If he will make a statement on the incidence of punishment beatings in Northern Ireland. [125476]

From 1 January to 11 June this year there were 111 paramilitary-style attacks, comprising 54 shootings, with 33 by loyalists and 21 by republicans; and 57 assaults, with 33 by loyalists and 24 by republicans. The Government condemn without reservation the activities of those on both sides who plan, carry out and attempt to justify these barbaric attacks. We call on all political leaders to use their influence to bring these attacks to an end now.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time we stopped calling the attacks punishment beatings and started calling them illegal paramilitary acts, underlining the fact that, now that we have democracy in Northern Ireland, we should also have the rule of law and demilitarisation? In that vein, we should be asking the groups' representatives to stamp out their use of violence. We should make it quite clear to the UFF that it should not threaten citizens with shootings for acts of vandalism as it has done in the past few days.

I echo my hon. Friend's sentiments. The fact is that politics is now working in Northern Ireland and there is no excuse for anyone to turn away from politics to the violence of the past. My message to those who think that they can go around threatening violence or stirring up trouble—particularly as we enter the marching season—and get away with it is simple: they will not get away with it.

Since the Secretary of State has been paying careful attention to statistics, he will be well aware that the evidence and the statistics show that the terrorist organisations have been able to switch the level of their terrorist mutilations on and off at will over the past two or three years. Is he further aware that those are simply a means of these people imposing their will on their respective communities and trying to introduce mafia rule throughout Northern Ireland? Intelligence reports show that they are trying to extend their influence beyond the major conurbations and into the towns and villages of Northern Ireland. What intelligence reports, rather than evidence, does he have that Mr. McCoy was murdered by the IRA?

I am not going to comment on a particular case about which I have no evidence. I of course condemn the cold-blooded murder of Edmund McCoy. It is not yet clear who is responsible. The Chief Constable has said that he retains an open mind. The police investigation continues, but if it becomes clear that the Provisional IRA was responsible, that will have a direct impact on my assessment of the state of its ceasefire.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the full implementation of the Patten proposals through the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill should further undermine what little legitimacy these vigilantes can claim as local peacekeepers and law enforcers, and that the two symptoms of that happening would be, first, the reduction of paramilitary beatings and, secondly, the elimination of paramilitary flags, which are often used to mark out an area of assumed control by paramilitaries on both sides?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are making a fresh start, a new beginning, in policing in Northern Ireland. That is what the Patten report and the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which is in Committee, are all about. If we successfully introduce those reforms, it will make a positive contribution to the new political dispensation that we want in Northern Ireland, in which violence should, must and will play absolutely no part whatever.

I think that we should stop, now, calling these attacks punishment beatings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) suggested. Of the criminal assaults committed by loyalists, how many can be laid at the doorstep of the Ulster Defence Association? What is my right hon. Friend's reaction to the latest threat by spokesmen of the UDA to sever the ceasefire? Are we now looking forward to a dissident or Continuity UDA, or is a dissident within the UDA making this threat?

I do not want to speculate about the genesis of yesterday's statement, except to say that, disturbing as it was, the response to it was very encouraging indeed. It was condemned right across the political spectrum, from loyalism to republicanism, as well as by the mainstream parties. I believe that Northern Ireland political opinion was united in the view that threatening violence is simply unacceptable in today's society. I think that we should draw encouragement, therefore, from the comprehensive condemnation of that statement. They should draw the obvious conclusion that that type of threat will not be tolerated by any part of Northern Ireland's society any more.

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is still an utterly unacceptable level of beatings by paramilitaries? Will he say that those beatings in themselves constitute a breach of the ceasefire? Will he confirm that, in as much as the beatings have been carried out by the so-called Ulster Freedom Fighters, that will influence his policy on prisoner release?

I will certainly confirm that. I keep all the ceasefires under constant review. If I receive any evidence whatsoever that the ceasefires are being breached by any of the paramilitary organisations, it will lead directly, when the time comes in the next few weeks, to my assessment on the further planned prisoner releases which may take place. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I take those actions and threats and any breach of the ceasefires very seriously indeed. I will draw the appropriate conclusions, and I will take the appropriate action.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that it is his limited definition of what constitutes a breach of ceasefire—namely, attacks on military or security personnel, economic targets or members of the opposing community—that is feeding and encouraging those beatings, which are not seen by those who perpetrate them as falling within the Secretary of State's definition of a breach of the ceasefire?

I do not accept that for one moment. I have left all the paramilitary organisations in no doubt whatsoever about how I will interpret the ceasefires and their maintenance, how I will assess whether there is a breach of those ceasefires, and what conclusions I will draw. I have made public statements; I have made private statements. They are in no doubt at all about the consequences that will flow for further prisoner releases if there is any breach of the ceasefires.

What estimate he has made of the number of people who have joined Continuity IRA and the Real IRA since 1998. [125477]

Only broad judgments on such matters can be made based on intelligence information. However, whoever those people are, and however many of them there are, the security forces remain vigilant and able to combat their threat. Both of the Governments and the people of Ireland, north and south, are united as never before against those groups and their evil activities.

I thank the Minister for his answer. What estimate has he made of the number of prisoners who have been released early but have joined either Continuity or Real IRA? Does he believe that any of those early-release prisoners might have been involved in the recent Hillsborough bombing or the bombing at Hammersmith bridge, in London?

Obviously, we never share intelligence information on such matters across the Dispatch Box. I would, therefore, never speculate on those particular estimates. Any released prisoner is subject to licence conditions. To date, only one of the more than 300 prisoners who have been released has been in breach of that licence and has been returned to prison. We have made it very clear that any breach of the licence as provided in law will be viewed very severely and treated appropriately, as we have shown in the past.

Given yesterday's statement by the West Belfast UFF and the continuing activities of groups such as Continuity and Real IRA, will the Minister assure the House that paramilitaries in either community who refuse to renounce violence and killing will be pursued vigorously?

I can give that absolute assurance, as I did in my earlier comments. The security forces at all levels remain highly vigilant against the activities of those groups. We need the co-operation, however, of the wider community in bringing them to justice. I again make the plea that anyone who has evidence on the activities of those individuals or on the groups of which they are members should bring that information to the security forces, so that we can bring them to justice.

What evidence have the Government that those two organisations—the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA—may be coming together and acting together in operations as one? What representations are being made to the Government of the Republic of Ireland to take drastic action to prevent those two organisations from expanding further?

I think that everyone aware of the level of those groups' activity in Northern Ireland will know that the level of co-operation between the security forces north and south of the border has never been higher as they try to bring those responsible to justice. Every effort will be made in that regard, but we do not hide the fact that the dissident groups pose a very potent threat. The solution does not lie only with the security forces. It is down to everyone, north and south, to condemn those groups unreservedly and, if they have evidence, to help the security forces and the justice system to bring them to justice.

When he expects to receive a further report from General de Chastelain. [125478]

What assessment he has made of when progress will be made on arms decommissioning. [125479]

The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning is responsible for supervising progress on putting paramilitary arms completely and verifiably beyond use. It is a matter for General de Chastelain to decide when it is appropriate to provide a report. In the first instance, that will depend on when the two independent arms inspectors, Mr. Ramaphosa and Mr. Ahtisaari, report their findings to the commission.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Sinn Fein said on Monday that it wanted all commitments made by the IRA to be fulfilled. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the sooner the independent weapons monitors can visit the IRA arms dumps, the more firmly entrenched the peace process will become?

Yes, I do. Building confidence across the community in Northern Ireland depends on measures such as the one to which my hon. Friend referred. I hope that Mr. Ramaphosa and Mr. Ahtisaari will be able to begin their inspection shortly. It is, of course, a matter for them to take forward. However, when they do, I am confident that they will be able to report progress to the decommissioning body. I look forward to that happening without much further delay.

Is it not the case that paramilitaries are still carrying out punishment beatings, maimings and killings, and that they continue to run protection rackets? Is it not therefore an absolute precursor to the Belfast agreement that quantifiable and verifiable arms decommissioning should take place before the agreement can be fulfilled?

Yes, I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, the difference is that we have moved on from talking about the arms issues to getting a process of decommissioning under way. The Provisional IRA has made a clear and unequivocal commitment to put arms completely and verifiably beyond use. We have never had such a statement from the IRA before. That is what the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 requires, and I look forward to action being taken to fulfil that commitment without further or undue delay.

Martin McGuinness made the statement on Monday that all commitments by the IRA should be fulfilled. Does not my right hon. Friend interpret that as a very encouraging sign that all parties are now fully committed to the peace process? Should we not celebrate that progress, and make sure that the peace process is fully in place?

Yes, I strongly echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. This is the first Question Time to be held since the new institutions in Northern Ireland, the Executive and the Assembly, were restarted, and I know that all hon. Members will applaud the resumption of their work. Of course difficulties remain, but the difference now is that we have a political process, within which we can deal with the differences that remain in Northern Ireland. That process may creak and strain a bit as we try to digest a particular problem here or there, but the important thing is that we have a process within which politics can work and the difficulties can be resolved. That process should continue to enjoy the full commitment of all those parties and organisations in Northern Ireland who believe in a democratic and peaceful way forward for that society.

Does the Secretary of State share and understand the frustration of Unionists in Northern Ireland who know that if they publicly press the IRA to fulfil its commitments—not just those made in May, but those made over a period of two years—the reaction will be that, somehow, we are pressuring the IRA? General de Chastelain shares that frustration in terms of any statement that he may make to encourage disarmament by paramilitaries. If he says anything, he will be deemed to have lost the confidence of those organisations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] I always worry that some of the Secretary of State's colleagues are not very keen to hear criticism of the IRA—[Interruption.]

Order. The House is waiting for a question from the hon. Gentleman.

My question is whether, in terms of the Belfast agreement, it is obligatory for the Irish Government and our Government to work together consistently to ensure that promises are fulfilled. The Irish Government advise Unionists. Why do they not put pressure on the IRA?

There is within the hon. Gentleman's words an extremely sound point. It is this: on the one hand we do not want to start issuing deadlines and ultimatums and appear to be seeking to impose undue public pressure on people to fulfil the undertakings that they have made for fear that that would have a counter-effect. On the other hand, the public and all the political parties in Northern Ireland want to maintain the pressure on everyone to fulfil their side of bargains and deals that have been made. It behoves us all—the British Government, the Irish Government, the American Government and everyone across the community in Northern Ireland—to keep people up to the mark in terms of what they have agreed to do, without making unreasonable demands in terms of the timetable within which they do it.

As it is now some six weeks since the Provisional IRA made what appeared to be a positive statement that it would put its arms verifiably and completely beyond use, and as it is some three weeks since the Executive was set up and it is now successfully running, does the Secretary of State share my concern that there have yet to be any confidence-building measures by the IRA, and the longer that takes the more confidence will drain away?

I do not yet share the right hon. Gentleman's concern because I maintain my confidence that the IRA, having made commitments, will honour those commitments. I have said in the past that IRA statements for good or ill have a certain rugged honesty about them. I know that people will be extremely disappointed if what the IRA has said it will do is not done before further time elapses.

Naturally, I hope that the Secretary of State's confidence will not be misplaced, but I take him back to what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box a few weeks ago—that the confidence-building measures which we hope will happen very shortly are only the first stage and they must be very quickly followed by the decommissioning of all illegally held arms and explosives, as the IRA promised to do under the Belfast agreement. Will the right hon. Gentleman again confirm that that must happen quickly after the confidence-building measures?

I do confirm that. The IRA has made a clear and unequivocal statement to put its arms completely beyond use. All this must be independently verified under the supervision of General de Chastelain's commission. I believe that it will happen, but if it does not I have confidence in General de Chastelain and his colleagues to blow the whistle and sound the alarm if they believe that the IRA is resiling from its commitments.

If he will make a statement on the progress being made on the British-Irish Council. [125480]

If he will make a statement on the progress being made on the British-Irish Council. [125482]

The next summit meeting of the British-Irish Council is likely to be held after the summer. At its inaugural summit in December, the members of the council agreed an important and wide-ranging work programme covering subjects such as transport, drugs and the environment. These are being taken forward by each of the participating Administrations. [Interruption.]

Order. Before we proceed, the House must come to order. Conversations are much too noisy and the Minister can barely make himself heard.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in paying tribute to the work done over the past 10 years by the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, which has worked behind the scenes to promote understanding between our two islands? Does he agree that the British-Irish Council could profit from that experience?

Like all institutions, the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, and all the other bodies associated with it, has been important in maintaining dialogue and bringing people together to discuss issues of common interest in a period when that would not otherwise have been possible. I share my hon. Friend's sentiments—the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body has been important in creating space and opportunities that would not otherwise have existed.

What distinct contribution does my hon. Friend think the council has to make to taking forward the peace process in Northern Ireland? In view of the answer that he has just given, could he build on those parliamentary links by including Assembly Members from across the British Isles as a way of demonstrating that the political process is now working?

As my hon. Friend implies, the process has the capacity to develop and to go in new directions. However, I think that the council's important contribution is to look at areas of policy in which there is a common interest—not just issues of security and political development but health, for example—and consider how they can be taken forward. The problems of the past in Northern Ireland were of a divided society and two divided communities. The future must be in finding ways forward, not in looking back.

When the British-Irish Council next meets, will the Minister use his best efforts to persuade it to make representations to the Irish Government to appoint a High Court inspector to investigate the operation of International Investments Ltd. in Dublin and its Irish subsidiaries, which resulted in more than £7 million being lost by British and Irish investors? Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that the failure of successive Governments to appoint a High Court inspector suggests that there may have been a cover-up, and that if such a decision is made, even at this late stage, it could be a confidence-building measure?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, accept that that is not an appropriate matter for the Government to raise at the British-Irish Council. If, however, he believes that it is a matter of importance to Northern Ireland, it is open to the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), to use the opportunity that the British-Irish Council creates to raise it.

Will the Minister confirm whether the next meeting of the British-Irish Council will consider policing in Northern Ireland, particularly the issue of future policing meeting the requirements of the European convention on human rights?

The Patten proposals are being considered in Committee under the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, and there is a declaration on the front of the Bill, as there is on all legislation, that it is compatible with the European convention on human rights. In general terms, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier, there is a great deal of scope for co-operation between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland on policing. We take those opportunities seriously. We also recognise that it creates a better environment in which to police not only terrorism but some of the problems associated with smuggling across the border.

What recent progress has been made in creating a more normal security environment. [125481]

In line with the Chief Constable's announcement on 9 May, work has commenced to demolish the Cookstown base and the Cloghoge observation base in South Armagh and to vacate Fort George in Londonderry and the observation posts at Broadway and Templer House in Belfast.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him on the work that he has done on that matter. May I seek his assurance that the number of the security forces will not increase significantly during the difficult period ahead—with parades and other such activities?

I cannot of course give my hon. Friend that assurance; as we have said constantly, the level of the security presence will depend on the degree of threat. Obviously, considerable amounts of public disorder sometimes justify a higher security presence on the ground. We are ever alert and ever vigilant. We shall take whatever measures are necessary.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Recently, I held a conversation with a young person who spent a considerable amount of time in care as a child, and who expressed grave scepticism about the ability of local authorities to deliver on that ambitious and far-reaching programme. Can my hon. Friend reassure me on the Government's commitment to ensuring that local authorities do just that?

I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend. Furthermore, I pay tribute to the work that he has done as a Member in drawing attention to those matters. We have taken on board the issue of monitoring the performance of local authorities; we have a new system of performance assessment for them. We also have new powers, under the Local Government Act 1999, to intervene—if necessary—when a social services department is failing.

The Minister will recall that we recently corresponded about the care case of a child who is being looked after by grandparents. Often, grandparents step in to provide a stable background when parents are unable or unfit to look after their children. However, a problem arises if the grandparents want to adopt the child, to give it an even more stable background, because the local authority relinquishes any system of support for the child. Does the Bill contain any provisions that would overcome that problem?

I am familiar with the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman through our correspondence. However, the measure is about children who are being looked after by local authorities. I am not entirely sure whether the case he described would fall within it. He asked about post-adoption support arrangements. The Bill contains no provision for such matters. The arrangements that we are discussing are for looked-after children—the children who remain within the parental responsibility of a local authority. The wider issue of the arrangements for adoption and any reform of those arrangements are with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He is considering the report that he received last month, and announcements will be made in the usual course of events to deal with that issue.

Will the regulations that flow from clause 2 be subject to the negative procedure, which does not allow for debate, or to the affirmative procedure, which does?

The regulations under clause 2 will be subject to the negative procedure. However, the arrangements in relation to clause 6 that affect benefit entitlement will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The hon. Gentleman huffs and puffs about the negative versus the affirmative procedure, but he often huffs and puffs. However, he should not be surprised by the regulatory arrangements that will be made under the Bill, because it uses the normal procedures. When the Bill affects a person's benefit entitlement, that will be a perfectly appropriate issue to come before the House under the affirmative resolution procedure.

In answer to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), the Minister said that he thought he had sufficient powers to cope. However, in this mobile age, is he aware that social workers face increasing difficulties in keeping in touch with families and children? Do we have enough social workers to do that job?

Social workers do an important job and it is the responsibility of Government to make sure that they have the right resources and can attend the right courses so that they obtain the educational and professional qualifications that will enable them to develop their skills as their careers progress. We are doing that. The Bill is specifically about looked-after children, and its arrangements will significantly improve the ability of local authorities to keep in contact with children who leave care. That is one of the most fundamental aspects of our proposals. We all accept that social work is not easy. Social workers do difficult jobs, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. We want to ensure that they have the support that they need.

My hon. Friend said that the Government should, as far as possible, reflect for children in care what parents want to do for their own children. Does he agree that we should be trying to reduce the number of age limits in the Bill, because parents try to maintain their help and support for their children no matter what their age? Will he keep that aspect of the Bill under review?

That is an intriguing question, but I am not sure how a Bill such as this could be constructed without any reference to age limits. That would be a difficult job.

I was hovering; I thank my hon. Friend for anticipating my wish to intervene.

My hon. Friend said that I anticipated her intervention; she has anticipated a matter that I wish to discuss in due course. Of course we will not ask local authorities to discharge new responsibilities if they are not properly resourced. We are not unreasonable. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that some decisions about resources connected with the Bill must wait for the spending review that will be announced later this summer. However, we will implement the Bill sensibly, if that is what my hon. Friend is concerned about. We certainly will not put local authorities in a position in which they have to discharge extensive new responsibilities without being provided with resources.

Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the young person's adviser, will he say something further about who that designated person might be? For example, does he envisage that the adviser will always be a local authority social worker, or will other people employed by the local authority or voluntary agencies be able to take on that role? As he will be aware, young people leaving care often have a lack of trust in the social work system.

My hon. Friend is right. As she intimated, there is no reason to restrict who can act as a young person's adviser, and we do not intend to do so. There is no reason why the young person's adviser has to be a local authority social worker, and that will not always be the case. We intend to develop that in regulation-making powers under the Bill, which relates to a matter to which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) alluded. There will be an opportunity for hon. Members and those outside to be consulted on that.

The Minister mentioned possible regulations on young persons' advisers. Will he confirm that those regulations will specify the need for the adviser to be culturally and linguistically appropriate to the young person? In Wales, for example, Welsh-speaking advisers would be needed to advise Welsh-speaking young people. Certain areas of England would need minority language and ethnic minority language-speaking advisers to be available for young people. That is an important aspect of such advice services.

I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's concern in relation to Wales. Regulations made under this part of the Bill will be the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales, not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that the National Assembly will want to ensure that any such regulations cover the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new duties on local authorities will ensure that those young people for whom it is appropriate will be able to remain in foster care and residential care beyond the age of 18?

Yes, I have no difficulty in giving my hon. Friend that assurance.

Many young people in Wales, particularly those from the Voices from Care group whom I have met, have expressed great concern about their transfer to the local authority from the benefits system. They are concerned that they might not have access to some of the services that they can use at present, such as crisis loans, and that the regulations that guide the benefits system will not apply. Can my hon. Friend reassure me on those points?

I am very anxious to reassure my hon. Friend on those points. Young children leaving care will not be worse off under the proposed arrangements. There is every possibility that they will be better supported by local authorities. That aspect of our proposals drew strong support from children's organisations in the consultation exercise undertaken on "Me, Survive Out There?". They could see the benefit of it.

I am glad that my hon. Friend is determined to take action, under the Bill and other measures, where standards fall below what is expected. Will the Government be assisted by the children's rights director or a children's rights commissioner in ensuring that they live up to their word on that?

Yes, certainly the children's rights director will have a specific remit on the regulated services for which the National Care Standards Commission has responsibility, including children's homes and local authority adoption and fostering services. The children's rights director will have an important contribution to make in ratcheting up the standard of services.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so patient with me. Clearly, the children's rights director will be involved in children's homes under the new National Care Standards Commission, but what about all the other looked-after children who are not in children's homes? Will a director or a commissioner assist my hon. Friend in ensuring that the new entitlements are secured for those children?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I said in response to his first intervention that the children's rights director clearly has a responsibility, especially in adoption and fostering services. I am sure that he will find—he knows about the subject—that many looked-after children are in foster placements, so the role of the children's rights director goes beyond regulated children's homes.

I start by confirming for the record that there is a substantial degree of cross-party consensus in the House on the Bill, although it is perhaps not so clear that there is such a consensus in the Scottish Parliament. That is important in the context of the way that the Bill works, and I shall return to that point.

indicated dissent.

I see that the hon. Gentleman disagrees, but that is not intended to be a criticism of the fundamentals of the Bill. I remind him of the history. The Bill was originally drafted to deal with 16 and 17-year-olds and its scope has been extended, rightly, during its passage through the other place. However, that has introduced a complication, because what is acceptable in relation to a child, from an authority exercising a parental role, could—I emphasise that word—become oppressive in relation to an adult. Apart from the criminal justice system and the Mental Health Act 1983, I cannot think of any other significant areas that allow the statutory authorities to intervene in that way in the life of a competent adult. I stress again that the majority of care leavers will welcome the provisions as a safety net, but the duty to re-establish contact may be a step too far in some cases. The message to young people who have left care and moved on into adulthood must be that help and support is available if it is wanted, perhaps at the end of a telephone line. I am afraid that assertive outreach, if that is what is required in seeking to discharge the duty to re-establish contact, might be misguided, morally indefensible and potentially highly counter-productive for such care leavers.

The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points; I have listened carefully to him. He used the term "competent adult". We will need to explore in Committee the issue that he is rightly raising. One concern that I have, not about the Bill but about the entire principle of how we follow through with young people leaving the care system, is that a number of young people—I know many from my work background—will never be able to cope without some assistance. The cut-off point is 24 years old—perhaps we need to make it 64; I do not know. The hon. Gentleman has touched on some important points, but the issue of competence must be explored in detail in Committee.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I look forward to exploring that issue with him in Committee. I do not claim to be an expert on all aspects of the subject, but I have racked my brains and cannot think of other examples of mentally competent adults, who have committed no offence, who have not fallen foul of the criminal justice system, being subject to such monitoring by statutory authorities.

The hon. Gentleman used the term "assertive outreach" and queried it. Would not a decent parent take exactly such a positive, assertive approach? A 22 or 23-year-old might well think that he is an adult and out on his own, but would not a parent say, "I want to help my child"? Surely that is what my hon. Friend the Minister is attempting to enact.

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. My own children are too young for me to claim any direct experience of the best way in which to deal with teenagers, but I was talking to a parent of late teenage children just last night who said that, if the child is determined to go their own way, the sensible parent very often stands back and waits for the call for help. I accept that that will not always be so, but we must recognise the significant difference between a regime that we can legitimately implement to look after children and one that seeks to track and monitor adults. I merely flag up the issue; it is not fundamentally fatal to the principles behind the Bill, but we will want to consider it in Committee.

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that, in fairness to the staff who might be involved, the House would need to acknowledge that the social worker and managers concerned would not be belaboured by officialdom or the newspapers if one such young person decided that they wanted to be excluded from the system and turned into a rent boy a year later?

The right hon. Gentleman of course makes a good point. We will explore that in Committee. The idea that I had in the back of my mind was some exit procedure from the powers and responsibilities—but it should never be a permanent exit. I am sure that we would all want to assert that someone at the age of 19 who felt that he wanted to be left alone, that he was an adult and wanted to do his own thing—perhaps to go abroad—must always have the option of picking up the telephone, dialling the number and knowing that help was there when it was wanted. That is the way in which a responsible parent would respond.

I accept the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but does he accept that he is in danger of creating a loophole that would enable the sort of local authority that, scandalously, encourages young people to leave care at 16, to renege on the responsibilities that the Government are trying to impose?

Obviously, one does not want to create loopholes for irresponsible local authorities. A balance has to be struck, but I hold dear the rights and liberties of individual competent adults in our society, so I urge the House to think carefully about how we deal with people who, legally, are adults.

We were all young once. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all young people make mistakes and that it important to allow care leavers to make those mistakes and have another go? We should not tell a young person, "You've got one chance and if you don't co-operate, you've blown it." It is important that we give young people leaving care many different options and allow them to learn by their mistakes, like most young people do.

I agree—no one would be minded to say, "One strike and you're out." However, let me develop my argument further, as it might answer the hon. Gentleman's points.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise a certain contradiction in his speech? He is saying that local authorities ought to have the same obligation as good parents. He was objecting to authorities having the power to monitor children and young adults, but now he is suggesting that authorities should have the power to compel. Care should not be conditional; it should be available.

The hon. Gentleman has missed the essence of the point. The scope of the Bill was extended in the House of Lords, so we are dealing with two distinct groups: children under the age of 18, who are the legal responsibility of the local authority, which is their corporate parent, and adults over the age of 18, who may need support and assistance but who are legally adults, competent in their own right and entitled to be treated with the respect that that brings.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman for the first time during the debate. It cannot be right to talk of sanctions and of withdrawing whatever from vulnerable young people. They have not had the best start in life and they have not had parental or family support. My hon. Friend the Minister wants to put in place a caring system, which will not give up on the young adult because he or she does not do as we would want. We are saying, "No, we'll keep in there with you. We will keep on and on and we will be there for you." As the hon. Gentleman said, he is probably talking about a very small number of young people. We can afford to support them over and over again. They are vulnerable and they have had a bad start in life.

I hope that the hon. Lady is right and that it will only be a tiny minority, but I look forward to engaging in that debate with her if she is fortunate enough to be a member of the Standing Committee.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

One last time, and then I must make progress.

Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that he is missing the trick? The pathway plan, which is agreed with the young person and his or her adviser, who is there to offer support, will introduce greater compulsion than exists at present. The Bill provides for more help, support and direction than is now on offer.

The problem with the hon. Gentleman's analysis is that it is not clear to me—perhaps the Minister will make it clear when she winds up—what the sanction is, and how the system will deal with the child who persistently fails to stick to the agreed course of action in the pathway plan. That is the problem that I am identifying. I see it as a practical problem for the people who will have to make the system work. I hope that we can return to the matter in Committee.

I look forward to the publication of the Conservative policy documents on children in care, to answer one or two concerns that I have. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's point about voluntary organisations, but I am concerned about the message that we send out. It started with Lady Thatcher. The Leader of the Opposition has mentioned the involvement of Church organisations—putting Church organisations in charge of children in care. I link that to the point made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), in the debate on care standards, that every child entering care should have an adoption plan. Whether the child is in care for 10 minutes or three days, he will have an adoption plan. The alternatives posed by the Conservative party seems to be that a child is either adopted or placed with the Christian Brothers—

And sent to Australia.

and sent to Australia, as my hon. Friend says. I should welcome further explanation. Does the Conservative party intend to produce a document that fits all the parts of its policy together, so that we can fully understand it?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that before he has to make the difficult decision of how to cast his vote at the next general election, he will have the benefit of the Conservative party's manifesto, which will include our proposals for children's services.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I would like to move on. I have been speaking for quite a long time already.

The hon. Gentleman has raised an extremely important point. Will he distinguish between the position of one political party which is not part of the coalition which is in government, and the position of the Executive in Scotland, which broadly takes the same view as the Government, but agrees that dialogue should continue between this place and the Scottish Parliament?

Surprise, surprise, the coalition Executive takes the same view as the Westminster Government. The objection to which I am referring is an opposition objection in the Scottish Parliament. Whereas the Bill can expect a smooth ride through this place, with support from both sides of the House, it is not clear that similar legislation will enjoy a smooth ride with cross-party consensus in Scotland.

Does the hon. Gentleman not see the parallel between parents giving children the right to pursue their adult lives once they have been given that opportunity, and this Parliament, having devolved power to another Parliament, allowing it to exercise the very powers that we gave it?

The hon. Gentleman is right. I am not qualified to say whether the Bill is the first measure that we have dealt with since the devolution settlement that contains both clauses that are the subject of devolved responsibility and clauses that are reserved matters. In this instance, clause 6 deals with the withdrawal of social security benefits.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, in part because it keeps promises that I made on behalf of the Government. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the huge amount of work that he has done in fleshing out those original promises, and also on the speed with which he gathered up the topic when it was handed on to him by our right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) who initiated a great deal of the work, for which he did not receive as much credit as he should have done, and for which I received more credit than I deserved.

the love that in a family dwells.

The right hon. Gentleman read out a list of parents' functions, which he used in the November 1998 statement, which I have here. Is it his understanding that the young persons' advisers to be appointed under the Bill will be able to carry out all those functions?

I was spelling out what a normal family, if there is such a thing, and a normal home, tries to provide for its children. In so far as officialdom can attempt to do what a family does, we should try to enable the person who is designated as being responsible for a young person td do all those things, or to arrange all those things, in so far as that is possible. No doubt, others can think of other things. They are not just the more obvious things; it is the casual help, the feeling that there is some base to go back to, that there is someone there who cares and who will do a bit of thinking on the young person's behalf and try to help him or her. That is what most families try to do.

We are more bound to them that bringeth us up well than to our parents.

It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I am glad that, with the help of some of my noble Friends and others, the Government have listened and accepted the right hon. Gentleman's original premise, which he presented so clearly to the Select Committee on Health and in his statement to the House two years ago.

We have had an excellent debate. The contributions so far have without exception been very constructive, and important points have been made. It is a pity that not one Conservative Back Bencher was present to hear what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) had to say, as he made some very relevant points.

I was here.