, from which he had to beat an immediate undignified retreat, was that the police should not prosecute so many people for using cannabis. If the number of prosecutions goes down, the number of crimes must have gone up. The point I am making here is neither about drugs nor about Mr Hellawell's excellent efforts. It is the fact that he presumably has considerable influence on the Government's thinking and actions and yet, in whatever he proposes, he is not accountable to Parliament. That is another example of what I am trying to say.

Many of the members of some of these task forces, whatever they are called, and indeed of more than 1,000 quangos, are substantial contributors to the Labour Party. Their appointments are justified in part by their special expertise in a particular subject. But that expertise may betoken a special interest or axe to grind. I must emphasise that I cast no aspersions on any noble Lords who might be members of a task force. I am pleased to say that outside this Chamber—I know it has to be outside this Chamber—I call many of them my friends. But they are not subject to the Nolan rules. The sixth report of the Nolan committee recommended that a proper definition of "task force" should be established and that we should know exactly how many there are, their status and longevity, and that long-standing ones should be disbanded or made permanent.

Will the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to adopt the Nolan recommendations on task forces? This debate involves a serious constitutional problem. The problem is the removal of the conduct of the Government's business away from the traditionally neutral Civil Service into the hands of anonymous unelected and unaccountable nominees of the Prime Minister and his Ministers. That takes away from Parliament, particularly the other place, the supervision of the machinery of government and leaves Parliament sometimes unable easily to discover what is being done in its name.

I sincerely trust that the Minister and the Government will take on board the serious concerns expressed in the debate. I hope in particular that the noble and learned Lord will take to heart the words of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who made an excellent speech—as I said earlier, I only wish that I could be non-political like that—and indeed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who made an important point.

Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, because he nodded his head—I think, agin me, not for me—several times as I was speaking. The noble Lord said that advisers could come into this category in order to deal with the problems facing the Government in getting their manifesto through. He also mentioned the value of political advisers as they would have more expertise. I suggest to him that he reads in The Times today an article by Sir Trevor Lloyd-Hughes headed,

"Is Blair the new Wilson'?"

I should like to quote one paragraph from the article. It states:

"Jim Callaghan has warned him"—

he was talking about Tony Blair—

"of the perils. The Civil Service is being invaded by political advisers, boasting party allegiance but little professional expertise".

I mention that en passant.

My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for "What the Papers Say" over the past two years. I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, for initiating this short but interesting debate. It raises important issues which deserve an answer.

The Government came to power after one government had been in office for 18 years. Whatever one's political view in relation to them, they were a government who came in with a desire to change various areas and directions of policy, in my view correctly. It is vital that any government who embark on a process and policy of change should make the decisions on change on the basis of sound, wide-ranging advice so that when implemented new policies are workable and bring about real change. We have made it clear as a government that we are committed to securing the widest possible range of advice and views in the decision-making process.

Task forces and short-term advisory groups and reviews play an important part in making sure that one gets the best and most wide-ranging advice. The advice that is received from the professional civil servants—the senior Civil Service—is excellent and expert. It would be wrong simply to restrict to the Civil Service the advice that one receives in relation to particular areas of policy. I am sure that the Civil Service would agree with that view. I am sure that the party opposite would agree with it as well.

Task forces are established to focus on specific and often difficult areas of policy development by bringing together a range of individuals with experience and expertise in the area concerned. It is important to emphasise that they are not only the great and the good. We want people from all walks of life to have a real say in the issues which affect them and to be a part of the process for change. If there is not some process by which people excluded from the policy process are brought in, such as care leavers and people who live on the Holly Street estate—people who are affected by social exclusion in their daily lives—the problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will ensue; that of a public miles away from what is happening in Parliament or in the policy process.

In my own department—the Cabinet Office—the policy action teams have supported the work of the Social Exclusion Unit on developing a strategy for neighbourhood renewal. The team members are drawn from across 10 Whitehall departments, together with 200 outside people with first hand experience of living or working in deprived neighbourhoods, including those from business, faith, black and ethnic minorities, tenants living in some of the deprived areas, as well as representatives from local government.

One of the most impressive things I have seen since being in government is a care leaver describing the problems she had experienced after leaving care. She illuminated a discussion taking place in the course of the formulation of policy in relation to the problem of how children in care have been let down by successive governments and policy developments. Far from being a bad thing, that strikes me as being an extremely good thing because it widens the policy advice which one receives and it reaches to areas of the community which one would not otherwise reach.

What objection to that approach would appear to reasonable and sensible people? The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made a clear and excellent speech identifying the related risks. In effect, he summarised the views of the Neill Committee. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong in believing that the Neill Committee's report states that in principle the approach does not currently give rise to a problem. However, one must be clear that an inward looking clique does not emerge. There must be openness in the process.

That involves, first, the Government identifying those on their working parties, which they do. Secondly, they must identify the focus and purpose of the task force ad hoc group. Again, that is what we do. This is a much clearer and more open system than any run by previous governments. I challenge any noble Lord to name the times that the previous government identified those people outside the Civil Service from whom they took advice on particular policy issues. It has never been done before. It is an entirely new approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, appears to be dying to intervene. With the greatest respect to her, that policy was not implemented previously; it is being carried out now. We have a system whereby we identify from whom we are taking advice and they are brought together. They are not just the great and the good; they comprise anyone who may be involved in the relevant communities. That seems a sensible approach.

My Lords, will the Minister agree that the remit and the report should be published so that the whole process is transparent and open?

My Lords, the remit has been published. The names, where they still exist, have also been published. So far, of the 46 task forces, 21 have published their reports. Many are in the process of still considering their findings. The vast majority which have finished have already published their reports. There may be good reasons why reports are not published, which is a matter for individual departments, but the majority are published. That seems a much better system than any which preceded it.

I submit with the greatest respect that the points so eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, were not really complaints about task forces—indeed, he is nodding. He was saying with a considerable degree of force that there is too much legislation and too much happening in the law-making process for the man in the street to absorb. He did not say that task forces are a bad thing—he is nodding again. In my view, they are a good thing, because they widen the circle of advice received by Ministers.

What are the problems which need to be addressed? First, transparency. We should name the people on the task forces. We do. We should state their focus and remit. We do. We should keep that information up to date. We update it every six months. We should publish the reports of task forces. Twenty-one have already reported, and many others will be published or are in the process of being published. I cannot say that there will not be good reasons why advice should not be published.

The second complaint relates to accountability. Ministers receive advice from a whole series of sources, including task forces and civil servants. The Minister is ultimately accountable for the decisions he makes and the advice he takes into account. It is right that the advice should be given not to Parliament, but to the Minister or Ministers who are to make the decision. Once the Minister has made a decision, he will then have to determine his policy and account for it to Parliament. If any objections to the people from whom he takes advice are made, the position in relation to task forces, ad hoc reviews and the like enables Ministers to be questioned in Parliament about from whom they are taking advice because, unlike any previous government, we are publishing the names of task force members and so on. Noble Lords and honourable and right honourable Members of another place are therefore able to raise such issues with Ministers.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, was able to remove her political hat for one moment—she is indicating that she is unable to do so, but if she could—she would see that that is a good development which is appropriately subject to parliamentary scrutiny and which is likely to lead to two things. First, it will lead to better policy decisions being made. Secondly, it will lead to a wider cross-section of people being involved in the policymaking process. For all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I believe that to be a good rather than a bad thing.

I turn to a number of important points made during the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to "tsars" and mentioned Keith Hellawell, who, she said, was doing an extremely good job. He is a special adviser in the position of a civil servant. Like all civil servants, he is accountable through Ministers. In the past few days there have been two debates on drugs in the other place. All that Mr Hellawell does is therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred to the publication of the Football Task Force's report. As I have indicated, the publication of reports is a matter for the individual Minister concerned. Twenty-one reports have been published so far. There may be good reasons why they should not be published. Other task forces are in the process of continuing their work.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, asked about consultation, which is a real issue for government. We must develop means through which consultation may be carried out as effectively as possible. That means different kinds of consultation for different groups. The Cabinet Office has published guidelines on consultation, of which I refer to one section. The guidelines rightly suggest that when one is dealing, for example, with professional groups, such as—dare I mention it?—lawyers, the best way to consult is through a paper-based consultation. One sends them a document asking for their views, which is expected back in writing. I believe the noble Lord gave 78,000 as the number of solicitors or firms of solicitors receiving a document relating to Access to Justice—to which 30 replied. We have citizens' juries, people's panels, and workshop open meetings in other kinds of consultations. Perhaps we should now have workshop panels for lawyers, people's panels of lawyers, and citizens' juries for lawyers. It seemed a sensible way of consulting lawyers. I agree in principle that consultation has to be done on a basis that is sensible and well tailored to the needs of the group being consulted.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, failed to disclose one point about the 1945–51 government. He said that they were able to achieve without employing task forces. However, that government had the assistance of the noble Lord himself as one of the members of the supporting Labour majority. The noble Lord also referred to the fact that there are 165 companies with secondments in government which are not included in the task force numbers. I believe it would be wrong to regard secondment as in any way parallel to task forces. Secondment will be thought to be a good thing by both political government and the Civil Service because it leads to people from business and the voluntary sector seeing how government works and to civil servants seeing how the outside world works. It helps to provide a broader perspective on how the world works, which is important from a policy point of view. However, it is not a reason, when setting up task forces, for not including on them people with expert knowledge in the area or those who may possibly bring the perspective of having endured the problem with which the task force is designed to deal.

The conclusion I draw is that task forces, ad hoc reviews and advisory groups are in principle a good thing. They are sufficiently transparent. The Government have taken trouble to identify who they are. They improve government by bringing a wider range of advice and a wider range of experience to the policymaking process. That can only lead to better government.

My Lords, we have had a surprisingly lively debate on what has hitherto been an arcane subject. We have placed the spotlight on it, at least for today, and I am sure that it is a subject to which your Lordships will return. I was amazed that there were no contributions from the Conservative Back Benches. However, that was more than made up for by the exuberance of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. It was especially illuminating to hear experiences recalled by those who have sat on task forces.

I am not sure that anyone has answered my final conundrum: how are task force recommendations put back into a government structure which created some of the problems in the first place? Nevertheless, I am sure that we shall return to the subject. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

rose to call attention to the future use of the River Thames for both commercial and leisure purposes; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, perhaps I may first declare an interest. I am the vice chairman of the Port Of London Authority, and have been a member of that authority for six years. I am grateful, therefore, to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for introducing this debate on the future use of the Thames for commercial and leisure purposes. It gives me the opportunity to share a little of what I have learnt over the past few years. I know the river quite well, physically, because I have walked its 186-mile path in its entirety. I thoroughly recommend that to your Lordships. The path is now completely open and it is a very nice walk, especially during the winter months.

Our great metropolitan capital owes its very existence to the River Thames. London's foundations were laid not far from this House near London Bridge where the Romans linked access to the banks through the marshes to a ford across the river.

In modern transport parlance, London was Britain's first intermodal cargo facility when goods were transferred from water to land and vice versa. From these small beginnings, the great port integrated totally with the capital itself and grew to a peak of 61 millions tonnes of movements in 1964 to become the United Kingdom's largest port. Today, London is still home to a great and efficient modern port, with more than 50 million tonnes of cargo passing through each year. That may not be obvious from where we are situated here today, but if noble Lords visit Tilbury, Dartford or Purfleet further down the river, they will see what I mean.

As cargo ships have grown in size, they have moved down river away from the Pool of London and the old enclosed docks, so that most Londoners no longer experience the workings of the port in their daily lives. The port still thrives, but the recent decision, as we heard, to close the oil refinery at Shell Haven has created the opportunity for a huge expansion in container handling facilities on the Thames—the most exciting prospect to emerge for many years.

The prosperity of London as an economic community historically has depended on the Port of London. It is still a great wealth creator, providing employment for 37,000 people in port-related activities, and adding £2.7 billion in gross value to the economy of the capital and the south-east of England. With its modern road and rail links to the rest of the nation, the port surely is a national asset, not merely a regional one.

The PLA has played, and continues to play, a leading role world-wide in technological innovation and the advancement of the global ports industry. Despite the tragic 1989 "Marchioness" disaster, there is a good safety record on our river, as was indicated in Lord Justice Clarke's report into safety on the Thames published last December. However, it is obvious that we must be vigilant and do all we can to ensure that such a disaster never happens again.

It is often overlooked that more than 95 per cent of the materials and goods entering or leaving this country travel by sea, the mode of transport least damaging to the environment. There are approximately 90 United Kingdom sea ports handling cargo, of which 38 are regarded as major. London regularly handles in excess of 50 million tonnes of cargo, and accounts for 12.4 per cent of all non-oil goods shipped through the UK ports.

I turn now to the aspect of the Thames which is perhaps most familiar to your Lordships. The Thames is the lung from which London draws its breath. That was not always so, as this place will have recorded one and a half centuries ago. It is the backdrop for a significant part of our tourism industry that provided London with £9 billion of visitor spend in 1998, a truly important element of London's economy.

The disposal of the domestic waste created by that industry and by the population of London in general is one of the key issues that will face the mayor on election. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has already alluded to the fact that the Thames plays its part in relieving the capital of this problem by enabling 800,000 tonnes of waste to be transported quietly and cleanly by barge to disposal sites down-river each year. It will be clear to noble Lords what a beneficial effect that has on reducing lorry miles on London's roads. It is vital that at least as much of London's waste continues to move by water in the future.

Today we are considering the future of the busiest inland waterway in the UK. Recent investment in commercial jetties, piers, passenger craft and riverside cargo terminals, and cargo handling equipment has amounted to several hundreds of millions of pounds. The will to make the most of this natural asset has never been in doubt. On the other hand, too many property developments encroaching on the port environment with riverside apartments and offices could pose a threat to the river community, its commerce and its very existence. I believe that a balance needs to be struck between landside private enjoyment and the commercial, passenger and leisure uses of the river.

The key to the future lies in the application of the policy implemented by a previous Secretary of State, John Gummer, who initiated the protection of strategic wharves in the upper part of the tidal Thames between the Thames Barrier and Teddington Lock. That ensures that proper consideration is given to safeguard port land for the greater long-term good of London and the south-east before any redevelopment proposal of vacant riverside sites is permitted.

We must not let this vital issue be pushed to one side by short-term expediency. The riparian authorities are well aware of their responsibilities and must stand up to the pressures exerted on them so that the working Thames continues to operate for their ultimate benefit.

The industrial image of the river is the very one that has been its heart for centuries. Let us give the modern port industry on the Thames the ability to live and to work in harmony with its neighbours, based on the concept of sustainable development to help to make London a great place in which to live and work. I believe that a strategic approach must take into consideration the hopes and expectations of future generations of Londoners and Thames' users. I also believe that using the Thames for freight transport is the key to removing much of the burden from our congested roads. I urge your Lordships to lend support to the greater use of the Thames for cargo and passenger transportation and to give encouragement to the river-based commercial enterprises to develop and flourish.

A separate strategy for the Thames by the mayor of London would touch the very heart of our great city and I am delighted to use this opportunity to support the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in his call for that.

My Lords, I, too, begin by declaring an interest—or, more precisely, two. I am chairman of the Father Thames Trust, a charity founded in 1996 largely as a result of the extraordinary tenacity and vision of its secretary, Robert Staton. That vision and the remit of the charity is,

"to help realise the potential of the Thames through conservation, restoration and the enhancement of its natural resources and noteworthy buildings".

The second best specific interest, but one strongly felt, is that since the 1960s I have had the great fortune and privilege to live next to the Thames at Richmond and, from the front of my house, to observe its changing moods and endlessly fascinating scene. Sometimes its mood is solemn and dangerous. It has an ability to shimmer; hence the name "Sheen". Sometimes it has an almost Mediterranean aspect and sometimes it is astonishingly calm. One of my bolder neighbours in Richmond, the writer and broadcaster Bamber Gascoigne, is known to swim regularly from the Richmond bank to the Twickenham bank. He is oddly reminiscent of Chairman Mao going down the Yangtze and almost as dangerous. However, he is one of the many individuals whose enthusiasm has had a great deal to do with the renaissance of the Thames. We must remember that he has, in his own parlance, helped to give the River Thames its starter for 10!

During the 1960s, the river was dead or dying. It certainly looked a non-starter in terms of a commercial future. There was an enormous question mark hanging over the future of the docks and, in terms of leisure, its potential had not been fully understood. It was a very polluted river. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, referred to the odours of the Thames which used to penetrate this House and another place. It is not malodorous in that way, but the 17th century "Water poet", John Taylor, described the Thames as "a toad brown river" and bewailed the fact that,

"as a monument to our disgraces, the river's too foul in many places".

Today, there are more than 100 species of fish in the Thames and not just Bamber Gascoigne but other less brave souls can swim in it with great pleasure and at no great risk.

I used to keep a boat on the river called "The Floating Voter". I named it in hope that the floating voters of Richmond would support me, which they never did in large enough numbers, to get into the other place. However, I am pleased to say that since then the floating voters around the Thames have increasingly become enthusiastic about the river and have supported it. In the case of my charity, the Father Thames Trust, that is the key to the amount of money we have been able to raise to advance access to the river, to monitor it and to educate people to an enthusiasm and realisation of its value.

Another important date in the renaissance of the river was 1994 when the Thames landscape strategy produced its 100 year environmental plan for large stretches. That has won tremendous support. Certainly, on my stretch of the river there has been the active participation of many boroughs, including Kingston. It is interesting to remember that during the 1960s, when so much development was taking place in Kingston, it almost forgot that it was "on-Thames" and turned its back on the river. Now there is great emphasis on reaccess to the river and understanding what it can do for the town.

The key of understanding what the river can give us in London is of huge importance. After all, what would London be without the river? It is almost impossible to imagine the character and personality of London without the river. Cities in continental Europe—for example, Brussels—which decided to put their rivers underground lost character, personality and definition in immeasurable terms.

I want to draw attention to two key future aspects, one of which has been mentioned. Although the process appears to be increasingly painful and in some cases unedifying, we are eventually to have an elected mayor of London. Of course, I accept my own party's candidate and our processes of democracy have been without criticism. When in place, the mayor must surely grasp the strategic importance of the river to London as a whole in transport and in leisure. It is a great new opportunity. The mayoralty is, in a sense, a new platform for London.

The second point relates to the Millennium Dome. It is astonishing and a great pity that somehow in the construction of the Dome and its themes, the most obvious, which stem from its very location—namely, Old Father Thames and Old Father Time— were not brought together into something which would have given a theme not only to its strangely themeless launch but also to its future success.

It is strange because, after all, the construction of the Dome has revitalised a derelict part of the river. That is a great gain for London and for the river. However, when one emerges from the Underground station to visit the Dome there is no view of the river. You cannot see the river. What, instead, you see, and then smell, with increasing impact, is McDonalds. You would not know that you were on the river because you are immediately funnelled into the great tent and disappear inside. Yet, within yards of the Millennium Dome is the tide and time of the nation. I hope that even now it is not too late for the Belgian from Euro Disney to grasp the real potential and benefit of the Thames to the Dome and to make much, much more of it.

In the river, we have London's greatest natural asset, its greatest open space and an extraordinary inheritance. Before the debate, I was reminded of the lines that the Rhine is water and the Mississippi is muddy water, but the Thames is liquid history. In the past, a great deal of that history was rather too physically present in the river. However, the fact is that the River Thames links our past, present and future in this great city. I am hopeful that, in the years to come, that asset will be increasingly realised, that people's enthusiasm for it will grow, that its usefulness will be multiplied and that its future will become assured.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Greenway for having introduced this debate. The noble Lord comes from a distinguished background. As chairman of the Marine Society, he is well qualified to speak on this subject. It is also appropriate that today's debate is taking place almost a year after my noble kinsman Lord Luke introduced a similar debate in this House which raised many issues, many of which have been taken up over the past year.

Government initiatives to promote greater use of the Thames, both for leisure and commercial purposes, especially in the run-up to the opening of the Millennium Dome, have expedited much-needed attention to making better use of the Thames. Common concerns expressed by those who contributed to the debate of my noble kinsman Lord Luke were that there were inadequate points of entry on to the river and the need to upgrade the many piers which, over the years, had fallen into disrepair. Because the internal traffic on the Thames had declined by 43 per cent between 1987 and 1997, it was generally felt that the river had been an under-utilised resource and that the Thames was one of London's great wasted assets.

At the time, many recommendations were made as to how to maximise use of the Thames. I was therefore heartened by the speech last year of the Minister for London, Nick Raynsford, at the launch of the new river express service to the Millennium Dome, when he said that, this year, the river would regain its rightful role at the heart of London's transport system.

London First, the business organisation which promotes London for international investors, has been championing for several years the cause for greater use of the river, in particular through the upgrading of piers and the need for more services. Clearly, for businesses to succeed in London, there needs to be the most efficient transport system possible, matched with quality of life. Both those needs can be promoted by greater use of the river.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to the Cross River Partnership, which has been responsible for raising much of the necessary funds for the upgrading of several of the most important piers, which are now being managed by London River Services. Certainly, the Thames 2000 initiative has already been successful in revitalising river passenger services, especially to the Dome.

The new and refurbished piers at Waterloo for the millennium wheel—the London Eye—Embankment Pier, Blackfriars and the Tower of London have been a major boost to handling the increased leisure traffic. However, there has been some criticism of the manner in which London River Services have managed the service, in particular as regards the new piers and over the granting of exclusive rights for the three key routes. That has effectively resulted in the stifling of competition and has naturally annoyed other operators who wish to take traffic on those specific routes.

One problem the new Thames river-boat services will inevitably face is how to make those ventures a commercial success. Many others have tried and failed to operate river-boat services over the years. In the main, this has been due to the expense of maintaining vessels on such a swift-flowing river. However, despite this drawback, it is essential that those who provide such services on the river are given the flexibility to choose the routes they want to operate and not to be restricted by London River Services.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, spoke with great passion about the stretch of the river close to his home. I understand from recent research that the Thames is now the cleanest metropolitan river in Europe, with 115 species of fish. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, referred to the Thames Path, which she has often enjoyed. I am sure that that enjoyment has been shared by many ramblers as well as cyclists. Furthermore, just as the extended Jubilee Line has sparked a property boom along the south side of the Thames, so too should the Central London "Hopper" service boost values of schemes overlooking or close to the new piers.

A number of new piers are in the process of being constructed by private contractors, including the Vauxhall Cross pier. I am sure that several Peers who have been buying private residences close to the Vauxhall Cross pier will benefit from the new structure. There are also the new Battersea and Chelsea Harbour piers. Unfortunately, for some time the developers of the Tate Gallery pier have been unsuccessful in trying to raise money for the proposed pier on Millbank. However, it is hoped that those funds will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future.

Many peers have spoken of the election of the new London mayor. That postholder, along with the GLA, will take on responsibility for strategic planning matters, many of which will obviously focus on the Thames. The consultation paper on the London mayor's planning role published in January this year gives clear guidelines to the key objectives for the spatial development strategy, which include promoting and encouraging greater use of the river.

When I last spoke on this subject, I based many of my arguments on the previous government's paper on strategic planning guidance for the Thames, published in February 1997. It is heartening that many of the concerns raised in that excellent report have now been addressed by the regeneration plans for the Thames. I hope that the Minister, when responding to today's debate, can give us further assurances of the measures to be taken to ensure that the Thames regains its rightful role at the heart of London's transport system.

My Lords, last week there was a full moon. A few weeks ago there was an extremely big full moon, closer to the earth than ever before. Noble Lords will know that it is always best to plant peas and beans when the moon is rising and carrots and potatoes when the moon is falling. Perhaps noble Lords are wondering what the moon has to do with this debate. However, your Lordships will know that most of the speakers on this side of the House—my noble friend Lady Wilcox, my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and myself—are the only water signs speaking today. We are all Scorpios.

The relationship between the moon and water is most interesting, not only as regards vegetables, but in the days when, if one needed a strong mast for a ship, the wood would be cut from a tree only when the sap was rising, along with the moon. Of course, noble Lords will know that water is magnetic and we are made up in the main of water, as are the peas.

I was sitting in my bath one day, rather like Archimedes when he suddenly discovered specific gravity which could determine the level of gold in Hiero's crown. He said, "Eureka!". I said, "It's the moon that's the problem with the Thames". I wondered why I had said that. Then, as Masefield said, I thought of,

"the great street paved with water".

Of course, that was not said by John Burns, who was a great liberal. However, at that time he was having an argument with, I believe, an American about the Mississippi, which he called "liquid history". The Thames is, of course, liquid history.

But why is this great street not used? The answer is in the moon and the tides. The speed of the tides of seven knots or more and the moving up and down cause problems. The problems for the future of the Thames lie in the transport infrastructure. As your Lordships will know, I have been fortunate enough to be elected here. Therefore, I speak with some authority on this particular subject. Jane Austen said:

"The Baronets will not set the Thames on fire but there is not much harm in it".

I am a Baronet and I wish to do no harm. Disraeli said,

"She will set the Thames on fire".

Yet, Trollope said,

"Dr Netherspoon (or Netherbend) will never set the Thames on fire".

I believe that the Government tried to set the Thames on fire at the millennium but it did not work. One can set the world alight but one cannot set the Thames on fire.

There is a slight misunderstanding over the term "setting the Thames on fire". If the Thames was an original sieve that was used to sift grain and was made out of horse hair, a hard worker could sieve very quickly and the Temes would smoulder and burn. Most people cannot set the Thames on fire, which means that they are pretty useless.

Approximately 20 years ago I had a rather useless job. First, I was appointed by Peter Shore chairman of the Greater London and South-East Council for Sport and Recreation. I was responsible for sport and recreation in all of London, Surrey, Sussex and Kent. Because I was a Scorpio—a water sign—I liked the Thames and that was my undoing. I went to the GLC with my committee as we were eligible for grants. We set up "Thames Day"—a task force that was never disbanded. Thames Day was great fun. We blocked off the bridges with some difficulty—the PLA was not terribly pleased about that at the time as my noble friend Lady Wilcox was not there. We had speedboats which ran up and down, hitting bits of wood. We had fireworks and good fun. We had to negotiate with the lightermen who wanted some money upfront because we were a government quango (although I had tried to make it autonomous). In the end, they agreed to cooperate with us.

My own history and failures are considerable. My father, who liked motor racing and, sadly, died young, was a special constable who used to drive a speedboat up and down the Thames. He used to box and wrestle for charity in the Isle of Dogs. Rather like the Front Bench opposite, it was considered to be a good thing to punch up a hereditary Peer. He always used to lose. He was called the "White Eagle"—a dying breed. His six years of great pleasure led to my involvement in trying to create fun on the Thames, in London and everywhere. We have 85 active sports. However, the problem was the moon. I shall give an example.

Together with my noble friend Lord Geddes and a few others, I believed that I might make a fortune carrying out developments on the Thames. We built a hotel at Chelsea Harbour, which cost approximately £40 million. My only association with it is that I believe that my name appears somewhere on a napkin. However, the Gulf War occurred and we had no infrastructure because the river boats which were then being set up went to the places that people wanted to go but did not come from the places where they lived. Therefore, they were a disaster. I tried to help many of them to avoid going bust but it was a hopeless situation.

I bought a boat which I named "White Eagle" after my father. I used to pretend that I was a captain and my son was then appointed. With the help of the lightermen, we were fully trained. For two years we drove up and down the Thames. We would drive people to the Tower of London and tell them to board the Light Railway (which of course was not finished), go to Docklands to see what was happening there, go to Mudchute to see where the Great Eastern was built by Brunel, then go under the Brunel tunnel to Greenwich. We would pick them up by boat on the way back. The problem was that the Port of London Authority sometimes did not like us to park there. We had several problems because there is no speed limit on the Thames as far as Wandsworth Bridge and we could go flat out. One of our friends said that there was no difficulty about wash as long as one listened to the complaints. Many people tried to complain and to obtain grants or support or possibly sue because of the wash.

I loved that river. I shall give some examples of what could be achieved with some funds or a grant. We liked fishing but one could not fish in the Thames. My friend at that time, Sir Tufton Beamish, offered £100 to the first person to catch a salmon. Not long afterwards, he lost the £100. There were two Henry VIII graving docks near Greenwich which the council were intending to fill in. My team, who were quite bright and young, said, "Let's turn one of them into a fishing paradise. We'll put little poles around the numbers and stock it full of fish". We did so and people fished there 24 hours a day.

Next, he said that there was nowhere in London where one could gain a certificate for sub-aqua diving. A certain depth was required and the swimming pools were not deep enough. Therefore, we took the other graving dock and turned it into a sub-aqua training school. Not a great deal of money was involved. Then, the canoeists asked, "Can we go along on the top while the divers are underneath?" Those are examples of small ventures which created tremendous fun. As I was reporting to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, at that time, he has the credit for my failures!

Then, I was asked whether I would become involved in Docklands. We were building a hotel there which became a disaster. The boat which we ran also became a disaster, mainly due to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who, as Commodore of the House of Lords Yacht Club, suggested one day that "White Eagle" should be the guardship for the race between the Commons and the Lords. I believe that there was a rail strike and the Minister for Transport in another place was on one of the sailing teams. The cameras wanted to photograph him in a sailing boat while the race was taking place, and people were queuing to walk over the bridges.

My son was captain on that particular day, and the Thames is very shallow outside your Lordships' House. We were pushed by the cameras to move forwards and backwards and we hit a subterranean rock, or something similar, and one propeller broke. A plastic bag entered the air or water intake of the other engine, which then stopped. My son, who had been trained by the lightermen and was 18 years-old, was becoming slightly nervous. We hit something else, and a noble Baroness—who is not in her place, thank goodness, and whose name I shall not mention—was cannoned forward, knocked someone else over and the coffee was spilt. Then, unfortunately, another noble Baroness, who had said that she was a great sailor, suffered from what one might call "mal de Thames" and the heads were blocked. We then had to get the boat, with hardly any support, all the way to Tufts Boatyard. It cost me a fortune. Of course, I said that I would never do it again. Next year we shall go on ship once more.

I believe that such things should be fun. However, the problem throughout is infrastructure. It is very frightening to cope with the tides on that great highway at night. One can see how disaster can so easily occur. There is a problem with the height of the bridges. A lighterman knows how to go under a bridge, and it cost me quite a large number of drinks to be told how. It is very simple. One stands on the highest part of one's boat and, when one can see the underneath of the bridge, one can go under it perfectly safely. However, it is important to stand in the right way. To go under with the Thames travelling at perhaps six or seven knots, one's speed must be faster than that in order to maintain steerage-way. It is a difficult exercise.

That is one of the worries. If we are to get the Thames to come alive again, we must have infrastructure. That costs money. Your Lordships may remember that 20 years ago there was a plan to build a dome at Greenwich. It was to be for sport and recreational activities. If I look back at what has happened on the Boston waterfronts in America and right around the world, it is clear that most people produce a plan. They realise that it is a long-term exercise and that there must be a plan for the infrastructure. We made some fairly disastrous mistakes with Docklands because the infrastructure was not in place. As a result, the private sector fails, loses money and reputations collapse. The same could be said of that wonderful airport, City Airport. To begin with, it could not accommodate jets until the whispering jet came in, but there was no way of getting to it, it took hours to get there, and the contractors and developers found that they were losing money. That airport is a good airport and was a good idea. However, the only viable means of reaching it was the river, and because there were not enough Peers, as there are not in your Lordships' House today, we found that no water transport operation, however bright and enthusiastic the individuals were, could pay its way. It may be that there needs to be subsidy.

The GLC at that time was extraordinarily helpful and supportive. The PLA later came round to realising that its future did not lie solely in ports but in other areas of activity. The future of the Thames lies in leisure and the creation of an environment that makes life friendly. Over-development causes problems. There should not be any encroachment on it. A master plan should be drawn up by the new authority and discussed as soon as possible. Without the infrastructure, the moon will win and we will fail.

As I see my noble friend Lord Colwyn sitting beside me here, I recall one happy moment when my wife was organising a walk down Gabriel's Walk for all those people who had had hip replacements and had to walk a mile. It was pouring with rain, but my noble friend stood on Gabriel's Walk and, like the Angel Gabriel blowing his horn, led this gang of people down there almost like the Pied Piper.

I have had such fun on the river. I know it reasonably well. I went on a guide's course. I know why Lambeth Bridge is called Lambeth Bridge. Even my mother's ashes are sunk somewhere in the Thames between Westminster and Lambeth. She was the first lady to become Lord Mayor of Westminster. As I am about to sit down, I try to think who I can end with. It is 400 years since Spenser said,

"Sweet Thames, run swiftly, till I end my song".

My Lords——

My Lords, Thomas Fuller, almost as long ago as the quotation which the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, has just recited to us, said:

"London oweth its greatness under God's divine providence to the well conditioned River of Thames".

From time to time it has not necessarily been well conditioned, although there have been other periods when it has been, as we have heard this afternoon. Under God's divine providence, as Thomas Fuller said, it will, we hope, be well conditioned again.

We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for initiating this debate, in which we have heard a very considerable number of interesting speeches, not to mention the very entertaining speech of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon.

It is quite clear that following last night's events and the good will of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which we understand will be devoted to finding a solution to the problems of the mayoral election, my party now hopes to be quite well represented on the new authority. It is therefore very important that such an authority and the candidates for mayor should have a real policy as to what should happen to the Thames. This is a very important centrepiece for the future of London.

My party's candidate, Darren Johnson, has veered away from our usual concentration on green matters to suggest that we should have a "bluebelt" zone around the Thames, the equivalent of a greenbelt, to prevent inappropriate development. The Thames is an important resource for Londoners and ought to be given proper priority in the planning process. The area around the Thames cannot simply be regarded as another brownfield site. We need to have a clear strategy to protect the river, its foreshore and its hinterland. Such a strategy would involve the promotion of public access for pedestrians and cyclists.

It is also very important, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that we should be able to he by the Thames; that we should be able to see it; that it should not be covered in; and that it should not have walls built around it so that we cannot be by it. Efforts to promote Thames walks are very important, as is public access for pedestrians and cyclists. Wildlife corridors, green space along the river, and a lot of the most important biodiversity of this whole area, which has been tended by nature authorities both under the old GLC and, more recently, under the continuing authorities, have been respected and preserved in order to ensure that any development on the Thames that is easy on the eye is sustainable and non-polluting.

We must also have a policy for promoting river-related activities, such as sailing, educational opportunities and walking. Many of your Lordships will remember the speeches made in your Lordships' House by Lord St Davids about the boys' clubs that he ran, which provided education and entertainment for numerous children who otherwise would have been rather starved of those things.

We need suitable river transport. I was very interested in the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, that we should use the site of the Dome as a massive park-and-ride facility, the ride being provided by boats on the Thames. That is very important. We must find a way of using the Thames for passenger traffic. There should be a stable company able to make certain that it can cover its costs and make a reasonable profit in order to continue producing that kind of service for the people of London. In addition, of course, we must protect the river from pollution; for example, pollution from radioactive discharges from the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment. We must look after our river.

Henry James said:

"Few European cities have a finer river than the Thames, but none certainly has expended more ingenuity in producing an ugly river-front".

That situation has improved slightly in recent years. I hope that it will improve to an even greater extent in the future. The whole look of the Thames and the waterfronts along the,

"five miles up and seven down",

as Kipling described the beat of the Thames in front of London Town, should be protected, should be made fruitful, should be kept free from ugliness, and should remain,

"A thing of beauty [and] a joy for ever".

It was from Westminster Bridge that William Wordsworth celebrated his great view. We must strive for the kind of celebration of the Thames that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, has so entertainingly given us this afternoon. There must be a real dedication to its use and enjoyment.

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for initiating this debate because not only has it brought before your Lordships' House a subject of enormous importance in itself but it has attracted also a number of diverse and interesting speeches. First, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for rising to speak when I did. I was told that he had been obliged to scratch from the debate. I am delighted that he has not done so, and I had no wish to be rude to him.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I find the suggestion of the noble Lord. Lord Greenway, for the use of the land surrounding the Dome as an interchange facility to be extremely profitable and interesting. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, reminded us of the efforts which we made during the passage of the GLA Bill. I was glad to hear that the problems in relation to the provision of tourism services on the Thames are on their way to being solved. I hope that that is true because in a sensible and well-ordered world there should not be a conflict between the use of the Thames for tourism and for transport.

Many noble Lords have referred to the history of the river and its importance for the purposes of transport. We have all seen films and read history books about the way in which the Thames connected the great palaces and castles which lie along its banks, from Windsor and Richmond to Westminster and the Tower, to mention only the most obvious ones. Of course, in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Strand was not a road cut off from the river. On the contrary, it was on the riverbank and along it were the great town palaces of the nobles seeking to live as close as they could to the very place where we are today. They too used the river as a means of communication with their country houses further along.

We know from paintings and some of us know from earlier experience how busy the river used to be. The gains that we have made in terms of the cleanliness of the river should not be lost but we need to recapture some of that sense of "busyness" at the heart of our great city.

I have not come here primed with beautiful quotations but I may be one of the first people who set off for her first diplomatic post—at least, it was my husband's post, not mine—accompanied only by my few-weeks old baby, from Tilbury to Leningrad. We all returned in the same way from Leningrad to Tilbury, this time in the cabin which the then President Khrushchev had used for his famous trip to America where he beat his shoe on the table.

As a little girl, I lived near here, in St George's Square and later in Warwick Square. So my origins as a Londoner come from being very close indeed to the river. Subsequently, I had the great pleasure—as did my noble friend, which is where we met—of living in Richmond, although my stretch of the river was really at Kew rather than at Richmond itself.

Many activities still take place on or near the river—rowing, walking, cycling, tourism, transport, fishing, birdwatching and swimming. My noble friend referred to our mutual friend, Bamber Gascoigne, swimming in the river. I was interested to hear about that. I knew him in the days when he wrote an annual letter to the local paper complaining about dog turds on Richmond Green. He may still be doing that. That is also a very useful activity.

We need to support the initiative of Mr Prescott, which I hope will be carried forward, for a joint approach to how the river should be used and in particular how its transport activity should be increased. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, gave an extremely detailed account of the cargo potential of the river, particularly in relation to waste disposal. If I remember correctly, that is to be the responsibility of the mayor. I am keen, as other noble Lords have expressed themselves to be, that use of the river for the movement of waste should be maintained and, if possible, increased because nothing is more disagreeable than the movement of heavy waste lorries through built-up areas. Movement along the Thames is cleaner and quieter than it can ever be along roads. When planning is being considered for future disposal sites along the banks of Thames, including any future incineration, I hope that those responsible will bear in mind the need to be able to access those sites from the river.

The Prescott initiative was important because it brought together so many different organisations in the public and private sectors. But it was not the first such initiative. The Thames Path—the walking fraternity's great benefit from the Thames—was also the result of initiatives taken many years ago and maintained over many years by a large number of local authorities. It is to their credit that they have overcome most of the difficulties which stood in their way to build that great walking facility all the way from Lechlade to the Thames Barrier. Sustrans has a similar, although not identical, initiative as regards cycling. Those are two initiatives which must be continued and encouraged by whichever local or regional authority is in charge of the river.

In the past two or three years, the initiative seems to have been fairly successful with regard to transport between this part of London—for the sake of argument, Westminster—down-river as far as the Dome. But we have heard less about transport up-river from Westminster. As other noble Lords have said, the increase of building of residential properties in particular and offices along the river gives some justification for hoping that those new transport systems will be profitable, as previous efforts have not been.

But that is almost as true in the upper reaches of the Thames—let us say, as far as Richmond—as it is lower down. The noble Lord, Lord St John, was right to say, in his wise words, that there is need for more investment, particularly in the upstream part of the river, for floating jetties to take on board the tidal problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, referred in his extraordinarily amusing, entertaining and profound speech which everyone enjoyed. The growth and sensitive use for transport purposes of the river upstream will become a major matter of importance for those in charge of the river.

I am committed to using the river as a transport route, going back to its original use. Nevertheless, that has certain downsides. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned the importance of the natural life, bird life, vegetable life, and so on, up and down the river. Much of that has increased over recent years. A new bird facility which has just been opened by the RSBP is of great value to Londoners and to the birds given sanctuary there. They can rest on their migrations and, of course, we are given great pleasure when we watch them.

It seems to me that the trick is to enable the growth of transport without transferring to the river all the disadvantages and disbenefits we suffer from road transport. That brings me to the question of standards in general and safety standards in particular. As the years go by, cars are obliged to become greener and greener, as are aeroplanes. Currently, what regulations apply to boats and ships? I have no idea, and I ask that in the true spirit of inquiry. I hope someone has thought about that point. If we are to increase the number of boats on the river—as is desirable—we must ensure that the river does not become steadily dirtier from the extra boats using it. We also want to ensure that they do not emit fumes that are bad for wildlife.

A second aspect to which I hope the Minister will feel able to respond is that of safety. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, gave us a comprehensive account of the Clarke report and its various recommendations. He also mentioned the existing river services: the police and the London Fire Brigade. In terms of search and rescue, it is upon those two existing organisations that we ought to build the ability to deal with accidents. Those two organisations know the river well in all its intricacies and throughout its length.

However, can the Minister say whether the current situation with regard to the setting of safety standards is all that it should be? In view of the fact that the "Marchioness" inquiry will soon start, I hope that the Government will commit themselves to responding favourably to any recommendations that may come out of that inquiry in terms of standards of safety that should be maintained on the river.

This has been a fascinating debate and on a number of occasions reference has been made to the role of the mayor. I continue to regret that we failed to make the mayor responsible for a strategy for the River Thames. However, it is plain from today's debate that no matter what the Greater London Authority Act may say, the mayor will find herself or himself involved in the creation of such a strategy.

My Lords, first, I want to add my thanks to those of other noble Lords, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for initiating this diverse, amusing but also serious debate, thereby giving us the opportunity to return once again to the subject of the great river which runs so close by and yet never, to my mind, seems to be given the attention that it deserves.

I was grateful to my noble kinsman Lord St John of Bletso for reminding me that just a year ago I initiated a debate on this subject. Many things have changed but, like the Thames itself, many things are exactly the same, although I do not remember a helicopter flying overhead during that debate!

I was interested to hear that my noble friend Lady Wilcox has walked the length of the river path. One hundred and eighty-nine miles seems an awfully long way. If any noble Lord has recently taken a boat trip along the river, particularly down-stream, it must have become apparent rapidly what a hotchpotch there is on both banks, particularly the south bank. New buildings lie next to derelict buildings; there are new piers, old piers, refurbished piers, decrepit jetties, the Woolwich Arsenal, the Bankside Tate, the Globe, the Wheel, the Dome, the Barrier, new blocks of flats and the Canada Tower. The aspects of the banks of the river change almost as much as the river changes colour.

In those circumstances, a cohesive approach to riparian development is not really possible unless everything is pulled down and we start again from scratch: As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said, that does not mean that the new mayor should not have a close strategic look at the river. I hope that he or she will, although, like the noble Baroness, I believe it is a great pity that the Act does not suggest that.

As has been said by several noble Lords, the river should be used as much as possible, not least to take traffic off the roads. The most obvious example of that, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned, is the use of the river for waste disposal. Cory Environmental, to which I am grateful for information, has operated on the river, one way or another, for over 100 years. Currently that company transports over 600,000 tonnes of municipal waste per annum down the river to Mucking in Essex. It is marvellous, is it not, that waste should go to Mucking? That saves over 100,000 lorry journeys through London. One tug, towing four barges, takes the equivalent of 100 container lorries. Currently, Cory, as has been said, is looking for new sites for use from 2002 when Mucking will be full. Will the Minister look at the problems and perhaps persuade local authorities to be positive in helping to find suitable and, in terms of the overall strategy of moving waste on the river, vital new sites?

The other relatively new development on the commercial side, as has been mentioned, is the prospect of P & O joining with Shell UK to develop a possible new deepwater roll-on/roll-off facility for containers at the Shellhaven site in Essex. We heard about that from the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and from my noble friend Lady Wilcox. Provided the necessary dredging and other necessary activities are carried out, the Port of London could be capable of taking the same size container ships as Felixstowe, Thamesport and Southampton. That would reduce the millions of road miles that are presently covered transporting goods from coastal ports into the United Kingdom's largest market of London and the south-east.

As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and other noble Lords have said, there is continuing concern by tourism and leisure operators on the Thames about the attitude of London River Services towards them. However, this morning I received a fax from the Thames Passenger Services Federation, stating that it has perceived a greater level of understanding of its problems from the LRS in recent weeks and that it is most appreciative of the support that it has received from the Minister, Mr Hill, and from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Nevertheless, the federation still believes that much needs to be done and it wants LRS to focus even more closely on the needs of tourism. I understand that recently, the LRS has joined the London Tourist Board, so that organisation will be left in no doubt as to the priority of tourist concerns.

I ask the Minister to continue to give close attention to this matter, bearing in mind the vital part that tourism in London, and in particular on the Thames, plays in regard to the balance of payments. I believe that there is a good chance that twice as many tourists as at present visit the Thames (some 2 million) could be attracted and sustained, provided that the vital interests of the tourist industry are supported right down the line.

I am delighted, together with my noble kinsman Lord St John of Bletso, that more piers are being built and others refurbished in line with the intentions of my right honourable friend John Gummer in his report on the Thames three years ago. Nevertheless, I suggest that a new review may be necessary as there are not enough piers in the right places; that is, close to where there are bus stops by the Thames or within easy walking distance of appropriate Tube stations. Given that, the LRS should ensure close liaison with all transport bodies to establish transport up and down the river, which will benefit the travelling public without impinging on the tourist companies' activities. That will require understanding, co-operation and, above all, good will on all sides.

I return to my opening theme and repeat what I have said in your Lordships' House on so many occasions. The Thames is there almost, as it were, at our elbow—quiet, flowing and stress-free. I want to see much greater use of it by people. I want it to be safer, as I am sure we all do. In spite of the moon, Old Father Thames keeps rolling along, just do not let us forget it!

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate and I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for raising this subject. Not many noble Lords have as great an experience of the River Thames as the noble Lord; nevertheless, we have heard of those experiences and our hopes for the future for this great river.

I join other noble Lords in saying that the Thames has played an important role in my life. I cannot be quite as lyrical as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. I have lived in London most of my life and have worked out that I have actually lived in nine of the riparian boroughs under the present structure, most of the time within (admittedly ambitious) spitting distance of the river itself. When in London I still do. The river is an important part of all our lives.

I have lived at the same end of the river as the noble Lord, Lord Watson; on the other side of the river at Isleworth and, as a boy, have even swum in the river. I have seen the river get cleaner, dirtier and then cleaner again at that end. At its other end, I have lived in Greenwich and seen its industrial boom disappear in the early 1970s to be replaced by what is now the millennium peninsula and, we hope, a new era.

So the Thames changes all the time. The buildings beside the Thames change, as do its uses. It is one of London's greatest assets and perhaps, in recent decades, it has been under-used. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, I have seen the river busier as well as dirtier; I hope that we shall see it both busier and cleaner in the future.

The Government recognise the enormous potential of the river and its enormous importance to London. That is why, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, mentioned, John Prescott launched the Thames 2000 initiative. We are working in partnership with many other players to encourage the full use of the river as a transport artery for commercial and leisure purposes. That is why we gave such wide-ranging powers and duties to the new mayor of London to promote transport on the river. We referred to that in some detail during the debates on what became the Greater London Authority Act. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and others were right to say that the role of the mayor will be extremely important in this instance.

I am not sure whether I heard the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, aright when he suggested that the mayor might be a "headbanger"; but any of the announced candidates will have to address responsibly, strategically and comprehensively the role of the Thames in their plans.

The project, Thames 2000, consists essentially of three elements: first, the improvement of the infrastructure. As the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said, there are deficiencies in that regard. When I travel on or beside the Thames, it is a great pleasure for me to see progress being made on the building of the new piers and the contributions from the Millennium Commission, the Government through the Single Regeneration Budget, and the private sector amount to a total of £18 million going into piers. The new piers at the Tower, Blackfriars and at the London Eye are already in operation. We shall see new piers at Westminster and Millbank. Of course, in this House the reference to "creating new piers" is always slightly ambiguous, but the prospect of "upgrading old Peers" is even more alarming! However, we are engaged in upgrading the infrastructure and it is an important part of our approach to the regeneration of London.

It is not just London in the GLA sense; it is London more widely. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, indicated her interest not only in the upper reaches and tidal Thames, where she has walked, but also in the estuarial ports in her other capacity. We need to see the Thames as a whole in that respect.

In relation to river transport, in which the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, was particularly interested, we are indeed seeing the Millennium Dome as a powerful catalyst for a lasting legacy of improved river services. The first dedicated Dome river service began on 1st January and the legacy services will run in due time. Indeed, we already have one legacy service operating in embryonic form.

The role of London River Services in this debate and in the debate on the GLA Bill has been controversial. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of London Transport and has key responsibilities in this area. When the LRS goes to the mayor's Transport for London set-up next year, we shall see river travel as a fully functioning part of London's integrated transport system. The role of the LRS in relation to other operators and potential operators can be a delicate one. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Luke, indicated, although some of the anxieties expressed a few months ago have perhaps been ameliorated, they are not entirely absent and we need to make sure that the LRS works in conjunction with the other operators in developing new services and preserving the infrastructure. I have every confidence that the LRS is aware of the Government's views and that it takes a positive view towards development of tourism on the Thames. The undertakings which my colleagues Nick Raynsford and Keith Hill gave and the positive response from LRS confirmed its understanding of that position. I feel that we are now in a more healthy relationship with everybody concerned in that regard.

It is important that the LRS and others develop new services, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, said, and LRS is carrying out a systematic evaluation of all proposed service changes. We need to develop that evaluation. I can assure the noble Lords, Lord St John and Lord Luke, that consideration of the need to build up new services and to have regard to the effects on existing services are part of that assessment.

Inevitably, London River Services' decisions will not always meet with universal agreement. However, it has a role as the body which balances all the considerations. As such, it will play a major part in our developing integrated transport policy. But it is important that in this area we have innovation, new entrants and new uses of the Thames as both a tourist and a transport facility.

The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, spoke at length not only of the attractions of the Thames, but also of the nitty gritty in relation to developing infrastructure as well as fun on the Thames. We fully agree. The provision of new infrastructure by the Government and our partners in local authorities and in the private sector—the Millennium Commission and so forth—is a key part of our strategy and of Thames 2000 which the mayor will take on. As I said, we have already seen a significant increase in the number of pier and jetty infrastructures and the improvement of those already in being.

The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, also referred to the hopper-style service that helps to integrate transport on the Thames with other aspects of transport. The Central London Fast Ferry was introduced in the summer of last year as an experiment. It is intended that the full legacy services will come into play after this phase of the Dome is completed when all new piers will be open and boats will be diverted from the Dome service into other services. In the meantime, although the new timetable introduced last month is for the winter, it forms the basis for developing further services on the Thames.

Some noble Lords referred back to the halcyon days of the Tudor taxi service and the Riverbus. I, too, have a photograph of myself with my father on the Riverbus, which I believe dates back to 1950, or thereabouts. As several noble Lords said, there have been attempts to operate commercial services, which have not entirely worked. It is to be hoped that we are in a new era. The Thames 2000 services stand to benefit considerably from the new infrastructure work. We hope that the new competitive tenders that are coming in will mean that better services are available on the Thames.

It is sometimes suggested that there is contradiction between the tourist services and the transport services. We need to have a facility on the Thames that provides for both. Indeed, that will be one of the great responsibilities for the mayor and for Transport for London, in conjunction with other operators, in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, the mayor will need to be bold. He will also need to ensure that the transport facility of the Thames does not interfere or cross over too much with the tourist and the community use of the Thames.

A number of bold suggestions have been made during the course of today's debate, including proposals on how we should use the Millennium peninsula as a giant park-and-ride operation. The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Greenway, and others, made suggestions as to how we could use the Dome area. Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, the river is an important part of the setting of the Dome. We need to look at the way in which we can integrate the river, both in transport to and from the Dome, and in the setting of the Dome more generally. I understanding that the New Millennium Experience Company will take note of these matters, as well as what the noble Lord said.

There is something in the suggestion about a park-and-ride scheme. The New Millennium Experience Company looked at that particular proposition. However, it is not necessarily in the right place here in relation to park-and-ride schemes as regards keeping traffic out of London, because traffic will already have had to come through a fair amount of south-east London to reach the millennium peninsula. Nevertheless, there are possibilities in this area, especially as we develop new sites in the Thames Gateway further down-stream for another out-of-town park and ride. I am not at all sure whether the London Borough of Greenwich would be entirely in favour of what is proposed. However, there is some scope for using that site creatively.

Many points were raised during the debate, including the need not so much for river use, but for London's community to have access to the riverside. When I am in London over the weekend, I very much enjoy walking along the banks of the River Thames; indeed, I have done so all my life. It is very important that public access to the river is addressed in the development prospects for the Thames-side. That is why the environs need to be enhanced by the provision of facilities for walking and cycling both to and along the Thames.

The scheme of the Countryside Commission to create a continuous Thames path through London is pretty well advanced now. The Government's Strategic Planning Guidance for the River Thames requires that developments along the river frontage should incorporate a riverside walkway. These are shown as gaps in the Thames path proposals. That used to be the policy under the GLC, and it needs to be the policy again.

As regards cycling to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred, Sustrans and the local authorities in London are developing proposals to establish a full Thames cycle path to form part of the National Cycle Network. Again, we shall encourage and support that initiative. Access to the riverside for recreation and education is also important. The local authorities and the Port of London Authority are co-operating in that respect.

I turn now to the commercial aspect. Many speakers referred to the transport of waste and to use of the river for commercial purposes. The Government are fully committed to using the Thames, and other waterways where they can contribute, as a sustainable mode of transportation. Our current strategic planning guidance for the Thames, which the mayor will take on, requires local authorities to adopt policies to encourage freight transport on the river and to identify and protect suitable sites for loading and unloading freight. Clearly, the biggest area for that is Docklands and a number of very promising developments are taking place both there and elsewhere within the estuary of the Thames.

Allied to this, the Secretary of State has issued directions protecting 32 riverside wharf sites from the area beyond the Thames Barrier from redevelopment for other uses. Therefore, they could also be used for commercial or transport purposes. In the context of a strong development pressure, which inevitably exists on the Thames-side, that is to ensure that we keep those wharves to enable the transhipment of freight, including waste and aggregates. The transport of waste, in particular, is a major potential and actual use, as noble Lords have said. Indeed, some 20 per cent of London's waste is already transported by barge to disposal facilities down-stream.

As the noble Lord, Lord Luke, said, we need to consider those facilities most carefully. They save many thousands of heavy lorry movements per year. We are considering how we can develop that facility and we regret decisions that moved in the opposite direction. We also believe that there is a positive environment for using the river in the transportation of waste. That fits in very well with the role that we have given to the mayor. We hope that he will develop that strategy, as well as others, which will apply to Thames waste management. That will be pursued in relation to the Thames, as is the case elsewhere.

Several noble Lords said, "Well, if the mayor has to take on all these functions in relation to the Thames, why do we not have a separate strategy for the Thames?" Indeed, the mayor will be taking on the Thames 2000 initiative and other existing strategic guidance for the Thames. He also has the option of developing a comprehensive strategy for the Thames. However, we need to ensure that the Thames is an integrated part of our other strategies; for example, the spatial development strategy, and the general development strategy, as well as the waste and transport strategies. Therefore, we do not wish to block off the Thames from its central role in relation to those other strategies.

Whether we are talking about transport, tourism or, indeed, commercial use, safety on the Thames is most important. A number of references were made this afternoon to the inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Clarke, with its remit to look at safety standards on the river. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, the report made 44 recommendations—10 of which have already been implemented—all of which have, in principle, been accepted by the Government. Those recommendations should make a major contribution towards safety on the Thames and thereby ensure that tragedies like the "Marchioness" do not recur.

Further consultation was among those recommendations, including consultation on the consumption of alcohol on the Thames, which I am sure everyone recognises as being important in relation to passenger and commercial boats. However, we also recognise the wider issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred regarding the boating fraternity as a whole. So consultation is taking place on alcohol and boat use. The closing date for submissions is 31st March, if anyone is interested.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and other speakers, also referred to the question of which authority should take on the statutory responsibilities for search and rescue on the Thames. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, also mentioned that issue. We are looking into the matter. It seems that we need to consider this most seriously. Lord Justice Clarke recommended that we need to ensure adequate search and rescue facilities and suggested that the duty should fall to the Secretary of State. Clearly, the Secretary of State will need to delegate those powers. We are currently considering what is the appropriate body to which those powers could be delegated. Lord Justice Clarke favoured the PLA. We need to take a decision on whether that is appropriate. I cannot give a definitive response on that matter at this point, but we have it under active consideration.

This has been a fascinating debate. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in it. A whole range of aspects of London life have been covered. We have made substantial progress on the infrastructure; we are beginning to make progress on the services, and the stage is set for a boom in river services. I believe that London as a whole will benefit from that.

I am not sure that I have given an adequate response to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and the point about the moon. However, other noble Lords may feel that I have not adequately covered the points that they made. I shall read Hansard and write to them if that is the case. Again, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for initiating the debate.

My Lords, I am most grateful to all who have taken part in the debate and, indeed, to the Minister for his comprehensive response.

When I tabled this debate, I hoped that the wide knowledge of your Lordships would extend the debate somewhat beyond my slightly narrow confines of commerce and leisure, and I have not been disappointed. All contributors to the debate have touched on different areas of the Thames and have been most interesting. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for his witty and informative contribution.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, said that one cannot see the Thames when one emerges from the Jubilee Line at the Dome. I have always thought that most of the developers who operated along the Thames in the past have tended to turn their backs on the river, which to my mind has been a great shame. It is surprising how few restaurants along the Thames look on to the river.

When talking about the Dome, I did not mean to suggest that it should be flattened and made into a carpark. The Dome is an extraordinary building. I have no doubt that in time a suitable use will be found for it which will last for many years. The Dome could still be very much an integral part of what I proposed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked a question about emissions which I do not think that the Minister answered. The noble Baroness will be interested to hear that the International Maritime Organisation has done a lot of work into emissions from larger ships, but I am not certain how far that work has progressed with regard to smaller river craft, although I am sure that someone in Brussels has been doing something about that! However, when I look back, it strikes me that the old, smoky coal burners that used to run up and down the river in huge numbers did not have a huge effect on the birds on Rainham Marshes.

The Minister was supportive and, indeed, positive in most of his comments, which I welcome. It was a pleasure to see him at the London Boat Show last month. It is always pleasing to see Ministers take an interest in boating matters.

We shall no doubt return to safety issues. Safety is a weighty matter. No pun is intended when I say that Lord Justice Clarke's submissions are too heavy for me to have carried in this afternoon. Safety is important and deserves a separate debate at some stage. Once again, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who took part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Deafblindness defies the imagination of most of us. When I lost my hearing totally many years ago I could at least rely upon my sight. Similarly, David Blunkett presumably can rely upon his hearing. But to live in a world of total darkness and total silence must be a daily trial taxing the deepest of human courage and resources.

Even for those who are not totally deaf and totally blind, the dual handicap must pose a daunting challenge to everyday living. By any standards, deafblind people need all the help they can get. The sad and disgraceful fact is that this is precisely what they do not get.

My purpose in proposing this Bill is to end the hidden scandal of many thousands of deafblind people being denied the vital help they need. People with this devastating dual disability, requiring one-to-one support, are suffering neglect, isolation and loneliness.

The system of community care in this country is quite simply failing them. Some are virtual prisoners in their own homes. The simple things of life are denied them, such as getting fresh air and exercise, shopping, sorting their post, paying the hills and even visiting the doctor. The kind of things all of us take for granted are denied them. Most forms of entertainment are well out of reach. Yet, with skilled help, they could overcome many of these difficulties.

I pay tribute to Sense (the National Deafblind and Rubella Association), to Deafblind UK, and, especially, to Caroline Ellis, who have done splendid work. They conducted a survey which showed the extent of the neglect and the distress of deafblind people. It revealed an incredible picture. Out of Britain's 23,000 deafblind people, only one in eight receives a one-to-one service and four out of 10 receive no support whatever. The comments of the people surveyed vividly demonstrate the neglect and the low expectations. Problems roll onto more problems and are compounded and the deafblind sink lower and lower and do not expect anything better. This is the kind of vicious circle we have to break.

The comments of the people surveyed are a tremendously sad reflection on our welfare state. This sorry situation is due to three factors. First, deafblind people, because of their disabilities, do not assert themselves nor make demands. Secondly, and partly as a consequence of the first factor, most local authorities are ignorant of deafblindness. They lack the imagination to see it as a distinct disability requiring special provision. Thirdly, the Government have not placed clear statutory duties on local authorities requiring them to treat deafblind people as a distinct group. That is a matter which the Government must address. Not just this Government, but all previous governments, have failed in this respect.

A small number of local authorities have pioneered admirable schemes such as the Communicator Guide Services provided by Lincolnshire and Bradford social services. However, 80 per cent of local authorities do not provide those essential services. Can we imagine the regret that is felt at that? I repeat that 80 per cent of local authorities do not provide those essential services. Clearly there is a need for government action if we are to begin to help deafblind people.

Clause 1 of the Bill would amend the National Assistance Act 1948 so as to give legal recognition of deafblindness as a distinct disability. Clause 2 would amend the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 so as to require local authorities to identify and separately register deafblind people living in their area. Clause 3 would require local authorities to assess and specify the need for deafblind services in any assessment of a deafblind person's health and social needs. Clause 4 would amend the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 so that deafblind services must be provided by a local authority if the need has been assessed. This Bill will place clear new responsibilities on local authorities. Only with a Bill such as this will deafblind people living in their areas gain a better quality of life.

According to Sense, a quality service can be delivered to deafblind people for as little as £10 per hour per person. We should remember that the number of deafblind people is relatively small and that costs could be offset by ensuring that many more deafblind people apply for the independent living fund. Very few do so now. That is absurd; they are the very people who need the ILF. They do not apply for it precisely because they are unaware that they can claim it. Most of them have not been identified and properly assessed, which is one of the main recommendations of the Bill.

I am glad to say that the Government are aware of these problems. That encourages me to think that they will do something about them. I very much look forward to hearing my noble friend Lord Hunt when he responds to the debate. I am hopeful of a constructive response. On 20th July last year, the ever helpful noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in response to a question from me, stated that,

"local authorities should identify all the people who need their services. In particular, they should actively seek out and contact those such as deafblind people who may find it particularly difficult to access services that they greatly need".£[Official Report, 20/7/99; col. 863.]

My noble friend Lady Hollis also said, at col. 862:

"I agree that deafblind people need specialist help to access information, interact with others and improve their quality of life".

If that admirable attitude is reflected by the rest of the Government we shall certainly make progress on this scandalous situation. The distressing facts are now known; the problem is recognised. All that is required now is a commitment from the Government to implement the Bill.

I am well aware that the Government have a working group on disability living allowance for dual sensory impairments. I am well aware of suggestions for incorporating provisions on deafblindness into the national social service performance assessments framework. I am well aware of a suggested registration system for deafblind people and of suggested guidance for local authorities. But none of these would be an adequate response from the Government. They would be but helpful palliatives. I am sure that my noble friend will not rely on those inadequate responses.

To meet this truly dreadful neglect we need the legislative sanction which the Bill provides. Acceptance of the Bill will reflect well on the Government and transform the lives of thousands of our vulnerable and deprived citizens at a minimum cost. I hope that the Government will demonstrate their caring commitment and wholly accept the Bill. I beg to move.

My Lords, I welcome the Bill and I am delighted to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. He is well known, not only in this House but outside, for his work for and with disabled people. He is a doughty campaigner. The Government would be extremely wise to listen to him. He probably knows more about disability than all the government advisers put together.

I suspect that when the Minister responds to the debate he will say that the Bill is not necessary, that what it seeks to achieve is covered by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. But sometimes it is necessary to emphasise and to reinforce, and that is what the Bill seeks to do. It is a timely reminder to local authorities and to the Government that there is an urgent need—a need which should be looked at and dealt with properly.

Those who suffer from both blindness and total loss of hearing are sentenced to solitary confinement for life. If a perfectly able-bodied criminal were given such a sentence, it would be considered an inhuman punishment and quite over the top. We should bear that in mind. It is our duty in this House, and the duty of the Government, to make certain that that inhumanity is removed.

This is an increasing problem which is likely to become more apparent over the next 20 years or so. We have an increasing number of elderly people. As people become more elderly and live longer, they are very likely to suffer from various new and difficult afflictions. I have used a hearing aid for at least 25 years; I know that my hearing is deteriorating. The one thing I dread is losing my sight as well. That is also deteriorating; I now need glasses not only for driving but also for reading. If I take my glasses off, noble Lords across the Chamber—whose reactions I may wish to see—very often go out of focus.

This is something that we can, should and must deal with. The Disability Discrimination Act, which is only now coming into force, states that providers of goods and services must make reasonable adjustment. But that adjustment may be considered unreasonable and too expensive for those who are both blind and deaf and therefore may not—indeed, in some cases, does not—have to be made. That is something we should bear in mind.

We can overcome that situation for those who need help by making certain that local authorities provide them with deafblind interveners. That is essential. Interveners do not merely interpret what other people are saying or describe what is happening. If an intervener hands one a mug of coffee, he will not say merely, "Here is a mug of coffee"; he will say, "This is a mug. It is used for containing liquids. Be careful, it is hot; you could burn yourself." People who are deaf and blind cannot see what is going on around them and they need the most considerable help.

The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has said everything that needs to be said about the Bill. However, I have one question for the Government. As the Bill will no doubt—according to the conventions of the House—be given a Second Reading today, and as it has now been brought to the attention of the nation and of the Government, if something is not done, will we be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights? I should be grateful if the Minister can say whether or not that is the case.

I strongly support the Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government will also support it.

My Lords, for me this is a moment for, I trust, a forgivable lapse into nostalgia. It was 30 years ago that your Lordships' House gave a First Reading to my Private Member's Bill that became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. It is in that wide-ranging Act that the first ever legislation to address the very special needs of deafblind children, in this or any other country, is to be found. My good and noble friend Lord Ashley was not only one of the 12 MPs of all parties who supported me as signatories of the Bill: he worked in close rapport with me at every stage of my Bill's progress to the statute book and especially in relation to the new help it sought for people who are blind and deaf.

I know that my noble friend will, like me, recall with admiration today the constancy of the support our late colleague the honourable John Astor, then the Member of Parliament for Newbury, gave the Bill. He was a dear friend as well as a lifelong campaigner for measures to improve the status and well-being of disabled people and he is still deeply missed by everyone who had the privilege of campaigning with him.

The provision made in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act for deafblind children and young people is in Section 25. It places a duty on every local education authority to provide the Secretary of State—

"at such times as he may direct"—

with information on the provision made by the authority of special educational facilities for children who suffer the dual handicap of blindness and deafness. The section also makes it plain that the arrangements made by a local education authority for its special educational treatment of deafblind children and young people must be given in a school maintained or assisted by the authority.

It is said that much too little has been done by local education authorities to comply with Section 25, but the responsibility for non-compliance rests not only with them. As I have shown, Ministers were given a close involvement in implementing Section 25 and must share the responsibility for any failure to make satisfactory provision in any particular case.

In the debate on my draft clause on deafblind children and young people at the Committee stage of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill in another place on 26th January 1970, I put it to the Committee that it perhaps dealt with,

"the smallest minority of severely disabled people",

but it was, I emphasised, no less important for that.

By any standard, young people who are both blind and deaf have a cruelly devastating handicap and are eminently deserving of whatever new help this Bill can achieve. The Government's reaction to the Bill is eagerly awaited by Sense whose enormous efforts to make life better for people with the dual handicap are so widely acclaimed. I pay warm tribute again today to the outstanding service this exemplary charity gives to one of the most needful groups in Britain.

What concerns all the major disability organisations is that, much apart from stricter implementation of the law, local authorities now seem to be reducing rather than increasing the help they give. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill was, as I said at its enactment, about social inclusion for disabled people, not least for severely disabled children and young people. It was about making them a part of instead of apart from society; and it was the warmth of public backing for the Bill and the support it received from both sides of both Houses of Parliament that ensured its enactment.

Not only was the Bill emphatically approved by this House: it was also improved, not least by the unanimous insistence here, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, so perceptively and eloquently alluded, in the case of R. v. Gloucestershire Council, ex parte Michael Barry, that help for disabled people must in future depend not on where they live but strictly on the extent of individual need. That was Parliament's undoubted intention and anyone who thinks otherwise should read the parliamentary record. The misguided decision in the case of R. v. Gloucestershire Council, ex parte Michael Barry still rankles very deeply with all the organisations of and for disabled people.

At no time did party animus impede the Bill's progress. It delights me now to be able to acknowledge, 30 years on, the humane leadership your Lordships' House gave at what a French legislator was soon afterwards to describe as a moment critique for disabled people everywhere. Like the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill itself, the Bill we are debating here today is an all-party measure that is widely supported in all parts of the House. I hope the debate will, at the very least, secure higher priority for the compelling claims of those we seek to help.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke on his tireless efforts in bringing forward the Bill and on so clearly highlighting the appalling gap in our community care services. To be deafblind is one of the most isolating conditions in our society, as noble Lords have already eloquently stated. It can deprive one of the basic means of communicating with the people around oneself for any of the essential matters of daily life. Without support, not only does one lose the comfort of casual chat with family, friends and anyone one happens to meet, but one cannot move outside the confines of one's minutely known surroundings or have access to any of the information which is essential to take part in daily life.

But it is only our ignorance and indifference to the particular needs of deafblind people which allow such isolation to continue. With one-to-one support from a guide communicator, deafblind people can have someone to act as their eyes and ears, and those huge problems can be overcome. That is what the Bill would achieve and I urge noble Lords to support it.

It is estimated that one in 2,500 of the population are significantly deafblind. I conducted a rough survey of the six London boroughs surrounding my own to try to find out the state of current services. The number of people with a severe combined sight and hearing problem in those seven boroughs is approximately 590, yet none of those boroughs has even a specialist worker for the deafblind and none of them was aware of the numbers of deafblind people in their area. That is almost 600 people who have no access to the very services established to help them; no access to support from someone who understands their needs and who can communicate with them.

The response in each case was that the separate workers for the visually or hearing impaired—if such workers existed—would work with their particular impairment. That is totally unacceptable for some of the most vulnerable people in our society who need specialist support. The boroughs knew that that was unacceptable, but need the recognition and distinct duties placed on them by the Bill in order to be able to provide that.

What is required is what is set out in the Bill. Deafblind people need access to one-to-one support workers who are trained in the range of communication methods used by deafblind people. Those include hands-on signing. fingerspelling in the deafblind manual alphabet, and Braille, as well as lip-reading and clear speech. Given such support, deafblind people can regain control of their lives and re-enter mainstream society. It will enable them to do all the simple essential things in life, such as shop for food, go to the dentist, keep in touch with friends, and sort the deluge of paper that comes through our letter boxes each day.

It is our ability to do these things which maintains our self-esteem, keeps us mentally healthy, and saves us from depression and grinding isolation. To quote one of the deafblind people who are pressing for the Bill:

"I am currently depressed and isolated. I feel the days are long and lonely and I am trapped in my house. Being able to go out and meet people or experience the outside world. I would think there was some reason to go on".

Deafblind UK was set up in 1928 by a tiny group of deafblind people who came together to offer each other support and understanding in the face of conditions they found "unjustifiably cruel and hard". Today its membership testifies to the fact that those conditions have hardly changed—still, hundreds of deafblind people are living alone, with nobody to help them to get out safely or to enable them to communicate; even to access the services which are set up to help them.

By ensuring that local authorities are given the statutory duty to seek out and assess the needs of the deafblind people in their area and, most essentially, to provide them with one-to-one link services, the Deafblind Persons Bill will end this isolation. I urge noble Lords to support it.

My Lords, I have found the idea of being deafblind one of the most difficult to comprehend for the simple reason that it sounds like a living hell to be denied the normal forms of access to stimulation. We are told that man as an animal dominates the planet because of his ability to co-operate with his fellows. That is always done through either the visual medium or sound. If those are removed, we are unable socially to interact or to go through the process that is now going on in the Chamber. If there are no other forms of communication to replace them, that which makes people human is removed from them.

We can do something about it by providing people to act as an interface. If we put it in those terms, the subject we are addressing should not be referred to the Department of Health or to the Department of Social Security. It is a basic civil right. When we deal with disability, we often forget that. We find ourselves being pushed off into departments which deal with certain aspects of it. Those in the House who deal with disability find themselves speaking to many different Ministers. But this is an issue of civil rights and enabling people to become part of society. The Bill offers the clearest example of where we should be doing something to enable people to become full human beings.

I have a suspicion that the Minister will tell us that virtually everything in the Bill is covered by existing legislation and that therefore the Bill is not needed. However, the Bill has not been brought forward merely to flag up an issue. It addresses a real problem. The statistics with regard to people not getting access to this service speak for themselves. The Bill is about enabling people to become proper and full human beings so that they can interact with their fellows. If that is not happening, there is a problem. If the Bill is not properly drafted to achieve that, we should try to do something else in Parliament. The Government should ensure that local authorities address the problem under existing legislation. It is Parliament's job to make sure that there is legal enforcement of Acts of Parliament. If that means an extra piece of paper, let us have an extra piece of paper. That is what we are about today.

After the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, opened the gates on the problem, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, started this unanimous and forceful drive towards solving it. There is no real dispute among us. There is a problem here which is not being dealt with. When the Minister replies to the debate, he must tell us how he is going to deal with the matter. He should also let us know whether he needs encouragement and help in order to put pressure on his governmental colleagues. I am quite sure that we in this Chamber will be able to provide it. Is not that the way we have always done this? Every time we want to have something changed we keep on talking about it, and the Government either give and open the door or we push them through it. That is the way things happen. No government are keen to be defeated in this House on such an issue, but they frequently are, often because they do not move fast enough for us and often for very good reasons. But we do have to keep on pushing.

We should welcome the Bill, discuss it fully and make sure that it is the best vehicle possible. We should make sure that we get the answers from the Government and then see what happens. Just passing a piece of legislation is not good enough. It has not worked in the past. I hope that we shall start a process in which we shall be able to achieve results more quickly than has been the case in the many other battles we have had in the general area of disability.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has set out clearly the purpose of the Bill. We on these Benches support its introduction. Indeed, there has been complete agreement on this point in all corners of the House.

I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for introducing the Bill and to the work of Sense and Deafblind UK which have inspired it. All noble Lords have spoken with great authority and experience. My noble friend Lord Swinfen has worked hard for many years and has won a number of battles on behalf of the disabled. I always listen with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, the architect of the 1970 Act. He said that he worked closely and successfully in the other place with my uncle on behalf of the disabled. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has a background of working with the disabled. I agree with her that deafblindness is one of the most isolating conditions in our society. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has been his party's spokesman on disability since 1994. I, too, visualise deafblindness as a living hell.

It must be right to rescue the thousands of deafblind people from isolation and exclusion, particularly those who have had severe congenital audio-visual impairment since birth or early childhood. We accept that, without sight or sound, they need one-to-one assistance from skilled helpers. At present, they do not receive that help. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned that only one in eight receive adequate support, and many are virtual prisoners in their own homes. The noble Lord also mentioned that current government legislation places no statutory duties on local authorities requiring them to treat deafblind people as a distinct group requiring special provision.

The Disability Discrimination Act requires service providers to make "reasonable adjustments" so that disabled people can be treated on a par with the non-disabled. However, there is a danger that the acute needs of a deafblind person may not be regarded as "reasonable" by the service provider on grounds of cost or inconvenience in providing dedicated and trained assistance in assessing the service. There is also a danger that, faced with the potential threat of court action, a service provider may direct resources to benefit the larger number of disabled people who face less acute barriers in assessing the service, but who may be deemed more likely to undertake court action compared to deafblind people.

The Bill would impose a duty on local authorities to compile a register of deafblind persons in their area. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said that most local authorities are ignorant of deafblindness; I agree with him. Perhaps I may ask him: how is a local authority supposed to set about the task of finding deafblind people, and how will it keep the list up to date? I accept that local authorities could cross-reference the blind registers, but I understand that there is no obligation on them to keep a deaf register.

Sense and Deafblind UK state in their briefing that the cost implications are minimal and could be met creatively. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned a figure of £10 an hour per person. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would go into a little more detail on that point.

Finally, the Bill does not specify any penalty for local authorities failing to comply with that requirement. What is to stop an authority simply ignoring the Bill?

The Government are aware of the problem. The number of deafblind people is relatively small in relation to the overall population. Dual sensory loss can bring devastating social and emotional consequences. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply, and I hope that he will bring the House some good news.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate. I warmly congratulate my noble friend on his initiative. He has been a longstanding champion for deaf people in particular and for disabled people in general in this country. He is a doughty fighter and a determined campaigner. He is absolutely right to bring to our attention the needs and challenges facing deafblind people.

The debate has been extremely moving. Every noble Lord who has spoken has brought a wealth of experience and understanding to our deliberations. In saying that, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. My noble friend Lady Wilkins spoke movingly of the challenges and difficulties faced by people with a severe degree of combined visual and auditory impairment. It is very hard for any of us who have a full range of senses truly to appreciate the impact of that condition. In an age when it is so easy to communicate with those on the other side of the world, one can only imagine the frustration of not being able to communicate with those on either side of us. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made that point so well.

Deafblind people often have needs which are quite different from those of people who, while having one impaired sense, are still able to rely on another in compensation for that loss. I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Ashley that it is important for local authorities to identify that group of people, to assess their needs, and to provide services that address the problems of communication, information and mobility.

The Government fully recognise that there are shortcomings in the system as it has operated. Not all deafblind people are identified, and we need to look critically at the services which are currently provided for those who are identified.

There are a number of reasons why we believe that this Bill would not lead to the improvements which my noble friend Lord Ashley seeks. To a certain extent, the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington, have anticipated my response. I accept their challenge to me to show how current shortcomings can be overcome and how the performance of local authorities can be sharpened up. It was a point made by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester, who piloted the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act which provided the basis for the enactment of legislation which, in turn, led the way to asserting the rights of disabled people. As he pointed out, it was the first legislation which made specific mention of children born deafblind. I shall return later to the issue of local authority performance. I believe that this is the crucial part of our debate.

I should like now to make some technical comments on the Bill. My noble friend Lord Ashley has described the devastating dual disability of deafblindness. It is very important to be clear exactly which group of people is most vulnerable. I believe that the definition in Clause 5 goes beyond that. The Deafblind Services Liaison Group, which is formed of the RNIB, the RNID, Sense, and Deafblind UK—I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the tremendous work of those organisations over the years—has defined a person as "deatblind" if he or she has a severe degree of combined visual and auditory impairment resulting in problems of communication, information and mobility. I believe that that definition, which is used by local authorities and the Social Services Inspectorate, describes the people of whom my noble friend Lord Ashley has spoken and those to whom we need to give our attention.

Clause 1 would include specific mention of deafblind people among those covered by the provisions of Section 29(1) of the National Assistance Act 1948. This is not, however, necessary, as the group of people I have just described already falls within the scope of Section 29 of the Act, in that they are substantially and permanently disabled.

The second clause of the Bill would put local authorities under a duty to inform themselves of the number of deafblind people in their area and to maintain a register of those people. I agree that it is very important for authorities to identify deafblind people, but they already have a duty under Section 1(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to inform themselves of the number of persons in their area to whom Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 applies. As I have said, deatblind people fall within the scope of Section 29.

Although there is no requirement in primary legislation to maintain registers of people to whom Section 29 applies, in England the Secretary of State for Health has issued a direction to authorities to compile and maintain registers. Guidance has suggested that authorities may find it helpful to have separate sections for certain categories, such as those who are blind, partially sighted, deaf with speech, deaf without speech, and hard of hearing. Indeed, some authorities currently compile registers of those who are deafblind. But it is important to remember that a person does not have to be registered with an authority in order to receive assessment or service provision. Many who are registrable receive services but choose not to be registered. My department estimates that only 25 per cent of those who could register as blind or partially sighted choose to do so, with an even lower percentage of those who are deaf or hard of hearing seeing any advantage in registration.

Clause 3 would require an authority undertaking an assessment to specify the need for deafblind link services, and to require it, in consultation with a deafblind person, to make arrangements to provide those services. We agree that we need to raise awareness of the particular needs of deafblind people and that authorities should consider provision of deafblind link services when preparing care packages, but there is no question about the ability of local authorities to do that now if they so decide. The Government believe that authorities need to retain discretion to decide on an individual basis what service can best be arranged to meet the needs of the disabled people they assess. Having said that, I recognise that that must be linked to the performance of local authorities, and I shall return to that point in a short while.

Clause 4 would specify the provision of deafblind link services in Section 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. This section currently includes the provision of practical assistance in the home; recreational facilities within or outside the home; meals; telephones with special equipment; the facilitation of travel and the taking of holidays, all of which come within the deafblind link services as defined in the Bill.

It is my understanding that local authorities do not see Section 2(1) as an exhaustive list of services or equipment which may be provided for deafblind people or those with other disabilities; nor would we want them to do so. Authorities are, in fact, encouraged to put together innovative packages of care—as best suited to each individual client.

It is for those reasons that the Government are not able to support the Bill. However, I assure noble Lords that we are not complacent. As I have said already, it is clear that we have to do better. There are a number of initiatives under way which seek in the first place to improve service provision to all disabled people, including those who are deafblind. The long-term care charter, Better care, higher standards, was published in December following discussions with users, carers, front-line staff, professional bodies and statutory organisations. Local authorities will implement the charter from the end of June 2000 through local charters that will describe what people can expect if they need care or support from their local health, housing or social services over the long term, and what to do if things go wrong.

The local charters will include standards for access to information and to services, along with targets for improvement. Local charters will be developed with full involvement by users of services with the aim of ensuring that the needs of users are properly understood by service providers and that standards are set for issues which are important to users.

Guidance is currently being developed on fair access to care, setting out the principles that authorities should follow when devising and applying eligibility criteria for social care services for adults. Not only will implementation of this guidance bring about more consistent eligibility criteria within and between local authorities, it will require authorities to review, and to improve their arrangements for reviewing, the needs and services of people in receipt of social care support.

The majority of people with dual sensory impairments are elderly. The National Service Framework for Older People, due to be published in the autumn, aims to improve quality, consistency and fairness in the services provided to older people. The latest National Priorities Guidance, in setting out the priorities for the NHS and social services for the next two years, includes the provision of fast and convenient services and improved care, support and independence for older people.

We have recognised the importance of allowing people to make their own decisions about how their social care should be delivered. Direct payments are giving new freedom and independence to people with disabilities, and have already been taken up by a few of the younger deafblind people, many of whom are choosing to purchase deafblind link services. We shall now expect to see older deafblind people taking advantage of direct payment schemes as direct payments can now be made available to those over 65.

Deafblind people should also be benefiting from new grants aimed at promoting independence. The prevention grant and the partnership grant are very much part of that. The prevention grant of £100 million over three years provides local authorities with the opportunity to develop preventive services aimed at helping people to achieve and to maintain independence including deafblind people.

The partnership grant, which is a special grant of £647 million over three years, provides for additional services as thought fit by local authorities in co-operation with NHS bodies, promoting the independence of adults assessed as needing social care support, respecting their dignity and furthering their social and economic participation. Deafblind link services and other schemes to help deafblind people clearly come within the scope of those grants. These form a number of other general initiatives which should be available to deafblind people.

Of course, I fully accept that there is a need to focus specifically on the needs of deafblind people. We need first—I am convinced of this, having listened to the debate—to remove, as my noble friend Lord Ashley said, the ignorance of deafblindness among so many authorities. This is an issue which my department has been addressing; for example, through the publication of Think dual sensory, our 1997 guidance on services for older people with dual sensory loss. Last year my honourable friend the Minister for Health, John Hutton, launched a video, Making sense, which is intended to provide senior managers and social services with a better understanding of what services should be available for people with sensory impairment. It includes a section specifically on deafblindness which shows the valuable role which communicator guides can play.

The Department of Health is funding a three-year Deafblind UK project, which is establishing a network of regional deafblind development workers. They will have an extremely important role in assisting local authorities to develop better services for deafblind people. Deafblind UK has also been funded to produce a handbook on deafblindness.

In addition, the department is also providing support for the production of best practice standards being written by Sense and intended to be available later this year to all those providing services to deafblind people.

It is clear that providing guidance is not the end of the process. In answer to my noble friend Lord Morris, we have to monitor the progress local authorities are making in providing services to deafblind people and other groups for whom they are responsible. Noble Lords will know of the more vigorous approach which the Government are taking in assessing the performance of local authorities and their social services departments through developing the performance assessment framework, through the use of performance indicators, through inspection, through joint reviews and in-year monitoring and, more generally, in relation to the beefed-up role of the social services inspectorate.

Although there are no current indicators specifically on deafblindness, we are working to develop the indicator set further and we will shortly be launching a discussion data base on our website to allow all stakeholders, including Deafblind UK and Sense, to register their comments.

These views will be considered by a development group involving the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Local Government Association, the Audit Commission and local authority information managers and fed into the development process in relation to performance indicators. In addition, under best value, local authorities will be required to carry out reviews of all their services over a five-year period. I believe that this will raise the relevance and the importance of services for deafblind people.

The department is also taking some specific measures in relation to services for deafblind people. I shall turn to that in a moment, but perhaps I may now respond to a number of points which were put to me during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked whether we would be in breach of the ECHR. I understand that the current legislative framework provides local authorities with powers to make available the kind of services he described and therefore it should not be an issue. However, I shall reflect on that matter and write to him.

My noble friend Lord Morris suggested that too little has been done to ensure the implementation of Section 25 of the 1970 Act. The Government recognise the importance of meeting the needs of disabled children and families. Our objectives for children's social services set clear the expectations for local authority provision and we are monitoring them through our Quality Protects programme.

My noble friend Lord Morris also raised the issue of the Gloucestershire judgment given by the House of Lords in March 1997. It confirmed that authorities can take their own resources into account in deciding what services to arrange for disabled people under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about that. In a circular issued in November 1997, the department reminded authorities of their duty under the Act. That made it clear that the Gloucestershire judgment does not give local authorities a licence to make arbitrary decisions on the basis of resources alone. It also emphasises that the judgment does not mean that authorities are not under any duty towards disabled people.

My noble friend Lord Ashley referred to the current working group in relation to the disability living allowance. Following recommendations from the Social Security Select Committee, a working group of the former Disability Forum was set up in July 1998 to consider possible options for change within the scheme. The key aim is that thresholds should be more transparent, leading to easier entitlement decisions with greater consistency which would be easier for disabled people to understand. The working group is working towards a system based on the activities involved in managing life. The case study work on various models has recently concluded and it produced results sufficiently promising to allow further testing, with some adjustments, involving the live assessment of volunteers.

My noble friend also referred to the deafblind working group. Perhaps it would help if I set out the terms of reference for that group. These are to consider the identified barriers that exist for deafblind people in obtaining entitlement to benefits, in particular the disability living allowance; to make proposals that assist in overcoming such barriers; improving service delivery of DLA to the deafblind and training Benefits Agency staff in deafblind awareness. Both of these working groups include representatives of and for disabled people.

My noble friend Lady Wilkins referred to the six boroughs in which 590 deafblind people had no specialist workers. We acknowledge the need to identify those who require services. For that reason, we are about to embark on a consultation with deafblind service users—Deafblind UK, Sense, local authorities and the Local Government Association. The aim will be to address a number of specific measures that have been discussed today in an attempt to better establish the numbers of deafblind people who require services; to look at ways in which deafblind people are currently identified by authorities and how those mechanisms might be strengthened; to look at alternative systems of identification—what works and what works best; to look at existing systems of registration, whether they work, how authorities might use them and how we might improve the situation; to look at the current level of specialist assessment and review carried out by authorities; and to map existing services.

The expectation is that the results of the consultation will be available, at least in a preliminary sense, by the autumn. In the light of those findings, the Government will then decide how best to move forward in these areas. We will also ensure that the views of those being consulted will inform other ongoing work within the Department of Health, not only the performance assessment framework, to which I have already referred, but also in terms of the wider role of the department over the entire health and social care spectrum.

In conclusion, perhaps I may say that we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Ashley for introducing this Bill to the House today. It is unacceptable that deafblind people should face isolation because they are not able to access social services. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are taking action to address this and, as I have outlined, will continue to work to ensure that all people in need of social services, no matter what their disability and no matter where they live, will have access to those services and will be able to live safely and as independently as possible.

My Lords, it is traditional to thank all those who have taken part in a debate. However, today has proved to be an exceptional occasion. The depth of feeling expressed by all those who have contributed has been most striking and also rewarding. What noble Lords have said will give heart to the people we have been discussing—deafblind people. I found the debate very interesting, and while I want to avoid using the word, "moving", the experience has been far more important than that of a normal debate in terms of discussing such real issues, in particular because so many thousands are neglected, ignored and have been given little or no help. That is why the Bill has been brought forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, put three questions to me. The first concerned how local authorities could find deafblind people living in their area. This is a difficult problem because deafblind people simply do not make themselves known, owing to the nature of their disability. However, Sense has stated that there are several guidelines and codes of good practice which indicate how to find and categorise information that includes deafblind people. I hope that local authorities will be able to show a degree of imagination. They can use the press, radio, television and posters. As politicians, we all know how to get in contact with the public when we want votes. Why cannot we do that when we are trying to help people? I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of local authorities to locate every single deafblind person. It should be possible to identify them. When we were seeking votes in the House of Commons, we would find "Joe Bloggs" or "Maggie Farnsbarns" and make sure that they voted on a certain day. Why can we not identify the people who need help, obtain their names and addresses, send in the information and act upon it?

I am almost inclined to call the noble Lord, Lord Astor "my noble friend" because, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned, his uncle, Lord Astor, and I together founded the All-Party Disablement Group. We were very close friends and worked together—I as chairman and John as secretary—for many years before he died. However, in accordance with the conventions of the House, I must still call him "the noble Lord". The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked me how those services will be funded. The funding can be made available in many ways. First, when my noble friend Lord Hunt eventually agrees with the Bill, I expect that he will find more funding. He will go to see Gordon Brown and twist his arm.

The noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches mentioned that one can always rely on Members of this House to buttress the cries when one is trying to persuade the Government to find money for disabled people. We shall help my noble friend as much as we can. However, funding can also be made in partnership with voluntary organisations and European money may also be available. Therefore, I am hopeful that that is the best way of dealing with it.

Thirdly, the question of penalties was raised. How to deal with those recalcitrant local authorities presents a real problem. My reaction is to hit them and hit them as hard as possible if they neglect disabled people, and especially if they neglect deafblind people. That is my instinctive reaction and I am sure that it is the right one. People can ask for a judicial review, and that is one way of dealing with the matter. However, my answer to the noble Lord is that I shall consider and take advice on the best means of enforcing the provisions of the Bill.

I turn now to the Minister. My noble friend Lord Hunt is a good speaker. However, for the first part of his response he sounded like a pedantic civil servant, explaining why we cannot do this or that, and so on. If everything is so marvellous, if there are so many provisions on the statute book with so much detail and if local authorities have so many obligations, why are so many thousands of deafblind people neglected? Why are local authorities failing deafblind people? If the legislation exists, what is wrong? Sense and Deafblind UK have provided the evidence. They have provided a shocking list of disregard and neglect of people who are in total silence and total darkness, left virtually as prisoners in their own homes. It is a shocking tale of neglect. Yet, the Minister tells us that all is fine, or so he did in the first part of his speech.

I can understand him trying to explain it, but I am afraid that, although he said that the Government are not complacent, they sounded complacent until he came to the second part of his speech. At that point, he began to give me hope. However, it seems that the Government are prepared to rely on the guidance to local authorities. But there are so many foxy, intransigent local authorities. Why should they bother with guidance? The Minister said that there is an Act of Parliament which compels them to do something. But they are ignoring that Act of Parliament. In that case, why should they take any notice of the guidance? Why should they bother with mere guidance from a Minister? They will brush that aside if it costs them money. Therefore, I do not say that we do not want the guidance, but I am saying that it is not enough.

My noble friend then referred to consultation. So he is not complacent; he wants to do something. I accept that in good faith. Consultation with deafblind people and the other organisations which he mentioned will be a very valuable step forward. It is greatly appreciated. If the Minister can persuade the Civil Service, the Government, the various organisations, deafblind people and Sense and Deafblind UK to work together and produce, as he said, a report in the autumn, we shall have made good progress.

That is good. It is more than any previous government have done, and I warmly congratulate my noble friends on that. In the end, we must ensure that something is done. This Bill will not be accepted this week, but I believe that it will eventually be accepted.

I again thank all those who have taken part in the debate and I thank my noble friend the Minister for his limited advance. I hope that this Bill will pass through the various other stages and add to the pressure on the Government. I commend the Bill to the House.