asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether it is their policy to encourage local authorities to set up private housing sector departments and, if so, what the aim of this venture is.

My Lords, we want local authorities to think strategically about housing in their areas. That should cover all tenures, not just the housing they own. We are certainly encouraging local authorities to move their landlord functions into arm's length management organisations, leaving the centre to take this more strategic view.

We do not expect local authorities to set up private housing departments, but most local authorities already have officers who deal with private housing, administering renewal grants.

My Lords, will the Minister ask local authorities to take great care in operations of this kind? Is he aware that for local authorities to send teams of surveyors into thousands of private homes to inquire into the condition of those homes, the accommodation they comprise, and the needs of the residents is offensive to owner occupiers? Is it not against data protection law for councils to use the lists of names and addresses on the council tax register for any purpose other than that for which those lists were compiled?

My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Baroness is referring to when she mentions teams of surveyors going around. Each local authority has a strategic function in relation to housing, including private housing. They must perform that function appropriately and with discretion. One of the points they must look for is whether or not intervention is required in low-quality private housing stock. Without in any way offending the people who own such property, that is one of the factors they must keep in mind.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is considerable concern about the amount of housing disrepair, particularly in older, private housing? What priority will the Government give to providing resources for that purpose in the Comprehensive Spending Review? In asking the question I declare an interest as vice-president of the National Home Improvement Council.

My Lords, I agree. There is considerable concern about the quality of some private housing stock. One knows that in particular towns, both in the North East and North West, there are concentrations of low-quality privately-owned stock, which is often of much lower quality than the social housing in that area. It is a matter that needs to be addressed. Like all other issues in relation to housing, it will be addressed in the Comprehensive Spending Review. It would be wrong for me to make any predictions in relation to that.

My Lords, the Homelessness Bill entitles several more categories of person to be given priority for housing. Does the Minister believe that there is a greater role to be played in that regard by the private housing sector? Does he think that the administration of the housing benefit system is sufficiently robust to enable that to happen? En asking the question I declare an interest as a member of a local authority.

My Lords, I agree with the first part of the question. The private rented sector has an important role to play in relation to homelessness. As regards the second part of the question, I fully accept that the administration of housing benefit requires to be improved. The Government have always accepted that. We have allocated resources to improving the administration of housing benefit. We are nowhere near being all the way there, but we are working on it.

My Lords, can the Minister provide some information about the consultation period for the registration of private landlords? Will the Government make resources available to ensure that such registration is dealt with efficiently?

My Lords, the Secretary of State issued a consultation paper a few months ago which raised the issue of whether there should be licensing of private landlords in areas of low demand. Landlords in such circumstances have often put in tenants without regard to their conduct, which has brought down the whole neighbourhood. That consultation period has just come to an end, or is about to come to an end. The Secretary of State will make an announcement shortly in relation to it.

My Lords, would the Minister be kind enough to answer the second part of the question asked by my noble friend Lady Knight regarding the Data Protection Act and the data on council tax lists?

My Lords, the difficulty I have is that I am not sure to what the noble Baroness referred. She said that using a particular list, local authorities sent surveyors round to privately-owned properties. I do not know what list is being referred to, nor what the surveyors were doing, so I am not in a position to comment. I shall discuss with the noble Baroness precisely to what she referred. It would be wrong for me to comment on that at this stage.

My Lords, in asking my question I declare an interest as chairman of the Housing Corporation. Does the Minister agree that one of the problems the Government inherited with private housing is that, with the sale of some council stock in areas of regeneration, people who have bought their own homes from the council do not have the funds to maintain them and the taxpayer has to step in to buy back the property to regenerate the area?

My Lords, yes, that is a problem that arises in areas of regeneration, particularly in the North East and the North West. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, made the point that we need to consider what steps need to be taken as regards regeneration in areas that have a concentration of privately-owned homes.

My Lords, following on the question asked by my noble friend Lady Maddock, does the Minister recall the recent debate on the private rented sector in which he participated? It is at the lower end of that sector that some of the worst housing conditions in this country exist. Irrespective of what might be decided in the Comprehensive Spending Review, can he tell the House what the local authorities are now being asked to do about that serious problem?

My Lords, I do recall that very important debate. All of us are keen to see the private rented sector rise in quality. As the noble Lord says, it has some very low quality property. In particular, the lowest quality housing in that sector is homes in multiple occupation.

Local authorities must make priorities. They must form a strategic view about where they should concentrate their efforts in relation to housing in their area. That is what we are urging local authorities to do.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the Northampton area 2,500 people, whose names were taken at random from the council's rateable value list, were sent letters saying that a team of surveyors had been employed to go into their homes to find out these details? They are, after all, people who have managed their own affairs perfectly well.

My Lords, obviously the Data Protection Act applies. I was not aware of what the noble Baroness has referred to. I shall write to her and make inquiries about the matter.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What action they are taking to improve security at the Channel Tunnel and to preserve safety on trains passing through it.

My Lords, Eurotunnel has invested heavily in effective anti-intrusion measures at the French terminal of the Channel Tunnel. SNCF is currently installing anti-intrusion measures at its adjoining Fréthun freight yard. The Government are pressing the French Government at the highest levels to provide adequate policing resources at Fréthun to support these measures and tackle the disruption to Channel Tunnel services caused by would-be illegal immigrants.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. Has he seen reports that asylum seekers have been jumping on to trains and lorries leaving France? Are the Government working very closely with the French authorities—I was glad to hear what he has had to say so far on the matter—in order to deter such illegal immigrants, although the French may be glad to see the back of them?

My Lords, I am aware of the report to which the noble Lord refers; in particular, with regard to would-be illegal immigrants seeking to jump on to trains. It is an issue that we take incredibly seriously. I entirely agree with the premise of the noble Lord's question. The matter must be dealt with in cooperation with the French. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written twice to M. Jospin and has stressed the urgent need to ensure that adequate measures are taken relating to both physical security and police presence in order to enable SNCF to resume full services through Calais Fréthun freight yard properly protected from potential illegal immigrants.

My Lords, can the Minister give any reason to the House why these would-be illegal immigrants are so keen to come to the United Kingdom, rather than staying in France or in the rest of the European Union?

My Lords, the noble Lord should listen to the Question.

My Lords, while noting that there has been a decline in the number of people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom, can the Minister say what progress is being made in discussions with the rest of our partners in the European Union so that applications for asylum can be processed in the first safe country at which applicants arrive?

My Lords, discussions are going on at the moment with our partners to try and reform the Dublin convention to try and make that very process occur.

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord reassure us that a complete freight service has been resumed? The absence of one has caused very large economic losses. Does he also agree that this is not just a matter of security but of assessing who is and who is not an asylum seeker or refugee? That would best be done in France.

My Lords, this is about safety on trains first; safety both for the people on the trains and the people who are illegally trying to get on them. It is a very important safety issue. There is also the separate issue of where is the best place to assess the asylum claims. Of course we would say that it is not by coming into Britain illegally.

As to the question about whether full services have been resumed, I think that the answer is that they have not yet been fully resumed. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord and confirm that.

My Lords, I previously asked the noble and learned Lord whether halting the trains at Fréthun is the right policy and whether they should run through Fréthun from further back in France, which I know involves some expenditure. But the Government are facing that expenditure in making up to Eurotunnel the minimum user charge. So they are paying in either case. The cost can be met. The Eurotunnel passenger trains run from Paris and Brussels arid do not have to stop at the border.

My Lords, we believe that the key to the resolution of the problem is for SNCF and for the French authorities to put in place adequate physical security and policing resources at Fréthun, so that there can be a restoration of the full rail freight service without disruption. That is the solution that we are pressing for.

My Lords, in supporting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is not the main problem the fact that the Red Cross centre is within walking distance of the Fréthun terminal? When the would-be immigrants get to the fences some get over and get on the trains. Others, who are turned back by the police and are escorted back to the Red Cross centre, try again another night. Is not the real answer to persuade the French Government to close that centre?

My Lords, as I have indicated, discussions are going on with the French. We are proposing solutions that in effect provide adequate security so that the full freight service from Fréthun can be resumed.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may not quite have understood my question, which was different from the Question posed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. My question was: what is it that makes illegal immigrants want to come to this country, rather than stay in France? What is different about this country?

No, my Lords, I fully understood the noble Lord's question.

My Lords, I understand that the volume of freight being carried through the tunnel has been reduced to only 50 per cent of what it was before the trouble started. Can the Minister offer us any comfort by telling us, apart from the security measures that he mentioned, what other satisfactory measures can be taken to ensure that freight and the full economic viability of the tunnel return?

My Lords, as I said, we will not achieve full resumption of the freight service until the security measures are available at Fréthun. That in turn depends on co-operation on the French side from SNCF and the French security services, so that adequate security is provided. Only once there is adequate security there can the full freight service be resumed from Fréthun.

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell us how many people have lost their lives in and around the entrance to the tunnel?

My Lords, I cannot say what is the total number, but there have been two fatalities during the course of this year alone.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that, fond as we all are of him and much as, at times, we admire his style if not the content of his answers, he has gone a little too far today in refusing to answer in any seriousness the question put to him twice by my noble friend Lord Pearson? Does he agree that the House deserves something more than a flippant reply of the kind that he gave?

My Lords, I did not intend in any way to be disrespectful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. His question is one that we could all speculate on; it is not a question of particular fact that would be appropriate for me to answer.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will consider changes to the BBC charter when it next falls due for renewal so as to require a high standard of programming, particularly in television.

My Lords, under the terms of its current charter and agreement, the BBC is required to maintain high general standards in all respects, and in particular in respect of the content, quality and editorial integrity of its programmes. It is for BBC governors to satisfy themselves that the requirements are fulfilled.

The charter expires in 2006 and the process of review will begin during 2004. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will announce the terms of the review in due course.

My Lords, I am reasonably grateful for that Answer. Does the noble Baroness share the idea that the BBC, in its recent television programmes, has tended to prefer the easy popularity that is to be found downmarket to quality and has tended to put its market share in front of excellence? That makes me wonder whether the time is coming when the BBC's privileged access to funding should be terminated.

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord agrees that it would be wrong for Ministers to interfere in deciding what is and what is not high quality. As I said in my initial Answer, that is for the governors of the BBC. If the noble Lord is asking me personally, I think that there is currently a good mix of programmes on the BBC. There are popular programmes that the noble Lord may not like but that many other people do; there are also many very high-quality programmes. I am thinking, for example, of "The Blue Planet", which has won several prizes and attracted a huge number of viewers. I am not sure that there is great cause for concern, but, as I said, that would be a matter for the BBC governors.

My Lords, while the BBC could be improved—it certainly could—does the Minister agree that it is still a massive national asset to have a public service broadcaster of such quality? Is she at all afraid that during a three-year period in which we shall be examining the regulatory system and structure of the commercial sector as well as that of the BBC, the BBC will be open to sniping by commercial vested interests on the basis of short-term interests of shareholders rather than the broader national interest, which is why we have the BBC as a public service broadcaster?

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the BBC is something for which Britain is well known. People around the world respect the United Kingdom because of the quality of what the BBC broadcasts, not just to the United Kingdom but around the world. I have no doubt that during a period of change for broadcasting there will be plenty of sniping from all sides, but I am sure that the BBC will be well able to defend itself by citing many examples of high-quality programmes.

My Lords, are the Government aware that people at large are not themselves unaware that the Government always consider themselves able and in recent times willing to pass their opinion on practically anything? Is there any reason why the Government cannot form a view and communicate it to the governors of the BBC? I should not wish to put myself forward as an arbiter of taste, but I fancy that I am not alone in sensing a sharp deterioration in quality at the BBC during the past six months or so.

My Lords, I do not really agree with my noble friend that either I or the Government in general should be an arbiter of taste for the BBC. People have been saying for the past 30 years that there has been a deterioration in the quality of what the BBC produces; that is the kind of thing people always say. The BBC is well equipped to rebut such claims. If my noble friend watches some of the excellent programmes broadcast by the BBC, he may just possibly revise his opinion.

My Lords, when negotiations for the renewal of the BBC charter take place, could it be borne in mind that of the 60 million people in the United Kingdom, 9 million are estimated to be deaf in one way or another, and that the most common form of deafness is high-tone deafness, which makes it difficult for listeners accurately to hear broadcasters with high-pitched voices shrieking away?

My Lords, I shall try to bring my voice down and answer in a low pitch. I entirely accept that there are almost 8 million deaf or hard-of-hearing people in the United Kingdom. I am not sure that the solution is to avoid high-pitched voices; the right solution is to provide more subtitling on terrestrial and digital channels. All the broadcasters are considering that and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People is campaigning to achieve a higher proportion of subtitling.

My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that a message is passed to the governors of the BBC that they should not in any circumstances try to produce programmes that would satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, because if they did, they would in no way achieve balanced programmes?

My Lords, I think that I shall leave it to the former deputy chairman of the BBC to pass on that message.

My Lords, do the Government agree that the governors of the BBC should be reassured that as a non-profit-making organisation the public are more concerned with the quality of its programmes than with its market share?

My Lords, the governors of the BBC, a public service broadcaster, must constantly consider high quality. At the same time, they will want to achieve a reasonable market share to justify the licence fee and the investment that the public make through their payment of it. There must be a sensible balance in that respect. I apologise if that is a boring answer.

My Lords, we must get on. My noble friend Lord Rooker is keen to answer the next Question.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps they intend to take to reverse the growth in the prison population in England and Wales.

My Lords, that is not fair. I have just said to my noble friend Lady Blackstone, "Don't do what you did yesterday and give the killer answer that doesn't create any supplementaries".

The prison population has risen to unprecedented levels. The figure, as of this morning, is 70,019. We are committed to dealing with the issue. Prison must be targeted effectively and used for dangerous, serious and persistent offenders. We are committed to a radical re-think of the sentencing framework in order to make sense of sentencing by protecting the public, punishing people for the crimes that they have committed and ensuring that we engage in rehabilitation to reduce offending and prevent crime.

We welcome the approach adopted by the Lord Chief Justice and senior colleagues in underlining the fact that lengthy prison sentences should be focused on violent and repeat offenders, with appropriate intensive community sentences replacing short and ineffective custodial decisions.

My Lords, I recall the discomfort with which, 22 years ago, I announced from that Dispatch Box a prison population figure that was over 23,000 less than the one that the Minister has just given, so I sympathise with the Minister as I thank him for the Answer. It must have been difficult to give the Answer against the background of the pleas made by the Lord Chief Justice to magistrates, recorded in today's press, and more difficult still in view of the Home Office's own prediction that the level in September 2003 will be 71,500.

When will the Government recognise that nothing that they are doing—or have been doing—has had an effect on this horrible phenomenon? When will they realise how much cheaper and more effective it would be—as well as more humane—to spend £5,000 to £6,000 on each child known to be at risk of becoming a criminal, rather than spending £25,000 a year, as they now do, imprisoning the small proportion of such offenders who are caught and put into custody, each of whom is reckoned by NACRO to have cost society £75,000? Surely, common sense, humanity and good economics all show that we should concentrate on getting to the children before they offend, not on trying to lock them up afterwards.

My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord has said. I fully accept that he was in this position 20 years ago. I was checking up on some of the issues this morning, and one that was drawn to my attention was the possibility of executive action under a piece of legislation from 1982. Lo and behold, when I looked to see who the then Home Secretary was, I discovered that the Minister of State was today's questioner.

There is a serious issue. We can make predictions of the prison population, but the fact is that the figure is 2,000 to 3,000 higher than was predicted in October/ November last year. There has been a substantial increase in the past few months. There is no single factor, but some factors have been highlighted and raised in the House. There is a large increase in the female prison population, especially in the past 12 months. There are two reasons for that: one is a large increase in the amount of fraud committed by women and the other is the substantial number of foreign nationals involved in the import or export of drugs. So there are some serious issues.

Nevertheless, as I said in my Answer, giving people very short sentences for non-violent offences does not make sense. It clogs up the system, does not help with rehabilitation and gets in the way of the rehabilitation of persistent offenders when we are trying to reduce the number of such offenders who go back to prison. There is a serious problem, and we are taking steps to reduce it. Later in the year we will make proposals for sentencing policy, following last year's report from John Halliday.

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the proportion of the population in prison in England and Wales is the highest in Europe, with the sole exception of Portugal? Has not the time come to set a target to reduce prison numbers in England and Wales, so as to reach at least the European average? The present system is totally unacceptable.

My Lords, it may be that, with today's figures, we have actually topped Portugal. That is not something of which we can be proud, but the fact is that people are going to prison for non-violent, non-serious offences for very short periods. It does them no good, and it does not help the Prison Service to run a decent, professional penal policy of rehabilitation and training. That must be addressed, and I hope, in the light of the Lord Chief Justice's decisions yesterday, that those who are responsible for dishing out extremely short sentences—six months or less—will take note of what the Lord Chief Justice said.

My Lords, can the Minister say what proportion of prisoners are on remand? What is being done to reduce the time that prisoners on remand spend in prison due to the processes of the legal system?

My Lords, I regret to say that I do not have a figure for the numbers on remand, although I should have. The same applies as for short sentences: people must have a good reason for sentencing someone or holding them on remand. They must consider the nature of the offence and the likely outcome.

We read too often that, when a case is finished, the person concerned, having got a sentence, does not go to prison because he has probably spent longer than the sentence on remand. That shows a failure in the system on the part of those who are responsible for handing out short sentences.

My Lords, between the two debates this afternoon, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Hanningfield set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Blaker to two hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, on the Order Paper.

Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to whom the Employment Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

• Clauses 1 to 12,
• Schedule 1,
• Clauses 13 to 29,
• Schedule 2,
• Clauses 30 and 31,
• Schedule 3,
• Clauses 32 and 33,
• Schedule 4,
• Clauses 34 to 38,
• Schedule 5,
• Clauses 39 to 50,
• Schedule 6,
• Clauses 51 to 53,
• Schedule 7,
• Clause 54,
• Schedule 8,
• Clause 55.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to call attention to local government, its structures, powers and responsibilities; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to open the debate on the structures, powers and responsibilities of local government. As many of your Lordships will know, I am the leader of Essex County Council and vice-chairman of the Local Government Association.

Improving people's lives through the delivery of decent public services and a decent environment depends on high quality local government. We welcome reforms that will make a positive difference to the communities that those of us in local government serve, but we doubt that the measures currently proposed by the Government will meet that objective.

As the leader of a local authority, I am committed 100 per cent to the delivery of real improvements to the lives of individuals and local communities. We have a responsibility to lead those communities. The Government have a responsibility to give us the freedom and the tools to undertake that leadership role effectively. Decisions affecting local people should be taken locally, within the communities affected by those decisions. They should be taken accountably, by people whose performance is directly judged by the local electorate through the ballot box.

In December, the Government published their local government White Paper, Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services. That paper contains many words with which, I am sure, noble Lords can agree. For example, we can support the commitment to deregulation and plan reduction, but I doubt that the Government can turn that rhetoric into reality.

For more than 100 years, local government functioned on the basis of one clause in an Act and one set of standing orders. During those years, local government was the engine of radical change in our society. The Government have introduced over 450 pages of regulation, guidance and direction. Those 450 pages of red tape will not encourage diversity and creativity in local councils or flexibility at the front line.

If the Government are genuinely committed to decentralisation, why have they not set a target for reining in the tremendous growth of ring-fenced grant? The Government, outwardly committed to devolution, have nevertheless overseen the proportion of ring-fenced money grow from 5 per cent in 1997 to over 12 per cent this year and a projected 15 per cent for next year. That growth represents a substantial failure on behalf of any government who really believe in devolution. It is another example of creeping centralisation. It is an inefficient way to run a country and it is an affront to democratic accountability.

In their drive to measure their way to success, the Government propose that soon we should all be subject to a comprehensive performance assessment by the Audit Commission. We support performance assessment, but we have grave doubts about the Government's proposals. All councils will be branded as "high performing", "striving", "coasting" or "poor performing". Being a "coasting" council may have some attractions for tourism purposes but, joking aside, this kind of categorisation is offensive, crude and fuzzy. The Government have already stated that they expect most councils to fall into the "coasting" category. Why then are they bothering to spend taxpayers' money on finding out what they already know?

It has been suggested that that kind of categorisation will inform local people. It is said that they will finally get to know how well their authority is performing. But, frankly, I think that is ridiculous. Local people know whether the roads are full of potholes, whether their rubbish is collected, whether their sons or daughters go to decent schools, whether the elderly are looked after or whether their council tax bills are going through the roof—and they will vote on the basis of that knowledge. People do not need an expensive comprehensive performance assessment involving hundreds of bureaucrats running around the country to tell them what they already know.

We welcome performance assessment, but we question the need for extensive and lengthy field visits, annual reviews and crude categorisations. We are already spending £600 million a year on inspection. How much more is it going to cost taxpayers? Perhaps it will cost £1 billion that might be better spent on children, the elderly or the sick.

The Green Paper on planning was also published in December of last year. Its objective was to achieve a better, simpler, faster and more accessible system. We agree with that objective. Reform of the planning system is necessary. We would like to see less red tape, greater certainty for business and a more streamlined appeal process. What we do not want to see is the exclusion of local communities or planning decisions taken with no regard for accessibility or accountability.

I have serious doubts as to whether the proposals outlined by the Government will deliver a more streamlined process. At the moment a county council produces a structure plan that provides the framework within which district councils prepare their local plans and determine planning applications. This process involves detailed public consultation. The Green Paper proposes that those county powers should be sucked up to the regions. Difficult planning decisions will be determined hundreds of miles away by bodies that are inaccessible and, in large part, unaccountable.

In essence, the functions of the counties will be transferred to the regions and the districts, but the Government have failed to advance any evidence that the counties are not delivering or that they are the cause of the planning problems that must be tackled. In fact, one could search high and low in the Green Paper to locate any criticism of county councils in relation to the exercise of their planning functions. The only reason given in the Green Paper for removing strategic planning responsibility from counties is in paragraph 4.37, which states that the counties are no longer the most appropriate level at which to deal with strategic planning issues because many of the issues cut across county boundaries.

The same is true of course with regard to the regions. For example, the Thames Gateway cuts across the eastern and the south-eastern regions. Do we really think that value will be added to the planning process by ensuring that the people of Norfolk have an equal say in the planning framework for the Thames Gateway as will people in Essex or Kent, or that there will be fewer boundary disputes in the eastern region with a system based on 48 authorities rather than six?

Far from the counties coming in for criticism, the Green Paper makes it clear that most of the problems in planning have generally resulted from the weaknesses at the district or regional level. For example, paragraph 4.45 states that at the regional level:

"there has been a tendency to avoid making the hard strategic choices … Instead lowest common denominator approach is taken, which in the long term can damage development across the region".

At the district level around 13 per cent of local plans are still to be put in place and many more are overdue for updating. It is Alice in Wonderland politics to transfer responsibility from the bit of the system that is working to the bits of the system that are not.

We are told that business and other stakeholders are clamouring for reform. That is true. They want to see changes made to the planning system, and so do we. The changes that the CBI and the House Builders Federation have been lobbying for are changes to the arrangements for development control. They seek a speeding up of the decision-making processes, not a wholesale massacre of the existing planning structure. Greater confidence in the outcomes of planning proposals will not be delivered by the plans set out in this Green Paper.

The proposals are also expensive, with one-off costs of £60 million and ongoing annual costs of an additional £62 million. On top of those financial costs there will also be significant capacity problems for small district councils and for regional authorities which simply do not have the staff to carry out these new functions.

Do the Government's proposals deliver a more accessible and accountable planning process? The short answer to that is no. The authority that prepares the regional strategy will be a quango; it will not be democratically accountable. And it will be remote, sometimes hundreds of miles from the place where its decisions will have an impact. There is no question that the Government's proposals dilute democratic accountability and reduce access to the planning process by pushing decisions upwards away from the people affected by those decisions.

We would like to see a more balanced and less dogmatic approach from the Government—an approach that builds on the strengths of the current system while tackling the real problems that we all recognise exist. I hope that the Government will take on board these comments and look again at their flawed proposals.

We are now also awaiting a further paper from the Government on the development of the regions. The Government seem to be in turmoil about their policy in this area. In the spirit of friendship perhaps I may offer them some help.

If regions were to be based on genuine historical units with a coherent identity—as they are in Europe—and if they were to be given real power, devolved from central government, we might support the concept. Essex, for example, has been a unit of government since it was the Kingdom of the East Saxons in 600 AD. It has a population of 1.6 million, which means that it is larger than 13 American states and many European regions. Currently we are part of the eastern region. We have nothing against our colleagues in Norfolk and Suffolk, but nor do we have much in common with them. If we are to have regions, then let us have real regions based on counties. That would make more sense than the meaningless entities dreamed up for the convenience of bureaucrats in Whitehall.

Local government must be freed. It must be freed from bureaucracy—performance indicators do not deliver services. It must be freed from central control. Whitehall cannot know what is best for local communities. Why should the Government and the Audit Commission rather than local voters decide whether local authorities have the right to exercise freedoms?

To reinvigorate local democracy, we need new thinking. To usher in a new civic dynamism, we need a new vision. We shall not attract the Chamberlains or the Herbert Morrisons back into local government if we fetter it with petty financial controls. We would urge the Government to be more bold on local government finance, more sophisticated on planning and more imaginative on regions. I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords. I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for missing the beginning of his remarks. I am guilty of some discourtesy and I apologise to him for it. I congratulate the noble Lord on introducing what I hope will be an extremely wide-ranging and broad debate in which we can look at the full range of issues concerned with local government.

I declare an interest. For almost 24 years I have been a member of a London borough council. I relinquish that role in May and do so with a sense that perhaps I remained in it too long. However, I do so in the knowledge that at the point I give up I shall still be some eight years younger than the average age of local government councillors across the country. That suggests to me that something perhaps needs to be done about adjusting the age balance of local authority councillors.

I share with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, the delights of serving on the executive of the Local Government Association where many of these issues have been discussed. Since May 2000 I have been an elected Member of the Greater London Assembly, a new form of local government which may form the model for new types of regional structure in the future. We await the White Paper with interest.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that, for some time, there has been a need for new thinking in relation to local government. My contention—it probably would not be his—is that much of that new thinking has been contained in the successive White Papers produced by the Government since their election in 1997. Those publications have required those of us who are active in local government to rethink from the start how local democracy operates and to develop new ways of working in relation to the delivery of services and the economic, social and environmental development of the areas we represent. That has been extremely important.

As to the noble Lord's final rallying call, I believe that the first shoots of the development of new freedoms for local government are contained in the latest White Paper. When my noble friend replies to the debate, I look forward to his reassurance that those new freedoms are on the way.

Looking back over my period in local government, I have seen some very dramatic changes, which I hope your Lordships will feel have been beneficial. Certainly in my early years in local government, our entire preoccupation was with direct service delivery—the services that the local authority itself ran and organised on behalf of local residents. We have gradually moved on. In my early years as leader of a local authority I spent all of my time on inward-looking meetings; by the end of that period most of my efforts were devoted to working with other agencies in outward-looking arrangements to ensure that services were delivered in a particular way.

We have seen the development of much more partnership working. Some of it is underpinned by statute—for example, the crime reduction partnerships introduced following the crime and disorder legislation. Some of it has been as part of financial frameworks to deliver regeneration where partnerships have been created to respond to bidding regimes from central government.

A new approach has been developed which underpins what the Government call in their successive White Papers "community leadership". This is about recognising that local politicians are there on behalf of local communities to design what is needed for those local communities. That may not necessarily be achieved through the service delivery of the local authority; it may be better delivered—and will frequently only be delivered—by working with other public sector agencies and private agencies. That has been at the core of partnership working.

When my noble friend replies to the debate, I hope that he will recognise that the democratic accountability elements that the local authority in its community leadership role brings has to be at the core of effective local partnerships. It has been a major and important change.

The second change—the creation of the executive/ scrutiny split—is much more recent. It has not been without its controversial moments in many local authorities, but that has been as much about people adjusting to a new way of working as to anything else. I became a less prominent member of my local authority at the point at which the executive/scrutiny split happened. As a back-bench member of my local authority, it is much easier to find out what is happening through a clear process, with the transparency that is offered by an executive structure and scrutiny mechanisms to keep track of what is going on. The transparency offered by the new arrangements is part of a process which I hope will lead to the reinvigoration of local government.

This is a very welcome debate. I hope that it produces a commitment from all present to the rebuilding of local government and a recognition of the primacy of a system of local democracy where there can be genuine community leadership. In my view, if local democracy means anything, it means local people electing local councillors to act on behalf of local communities, to make things happen and to work with other non-elected bodies, whether in the public or private sector, to find the best route possible to enable the local community to meet its aspirations. That is what local democracy is about and it is what the Government's agenda for rebuilding local government is about.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for giving us the opportunity to debate local government. I shall concentrate mainly on issues surrounding powers and responsibilities.

The power to promote the environmental, social and economic well-being of the community was an extremely welcome addition to the Local Government Act 2000. It gives the possibility of allowing local authorities more freedom in the way they give leadership to their communities. It is early days and there is very little clarity about the conditions under which councils can use the new power. This illustrates the difficulty of expecting fundamental change to follow a limited increase in change of powers if the powers are not matched by wide-ranging financial independence. It is quite clear that budget pressures on councils have prevented some of the reforms that we would like to see.

Not for the first time we on these Benches have said that we would like a constitutional settlement with local government. In addition to righting the financial balance of power, it is essential that local government is given the constitutional power of general competence.

Some of the ideas we have put forward are reflected in the Government's White Paper. I suspect that many noble Lords will discuss them today. For example, we welcome the Government's vision of more freedom and flexibility for local government and less central government intervention, but it is not clear from the detailed proposals in the White Paper that this will be delivered for the majority of councils.

There are some moves in the right direction—for example, the freeing-up of capital finance, reductions in the number of statutory plans and the abolition of the inequitable council tax benefit subsidy limitation—but accountability would be better obtained by shifting the emphasis of funding to the local level and away from central government grants.

It is true that the White Paper pledges to reduce the amount of ring-fenced grants, but this has not been backed up in the local government financial settlement announced for the coming year, which includes a massive hike in specific grants.

The new freedoms given to some councils are very welcome, but why are they offered to only a few? Very prescriptive proposals for poor performing councils will tie them up in bureaucracy, inspections and assessments instead of devoting their resources to improving performance. The performance assessment system described as "balanced scorecards" —we are really talking about league tables—are yet another form of central control. As has been said with different emphasis by speakers on different Benches, local authorities are accountable to local residents—to those who elect them. We believe that councils should have an autonomous right, not one given to them for good behaviour.

All councils need the freedom to find innovative local solutions to local problems, not just those that are high in the league tables. Local people need to hold the councils to account. Therefore, the systems need to be transparent and understandable. In the White Paper, the Government proposed the introduction of four categories. "High performing" and "poor performing" are fairly understandable; but would the general public understand "striving" and "coasting"?

We welcome the prudential framework for capital finance—which is largely based on the ideas put forward for some years by my Liberal Democrat friends at the Local Government Association. However, the Government will need to flame their reserve powers very carefully. We should have preferred the decision on exceeding borrowing guidelines to be made by local people in a local referendum, rather than by the Secretary of State.

Turning briefly to my own area, housing, the freedom to borrow against housing revenues will be introduced. That could assist authorities which do not want to pursue stock transfer. But the key factor is how much freedom the local council will be given. It depends on the extent to which any surplus rental revenue can be retained locally and used for capital funding.

The Government have promised significant additional funding to raise the standard of council housing. But again, there are strings attached. Local councils will be able to access the money only if they have established an arm's length management company to run housing management. Furthermore, that company must be high performing—it must have received two or three stars, which very few organisations, if any, have so far received.

Despite the rhetoric of the White Paper, it would appear that the Government are still keen to hog control, and there is little action coming from the White Paper. Perhaps I may quote from a briefing sent to me by the Local Government Association, which holds a similar view. It is concerned that if the White Paper is truly to deliver better local public services, the rhetoric must be turned into action. The association seems to think that there has been little progress on a large number of issues. It states:

"The Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Stephen Byers, announced at a conference at the LGA on January 18th that an implementation plan setting out how each proposal would be progressed and a timetable would be published. However, that plan has yet to appear".

That is our main concern. There are many good intentions, but very little has actually changed.

My Lords, I think that my noble friend would agree with me that it would be unrealistic to talk about local government without talking about the threat of regional government. I use the word "threat" advisedly. It is not so long ago that the Prime Minister's spokesman said from No. 10:

"We need regional government like a hole in the head".

After that, someone decided that it was right to give Mr Prescott something to do and, unfortunately, the bandwagon started rolling. Unless we are very careful, we shall finish up not with a hole in the head, but in the condition in which Sir Richard Mottram found himself on 12th February, along with his department and Mr Sixsmith.

There are some matters on which we can surely agree there is common ground. First, regional government certainly cannot be viewed as the English answer to Scottish devolution. It does not answer the West Lothian question. It does not right the wrong of Scottish Members at Westminster being able to vote on English matters when English Members of Parliament at Westminster cannot vote on Scottish matters. And anyhow, no one suggests that the powers that would be devolved to the regions would be remotely like the powers to legislate which have been delegated to the Scottish Parliament.

Secondly, regional government will not increase expenditure on public services. People in the North East may look over the Border at Scotland and envy what they look upon as better services. But those better services in Scotland are not made possible by the existence of a Scottish Parliament. They are the result of the Barnett formula, and the fact that Scotland receives a far higher proportion of public expenditure per head than we do in England.

Lastly, regional government will not bring government closer to the people. That point was made clearly and fairly by my noble friend. The recent Green Paper on planning is just one glaring example of how it is already proposed that the county councils should lose power to the regions. That does not mean government closer to the people. In my part of the world, Lancashire, it means taking it further away.

What sort of regions are these? They are entirely artificial creations which rarely reflect any kind of regional loyalty. People in north-east Lancashire do not feel a special brotherhood with the citizens of Birkenhead. People in Cumbria think of themselves as Cumbrians; they do not think of themselves as "citizens of the North West".

The pretence that in the North West, for instance, there is widespread interest in regional government is laughable. In five regions, Church of England Bishops have taken the chair of regional conventions. Chris Moncrief, who is known to many of us in this House and is a great friend of Parliament, got the matter entirely right when he wrote a rather nice piece in the House Magazine on 15th October. He stated:

"It is astonishing how easy it is to fool some of the people some of the time. The European Union has, apparently, been impressed by what is considered to be the 'clamour' all over Britain for elected regional parliaments. This has been engendered, in some degree, by the emergence of the grandly named North West Constitutional Convention. Further investigation has shown that this organisation, if it is an organisation at all, is housed in a dilapidated shed at the back of a pub".

In replying, perhaps the Minister can respond to the following point. There may be some little comfort for the North West. The 2001 Labour manifesto contains the statement that regional government will not be inflicted on any part of the country unless, first, the people in the area vote for it; and, secondly,

"predominantly unitary local government is established".

We in the North West have three county councils, 24 district councils and 18 unitary authorities. Can I take it that the test is not met in the North West, that the Bishop of Liverpool can take a rest, and that the shed at the back of the pub can be re-let?

It should be understood that, before anyone has voted for regional assemblies, regional government is already burgeoning. Both RDAs and Government Offices for the Regions are growing. A paper by Newcastle university quoted an official as saying that the latter are not outposts of the unitary state but could become the nucleus of a regional civil service.

We can be sure that, as these bureaucracies grow, we shall hear more and more the false argument that as we have a regional bureaucracy we need a regional assembly to bring it under control. That is absolute nonsense. The last thing an elected assembly would do would be to bring bureaucracy under control. As the bureaucracy does more and more to justify itself to the assembly, the more self-important and pleased with themselves will the assembly members become. Elected assemblies will start as talking-shops, pontificating about planning and transport; but in no time at all they will demand a wider and wider role and they will be costly millstones round the necks of the people.

And that is not the end of it. Regional government does not just mean expensive, pointless bureaucracy and deadbeat councillors drawing large allowances. It is a lot more insidious than that. On 7th July, the Bishop of Liverpool told his constitutional convention that there was a big question as to whether regional assemblies would bring stronger national cohesion. It is a good question. How can it be argued that nine English regions, each with an office in Brussels and each competing with the others for handouts from the EU, are likely to make a happier and more united nation?

For some people that is part of the purpose. For them, maintaining our national identity is anathema. Just as they rejoice when they see Euro laws diminish our Parliament here at Westminster, so they cheer for regional government, which will bring us one step nearer to a Europe of the regions and put another nail in England's coffin. The Prime Minister was entirely right: we need regional government like a hole in the head.

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in his vigorous statement of views on a White Paper that is yet to emerge. Like him, I look forward with great interest to the publication of the White Paper on regional government.

I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on introducing the debate and apologise for the discourtesy of having arrived in the Chamber a few moments into his speech. I also declare an interest in two businesses that from time to time advise companies on their relationships with local authorities.

I congratulate the Government on their record over the past four or five years, specifically on the increase in financial support for local government, which has been ongoing and strong since Labour took office. I also congratulate them on the increased stability and certainty that they have introduced to revenue support for local government. However, there remain many things to do and I want to look forward as well as addressing past performance.

I share the Government's view, expressed in the White Paper of December 2001, that thriving communities and strong democratic leadership go hand in hand. Effective local democracy is essential to strong community leadership and improved service delivery. I also agree with the Government that there are two important principles of public service reform on which they and local government should concentrate. The first is a national framework of standards and accountability. Secondly, the effective delivery of national standards requires the devolution of real power and responsibility to local leaders and front-line staff.

In applying the first principle, the Government say that national priorities must be more clearly identified in future, but acknowledge that that will not be effective if they simply specify targets from above. Despite those sensible sentiments, the White Paper and the Government's actions provoke the occasional feeling that their fundamental concern is to ensure that local government does what central government want, but does so more efficiently and effectively, rather than to develop local choice and local democracy. Much of what the White Paper says about improving efficiency and effectiveness in delivering public services locally is sound, but if local community involvement programmes and local public service agreements between councils and government are largely devices to get what central government want rather than to strengthen local choices, local decisions and local democracy, we may not revive democratic leadership and local democracy as much as the Government—and certainly I—would wish.

Perhaps the most open test of the proclaimed desire to devolve real power and responsibility from the centre will come in the Government's promised proposals on regional government. As I have already said, I look forward to those proposals with great interest.

The new political arrangements seem to be settling in more quickly than sceptics predicted. The distinction between an executive role and a scrutiny role, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, said, is working in most authorities, although the understanding and development of the full potential of the scrutiny role of back-bench councillors is, in my experience, patchy between and within local authorities.

Slowly but surely, I sense that a change in culture is emerging, as local councils see that the new arrangements open up opportunities for the constructive development and oversight of policies and their implementation, as well as opportunities for strengthening wider community and agency involvement in local decisions.

That wider role of promoting and facilitating community involvement and helping to bring together the interests and actions of different public and private agencies requires a great deal of skill and historically different skills for elected councillors and their officers. I therefore welcome the Government's clear recognition in their White Paper of the need to support local government in building capacity and skills in strategic leadership, in effective overview and scrutiny and in partnership development, partnership working, performance management and project management.

There is also a need to build capacity and skills in the wider community and agencies, both public and private. In my experience in Yorkshire, the councils may begin to see the need to develop partnerships and capacity, but they often find that the other agencies that they are dealing with do not have the same background and capacity to engage in a partnership on an equal basis. I hope that the Government will look at wider capacity-building issues as the process goes forward to see whether there are ways of building capacity and skills not only in local government, but among the many community partners, public and private.

It is essential that the hopes and aspirations raised by community involvement and partnership development lead to positive outcomes at local level. It could be all too easy for local authorities to slip back into running the show locally, with decreasing commitment to the initial ideals of involvement and partnership.

I remain sceptical about the Government's enthusiasm for mayors. The lack of public support does not surprise me. There is a conflict between the role of an all-powerful mayor and the process of widening participation and developing stronger local democracy at local authority level—not at regional level, as in the case of the Greater London Authority. Having a wider executive and a larger group of backbenchers provides a healthier balance and a wider pool of current and future leaders of local authorities and local communities.

The one disappointment in the White Paper was that the Government view poorly performing councils, under their new system of performance assessment, as particularly ripe for having a mayoral system imposed on them. Poorly performing authorities will need not a bureaucratically efficient solution to the failure of democracy in action, but a combination of the other sensible measures proposed in the White Paper, together with a major programme of capacity-building within and outside the authority. In that way, a new, stronger local democracy can re-emerge alongside improvements in performance.

I welcome the White Paper and the Government's performance to date and I look forward to the implementation of many of their proposals.

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hanningfield for introducing the debate. As the leader of a major local authority and an officer of the Local Government Association—to say nothing of his wider perspective as a member of the Committee of the Regions—he is well suited to address the House on the subject. Although my experience of 30 years in local government and 18 years as a leader is not so fresh, I am depressed by how little things have changed and how much the conversations we are having today are the same as those of 20 years ago.

Interest in local government and in freeing it from central control is not so much the prerogative of one party as the prerogative of whichever party happens to be in opposition. The rhetoric of the 1997 Labour Party manifesto has produced few of the promised freedoms, although there have been some gestures in that direction—including the White Paper published in December to which my noble friend referred.

I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin—whose experience of local government from a previous incarnation is considerable—may disagree with my assessment of the Government's approach. I hope that he will enlighten us on how performance assessment frameworks will work by categorising the speakers in this debate as high performing, striving, coasting or poor performing.

As to gestures in the direction of freedom which have not proved of enormous substance, I recall that elected mayors were to be the salvation of local democracy. It is clear that the public have little interest and even less enthusiasm for the idea. Any attempts to force elected mayors on communities will be doomed to failure. In view of the lack of interest and take-up, what do the Government propose? Have they any plans for what should follow?

Part of the trouble has been a failure to realise that a great idea in Europe or the United States may not translate easily to England. We cannot cherry-pick elements from different political systems and expect them to flourish here. In this country, elected mayors would have too few powers and little control over small finances to produce any interest.

The cabinet idea is not one that I oppose but it will be fraught with difficulty if local authorities are maintained at their present size. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, says that the cabinet system is working, which it is—but it is not popular. The idea that scrutiny and community representation will prove a worthwhile task for the balance of the large number of local authority members left after excluding the cabinet is expecting too much. Many people enter local government because they want to do something positive for the communities they represent.

No doubt London will be paraded as an example of advances in local government, but not enough trouble was taken to understand the proposals. I have asked in the House on more than one occasion whether the Government were creating a regional authority or a local government institution. I was told once that the Government were creating something unique. That misunderstanding seems to continue. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to a new local government institution—whereas the extensive advertisements for staff issued by either the mayor or the GLA often refer to it as a regional authority. Any suggestion of local government reorganisation is denied but that is precisely what it has been.

Out there on the streets, there is little to show for it. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to say whether London is a better place for what has been done. Is that the impression given? At grass roots level, has any progress been made towards making London a safer, cleaner place with better transport than previously existed? I ask the noble Lord to particularise the achievements of the mayor and the Greater London Authority as he sees them.

Council tax bills in London, as elsewhere, are rising disproportionately with inflation. The claim that the electorate of London will see no more difference than 3p at band D rings hollow now. Compulsory competitive tendering was abolished with an enormous flourish and the trumpet call of best value was introduced. That brought its own problems. On two occasions in your Lordships' House, I was assured that the cost of implementation was in the region of £50 million per annum. A letter in the Library dated 27th April 1999 confirms that point, yet in September 2001 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a respected institution, produced a paper showing that the estimated annual cost of the inspectorates covering local government is around £600 million. Somebody's figures are incorrect. An increase from £50 million to £600 million seems almost impossible, given the Government's great record on inflation. I would be interested to know the reason for that discrepancy.

Across the country, local authorities are finding a gap between the sums that they need to spend and grant support. It is depressing that the DETR continues to produce the same kind of answer we have always heard—that with the grant settlement, local authorities should be able to maintain services and council tax rises will not go beyond whatever percentage they choose. That leads to no accountability and total uncertainty on the part of the public. Many questions could be raised about how local government is progressing but we do not have time to raise them all today.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for introducing this debate. It was interesting to hear the impeccably new Labour presentation by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, of the Government's vision for local government. He said that local councillors should be elected by local communities with the power to carry out their wishes. I want to talk about one way in which that ability is being severely curtailed. I refer to rules on declarations of interest, which are being implemented in a rigid and draconian way that is getting out of hand and preventing councillors doing their job.

Traditionally, councillors declared any pecuniary interests. That requirement has been extended to a wide range of non-pecuniary interests. In most cases, the individual withdraws from the meeting and does not vote. However, the rules have been tightened up so much that it is getting silly. The proposals from the Commissioner on Standards in Public Life and the production of a code of conduct for local councilors are fine as far as they go but many councils are going much further. That is sometimes due to a series of rulings by the local government ombudsman, particularly in respect of planning applications, which have overemphasised the quasi-judicial role of councillors and downgraded their representative role. In many parts of the country, rules are being imposed on councillors by over-zealous officers—many of whom seem to have a growing paranoia. One suspects that some have their own agenda on stifling councillors and issuing them with instructions.

There is a sheaf of examples but I have time to mention only a few. A Liverpool city councillor got into serious trouble for voting on the future of one of the city's main football grounds after it became known that he was a season ticket holder of the club—along with thousands of other people. It was held that he therefore had an interest and should not have participated in the vote.

Last summer, Kirklees council in West Yorkshire voted to close a secondary school. One of the councillors who voted for that decision was a governor appointed by the council to a neighbouring school. The matter eventually went to the Queen's Bench Division on 28th July 2000, when it was decided that councillor should not have voted and the closure decision was overturned. The school is still open, partly because of a subsequent change in political control of the council. The point is that something which many of us in local government traditionally regarded as a non-declarable interest—representing the council as a school governor—turns out to he a declarable interest and gets the whole council into real difficulty.

There are also some quite foolish examples. A friend of mine, Councillor John Fletcher of Stockton-on-Tees Council, took part in deciding a planning application affecting his whole ward. However, after a complaint by the applicant, the potential developer, the council's legal officers ruled that the decision was invalid because John Fletcher was a friend not of the applicant or anyone with an interest, but of one of the principal objectors. It was ruled that he should not have taken part in that decision, and the whole process had to be repeated. Moreover, the council had to re-decide the application without half a dozen councillors who had friends who would be affected in one way or another by the decision. We therefore return to an issue that has been debated before in your Lordships' House: what is a friend and who is a friend? In local government, however, declarations of interest can stop one from participating and voting. It is therefore a much more serious issue.

Another friend of mine, Councillor Keith Orrell, in Ryedale, in Yorkshire, was debarred from taking part in a decision on whether to improve some derelict land owned by the council, by turning it into a little park. On the advice of the legal officer, he was excluded from the decision because his wife had actively campaigned for the development. Her only interest in the matter was, as a citizen, to seek improvement. Consequently, however, he was ruled ineligible to participate in the decision. That is nonsense. If we were not in your Lordships' House, I would call it an unparliamentary word beginning with B—but I shall not.

Is an interest of a councillor's wife an interest also of the councillor? It is getting to the stage that those who campaign in the community in ward elections or on a given issue cannot participate in council discussions and decisions on those issues because they have expressed a view on them, particularly if they involve planning applications. Such applications may well be the main issue in an election campaign. The restrictions are a denial of the democratic process, and I believe that the Government and others need to step in, find out what is going on and stop it.

It is not happening everywhere, but a cancer is creeping through local government, particularly in relation to legal officers in many places who are trying to impose restrictions. Given those restrictions, if one is the sole councillor for a small rural ward comprising not many more than 1,000 electors, how can one properly represent that village or small town? One will undoubtedly live in the ward, work there and belong to many of its local groups. One's children may attend the local school, and one may attend the local church. At least every four years, one will knock on its doors. How on earth can one be an effective councillor if one must declare an interest in relation to anything at all to do with that village or any of its groups? It is a spreading cancer at the heart of local democracy, public involvement and the councillor's role as representative, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said, of his community.

If we were in a council chamber and not in your Lordships' House, I would not have been able to talk about many of these issues because I have been talking about some of my friends.

My Lords, at seven minutes per speaker, my arguments must be severely compressed. Many of my worries on this subject relate to the handling of planning issues by local authorities, in which I have had some involvement and experience. However, I shall omit these matters entirely as we are expecting a new White Paper on them. I urge the Government to bring forward that White Paper soon so that we may debate their far-reaching ideas, exposed in the Green Paper, before the Summer Recess. This timetable is surely necessary if the issue is to be included in the next Queen's Speech.

What are the Government's plans regarding the regions? The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, mentioned that subject. As he said, it featured briefly in the 1997 Labour Party manifesto, but we have not heard much about it since. So much for the mandate theory of government. However, what is the future relationship going to be between the regional development agencies and local government? RDAs currently lack any proper local method of democratic control, and those in charge of the RDAs are nominees of central government. Do the Government understand that the regional concept is not universally popular in England? It has some appeal in the North East and North West where they need to replace old industrial structures, and there is also some support in the South West where Cornwall feels left out, but I doubt that it has much support elsewhere.

I also draw the Government's attention to the fact that the county is still the focus of attention for the majority of the population. The county is our oldest administrative unit, dating back to Saxon times. As he became victorious in reclaiming the Danelaw, King Alfred introduced the county throughout his territories. The shire was also used by the Normans for raising troops in medieval England, taxation and returning Members of Parliament. The British Army has long been based on regiments recruited on a county basis—a system much admired abroad. Of course the scene has changed with the growth of our great industrial cities but, to this day, the county is responsible for police forces, transport, planning, the environment, highways, consumer protection and personal social services. The county is often—I dare say generally, if one does not live in a large city—the unit with which the citizen most readily identifies himself. It is therefore with regret that I notice the Government's apparent tendency to displace the county by using their power to finance the RDAs.

I suggest that the Government have many difficult problems on their plate in the area of regional institutions and policies. I urge them not to destroy the units we have that enjoy local support, to eschew one-size-fits-all formulas which could be a recipe for confusion and perhaps uproar, and to turn away from the authoritarian trend of channelling investments to bodies—the RDAs—appointed from London with inadequate knowledge of the regions. Above all, I suggest that they should examine with care the cost of establishing new regional authorities, the cost of finding premises for them, and the cost of compensating current local government employees who will lose their jobs. Instead, we should concentrate on making better what we have now.

The key to this will be to improve the economic resources available, particularly at the county level. It is not impossible to streamline procedures and to concentrate resources where they are most needed. We may also need to consider giving local authorities greater revenue-raising powers.

An idea that has long intrigued me is this: could one rearrange the collection of VAT and income tax on a county basis and empower local councils to raise a small and carefully limited extra amount of tax from those resources? A national equalisation formula, like the Barnett formula, would no doubt be needed for areas with special needs. I do not expect the suggestion to meet with much support, but it does seek to remedy what seems to me to be the basic flaw in the current system, whereby central government set the standard of services to be provided but give local authorities only 60 per cent of the resources needed. Authorities that take pride in providing their own first-class services for education and health in their areas may well find it easier to gain support for somewhat higher contributions from local taxpayers than in the case of taxes raised at the national level. This would also reverse the centralising trend of the past 30 years, which I believe has been the greatest problem faced by local authorities. I submit that practical decentralisation would be the best way of reinvigorating local government in our nation.

My Lords, I am both undermined and overwhelmed to see from the list of speakers that I have been emasculated. It would seem that I am no longer female but male. It is important to make it clear to your Lordships at the outset that I regard that as a vile calumny. I am a woman; I like being a woman; and I have every intention of remaining a woman.

People elect councillors hoping to get good local services, police on the streets, well-maintained roads, good schools and assistance for those in need who are unable to help themselves. That costs a lot of money and if there is not enough the council either has to increase taxes or cut services, both of which are electorally extremely unpopular.

However, there is something else that should be done right at the start when services and budgets are planned. I was a councillor for 10 years before I entered Parliament and I have never forgotten the advice that I received when I started: always spend public money twice as carefully as you would spend your own and never waste it. How I wish that that advice was followed today.

Last month—your Lordships who were here for Questions will know what I am about to say—I received a letter addressed to the occupier of my house, which happens to be me by a strange coincidence. It was from Northampton borough council's private sector housing department, informing me that a surveyor would be coming to inspect the condition of my house and its accommodation and to assess my housing needs. It said that 2,500 owner-occupiers had been selected at random from the council tax register and all who gave an interview might receive £100. What is the council doing poking and prying into people's private homes?

If I had applied for council help, or if the council was checking rateable value, or if I were not keeping my house as I should—it is a grade II listed historic house—I could understand the demand to inspect. But none of those things applied. Earlier this afternoon it was suggested that inspection was necessary because some owner-occupied houses were in bad condition. However, such houses show from the outside that they are in bad condition. I see no reason why thousands of interviews should take place in perfectly good houses. It will cost a great deal of money.

If I were incapable my family would step in and if I had no family the council would be informed by people such as family doctors, neighbours, daily helps or even milkmen. It is totally unnecessary for the council to snoop around private homes to find out what they would be told anyway.

Surveyors do not come cheap. To employ enough to visit 2,500 people in their homes must cost a lot. Trying to bribe owner-occupiers with £100 of ratepayers' money is appalling. If all that were going on while a rich council was providing all the services that ratepayers could possibly dream of, it would still he a bad idea. But far from it! Northampton desperately needs more police on the streets; many roads are a disgrace; valuable museum collections are being dispersed and curators are being sacked; and library services are cut.

I rather think that the scheme may also be breaking the law. I tried to find out this afternoon but to no avail. I am told that the Data Protection Act forbids local authorities from using their lists of ratepayers for any other purpose than that for which the lists were compiled. They certainly were not compiled for what I have just described.

And another thing. The Government could be fairer about funding local councils. Northamptonshire has been a pilot area for speed cameras, which I naively thought were to promote road safety by slowing down fast drivers. I do not believe that any more. Their main purpose is to procure money for the Government. In 2000–01, 84,000 speeding tickets were issued in Northamptonshire, raising £6.5 million. All that goes straight to the Treasury. The local authority and the police are then kindly allowed—the Treasury is all heart—to claim back the cost of the cameras and the administration. They cannot just ask for a sum of money. They must prove on paper what they spent and the Government can argue against the claim. The local authority and the police get their costs back and the Government keep the rest.

In summary, revenue for the year 2000–01 was £6.5 million; costs were £2 million; and the Chancellor waltzed off with £4.5 million. Your Lordships may call that a windfall but I call it a stealth tax. If only the police could have had it. That would have been a real bonus for residents as some of our streets in Northampton are very dangerous at night. The money could have been spent on road repairs as a great many of our roads desperately need repair. Why cannot there be priorities in local government? Are all the really important services cut in order to provide unimportant ones?

Councils have enormous power and are paid pretty generously. I sometimes think that they operated better when the job was done for free. To serve their communities was its own reward and they were recompensed only when they lost money. Those days have gone for ever. It is no longer cool to serve out of love and duty. What a pity.

My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, that it is even more of a privilege to follow her than it would have been to follow the noble Lord, as she was billed in the list of speakers.

I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for giving us the opportunity to focus on this important topic today. In the brief time available, I shall focus not on the structures and powers of local authorities, and not even on their responsibilities, but on the way in which they discharge those responsibilities and the positive experiences that I have had in both the roles with which I have come most closely into contact with local authorities recently.

I am referring to my roles as interim chair of the General Social Care Council that was set up to regulate those who work in social care and as chair of the New Opportunities Fund, the largest of the good cause lottery distributors. The way in which responsibilities are discharged by local authorities is a far more important issue for citizens than the structure or even the balance of power.

With regard to the provision of social services, or social care services, as they are increasing called, local authorities come in for a great deal of stick. Some of that criticism is undoubtedly justified, as we can see only too clearly from the Climbie inquiry, led by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. However, we must not allow that justified criticism to get in the way of acknowledging the marvellous job that is done by most social services departments, or of understanding the problematic world in which they operate.

Social care services operate in areas of conflicting values and ethical dilemmas. Staff work with groups that are often marginalised, tackling difficulties that most of us would prefer not to admit even exist. They operate at the boundaries between public and private interests and individual and family interests. They try to strike a balance between autonomy and dependency and between choice and control. The work involves judgments about risk and priorities and the competing and conflicting interests in the most stressful of circumstances, when political and public opinion, especially in the press can be volatile, inconsistent and sometimes vicious.

I take this opportunity to praise local authority social services departments for the diligent and responsible way in which they carry out their onerous duties. Even in the face of tremendous pressure, many of them remain able to embrace new ideas and be innovative in their approach.

An example of that is their attempt to address issues such as increasing user participation and raising the standards of care. It is a feature of social care that many who use its services are disadvantaged and disempowered for reasons of youth, old age, ethnicity or illness. These are groups with few opportunities to have their say or to influence decisions. Yet local authorities are finding ways of helping them to do so, often through consultation processes which are not just about putting a notice in the local paper stating that there will be a public meeting but which spend time and money enabling those groups to be involved, to be listened to and to see services change as a result of their input. Work such as that totally contradicts the cynical view that people are not interested in local services or in participating in local government.

When the General Social Care Council published for consultation our codes of conduct and practice, more than 10,000 sessions took place on our website in three weeks. Helped by local authorities, we have organised consultation events for about 2,000 people and there is still a waiting list.

I also commend local authorities for their flexible and innovative approaches to partnership working, which other noble Lords have mentioned, and which is a fairly new activity for many of them which saw themselves formerly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, reminded us, as majority providers of all services. I have seen those partnerships working productively for the benefit of citizens through many of the programmes set up by the New Opportunities Fund. Our programmes are too numerous for me to give details of all those in which we have had excellent support from local authorities, but a few examples include setting up the People's Network via our public libraries which encourages more adults into learning by improving access to learning opportunities through the use of information and communications technology; training librarians and teachers in the use of new technology and providing out of hours childcare and out of school hours learning programmes for consortia of schools within local authority areas. We are also currently working with local authorities to develop bids to the fund for our £750 million programme for physical activity for schools and the wider community. Through those programmes I have been made aware that the process of engaging with local communities is alive and well.

In developing those and many other programmes and in delivering them we have been guided and assisted by individual local authorities, local strategic partnerships and by the Local Government Association. They are helpful, farsighted and totally committed to meeting the needs of their local population in spite of the problems which local authorities face, of which we have heard examples this afternoon and will no doubt hear more before the debate is ended. I believe that we can and should celebrate that commitment to partnership working and to innovation and resolve to encourage even more of that kind of working at national and local level across the public, private and voluntary sectors for the benefit of all our citizens.

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for tabling the debate. Like him, I declare an interest as a member of a county council in the neighbouring county of Suffolk and also as a member of the Local Government Association transport executive.

I have served as an elected member in Suffolk for just over a decade. I enjoy that post very much and undertake the work as I believe passionately in government at local level. However, one great frustration has been to watch local government increasingly turn into a local administrator and a deliverer of nationally set priorities and policies. It is a matter of great disappointment to me that successive governments, regardless of what they say in opposition, have sought to reduce the power of local government by directly removing whole areas of responsibility to quangos or to the Secretary of State, by using the very real financial power that central government has simply to control the way local government goes about its work, or by using the legislative process to remove any real meaning of local choice. In that regard I think particularly of the best value regime and its hundreds of performance indicators.

I speak as a member of a council which has been in joint Labour/Liberal Democrat control since 1993. We were among the first councils in the country to adopt the new management structures, way ahead of the legislation in fact. We have achieved beacon status in a number of areas. We have glowing Ofsted and Audit Commission reports. Indeed, last year we received the council of the year award. I set out that stall not merely to brag but to demonstrate that my authority is prepared to innovate and to adopt new ways of working provided they are in the interests of the people we represent and not simply in the interests of some government agenda.

As I speak to colleagues about new legislation, over and over again I sense that they are concerned about increasing centralisation and about the powers that are removed from local authorities, local community health councils and local police authorities and carried to the Secretary of State. That may not make headlines in the papers but it represents a very real assault on local democracy which should worry us all. I wish to concentrate on one area where I consider that process is particularly dangerous; that is, the proposals contained within the Green Paper on reform of the planning system. So far we have not had a full debate on that subject in this House and therefore I make no apologies for raising it now.

The Green Paper makes a case for reform of the planning system with which I believe few of us would disagree. However, it draws some conclusions to which I take profound exception. We on these Benches agree completely that there ought to be a regional dimension to the planning system, but until there is a democratically elected tier of regional government the proposed removal of county councils from the planning system could have disastrous effects. Currently, there is almost no national dimension to the planning system. As we have seen in recent debates on housing numbers and major infrastructure problems such as Terminal 5, local public inquiries end up debating major issues of national and sometimes international interest alongside, for example, local access issues concerning where buses should run. It is no wonder that they take months and, indeed, years. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw will say more about that aspect, but the removal of the only democratically elected tier large enough to deal with strategic issues will not help the situation.

The Green Paper proposal that Parliament will in future decide on all major infrastructure projects is inadequate in every way. How many times have we spoken in this Chamber of legislation which has come to us from another place inadequately scrutinised and debated? Are we really to believe that our honourable friends in another place will have the capacity to carry out the kind of work that is required to decide on a Terminal 5 or a Sizewell C? I think not.

As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Greaves, local councillors are now prevented by legislation, and the interpretation of it, from making decisions on the most simple matters, even garage extensions. Yet it is proposed that colleagues in another place can use the huge government majority to dragoon through major infrastructure projects. There is much national guidance on the minutiae of planning but no overall planning policy framework in major areas such as aviation, land use, housing or, indeed, nuclear energy. Under the proposals in the Green Paper, we shall end up with no effective national planning system, an embryonic and undemocratic regional planning system, and then the district councils.

As a former district councillor, I can tell noble Lords that the planning skills required for district council officers are largely regulatory and related to development control. It is within the shire counties that the strategic planning skills lie. Under the proposed reform, those planners will have no incentive to move to smaller district councils. They will retire early at great cost, take up other employment within county councils, or, more likely, join the army of consultants charging councils four times what it used to cost to employ them.

The transfer of planning powers from 35 English counties to 238 district councils will cause serious skills shortages in a profession which the Green Paper admits is already overstretched. The Green Paper proposes business zones in which planning controls will be removed altogether to make life easier for developers. Local authorities have a much wider agenda than that which relates to business. Of course, they must be mindful of business, but there may be times when local environmental or social sustainability is more important than simply providing a business or a developer's charter. We simply cannot let that go.

In terms of performance, there is no evidence to suggest that it is the county level of government which is causing the hold-ups. Rather, it is district councils which are having difficulty undertaking their planning functions due to skills shortages. At county level, structure planning is a slow and laborious process but that is because of the statutory processes that have to be gone through and is not the fault of dilatory planning officers and members.

County councils, along with others, accept the need for change. They have come up with some proposals for change. I urge Ministers to give serious consideration to the points made by the County Councils Network, the LGA and various other bodies before they carry out this assault on a planning system which has served us well for 50 years.

My Lords, as many noble Lords know, I come from a rural background with farming interests and family and relatives who have served, as many still do, in local government in Leicestershire at parish, district and county levels.

My motivation for speaking in today's debate is my growing concern, not to say alarm, at what appears to be happening at all levels of local government. In the few minutes allocated to me, I shall outline my concerns under four main headings: first, consultation; secondly, codes of practice; thirdly, the proliferation of pamphlets and regulation; and fourthly, funding, including the additional responsibilities being placed on county councils without the relevant funding, resulting in increases in council tax at both district and county level. I accept the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield about the future of local government, and I thank him for giving us the opportunity to debate them today.

I have decided to highlight two such concerns, and in that respect I follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Codes are proliferating. There are codes to control the relationships between inanimate bodies—for example, the code of practice governing local education authorities in school relations. There are codes relating to inclusion and all forms of political correctness, and codes arising from the pronouncements of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the most recent of which is causing real anguish at local, parish level.

I have not made a study of all the codes available. However, I am aware of their growing irrelevance to the job in hand that they have to do, whatever it may be. For example, school governors control school budgets but they have very little ability to spend hard cash. In most schools, teaching and support staff salaries account for 80 to 85 per cent of the budget. Other items, such as business rates, heat, light and power, are not open to manipulation, and, in practice, many governors find themselves in control of maintenance but very little else. Governors are supposed to conform to a code of financial declaration as stringent as that applied to county councillors. Yet in areas where patronage and deceit could cause problems they are not covered at all. In that respect, I refer to exclusion panels, staff recruitment, and even discipline and grievance procedures, in which a failure to declare a relationship—that is, my sister's best friend's son—could result in unfairness, not to mention injustice.

I am interested to discover that school organisation committee members shall,

"act in accordance with the seven principles of public life",

but are only bound to declare an interest in any proposals affecting a school of which they are governors, which any child of theirs attends or in respect of which they may have a pecuniary interest. Contrast that with the new code for local councils, which requires a member to declare a personal interest in any matter that may or may not have more than an average effect on the well-being or the financial position of himself, his spouse, his partner, his parents, his parents-in-law, and so on. If it were not so serious, it would be hugely entertaining.

However, at village level, I can foresee many decisions having to be shelved because all the councillors may have to declare an interest. What is even more frightening is that the clause binds each councillor to report, in writing, any member of the council whom he reasonably believes has failed to comply with the authority's code of conduct. The code that defines "a relative" in such all-enveloping detail does not define "reasonable". I request the Minister to do so before the end of this debate, in terms that will perhaps stand up in court; the Minister is well qualified to do that.

Clause 15 of the parish council code requires written notification within 28 days of the receipt of any gift or hospitality over £25. That is strange. In this House we are limited by the same code to a maximum of £1,000, which could reasonably be regarded as an incentive to support a cause. Twenty-five pounds could provide supper and a good bottle of wine for two persons and, therefore, fall within that range. I urge the Minister to look at that particular section of the code.

I turn to the matter of funding—the other axe that I have to grind. Funding is an issue to be considered in all areas of local authority spending. Will the Minister tell us when the review, promised for so long, to make funding easier and fairer will be made public?

I now turn directly to my local county of Leicestershire, and I declare an interest—my brother is a county councillor. Leicestershire follows the national trend in regard to pressures on its budget. Two main areas are under-funded by the Government: social services and the environment, and protective and cultural services.

I deal first with social services. Leicestershire has an above-average number of young persons who qualify for preserved rights because they live at Care Shangton, which is under community care and funding for which, prior to 1993, was provided by the DHSS. A change was made which meant that social services would pay the resources that were not transferred. The under-funding shortfall for the year 2002–03 is £679,000. In respect of residential allowances, there is a shortfall in funding for the independent sector for 2002–03 of £548,000. The reduction in residential care income for the 12-week property disregard is £350,000 for the same year. The reduction in residential care income—change to capital limits—is £275,000. There are many others.

In addition, Leicestershire has topped the SSA for environmental, protective and cultural services by £17.2 million, but, following the EU legislation on the disposal of fridges, the cost is now £300,000 for 2002–03. The landfill tax is estimated at £325,000; the increase in waste tonnage (landfill) is £150,000; the increase in waste tonnage (haulage) is £110,000; and there are others. The total cost of growth of waste disposal comes to the huge figure of £1,055 million. The SSA for this service was £25.2 million, increased for 2002–03 to £1.16 million. There is a huge deficit in relation to which the county councils will need some help. Are they to disregard some of their services, such as libraries, in order to cope with additional legislation and additional responsibilities for which they have not been funded?

My Lords, when I was first elected to my local authority in 1979, our local MP was Peter Archer, now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. He said to me, "If you manage to achieve five per cent of what you set out to achieve, you will be doing very well". That casual remark clearly demonstrated a need to look at the way councils were run. I therefore believe that the Government's directive to ask local authorities to review the way they carried out their affairs was overdue.

Councils around the country were urged to revitalise themselves, respond to local people's needs and deliver top-class services. At the heart of that modernisation campaign was the shake-up of the traditional committee system, which had remained largely unchanged since the 19th century and which did not adequately reflect a modern, complex society.

As noble Lords will be aware, three basic models were put forward by the Government. It was left to the local authority, in consultation with its communities, to choose one of those three models. The new style was to have an executive that was clearly responsible for taking decisions. Those executives would be held to account by overview and scrutiny systems, which would monitor their actions. The revised system aimed to clarify who was responsible for taking a decision and hold them accountable rather than allow the matter to become lost in a committee.

I am pleased to say that my own authority, Sandwell, has stayed ahead of the game. It launched its drive to modernise the council two years ahead of the deadline by piloting one of the three ways of managing town hall business. That enabled it to be one of the first authorities in the country to submit and have approved its formal political constitution. Sandwell has been formally operating the new "cabinet and leader" model of government since September 2001, following two years of piloting. The council adopted that model not because it was told to but because it was felt to be the most suitable system for a borough such as Sandwell, which is composed of a series of tight communities that are focused around six towns. That view was backed by the community through extensive consultation, which took place throughout the pilot period.

One of the cornerstones of that consultation process were the six town committees that were established in each town in the borough where the proposals were debated. Although overall it has proved difficult to create much enthusiasm for the changes, the local committees have proved to be very popular with local people and are now a central part of the way in which the council runs itself.

I am pleased to say that I was the council leader at the time of the council meeting. Extracts from my speech at that meeting were reproduced in the local newspaper. I spoke about the advantages of the new system as we saw them. I said:

"New ways of running the Council are important to everybody in the Borough and will affect all members of the public … We have listened to the people by carrying out extensive consultation, and now we are able to forge ahead with the Leader and Cabinet system we have been piloting for sometime … We are in a perfect position to press ahead and get on with the job of ensuring that the new system delivers the goods for all local people … Our aim remains to give them a Council which listens to their views and aspirations and then responds flexibly and efficiently".

I also said:

"Modernisation is essential to that aim and the delivery of Sandwell's Community Plan".

For those noble Lords who do not know Sandwell, I explained that the plan was,

"developed by the Borough's Civic Partnership of key public, private and voluntary sector agencies",

and that it is,

"centred upon the vision that Sandwell by the year 2020 will be a thriving, sustainable, optimistic arid forward looking community … The Council has re-organised itself internally to ensure the delivery of services based upon that vision. Now the Council's modernised political management system will play its part in making the vision a reality".

Sandwell has always put great emphasis on partnership working to deliver its local agenda. We welcome the new power of well being to bring about the economic, environmental and social improvements that are so needed in a deprived area such as ours. We also welcome the proposals in the recent White Paper to rationalise the number of plans and strategies that local authorities have to produce. The Sandwell community plan that I mentioned is a good example of the way in which one all-embracing partnership strategy can replace the many plans and strategies that a range of local agencies are required to produce by central government.

Obviously, the plan needs more attention and more needs to be done to rationalise the various regimes that impact on local government and its partners. The Government should set the overall framework within which local authorities and partners deliver local solutions to local needs. We must continue to move away from the "one size fits all" mentality and recognise that needs are best interpreted locally and met at the local level in a partnership setting that reflects the local community.

Local authorities are best placed to interpret those community needs but they require freedoms, flexibilities and, most importantly, adequate resources from central government so that they can deliver the improved public services that we all want.

My Lords, several noble Lords have spoken of the need to invigorate local government. I want to discuss that in a particular context—the need to strengthen local government's historic role as a vital ingredient in the glue that holds our country together.

We are all seriously worried about the growing stresses and strains on our so-called social cohesion. Part of that anxiety involves cynicism about and lack of interest in our democratic institutions and the low turnouts at general elections in particular. As we wonder what should be done, it is important to remember that nowadays, although people gain their impressions of our democratic process from television and the newspapers, their day-to-day experience, their contact with real people and their experience of how the system can help or hinder them comes mainly from local government. Few people have met their Member of Parliament, more have met their councillor and many—very many—have met local government officials.

Despite the changes over the years to local government, the services and functions that it provides are still those that are nearest to people's day-to-day lives. Those services and functions are recognised and experienced locally as local government's concern. Councillors and local government officers, many of whom are among the most dedicated and hardworking of our public servants, are of necessity in close touch with local people—their needs and opinions. Because of their nearness to the electorate geographically and in terms of what they do, local government people play a large part in helping their customers to discover the basic workings of the system and the part that they can play.

Most people are regularly involved in some way with their local council. What they find frequently affects how they vote. In my experience, that affects how they vote not simply in local elections but also in general elections, and whether they vote at all.

How much more could be done if the scope of local government could be widened again in new ways, so that more local people could have greater contact with the system and so that the interest of the role would attract a wider variety of able councillors and officers? I do not believe that that would be easy. We cannot turn back the clock. Technology and social science will go on developing and will make it increasingly easy to run services from the centre, to regulate, monitor and manage from the centre and to communicate directly with each elector from the centre over the heads of local government. The devolved assemblies will do that even more than central government. Those are the signs in Scotland. We cannot turn back the clock, yet the signs are that the effect of this centralization—this vicarious, media-depicted experience of our system is a principal element in public cynicism. Surely it would be wise now for this Government, or a successor government, deliberately to seek new involvements for local government. I have in mind involvements as challenging and as interesting as they can be, so that they attract increasing numbers of able men and women, more younger men and women, to do the job; and so that they offer the maximum possible number of opportunities for local people to experience their system and play a part in it.

As I said, I do not believe that it will be easy, but it should be deliberately done. The Government should set out to do it and local councils should set out to think of ways of doing it. Some years ago, Schumacher's message was "Small is beautiful"—that local satisfaction is the way to wider satisfaction, part of the glue that holds the country together. In modern government, we forget that at our peril.

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for inaugurating this debate into,

"local government, its structures, powers and responsibilities".

I should like to make the declaration that I have been a councillor for 24 of the past 29 years and am still a serving member of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council. Much could be said on this subject, and I shall be speaking from personal experience.

Perhaps I may begin with structures—the cabinet system. It starts for real in May. All that has been taking place until now has been a matter of practising at running the cabinet system. My view is that the jury is still out, and will be for a long time, on whether or not this will be a better system. It is perhaps wonderful that we have got rid of all those meetings, many of which did not really achieve anything in the end. Indeed, there may have been far too many meetings, with an element of a "talking shop" in the process.

Like many noble Lords in this Chamber, I have knocked on doors—not necessarily for the vote, but actually to suggest to whoever opened the door that he or she would make a very suitable local government candidate and councillor—sometimes with, but often without, success. When people ask, "What does it involve?", you reply that there is a full council every so often and that he or she may be on this, or that, committee. You make that response while biting your tongue; you know that if they are not careful, they could find themselves in the town hall every night of the week.

I believe that under the new system we can be honest with some of those people, especially if they are not to be members of the cabinet. I suspect that they will not be on the first occasion they are elected. However, so far, there is some evidence to suggest that the non-cabinet members believe that they play a diminished role in local authorities. I wonder about the tight group of decision-makers in the cabinet. It does not seem to me that there is any transition for those who are scrutineers and who, perhaps next year or the year after, will be required to serve on a cabinet.

In Calderdale, where we were formerly also part of West Yorkshire County Council, we now have some joint bodies that the various authorities thought it worth while to keep going. Because they are decision-making bodies, only members of the cabinet can serve on those joint bodies, which is really taking things too far. That, in itself, would have been at least one area of training for people who might subsequently serve on a cabinet.

I turn to powers. In order to exercise powers you need resources. I recall being involved in a debate earlier this year, or perhaps late last year, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, agreed with me that the revenue support grant settlement was the major determinant for local government in coming to a view on setting the level of council tax. I believe that that is right, but it is only part of the process. The other elements that are highly significant in determining what a council tax should be are the various special offers. Officers must be hired in order to look for special offers. However, those special offers are not the ones to be found in supermarkets; it is not like going to Morrison's, Asda, or Sainsbury's. We have the standards funds for education, and, in our part of the world, we have the neighbourhood renewal scheme, for which £900 million has been designated over three years.

Every council that fringes around Calderdale—Bradford, Kirklees, Oldham, Rochdale, Burnley and Pendle—all receive neighbourhood renewal support, but not Calderdale. Indeed, 31 out of 36 metropolitan councils receive such support. Even Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster receive it; but not Calderdale. I should like to know how you get an invitation to receive these special offers. In my view, the powers of local government are far greater and far more important than what local government seems to be doing at present; namely, creating a multitude of plans and strategies.

I turn, finally, to responsibilities. However one considers this, I believe that the major responsibility of local government is to make the community— that area, that place—a splendid place in which to live. But we should look at some of the recent features that have perhaps set authorities against that course of action. We have this concept called "best value". What does it mean? I think it means striving for the best standards and that everyone must be in the top quartile. I find that difficult to understand.

In my part of the world, we are having a best value review of museums and galleries. We have a splendid place in Calderdale called Shibden Hall. It is an accident of history as to whether Shibden Hall might have been an asset of English Heritage or one of the National Trust, but it is not: it is an asset of Calderdale council. Therefore, when we consider whether Calderdale is over or under "museumed", we must take such matters into consideration. Local authorities study national statistics to see whether they are over or under "museumed". I wonder whether the City of York will be having a best value review on heritage, and whether it will turn out to be under or over "heritaged". I believe that I know the answer.

I was involved last week in a rate fixing debate, the most depressing aspect of which is the area of discretion. It seems to me that discretion is used only to cut. The more tightened the revenue support grant settlement and the special offers become, because of the real concern that statutory services must be covered the more local authorities use their discretion to cut resources for parks, gardens, leisure centres, museums, the environment, the countryside, and grants to voluntary bodies. Every shift that takes place from national to local taxation means an attack on the discretionary activity of local government.

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to speak in this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. He and I served together for many years in County Hall, Essex. I sometimes regret saying, and I am sometimes relieved to say, that it is now so long since I departed that place that I have no interest to declare. It is almost a relief to find myself discussing local government once again after the intense pressure of dealing with a Bill from the Secretary of State at the Home Office, which is devising ever more detailed and intimate ways of intervening in a locally-provided service; the police. I recommend that noble Lords skim through that Bill to see what the future might be.

I had the privilege of serving on the Front Bench during the passage of the Local Government Act. My worst fears have been borne out. It has done nothing to increase the freedom and independence of local government. Now I find that local government has to agree with national government 46 separate plans of its affairs. They are judged against 145 specific performance indicators. There are four separate inspection regimes, about which we have heard, now costing £600 million per annum. The best-value system, introduced by the Local Government Act 2000, is inevitably applied in detail to particular services. That has led Public Finance magazine, which is a remarkably useful source of information, to comment:

"These reports are a waste of public money. Our calculations show £157,000 on audit fees alone for two unusable reports".

I can imagine that being replicated backwards and forwards across the country. At the same time we have seen ring-fenced grants in the annual revenue support grant settlement increase from 5 per cent in 1997 to 12 per cent this year. Is that greater independence for local government?

Now, in the forthcoming White Paper, we see the Government threaten direct intervention in authorities perceived to be under-performing. On whose judgment is that? There are possibilities of transfer of functions away from councils; and of a council being put into administration or even being run by another council. All of that led the Local Government Association—I am glad that that is still a strong power to represent local government well—to comment:

"Formal intervention should be avoided wherever possible as there will only be sustained improvement where an authority accepts the need and owns the problem and its solution. That is unlikely where a solution is externally imposed".

It is unsurprising, therefore, that in considering the White Paper, Public Finance magazine published an article by Tony Travers, the director of the Greater London group at the London School of Economics, which states:

"The overall tone of the white paper is pro-local government. But its proposals are sufficiently modest to suggest the government can only just bring itself to move in this particular direction. It looks as if a genuine desire to reverse the tide of centralisation has run up against other demands to ensure that, say, it is possible for Whitehall to intervene directly in poorly performing authorities. The government has two personalities: one is Stalinist and interventionist, while the other understands that the Soviet Union's 'democratic centralism' did not work".

Later in the same article, there is a comment that:

"The centre cannot break its addiction to control".

That may be a common government failing, but it is certainly one which I intend to continue to resist.

I turn to the Government's proposals for the planning system. I have to confess a marginal sympathy with their proposals for major infrastructure projects. However, when we get below that specific issue—the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, did a precise and expert demolition job on the proposals to remove county councils from the planning process—there is an additional aspect to be considered. In the old days I used to have some dealings with Europe. When we were dealing with nascent regionalism, it always struck me that the reason Brussels was so enamoured of the regional question was because it found it almost impossible to deal with national governments. It wanted to have regions as a means of getting into matters more locally. National governments were an obstacle to Brussels expanding its view. That is not an anti-European view, it is a straightforward observation. On the whole, I favour Europe.

We need to think seriously about the proposals for regionalism. If they also involve, as they appear to do, proposals to remove counties from the scene, we are into yet another round of structural reform of local government. That process has been going on in this country ever since I was involved in local government. It has been a huge waste of intellectual effort and a huge distraction from the proper provision of services to the public, which the public have a right to expect.

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a member of Oxfordshire County Council. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for initiating the debate. I shall concentrate on planning aspects and start by asking what is wrong with the present planning system. There are some delays. Although many of those are due to the queues for public inquiries experienced at present by many local authorities, much could be done with the few other cases by government intervening directly with the local authorities concerned.

I believe that the main frustration of business lies in the big schemes, whether airport terminals; runways; large waste incinerators; big roads or nuclear power stations. We want to know how such decisions will be taken in future. Will they concentrate on whether we need the facility and what will be its particular location? If specific location decisions are avoided—for example, by deciding that we need a runway somewhere in the South East—that would still leave the issue of location to be fought out through the existing planning process. Conversely, how will Parliament make the decision without the implicit or explicit involvement of the party Whips, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, alluded?

The Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry took a total of six years to conclude at a total estimated cost of £80 million. That is neither democratic nor does it involve communities. The reason for that is that planning inquiries—I am sorry to say this in the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—have become a meal ticket for the planning bar. If we want radical reform of the planning system why not change it for one where the inspector conducting the inquiry does so on an inquisitorial basis? He is qualified so to do and he could ask the relevant questions without them being drawn from witnesses under cross-examination. That reform would speed the process and cheapen considerably planning at all levels.

There is a shortage both of planning staff and those going to planning colleges and universities to qualify as such. Past experience shows that any radical shake up of local government causes many experienced people to leave. Obviously, those people do not move into the new posts that are created.

The re-organisation of local government in the 1990s cost double what was forecast. Any change that the Government postulate will be very expensive. Does the Minister know what the cost will be? Does a figure of £40 million attached to the Green Paper as a one-off cost and an amount in the region of £80 million annually thereafter seem excessive, as all the staff in post will have to be paid?

Of course, the whole procedure may be postulated on regional government. We hope to see that, but as a means of devolving power. Of course that would settle the power on elected regional assemblies. However, we have strong fears that we shall end up with appointed assemblies and that the real decisions about land use and sensitive issues such as housing numbers will be taken not through those assemblies but by central government through their regional offices.

The Minister claims business support for the Green Paper. Can he say from where he gets his evidence? Is business really complaining about the uncertainties of the public inquiry system rather than the planning system itself?

Another issue concerns compensation for planning blight and compulsory purchase. More generous and less bureaucratic systems abroad make people less resistant to planned changes. Do the Government have any proposals for that?

One of the strengths of the current planning procedure is the integration of land use, transport, minerals and the growing problem of waste disposal. Counties with their small staff understand how those link together and how policies relating to housing and industrial development link into them. The local transport plans have been successfully launched. We involve the district councils and the process allows for the involvement of town and parish councils, both in the structure plan and in the local development control process. Because of the historic pattern of governance, decisions—even extremely unpopular ones such as those on housing numbers and minerals extraction—are accepted with the counties in place and their district and parish councils underneath them. The misery is shared. But if these decisions are removed to a superior tier of government there will be, at best, a sullen distrust of anything which emanates from it. That will be because the decisions will be taken more remotely from the people who are most involved.

We think that regional planning guidance could be re-written and simplified in the process. But I urge the Minister to think carefully about the cost of the upheaval proposed and the probability that there are insufficient trained staff to do as he proposes; the democratic deficit which we face from appointed regional assemblies; and the threat posed to integrated planning in the counties which still exist.

I have proposed an alternative reform of the planning system and have asked questions about how major decisions are to be taken in the future.

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for providing the House with the opportunity to consider the structures, powers and responsibilities of local authorities. I find myself in agreement with much of his opening speech to the House. I am delighted that he raised so many issues that are of concern to people who work in and serve local authorities.

My noble friend the Minister will be aware that I had the privilege of heading up the task force which examined the causes of the serious disturbances in Burnley last June. One of the paramount responsibilities of Burnley's local authority will be to implement the recommendations of that task force. I want to touch on one or two of the practical matters that they will be faced with.

The concept of a task force to look into the problems of Burnley came as a result of a borough-wide conference—an initiative of the people of Burnley. It was organised in a matter of days by a very efficient Burnley Borough Council. That conference expressed deep concern at what had happened in the town and asked the task force, as part of its remit, to make recommendations in an attempt to avoid a recurrence of what had shaken the people of Burnley.

The task force report was published before Christmas. It contains over 80 recommendations. It represents a good deal of hard work by a number of people, all of whom, including myself, were volunteers. The recommendations cover a range of issues.

I am aware that the Government are actively considering the findings of the task force so I shall not dwell on that part. The recommendations impact on the local authority and the powers that it has to implement some of what is needed to be done in order to avoid a recurrence of the disturbances.

In the limited time available today I should like to ask my noble friend a number of questions and ask whether he will give consideration to some of the recommendations that fall within the terms of this debate? First, Burnley is unique among the areas that experienced civil disturbances. As the House will know, a number of areas in the North West and the North of England suffered disturbances. However, it was unique inasmuch as it is a borough council and a county council. Sometimes it is very difficult to find the dividing line. It is a dual, two-tier authority rather than a single unitary or metropolitan authority.

It was felt by the task force that that situation caused some difficulties in understanding, especially by the people of Burnley. We were able to make direct contact with over 9,000 of Burnley's 90,000 residents with our consultation procedures. That. I believe, should act as a model for the future. However, the task force considered that a unitary authority would be worth considering as part of the consultation on the forthcoming White Paper on regional government. The reason I say that is because Burnley is unique in its authority position but not in the problems that it faces. It has all the inner city problems without the inner city status. Therefore, it suffers as a result of available finances.

Secondly, I should like to make a plea that local authorities such as Burnley be given more flexibility over the spending of moneys received from the Government.

I should say as a matter of apology that, although I was in the Chamber for the first hour and ten minutes of the debate, I then had to leave. As a little treat, the young people on the Burnley task force came here for tea. I could not leave them abandoned in the tea room. I apologise to noble Lords who made speeches in my absence, but tomorrow I shall read every word they said.

I believe that the concept of local strategic partnerships should be given a greater say. I heard both the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Woolmer, talk about the need for local people to have direct involvement in the decisions and in what is clone in those areas. The Government should look at ways of giving them a greater say. I shall explain the matter as briefly as I can. One of the problems that led to the serious disturbances—the terrible violence —was the misunderstanding of how local government money was being allocated to areas. Under the present system, allowances are given for regeneration and earmarked with specific guidelines and criteria.

If the council had had a little more flexibility, it could have made the matter easier to understand. It would have been able to say, "We will do something in this as well as the other area". But it could not do that. Therefore, it led to a great many misunderstandings and, in some cases, to some dreadful propaganda from what I would describe as "neo-fascist organisations". In those circumstances, the restrictions that were placed on the local government were a barrier to making progress in race and community relations.

I ask my noble friend to consider the position of local authorities which, like Burnley, have less income today than they had 10 years ago. That may seem a little unusual. But in 1992–93 Burnley had £11.5 million. That has decreased by 2 per cent this year. Inflation increased by 26 per cent over the period and council spending increased by 16 per cent, but the council standard spending assessment has decreased by 2 per cent. Unless the Government reconsider how money is allocated to places such as Burnley, we face a losing battle.

I turn to the housing surplus. At present, the local authority cannot do much about regeneration because of the enormous cost to it of clearing each derelict, abandoned, neglected property. The figure cited in Burnley is £16,000. Burnley cannot afford that on its own. One recommendation in the task force report that I ask my noble friend carefully to consider is that a co-ordinated approach is needed between the regional development agency, the Housing Corporation and the local authority to tackle the problem not just in towns such as Burnley but across the area where problems are common.

I should like to illustrate how people are trapped in derelict property. Some cannot move because they took out mortgages 15 years ago at £9,000 to buy a house. The compensation to get them out of their appalling state does not give them a chance to go anywhere else. Most of them are of the age at which they had to have an endowment mortgage. But they end up with no equity and so are trapped in those properties.

In all seriousness, I ask my noble friend the Minister to address some of those problems. I know that the Government are considering them—I have received a good response from the Home Secretary downwards—but I hope that they will be considered in the continuing discussions.

My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. He talked about the Conservatives' support of the local and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, commented that freeing local government is the prerogative of opposition. I must say that those two noble Lords are among an honourable band who have always supported the local under every government.

I should declare an interest as a member of the London assembly—a part of the Greater London Authority—which will be affected by some of the White Paper proposals if enacted. At present, I chair the assembly and we have been experiencing the delights of the executive/scrutiny split, to which I shall return in a moment.

For me, the first issue is not structure but functions and powers—form before function, of course—and so I welcome the new shoots of freedom, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, referred to them, that pop up in odd places in the White Paper. But I still believe that its approach is too centralised. It suggests rewards for those local authorities that are doing well. But doing well by whose judgment: that of Her Majesty's Government; that of the Audit Commission, keeping its scorecard—we are all aware of the temptation to measure numbers and speed rather than quality—or that of local voters?

A couple of months ago, when the Minister repeated the Statement introducing the White Paper, he said:

"We will also intervene decisively where councils are failing their local people".—[Official Report, 11/12/01; col. 1257.]

But is it up to the Government to assess that? Is it not a matter for voters? What has happened to the proposals for annual elections, about which we heard a good deal a little while ago? Local authorities should be answerable first and foremost to local people and have autonomy by right, not as a reward from central government. They should have the freedom to innovate and to make mistakes. Arguably, that freedom is more necessary for local authorities that are struggling to cope with difficult local circumstances than for those that are high performers.

Greater freedom for high performers could lead to a difficult, vicious circle—a virtuous circle for the few, of course, but vicious because of the need to attract able people as councillors, to which many noble Lords have referred. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, said that it was no longer "cool" to serve from a sense of duty. I am not sure whether any of your Lordships feel that they are of an age to be cool, but it is perfectly clear that there is huge recent and current experience of local government in this House—not just experience but, as my noble friend Lady Scott described it, a passionate belief in local democracy, as distinct from local administration. That point was also powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy.

As the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, put it, poor performers are threatened with having a mayor—one model of the executive/scrutiny split—imposed on them. It is that split, especially the executive mayor model,that in itself is deterring potential councillors. It means that no career path is obviously open to them. Whether or not it is cool, there is certainly a sense that some councillors count and some are second class. The noble Lord. Lord King, supported the executive/scrutiny split, but it was notable that what he described and supported was the Cabinet model, to which different arguments apply.

We must attract passion back into local government among a younger generation. There was a resonance around the Chamber when my noble friend Lord Shutt described knocking on a door to say, "Have you thought of being a local councillor? You just have to go to a few meetings". I remember being told in 1978 that I would have to attend two meetings every six weeks. Frankly, that was a fib. Four years later, when I recruited someone else, I handed over my diary to let her see the honest truth.

I am desperately anxious that in imposing new models of form we are losing sight of the substance and deterring those who have so much to contribute. I am anxious about deterring not just politicians but professionals. Reference has been made to inspections. In many cases, officers are professional people. I wonder how much disaffection there is now among professional officers who feel threatened rather than supported by some inspection regimes.

I turn to finance. There is a good deal that we welcome in the White Paper—in particular, the proposed new capital regime. I was interested to read in the description of how that would function a reference to consultation. I am glad of that. Consultation is hugely important and I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, said about not just consultation but participation, because consultation is not enough. It is not enough to ask views without, ideally, seeking participation and, at least, providing careful feedback.

The London assembly is currently considering that matter. We are concerned to ensure that the mayor consults Londoners in the most effective way. Several voluntary organisations strongly pointed out to us the huge risk, if there is inadequate feedback, of jeopardising the great fund of goodwill available when a new government is formed with widespread support— let us leave aside questions of turnout in the referendum, and so on—for a regional government, which has been badly missed. We must perform well. I must say that on that matter I am critical of the mayor—whom I support in many ways on many matters. He publicly expresses scepticism about consultation, which, I think, he feels is an activity too far. He says:

"I get on the Tube every morning and people will occasionally stop and tell me what they think. My tracking polls show I'm slightly more popular than I was when I was elected but I know when the public mood is up or down…because I find it on the streets…Before anyone invented opinion polls, politicians managed quite well in Victorian England because they had a gut feel for what the people felt".

That is not enough. As politicians, we must all be open and accessible, invite opinions and take them on board.

To return to the issue of finance, I must say that there is a long way to go before the local government financial system is adequately transparent. My own borough, Richmond-upon-Thames, for instance, which is similar to the neighbouring borough, Kingston, receives far less in central government grant than its neighbour. Trying to explain that to council tax payers, who forget, of course, that they are also income tax payers and VAT payers, is immensely difficult, without talking about gearing, ring-fencing or special offers.

As there has been some comment on regional government, I shall end with reference to a comment that was made to me yesterday by a senior figure in public life. He expressed the view that regional government—in London, at any rate—was like a black hole. He did not mean a black hole in the sense that things go into it and never reappear, but in the sense that its existence has pointed up the regional issues that require democratic involvement.

It is interesting that there has been little reference in the debate to turnout. That is a good thing, and it indicates how conscious we all are that the issue is not the mechanics of voting. The issue is good government and how we make people feel that they have a stake in it.

My Lords, it would be fair to say that the debate has generated a fairly wide-ranging discussion that has underlined the importance of local government. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, it is the tier of government that is closest to the electorate and affects their lives most immediately. It is certainly the one that those of us who are involved— I declare my interest as a member of a London borough council—believe to be the most effective, when there is not too much regulation or centralisation. The Minister holds the ring today, but I am not sure that there was much comfort for the Government in what was said this afternoon.

My noble friend Lord Hanningfield, who, if I may say so, made a powerful and important speech, drew particular attention to the planning Green Paper. Many other noble Lords referred to it as well. In particular, my noble friend spoke about the exclusion of county councils from a role in the structure plans. Not surprisingly, there is enormous concern about that, as expressed so adequately by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. There is also concern about the intention to reserve decisions on larger developments to Parliament and the pressure to increase the amount of delegation of planning decisions to officers.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the value of ensuring a hearing by democratically elected councillors who know and understand their area, as well as the need to turn round planning applications within a given timescale. I shall comment briefly on the latter. In some instances—possibly many—applications are significantly improved by the intervention, at an early stage, of planning officers, advising on aspects relating to a council's unitary development plan, previously set precedents and design issues, which may mean that the application does not go out to consultation within the normal timescales and is not determined within the constrained period. That is particularly important if there are conservation issues involved. However, the result is, often, a much better proposal that is more likely to receive unreserved approval when considered. So, nothing has been lost because the time taken was over the target.

Much attention has been paid to the structures of local government. They should not be the plaything of the Government. The future of the county council is just one of the matters that have been allowed to surface as a result of the Government's push towards regional government. As my noble friend rightly commented, we do not need regions: we have counties. The current proposals, which would encompass the planning regions—that is what they are—would make a tier of government that would be incoherent in any terms, wield power over enormous numbers of electors and be out of touch with nearly all of them. My noble friend Lord Waddington spoke knowledgeably about that. I do not want to emulate him or repeat what he said, but I thought that his speech was forceful.

I am also reminded that, in response to a recent Question asked in the House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that, if there were to be regional government, there would be one tier of government too many and one would have to go. The assumption must be that that means the county councils.

It is interesting that the White Paper on regional government, which was expected in March, has suddenly vanished from the screen. That raises suspicions that a diktat from No.10 that there should not be three tiers of government has affected the way in which the proposals were to be couched: so "Out with the counties!".Would it also mean, "Out with the districts"? That would be no small, insignificant little rearrangement of tiers of government. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith suggested, it would be another sizeable, disruptive and expensive proposal, which would take years to sort out. The expense is exemplified by the reorganisation of Humberside in 1999. That reorganisation alone cost—at 1999 figures—£53 million. If that is used as a benchmark, it would indicate that if such reorganisation were carried out on a wholesale basis, the taxpayer would have to foot a bill of up to £1.8 billion.

The truth is that the Government are obsessed with modernisation and reorganisation. Many speakers have drawn attention to the difficulties that are daily becoming apparent from the restructuring of local government itself into the leader/cabinet model. There are one or two honourable exceptions, such as the noble Lord, Lord King of West Bromwich, who has found a reassuring way through it. Fortunately, the great icon of a "mayoralty" has so far proved to be less than popular with the electorate.

My noble friend Lord Bowness and the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, drew attention to the mayoral system and the lack of popular support. There have been several mayoral elections. The turnout has been disappointingly low, and the numbers voting in referendums in which a mayoralty has been accepted have been derisory. The new arrangements have given power to a limited number of highly paid councillors—the cabinet. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, I do not believe that the cabinet system enhances transparency. It enables a small number of people to take over control of an elected council and has left beached the rest of the councillors who have been elected to serve their community.

Elected councillors have, traditionally, been accustomed to being strategic leaders. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, drew attention to the fact that, nowadays, one must find a system of capacity building. In the past there was an apprenticeship system. Councillors learned from each other. Gradually, through that system, they learned to understand both what local government is about and how it is operated. All that is lost. Now, everyone has to devise systems of capacity building and training in order to ensure that those in the council not involved in the cabinet system are able to learn what to do.

Again, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about transparency. It is extraordinarily difficult for anyone not involved in the cabinet system to find out in any depth what is going on. I speak as one who sits on a scrutiny committee and I can say that it is almost impossible to find out what it is that is being scrutinised and what lies behind it.

The whole system has raised many questions about the succession arrangements and about how to train future cabinet members. There is now hardly any role for the two-thirds of councillors left outside the cabinet to play in the decision-making process. If those who brought about these structures thought that acting as a "scrutineer" of policy decisions was going to engage the minds and hearts of those people, I fear that they were wrong. It is clear that the committee system had its faults, but it did ensure that all councillors felt involved, which clearly is not the case now. It is my view—it is also the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—that these arrangements will have to be rethought before too long if we are to attract good—I would add, possibly any—candidates in the future

Perhaps I may turn to funding. The current funding arrangements for local government mean that between 65 per cent and 75 per cent of funding is provided by the Government, including the parcelling out of the business rate, while about 25 per cent is raised from council tax. All government finance is provided against the opaque structure of the SSA. In all my time in local government I have never known of a system that satisfied everyone, and the current one is no less open to complaint than any other. However, we are promised a further attempt and, indeed, a Bill has been expected. I am not surprised that nothing has yet appeared because I expect that, as always, the various interests are irreconcilable. But if new arrangements are to be put into place for 2003–04, which was anticipated, then the legislation cannot be delayed much longer or it will be impossible for councils to implement in time. Perhaps the Minister could give us some idea of when the Bill is to be brought forward.

Noble Lords have referred to many other matters during the course of our debate, such as the percentage of grant that is ring-fenced, the ridiculous criteria laid out for the performance of councils—they are to be categorised as "high performing", "striving", "coasting" and "low performing"—which requires further explanation, and the move towards centralisation. However, I have had time to refer to only a few of those issues.

I am sure that we would all agree that this has been a debate of experts and practitioners. It is clear from their enthusiasm and their interest that we discuss matters relating to local government on too few occasions in this House. I am grateful that we have had an opportunity to do so today.

My Lords, I strongly concur with the concluding remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. In one afternoon we have tried to debate a White Paper, a Green Paper and probably the past 10 years of local government, along with the next 10 years. In future we must hold more debates on local government and on planning. We cannot do justice to the issues in such a limited time. I am particularly conscious of the difficulty of trying to do justice, in a mere 20 minutes or so, to the very wide-ranging and interesting contributions of noble Lords to this debate. I offer my regrets in advance that it will be impossible to respond to every point in that short time without being totally tedious.

I shall start by setting out that the Government are committed to trying to improve governance and services for the public at the local level. As my noble friend Lord King remarked, that is crucial. It is a serious endeavour and we all share in it. The Government's approach is based squarely on the belief that local government is an important sphere of government in its own right. I shall quote briefly from the White Paper:

"Even in those areas where local authorities act primarily as agents of central government, they cannot discharge that role properly if they arc over constrained by government. And we are clear that local authorities have a role which extends well beyond national priorities. They are a separate tier of government, answerable to local voters and taxpayers, with local priorities to pursue and a local community leadership responsibility to discharge".

Varying degrees of cynicism may be expressed about central government, but it is crucial that those words have been put in writing by the Government so that, it is hoped, they give at least half the lie to the suspicion voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the Government are Janus-faced on these matters.

I shall turn to some of the issues that have been raised. It is wrong to assume that there is automatically a conflict between central and local government over many issues. Many of the issues that matter to people and to councils at the local level are also those which matter at central government level, whether that may be reducing crime, improving transport, raising standards in education or promoting better health. These things are common goals between central and local government. None can be fully achieved without the full and effective commitment of local government. Thus,local government is absolutely essential to the achievement of the goals set by central government just as, one suspects, a positive approach by central government is crucial to local government in order that it can fulfil its role in the way that many noble Lords have emphasised in our debate.

The White Paper therefore makes it clear that central and local government need to work together to try to agree a narrower range of priorities than perhaps we have seen in the past. It is easy to keep on generating priorities, but then local government finds it impossible to know how to respond. Quite rightly and, I think, quite bravely, the Local Government Association has stated that it wishes to negotiate what will be a core agenda. I hope that that is what is agreed across the parties in the LGA, rather than any other approach.

Let us look at some of the specifics. The comprehensive reform of the appraisal and assessment system has been talked about extensively, which is right because it will represent a major change. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, helpfully and rightly acknowledged that performance appraisal and assessment is a reality of modern government. None of us can pretend that we should not have it in place and thus the debate has turned on how best it should be operated rather than on whether it should he done at all.

The system now being prepared by the Government will try to rationalise the inspection and assessment regime so that a lighter burden is put on councils: it is more comprehensible, it is objective in its judgments; it is undertaken separately from central government; and, above all, it is not simply about trying to put local authorities into a certain box or category. However, that in itself can be useful because sometimes it will challenge the complacency from which we can all suffer. Rather it seeks to focus on an action plan aimed at bringing about improvements in the best interests of the public, whom both central and local government serve. That focus on action and improvement is the centre of whether the new proposals succeed, as we trust they will.

In response to a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, we do not believe that it will cost any more money. It will be carried out within the Audit Commission's current budget and it should put less of a burden on local authorities if it avoids a constant sequence of inspectorates coming over the hill, which is sometimes commented on. The Audit Commission is currently engaged in an intensive process to develop the comprehensive performance assessment, the CPA, working actively with local authorities which in turn are engaging positively with the agenda rather than in an atmosphere of scepticism. Some 10 councils have volunteered to act as pathfinders.

Comments have been made about best value as being too bureaucratic, too expensive and so far not able to justify the costs of its input and processes. It is clear that in some authorities there is evidence to justify those comments. That is why the Government are looking to streamline best value and to try to make the system more effective. Equally, however, there is evidence from authorities that have understood the spirit and the challenge of putting the public first and of seeking to question fundamentally whether there may be new ways of doing things and whether they could be done more effectively and more economically. Evidence from a number of authorities indicates that that is bringing about significant improvements. There are not enough, but just because some people are finding the system difficult is no reason to abandon it.

A number of noble Lords emphasised the importance of democratic renewal. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said that it was vital. Unless the public feel that their democratic institutions, whether at national or local level, have some meaning and value and are in some way accessible to them and can be influenced by them, we will be in serious trouble in the future. It is a truism that it is easier to have that feeling at local level than at national level. That is why the renewal and reform of local government is so crucial.

There has been more debate than I expected about whether the current structural system within existing local authorities is working well or whether it should be abandoned. It is early days and there are divided views. In some areas the public clearly do not want elected mayors. It is right that they should be able to choose and there is no agenda to force elected mayors on authorities unless their public want them.

But I cannot believe that we are really and genuinely arguing that we should go back to the 19th-century committee system, in all its glory and with all the sham, which many of us recognise from our local government experience, whereby decisions were made somewhere else and rubber stamped through a committee process.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, drew attention to some serious issues in regard to declarations of interest. I should love to respond to them but there is not the time. I shall have to write to him on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, rightly challenged the Government by asking, "Do you mean what you say? Will you do any of it because if you do, there will, in a sense, be a welcome for it?" Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, also asked whether any of this would happen.

The thrust of the Government is to move to a different style of relationship with local government. They are moving away from a model that was basically dirigiste in style, that said, "Submit to us a plan. We will then give you a little pot of money. We will then have lots of people crawling over it and second guessing it, and that will deliver improvement". We are moving away from that model—which many recognize does not work effectively —to a system which tries to agree outcomes, that tries to incentivise local authorities to achieve those outcomes and that tries to provide them with support if and where it is needed to succeed in reaching those outcomes. It is a very different model of central/local government relationship from the "produce a plan and we will put it in a filing cabinet" model. It is one that we should strongly welcome because it is quite clearly a more sensible process than the traditional one.

Will the Government let go? We have put on record in the White Paper that we are dissatisfied with the current relationship. We have said that it does not make sense for 66 plans to be submitted by local authorities to central government. We have made a commitment to reduce that by half and we hope that noble Lords will give us some credit for that. We have said that we will reduce consent regimes, we will reduce bidding, we will reduce special funding and we will reduce the 30 area initiatives. I do not know why Calderdale does not have neighbourhood renewal, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, or why Bradford does not have other funding. These are good questions but I cannot answer them because I do not have sufficient time available or the answers to hand. We have said that we will streamline best value. We have said that we will give permission to trade where local authorities are delivering good services.

As to powers, local authorities have now been given a statutory authority to develop community strategies for their areas which states that they have to have the leadership role, working with and through local strategic partnerships. They have been given a power of well-being, for which many in this Chamber and other places have argued for decades. They have now been given the power to do something about it.

The Government are committed to promoting cross-agency working at local level and have given the LSPs the power to promote it and to rationalise partnerships. We have given, or will be giving, greater freedom to borrow, to invest, to trade and to charge for services. These amount to a significant range of changes to the powers and scope of local authorities. There are not as many as some noble Lords would wish, but they go considerably further than has been the case.

We have already ended crude universal capping and we have said that high-performing authorities will never be capped again, whatever level of budget they choose to spend, because they are seen to have a clear relationship with their public and have the right to make those judgments.

We will end things such as council tax benefit subsidy limitation, which sounds wonderful: we will stabilise finances; and we will abolish the SSA system and seek to bring in a fairer and more transparent system. I accept the challenge of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about whether it is possible because one has seen so many attempts to do so. The current aim, which I hope we will meet, is to bring it in by 2003–04. I acknowledge that that is a rapid timetable.

There was some discussion about community leadership. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, referred to the importance of partnerships and the importance of capacity building and skill development. I completely agree with him. In a sequence of serious race riots within local authorities last summer, we saw why community leadership matters. Without saying that those local authorities were singularly to blame for those race riots, clearly massive issues of community leadership arise as regards the integration of diverse communities. Central government cannot possibly do that. They can provide support and the environment, but only local authorities can address such challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is right, the job is about making the area in which one lives always a splendid place to live. Again, that cannot be done by central government. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, made similar remarks about Burnley.

Given the shortage of time, I cannot respond in as much detail as I would like on the issue of finance. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made important points about parishes and I shall have to write to her.

I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, about our attitude towards spending public money. We should treat it as our own—or twice as cautiously—which is why there should be pressure to squeeze what we have initially before we start asking for more money or more taxes. That is one of the messages at the heart of best value, rather than simply piling on more spend.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also raised the issue of funding for schools. The White Paper contains some interesting comments in that respect and it would repay study.

As to partnerships between central government and local government at national level, we have come a long way in recent years. There is a positive relationship between the Government and the Local Government Association. The central/local partnership works well and people want to see it continue as a serious policy dialogue between central and local government.

We have seen a range of initiatives promoted to central government by local government. Local PSAs were promoted by the LGA; best value was promoted to the Labour Party by local government; and the idea of a limited range of priorities was promoted by the LGA. That is the reverse of the simple view of a central government telling local government what to do. We are seeing much more a pattern of central and local government looking together to address some of the significant challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, rightly gave positive credit to the creativity and innovation which is going on in many local authorities and which we should respect.

We need a separate debate on planning and the planning Green Paper. It is impossible to do justice to those issues today. We rebut the implication that things are okay and we can leave them as they are. The process of plan making, particularly in two-tier areas, is much too complicated and overlapping. It works on the basis of cascading planning policy from regional, to county, to district level, and that process cannot be carried out in fewer than 10 years. That is a nonsense given the speed of change in society currently. You cannot have a plan-making process which lags behind the reality of change in society.

No one is saying that counties have done a bad job and no one is saying that they have no role in the future, but, within the terms of a debate that recognises that we have to reduce the tiers of plan-making structures, we have to decide how best to harness the county contribution to a good planning system. The Government are interested in the contributions coming forward from the LGA and elsewhere within the terms I have suggested.

Turning to the subject of the regions, do people want change? Is it necessary? Will it happen? A White Paper on the matter will be published before the summer setting out the detail of how it will be addressed. It is clear in the manifesto that a move to regional government will not be forced on areas unless the public in those areas want it. So there is no fear that this is a further structural change without consent.

However, the Government stated clearly in their two previous manifestos that we cannot have a system whereby there is a two-tier structure in shire county areas, with regional government and parishes. That would be vastly too many tiers. Therefore, there will have to be a process—which I am confident will be fair and not pre-judged—which rationalises the two-tier structure into one tier; and whereby the public can gain some understanding of what that option will mean before voting on whether or not to have regional government. In a sense, they will be making a decision as to whether, in two-tier areas, they want regional government and a unitary system at the same time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that we do not need regions, we have counties. The public will have the right to make that judgment rather than central government. I believe that that is right.

I re-emphasise that this is not part of a general plan or view by central government that we need a widespread reorganisation of local government. I am sure that noble Lords will welcome that.

The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and others pointed out that it is easier to write White Papers than it is to implement them. Actually making the proposals happen is the crucial issue. The matter that gives me most comfort is that, rather than setting the proposals out on the page, central government have launched a process to examine how these complicated and important issues will be implemented. The Government will shortly publish an implementation plan setting out how they believe the proposals in the White Paper should be brought about.

The Government are also undertaking a major study between the Office of Public Services Reform and the DTLR, examining how government behave towards local government. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right; even if it is not a question of being "Janus-faced", there are tensions as to how one gets government to behave with one voice, particularly one voice which supports the development of local democracy. The study is examining that issue and how central government can and should support local government in achieving its goals as well as the goals of central government. We look forward with considerable interest to the results of the study.

I regret that I have not been able to answer all the points raised—they all deserve an answer. I think noble Lords will understand why, given the scope of our discussions. This has been an important and valuable debate. We must have further serious debates on local government, given that it is responsible for a quarter of all public expenditure. We cannot do justice to the issues in the time allotted.

I hope that I clearly conveyed the sense that the Government are committed to supporting effective local government and to supporting it in moving forward, so that it is capable of playing the role which, without exception, speakers in this debate have affirmed as being important and necessary.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for his comments. I am sure that the noble Lord has stimulated further thinking on these matters. I was pleased to hear him say that there should be further debate, particularly on the Green Paper on planning, the White Paper on local government and in relation to the regions. With those thoughts, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place earlier this afternoon. The Statement is as follows:

"I should like to make a Statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that took place in Coolum, in Queensland, Australia, from 1st to 4th March. In doing so, I want to pay warm tribute to Prime Minister John Howard and the Australian Government for the excellent arrangements made for the meeting; and to John Howard personally for his patient and skilful chairmanship.

"I also want to record how much the presence of Her Majesty The Queen meant to all the heads of government, in this her jubilee year. It was an opportunity for us all to reflect on her remarkable contribution to the Commonwealth over the past 50 years. I shall be pleased to join Her Majesty for the observance service to celebrate Commonwealth Day on Monday, 11th March.

"The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was due to take place last autumn. It was postponed because of the atrocious terrorist attacks in the United States on 11th September. It was, therefore, entirely fitting that one of the major items of business at this week's meeting was the adoption of a Commonwealth plan of action on terrorism. This focuses on how to help member states, particularly smaller states, fulfil their international obligations in fighting terrorism, including those provided for by UN Security Council Resolution 1373.

"Commonwealth heads of government also adopted the report of the High Level Review Group established at the previous heads of government meeting in Durban in 1999. This broadens the remit of the Commonwealth's ministerial level watchdog, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, beyond the overthrow of democratically elected governments so that it will in future be able to examine crises other than those provoked by a coup d'état; strengthens the good offices role of the Commonwealth Secretary-General; and streamlines the secretariat's structure. Heads also established a High Level Expert Group to report on globalisation to the 2003 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nigeria.

"The high level group report and the plan on terrorism are covered in the Coolum declaration which was agreed by heads of government at the conference. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

"These are useful developments, which strengthen the Commonwealth as an organisation committed to promoting democracy and good governance, economic development, and tolerance and racial harmony among its members. It is all the more deplorable, therefore, that one of those members, Zimbabwe, should have a president and a government so clearly violating these core Commonwealth values.

"The current crisis in Zimbabwe was extensively discussed. The violence and intimidation unleashed by President Mugabe in his desperation to prevent an opposition victory in next weekend's presidential elections is totally unacceptable. So is the way in which he made it impossible for EU observers to monitor next weekend's elections, obliging them to withdraw from Zimbabwe so that they could not document the abuses of the election campaign. And there is no doubt about those abuses. Those who are witnessing the campaign and who are still in Zimbabwe detail horrific acts of violence and intimidation.

"President Mugabe pretends that the current crisis has been prompted by the issue of land reform rather than by his determination to stay in power whatever the verdict of the electorate. This is nothing more than a pretext. Successive British governments have made clear their commitment to supporting land reform in Zimbabwe. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary repeated this commitment at the Abuja meeting last September. Indeed, since independence, Britain has provided over £40 million specifically for land reform and more than half a billion in development assistance. But our efforts and those of the wider international community—including the UN Development Programme—have been thwarted by the political intransigence and corruption of President Mugabe and his government. Make no mistake,if President Mugabe had wanted an orderly and just land reform programme at any stage in the past few years, we would have been keen to work with him. He did not. Instead, he has used the land reform issue as an excuse for undermining Zimbabwean democracy. And more than this, his actions have now provoked a grave economic crisis in a country which has the potential to be rich and successful. This is a tragedy for all Zimbabwe's people. The victims of Mr Mugabe are not primarily white; they are the ordinary black citizens, fed up with years of decline and corruption.

"President Mugabe's behaviour was denounced by a very large number of Commonwealth countries at Coolum. And let me make clear that this included outspoken and courageous condemnation by African leaders, who understand very well that the damage President Mugabe is doing harms not only Zimbabwe but Africa as a whole. Despite President Mugabe's propaganda, this is not an issue that divides the Commonwealth on racial lines; nor one that divides Africa from the other Commonwealth members.

"Although there was a strong current of criticism running at Coolum, decisions need to be unanimous. In a body representing over 50 separate nations, there was no realistic prospect of a consensus for suspending Zimbabwe from Commonwealth membership in advance of the elections this coming weekend. But we did agree a statement on Zimbabwe that expressed deep concern about the violence surrounding the current election campaign, and called for free and fair elections. This statement makes provision for Zimbabwe's suspension if the report of the Commonwealth observers currently in Zimbabwe is adverse.

"If the observers' report does indeed find widespread evidence of intimidation and violence, the fudging will have to stop. The credibility of the Commonwealth itself is at stake. The procedures laid down in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration and the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme are clear, and action must follow, up to and including suspension. Let me add that it is a remarkable tribute to the strength of democracy in Zimbabwe that the opposition retain a chance of winning these elections at all. Again, let us be clear: if they do win, President Mugabe must accept the result and hand over power.

"The Coolum meeting provided an opportunity for me to meet a number of African leaders to discuss the New Partnership for African Development. We need to work with Africa, through the G8 and through a wide range of international organisations, to grasp this opportunity for a new start and new hope for Africa. On aid, trade and conflict, I believe we have a real chance for progress, with commitment and leadership on both sides. We will continue to make this a major priority of British policy.

"Coolum also allowed me to meet the heads of government of Commonwealth Caribbean countries. We discussed ways of developing the United Kingdom's relations with them and ways of helping them confront the challenges they face, particularly in countering drugs and terrorism, and in the economic and trade fields. There will be a further opportunity to develop this dialogue at the meeting of the UK-Caribbean Forum in Georgetown, Guyana, next month.

"Finally, I co-hosted with John Howard the Commonwealth sports lunch, where we looked forward to the Commonwealth Games in Manchester this summer and then in Melbourne in 2006.

"I wish to conclude with thanks to my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for the work he did in preparing for the Coolum meeting, particularly in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. It was a great sadness that, for personal reasons, he was unable to attend the meeting itself. I wish also to record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Amos for the valuable role she played at Coolum".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made earlier by the Prime Minister in another place. At the outset, I join the noble and learned Lord and the Prime Minister in commending the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. One of the best things to come out of the CHOGM was to see a Member of this House doing so well.

I also join the Prime Minister in saying how deeply moving it was to see the affection and respect with which Her Majesty the Queen is held by the leaders of 51 very diverse countries. It was right and appropriate that they dedicated their opening ceremony to thanking Her Majesty for 50 years of service to the Commonwealth.

The critical issue of the conference was to address the rapidly deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. In that, as the Prime Minister has admitted, the conference was a failure for British diplomacy. Is it not regrettable that the Commonwealth, which has established a much respected reputation lately as a guardian of human rights, has in this instance failed? I sense in the Statement an air of complacency about the causes of that failure. To relieve the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe, quiet and persistent diplomacy was needed over a long period to isolate Mugabe, while leaving him in no doubt of the consequences of breaking the rule of law. We have not pursued that diplomatic course. Despite repeated requests from all sides in this House, we have sent false signals to the Mugabe regime by remaining engaged with it long after we should have slammed shut the door on him and all his coterie.

This House, which was forced to endure the absurdity of a government boycott of the democratically elected Government of Austria, has been made to go along with the policy of appeasement of Mugabe, which has completely failed, as the appeasement of a dictator always will. Is not the story of our action—or rather, our lack of action—on Zimbabwe a clear case of too little, too late? Is it not deeply depressing that, by rushing to the barricades at the last minute, we have failed to carry the support even of close allies in the Commonwealth?

Fortunately, in a few minutes, thanks to the Conservative Party, this House has an opportunity to debate the issue—and what could well be an impending disaster in that country—in detail, so I shall say no more, save for one thing. In view of the disturbing reports this morning that white residents in Zimbabwe, many of whom are British citizens, are making contingency plans to flee the country in the event of a Mugabe victory, could the noble and learned Lord tell the House what the Government are doing to address that potential refugee problem and to safeguard British citizens?

I very much welcome the CHOGM declaration on terrorism and congratulate those Commonwealth governments who are actively involved in the fight against it in Afghanistan. In that context, did the Prime Minister raise the continuing plague of terrorism in Northern Ireland and seek assurances from other governments that they will forbid the funding of terrorist organisations in other Commonwealth countries?

What discussion was there at CHOGM of the strong stance taken by President Musharraf of Pakistan against terrorism? I note the decision of CHOGM to maintain Pakistan's suspension from the Commonwealth. Was any message of gratitude or support sent to the president for his stand in this critical battle? In view of the acknowledgement of the improved security situation in Sierra Leone, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House when British troops will finally be withdrawn from that country?

Regrettably, I found no reference in the communiquéé to multilateral trade issues or the question of steel. Did the Prime Minister raise the question of steel at the conference, given the significant Asian production of steel? If not, why not? If he failed to do so, has that not become all the more serious given the success of Mr Mittal's lobbying against British steel exports in the United States?

Finally, is the noble and learned Lord aware—I do not think that he will be—that I consulted the Prime Minister's website this morning and found more information on it about the clothes that he wore than about the Commonwealth conference? In passing, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord knows the opinion of his predecessor as Leader of the House—the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, whom I see in her place—of the Prime Minister's taste in shirt cuffs.

My Lords, I shall not pursue the fashion note of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I am perhaps one of the least suitable people in the House to do so. I add my thanks to the Leader of the House and I commend very warmly the immense contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, whom everyone in the House recognises as an outstanding advocate of her department and of the cause of overseas development. The Commonwealth was lucky to have such a Minister present.

We on these Benches are not among those who would be only too happy to see the Commonwealth disappear. We believe that it has a central importance, as one of the very few global organisations—perhaps almost the only one apart from the United Nations—that links together nations with very different levels of income and wealth and very different racial compositions and unites them in an effort to try to create a better, more prosperous and just world. We would regret any serious damage that was done to the Commonwealth either by itself or by some member states trying to use it as a scapegoat.

I shall come to the issue of Zimbabwe in a moment; first, I have one or two other questions. The Leader of the House said that there was a ringing statement from the Commonwealth about terrorism. At this critical moment in our affairs, I simply wish to draw out the significance of having some clear evidence that Iraq is part of a smoking gun if military action is to be considered against that country—evidence either that it is related to Al'Qaeda or that it has resumed the development of weapons of mass destruction. We on these Benches feel passionately that every possible effort must be made to try to resume inspection. We wish the Secretary-General of the United Nations—who, I understand, is meeting Mr Saddam Hussein today—well in his efforts to try to get that extremely difficult and unhelpful state to again accept its obligations under the United Nations.

On multilateral trade, there is a certain contradiction between what was achieved and stated in the Commonwealth heads of government declaration and what happened only yesterday in respect of US steel import restrictions. It would helpful if the Leader of the House could say whether that matter was discussed at Coolum or whether it was too soon to do so.

As to Sierra Leone, I pay tribute to the Government because it looks as though some kind of rule of law has been re-established in at least part of that country. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can describe the position not only with the withdrawal of troops but how fast Sierra Leone is moving towards becoming a reasonably viable country that is able to resist pressures from some of its neighbours.

We share the Leader of the Opposition's view that Pakistan's president is making a real effort to deal with terrorism and has committed himself to a return to democratic process. Can the Leader of the House say anything about the efforts being made by Pakistan to deal with terrorist organisations in its own country, which clearly threaten peace in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

Can the noble and learned Lord say a word or two about the Commonwealth's position on smaller member states—particularly in respect of the effect of global warming on its most recent member, Tuvalu, which may survive only briefly as a Commonwealth member before it is swallowed up by the waves? What is the Commonwealth trying to do about global warming?

The situation in Zimbabwe is of desperate urgency. We strongly urge the Government to take steps to protect British passport holders, which is obviously the first priority. We would deeply regret it if steps were not also taken to protect some of the extraordinarily brave and courageous men and women in Zimbabwe who have consistently fought for democracy and the rule of law. The only way that they can be protected is if the British Government, with other Commonwealth governments, are willing to press for the opening of the borders with neighbouring countries—Zambia, Botswana, Namibia, Mozambique and others—so that people in Zimbabwe can flee to safety. Part of that has to be a commitment by the United Kingdom to spend the money that never went to land reform to ensure that refugees can be cared for and supported until they can return to the country of their birth and upbringing.

It is absolutely vital that the British Government commit themselves to making money available to protect British passport holders and courageous warriors for democracy, should Mr. Mugabe succeed—or, should his opponent succeed, then be threatened or overthrown as the army has suggested. The army has said some extremely troubling things about his belief in the right of an elected government to govern in a free and democratic country.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness about my noble friend and colleague Lady Amos. She has been in post for only a short period but it is plain to us all how effectively my noble friend has been discharging her duties. I know how pleased she was to have responsibility for Africa as part of her portfolio.

The noble Lord said that the conference was a failure hut I do not agree. The Prime Minister stated unambiguously that he was deeply disappointed at the failure in part to have Zimbabwe suspended. I do not regard the outcome of the conference as a failure. That would be too gloomy. To concede that the conference was a failure would be to do a significant disservice—not least to the ordinary citizens of Zimbabwe.

The noble Lord spoke of complacency and said that we should have been engaged in diplomacy for a long time. We have been. I know myself of the efforts that have been made. It is easy to be an armchair general, sitting safely in this House, without necessarily taking into account the wishes of the MDC and—to echo words of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—its extraordinarily courageous leader. It would be foolish and irresponsible not to pay careful attention to the MDC's past or current views.

I reiterate the Prime Minister's statement that there is still a prospect that the will of the people of Zimbabwe will be freely heard. One wants to be extremely careful—I re-emphasise this without wishing to be offensive—sitting in the comfort that we do, about running risks with loose language and other people's lives, wellbeing and happiness.

The noble Lord asked about British citizens. There is a civil contingency plan but it would be foolish o go into detail. I am perfectly happy, as always, to discuss matters privately with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.

As far as I am aware, there was no discussion of the funding of the Northern Ireland political or other parties.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about President Masharif. I am happy to repeat what the Prime Minister has said publicly on many occasions. President Masharif has been doing remarkable work and taking quite extraordinary personal and political risks. We believe that he is intent on the restoration of full democracy in Pakistan.

As to the question about the president's efforts to deal with terrorism, his record speaks for itself. President Masharif is governing a country that has a significant and strong view about Afghanistan. Large sections of Pakistan opinion seem to be at variance with what President Musharrat is doing and we should commend him for the courage and resolution with which he has been discharging his duties.

Sierra Leone, which was mentioned by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, is a remarkable success story for British diplomacy—more importantly, for the British Armed Forces. They are small in number but extremely professional and have brought about an improvement in that unhappy country that none of us would have been able to contemplate even a short while ago. Sierra Leone is a country where political activity once involved chopping off the limbs of small children.

I refuse to speculate on when our troops might be withdrawn. We hope that elections will come about in the reasonably near future. We must continue to give all appropriate support to Sierra Leone in its quest to recover any sort of internal stability.

I know of no distinct discussion about steel. I would not necessarily have expected there to have been such a discussion. There was of course discussion about global development generally.

I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, does in the mornings. I dare say that he does play with his computer. I am resisting any temptation to undo my cuff. That is all froth. It was amusing and enjoyable but in the context of the seriousness of the occasion, I wonder sometimes about the sense of proportion of my friends in the press. The noble Lord mischievously just encourages them.

The noble Baroness asked about Iraq. She said that before any steps are taken, she would look for some clear evidence. I repeat the Prime Minister's statement in the other place this afternoon that if there were any decisions to be made about Iraq—and I stress and repeat the Prime Minister's remark that no decision has been made—plainly Parliament would properly look for the opportunity to reflect on any decisions that might be made. I repeat my right honourable friend's commitment to that.

Trade was of course discussed. I can confirm particularly that there was a very full discussion about the smaller Commonwealth states. The specific small state which is subject to the consequences of global warming and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred was a particular area of discussion.

I round off in this way, if I may, because I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, who has conscientiously and deliberately pursued these issues for a long time, has a full debate and I do not want to trespass on issues that will be developed and expanded. The meeting was not a failure; it was a disappointment. However, if one is in a co-operative club comprising more than 50 nations, one is never in a position to insist on one's own way on every occasion.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, and I hope that he will forgive me for intervening. The point that I raised about the refugees and the opening of boundaries could be crucial to so many thousands of lives. I wonder whether he can say anything more about that before he concludes his reply.

My Lords, I was just coming to that issue, which is extremely important but also extremely delicate. The UNHCR has, obviously, a keen interest in the issue. On this occasion, I would prefer to say no more publicly about it than that. It is of course true that the neighbouring states have suffered quite grievously. Not only the citizens of Zimbabwe have suffered; South Africa also has suffered. I do not think that the recent catastrophic drop in the rand—which has partly recovered—was coincidental.

Such behaviour is monstrously irresponsible of a president of Zimbabwe who has had every opportunity of generous outside help, which has been offered time and again by governments of both parties in this country, to resolve the land problem and deal with internal problems. It is monstrously irresponsible of the president of a country that was a net exporter of maize but now has to look, scrabble around and beg for food for its own population. His irresponsibility is not confined to Zimbabwe. He has the potential to damage all the efforts which have been made so laboriously and so generously by the new Government in South Africa to try to create a country in which all are treated fairly.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that, if the Commonwealth is to have influence, it must act unanimously and after careful consideration? Will he perhaps point out to the shadow Leader of the House and to the Leader of the Opposition that the days of Britain acting alone and sending a gunboat up the Zambezi—or of summoning President Mugabe and telling him to do as he is told— are long since passed? If we are to have any influence, it will only be by diplomacy and by working with the other countries of southern Africa.

Will my noble and learned friend also resist the temptation to fall for the line which is peddled at every election that, if President Mugabe wins, there will be a mass exodus of whites? Nothing can do more damage to the future of white Zimbabweans than stories that Britain is preparing for a mass exodus of refugees. The thought could be father to the wish. This is an extremely difficult situation, and to repeat rumours about a mass exodus, as has been done today, will do no one any good.

My Lords, my noble friend speaks with enormous authority and experience, as he can say—he never does, but I shall—that for very many years he fought against apartheid in South Africa. So he does know what he is talking about. I agree with him that we cannot be the dictator in a co-operative club. If one tried to do that, it would be worse than a crime, it would be a blunder, because it would be wholly counterproductive. There has been diplomacy, and there is going to be—as the Prime Minister has announced, and repeated in Australia—the prospect of a new partnership of equals with Africa, so that we can properly contribute what we feel we ought generously to do.

My Lords, as one who has had the good fortune through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to meet several Zimbabwean Members of Parliament since 1982, may I ask the Leader of the House to confirm what I think he has already said—that an absolutely essential test of membership of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is to have, and to be seen to have, a properly and fairly elected democratic government? I fully note his comment that the elections in Zimbabwe have not yet happened, and I agree that no conclusions should be drawn until they have, but if their result is that Zimbabwe no longer meets that test, we should immediately call for its suspension from the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. If we do not, I believe that it will bring the Commonwealth's quality and purpose seriously into question.

My Lords, I agree with the fundamental principle that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has expressed—not forgetting, of course, that one cannot really have a free election without a free press. I would not want this occasion to pass without paying very full and very genuine tribute to the press in Zimbabwe, which has had its printing presses blown up and its editors and reporters attacked and threatened. Yet it has continued, in circumstances of such difficulty, danger and fear that we can hardly imagine, to play its part in what is or ought to have been a new democracy.

The mechanism has been established. I agree with the noble Lord that we ought to wait for the results of the election and collate such reports as are available and we can rely on. I think that your Lordships know that President Mbeki, President Obasanjo and Prime Minister Howard are tasked to reach a view on the elections after they have happened. I stress, however—this is not the voice of complacency, weakness or lack of spine—that we need to be very cautious indeed about what we say at the moment. The risk that comes from loose language is not a risk that falls on us.

My Lords, the Statement mentioned help for the Caribbean countries in combating drugs and terrorism. Is the noble and learned Lord aware—I am sure that he is—that a statement was made today on the enormous increase in the number of people in our prisons, and that part of that growth is accounted for by the drug smugglers who are apprehended at Heathrow? I should perhaps add that smugglers are particularly well represented in the increase in the female prison population. Will the noble and learned Lord say a little more about how we intend to help Caribbean countries to combat the practice of smuggling drugs from their territories, and whether we could provide them with particular help based on our expertise in detecting drugs by the use of dogs and other technologies?

My Lords, yes, it was agreed that there should be a regional initiative in the Caribbean area. That is not new; when I was Attorney-General, I had close contact with the Attorneys-General in the Caribbean countries. We are always ready to offer expertise. I agree with the noble Lord that the key to the problem is not at Heathrow but is long before that. It is partly economic development and partly expertise in criminal investigation. It is also, significantly, expertise in money laundering. Thereafter, if there are convictions, it is asset seizure.

I found no difficulty at all in having very productive conversations with my opposite numbers in those countries. My noble friend Lady Amos tells me that her experience is exactly the same. I believe that we have to think laterally and get back to the heart of the problem. There is also very significant co-operation with both Canada and the United States in that area as they have particular interests for obvious reasons.

My Lords, if the Prime Minister was disappointed at the Commonwealth summit about Zimbabwe, was he nevertheless enthusiastic about the New Partnership for Africa's Development? If this initiative is to succeed, it must have the Commonwealth's full support. In my view, it is a typical Commonwealth project.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that question—that is the initiative to which I referred earlier, although rather too briefly, bearing in mind that there is going to be a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. The noble Earl is quite right that this opportunity could be extremely significant. In a curious way—because of the disparate nature, history and origins of the Commonwealth countries—we have this opportunity as an organisation distinct from the United Nations, though plainly in partnership with it, to bring about very significant change. The levels of poverty, deprivation, lack of education, poor health and HIV/ AIDS are disastrous. That is something to which the Prime Minister is personally committed, as your Lordships know.

It is interesting when one talks about the disparate nature of the Commonwealth to remind ourselves that Mozambique joined only recently. We have not had a similar historical connection with that country a s we have had with others, such as South Africa, Nigeria or Zimbabwe.

rose to call attention to the present situation in Zimbabwe; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel very privileged to have the opportunity to open the debate. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for what he said about my interest in Zimbabwe.

We have had several debates on this subject in recent times, but none has been more timely than this one. The Commonwealth, as we would all agree, faces an extremely serious crisis that goes to its credibility, value and influence, all of which are at risk. The crisis has been developing for at least two years since the referendum which Mr Mugabe lost. That was followed by elections in 2000 that were marked by violence, intimidation and fraud, in which 35 members of the opposition were killed. That election was attended by several teams of international observers, all of whom returned critical reports.

That was followed by a visit from the International Bar Association, which sent an extremely high powered delegation of senior judges and lawyers, all of whom came from the Commonwealth except one who was from the United States. In their judgment the rule of law had been breached and democracy itself was in danger.

It is unfortunate that no country took any action to show the world's disapproval, apart from the United Kingdom, which withdrew the British military training team, although I do not think that that amounted to much more than a slap on the wrist in Mr Mugabe's view. In view of that inaction, is it surprising that the violence and intimidation in 2000 has turned into a real reign of terror, directed at all people of all races in Zimbabwe who are not supporters of ZANU-PF?

We are familiar with the sad litany of tortures, rapes, beatings and murders. There have been 150 murders of supporters of the MDC in the past two years—31 this year, which is one almost every second day. That is accompanied, naturally, by economic disaster, which has already been referred to, mass unemployment, inflation of more than 100 per cent, falling GDP and even shortages of food.

Mr Mugabe has at times promised free elections and then intensified the terror. He has said that observers can come freely from any source, but he now says that some cannot come. The Abuja agreement, to which his government agreed, he treated with contempt within a couple of weeks.

It is inconceivable that the elections can be free and fair. The whole state machine is directed to ensuring that they are not free and fair and the electoral system is being turned round for that purpose even this week. Yesterday Mr Mugabe issued an edict to reinstate laws to make vote rigging easier and to restrict scrutiny by election monitors of voting and the counting of votes. The law that he reinstated by edict was struck out last week by the Supreme Court because it had been rushed through Parliament illegally.

Postal votes are available only to the army and the police. Mr Mugabe's henchmen are seizing the identity cards from people who are not supporters of ZANU-PF and, of course, without such cards they cannot vote. The army, which has its hands on the diamonds and the timber of the Congo, along with Mr Mugabe himself, has said that it will not accept the result unless Mr Mugabe is declared the winner. It has the support of the Registrar General, curiously enough, the returning officer for the election, who said something similar. The object of all this is that were Mr Mugabe to lose the election he would at least win the vote.

On 7th March last year—coincidentally almost exactly a year ago—we on this side of the House complained about the Government's lack of action. We had complained before, but we made a particular point of it in that debate. The lack of action continued almost to the end of 2001. Late in the year, the Government proposed smart sanctions and it was only on 8th January this year that the Foreign Secretary talked about suspension. For two years the Government have shown a striking lack of grip on this problem. They have woken up almost two years too late, and the delay has helped to lead to the crisis that we are now facing. It has allowed Mr Mugabe to think that he could step up the campaign of terror with impunity.

There has also been an extraordinary failure on the part of the Commonwealth to take action under the declaration on terrorism. It was first made not at Coolum but on 25th October last year. It says that any country that has anything to do with terrorism, including instigating terrorism,

"should have no place in the Commonwealth".

If what is happening in Zimbabwe is not terrorism, what is it?

I was interested in the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who I am sorry to say is not in her place, on 13th February. She asked whether the Minister was aware,

"as I understand from sources about which I have informed the Foreign Secretary—that President Mugabe's government now regard the threats from the EU and the Commonwealth as empty hot air".—[Official Report, 13/2/02; col. 1096.]

It is puzzling why the Government have remained inactive for so long and until very recently. Did they persuade themselves that for the United Kingdom to speak out or to act would give Mr Mugabe the opportunity to attack us for trying to reimpose colonialism? The reality is that Mr Mugabe was attacking us anyway, even when we were doing nothing about which he could reasonably complain. The Government have had the worst of both worlds. My information is that Zimbabweans in general do not take Mr Mugabe's allegations about this country's post-colonial activities or intentions at all seriously. If Her Majesty's Government had rallied the European Union to act earlier and with us, is it not possible that that might have reduced the number of beatings, rapes, murders and torture that has occurred? It might possibly even have discouraged such blatant rigging of the election, at least to some extent. I wonder whether the Government's hesitancy is due to the party's post-colonial guilt.

It is a great sadness that Mr Thabo Mbeki, who could have had a decisive influence in this matter, has not exercised it as he might have done. South Africa's hand is on the jugular of Zimbabwe, by reasons of geography. Mr Mbeki has expressed criticism from time to time but then in the next breath he criticises those who criticise Mr Mugabe. I find his lukewarm attitude a puzzle. As has already been said, the situation is doing enormous damage to South Africa's economy. The rand has plunged; investment is slumping; and there are millions of refugees from Zimbabwe in South Africa. Those problems are hitting the whole of southern Africa. It is a puzzle why Mr Mbeki does not condemn the man who has dealt a serious blow to the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which Mr Mbeki himself did so much to promote.

The Government's main proposal at Coolum was the suspension of Zimbabwe. That suspension, as we know, was not accepted. I suspect that that was partly because some of the heads of government were reluctant to vote against a man whom they regard as an African hero of the liberation struggle—I mean Mr Mugabe. That is how they would express it. Could some of their reluctance be due to nervousness of setting a precedent which might be relevant in other areas? It is interesting that the principal African spokesmen who have spoken out against Mr Mugabe are Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Tutu, who rather charmingly described Mr Mugabe as "bonkers", and Kofi Annan, whom such a precedent would not affect.

There is no doubt that the Government got their timing wrong as regards the proposal for suspension. Mr Mugabe had cleverly arranged for the election to be held just after the heads of government meeting. It is clear that significant numbers of the heads of government felt that it was inappropriate to suspend a member country a few days before an election to be observed by teams of observers including Commonwealth observers. If you say that the accused is guilty before the trial, why do you need a trial?

I believe that the Government could have usefully proposed something like the Canadian proposal—I believe that is where it came from—that the three heads of government should form a committee after the election results have been judged by the observers and decide what steps should be taken. Or, could not the Government have put a proposal to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group which now has power to suspend or reinstate countries? Could they not have chosen some more appropriate time than the week before an election to make their proposal?

Noble Lords will wish the noble Baroness who is to reply to say—I too congratulate her on the role she has played—what teams of observers, so far as she can tell, are expected to be in Zimbabwe, how many Mr Mugabe has agreed to accept, how long they will be there and where they will come from. I hope that she will say something more about the composition and the timetable of the Commonwealth observer team on whose report the three heads of government will make their decision.

The principles of the Commonwealth as stated in the Harare Declaration of 1991 include the following words:

"The individual's inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which he or she lives".

It further states that the principles include,

"the rule of law and independence of the judiciary … fundamental human rights including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief".

Zimbabwe is miles away from approaching those principles. If Mr Mugabe is declared to have won and the election is not free and fair, and the Commonwealth does not take firm action, I pose the following questions. First, what will be the prospects for the New Partnership for Africa's Development, to which so many governments rightly attach importance? Walter Kansteiner, the assistant Secretary of State at the State Department in Washington, recently said—I believe rightly—

"The road to NePAD lies through Harare".

That is worth thinking through. Secondly, in the situation I have described, what will the Commonwealth be worth? I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, on raising this topic. However, I have to say that I did not agree with him when he said that the debate was timely. I had looked forward to hearing what he had to say, especially as regards the future. However, I regret that what I heard was a rehash of every debate we have had on Zimbabwe over the past 18 months to two years; that is, comments on sanctions on Zimbabwe and expelling Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth full stop.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition in this House, complained that we had spent too much time trying to influence the position by discussion and debate. How else are we to influence what happens in Zimbabwe? I happen to think that the situation in Zimbabwe is extremely dangerous and is likely to become more so. I do not think that anything we say in advance of the weekend's elections will make one wit of difference to the outcome.

The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said again that he wanted sanctions. At every meeting I have attended with the Movement for Democratic Change—as have many other noble Lords—and with the most recent delegations from Zimbabwe of what I believe is called the civil crisis committee, every member of those delegations has said, "Please, we do not want sanctions. What we want are discussions and the opportunity to go ahead and win the election". We cannot act unilaterally against the wishes of those people in Zimbabwe. We either believe that the Movement for Democratic Change is a valid organisation, that the crisis committee, which represents the civic organisations of Zimbabwe, is telling us the truth or we simply say, "Look, we in London know best. We do not care what you say. We know best". There is a hint of that running through our discussions.

In discussion on the Statement there was mention of a mass flight of white refugees from Zimbabwe. I was in Zimbabwe at the time of the independence celebrations. At that time you could not get a flight out of Zimbabwe for three months. They were solidly booked for three months. I went to the airport, having pulled every string to get back to the House of Commons for a three-line Whip and having been told that there was no possibility of getting a flight as they were solidly booked. There was a huge waiting list and I was 420th on the list for a flight out of Harare. However, I got on the plane and discovered that it was one-third full. People naturally in those circumstances will hedge their bets. To blow the matter out of proportion does no one any good.

The situation is clear. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe and that every attempt has been made to achieve a particular result. One reads in the press that no one knows how many polling stations there will he or who is on the electoral roll. Of course, that situation is serious. Still the MDC believes that it has an opportunity to win the election. We are in grave danger of reaching a position where we have decided that we know what the result of the election will be and we shall not accept it. We shall not accept the result of the election in Zimbabwe unless Morgan Tsvangirai wins it. What shall we do if the observers in Zimbabwe say, "Yes, there was violence. Yes, there was intimidation. Mr Mugabe has won the election, but despite all the defects in the election it is a valid result"? What shall we do then? Shall we send in a gunboat?

The Leader of the Opposition in the Commons got close to saying that the Americans, the European Union and Britain should take all necessary steps to sort out the situation in Zimbabwe. What does he mean? Does he mean sending in troops? Is that what he has in mind? If that is the position which is to be espoused, either overtly or tacitly, how on earth do we expect the countries in the region to listen to us and to take positive action?

If the election is "won"—I put that in inverted commas—by President Mugabe, and if something has to be done to get him to accept the result, I believe that the only people who can bring that about are the countries close to hand—the people of South Africa, the people of Namibia and the people of Mozambique. Sam Nujoma, the President of Namibia and Thabo Mbeki go back a long way as regards the liberation struggle, but we have to get them on our side. We have to get them to work with us. I detect that the whole issue of Zimbabwe, serious though it is, is being grossly magnified. I say "grossly magnified" in the following sense. I understand that people who appear on television and in radio programmes are pushed into taking stances and are not really certain of what they have said. For example, the foreign affairs spokesperson of the MDC has said that if President Mugabe steals that body's election win there will be a bloodbath.

One of the senior MDC spokesmen in Harare was recently reported in The Times as having said,

"If President Mugabe steals our election win, we cannot hold back the people".

I hope that is not the case. Africa is littered with the bodies of innocents who have suffered because election results have not been accepted. It would be extremely dangerous for us to paint a picture of absolute chaos and mayhem on an extravagant scale.

I certainly have no optimism as to what the future may hold. However, I say that President Mugabe has an awesome responsibility, especially if he loses the election, to accept the result. It may be that steps will need to be taken in discussions to put in place some sort of transitional government to bring about a change. Whatever the outcome of the election, it is certain that Zimbabwe will need an enormous amount of help. In that regard, there is perhaps a case to be made for a carrot and stick.

Instead of being wholly condemnatory of ZANU-PF and instead of saying that everything is black and white, that there will never be an acceptable result and that we are bound to have confusion and army rule, we should perhaps use carefully-chosen words to indicate that we are dealing with a volatile situation and are prepared to act with the people of Zimbabwe and the people of South Africa to bring about the change that is necessary and an acceptance of the result, whatever it may be. Otherwise, I fear that we would be excluded from influence, and that would be the most dangerous position of all.

My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that it would be a very sad position for Britain to lose its influence. However, I found the rest of his speech very much at odds with the words already spoken by the Prime Minister and with the Statement repeated earlier today. The Prime Minister struck a very much more robust tone about Mr Mugabe than did the noble Lord. I again declare my interest, having a member of my family in Zimbabwe.

I begin with a note of criticism of the noble Baroness. Although she has done an amazing amount of hard work, when her feet return to the ground in this country, will she please provide Written Answers to some of the questions that I have posed? It is almost impossible to prepare for a debate such as today's without having those answers.

I speak with sadness for the people of Zimbabwe, some of whom have been incredibly courageous and have put their lives on the line in order to make a stand for democracy.

Let us consider briefly the rural workers. The Commercial Farmers' Union has conducted a survey of 1,862 farms, which indicates that permanent workers employed by its members on 1st January 2001 and 31st December 2001 totalled 119,304 and 105,164 respectively. During the year the total number of that category of workers decreased by nearly 12 per cent. Farmers employ seasonal workers who usually reside in close proximity to the farms. The survey indicated an 18.5 per cent reduction in the number employed in that category, 21,240 people having been affected. The number of workers retrenched over the same period totalled 23,951. The survey revealed that the number of workers forced off respondents' farms amounted to 12,027. It was also interesting to note that the number of workers allocated resettlement plots on respondents' properties totalled 2,601, which is roughly two per cent of the permanent labour force. The remainder have been disenfranchised, and yesterday's decrees imposed by President Mugabe only create a greater number of people without votes. My noble friend Lord Blaker and I believe that that confirms what we had already surmised—that the election is rigged to the best of Mr Mugabe's ability.

I turn to the young children of Zimbabwe and give an example of a recent event at Lilfordia School, when it staged its annual Three Woods cross-country meeting. The 650 mixed-rate athletes were in their running kits when the mob turned up. They were disturbed by the number of adults. There was a mini-invasion force comprising elements of the police, the army, the CIO and the War Veterans' Association. They came to the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the cross-country meeting of those young children had been an elaborate cover for a political rally. They further added that the cricket and tennis matches that had been played that morning had also been a ploy to disguise another such meeting. A lady spokesperson for the War Veterans' Association told the school that the local police must be forewarned of any functions taking place at Lilfordia, which would be likely to attract adult attendance, and that all visitors to the school must be specifically directed not to wave with open hands to people on the roadside during the course of their journey. What a terrible example to set for young children.

It is not surprising that some young children who have been subjected to that sort of interference in their education have turned out to be youths for whom, with unemployment at 60 per cent, inflation at 116 per cent and roughly 500,000 people at risk of starvation, joining a terror team and meting out extortion, intimidation and violence against anyone one chooses could be an attractive option in life. There appears to he nothing to lose. There can be no doubt that Mugabe has engendered a climate of fear and terror. It has happened previously; in the mid-1980s he murdered over 10,000 of the Ndebele tribe. There has been terror at every election, but this one is worse than usual.

Even if Morgan Tsvangirai wins, the future is bleak. The economy is in tatters, debt is mounting, and the armed forces seem loyal to Mugabe. If he wins, Morgan Tsvangirai will have much to prove. Let us not forget history. Frederick Chibula of Zambia, another charismatic Labour leader, like Mr Tsvangirai, promised a liberal economy and democracy but was breathtakingly corrupt when he came to power. If Mugabe wins, may we expect another Tiananmen Square? I fear that Mr Mugabe has led us all a merry dance for far too long.

We cannot dictate what he should do, and we are in no position to do so. The European Union has finally invoked smart sanctions, advocated by some of us for many months before the Government finally realised that that was the right step to take. Will the noble Baroness say how much has been seized in this country? Has Mr Mugabe's property, a house in London and, allegedly, an estate in Scotland been seized? How much money has left the United Kingdom from those being targeted with those smart sanctions since the announcement?

I turn briefly to the Commonwealth conference. It was a real disaster that the Commonwealth did not act. I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Blaker that the timing of the election this weekend made it very difficult for some. However, it appears that the Commonwealth is prepared to take action against every non-African country but fudges the issue so far as Africa is concerned. As a result, it has lost much credibility, and, unless the troika act, if Mr Mugabe wins and the observers say that there has been unfair intimidation, it will lose all credibility. When will the troika of the three wise men meet, will they have to report to the heads of government, and when will action be taken?

I turn briefly to the media. Will the noble Baroness tell us what support the Government are giving to SW Radio Africa, which, in the few weeks it has been on air, has received much commendation for its impartial and precise service?

These are difficult times for the Zimbabweans. Our hearts go out to them this coming weekend. They are under huge pressure from a bully, a thug, who has used intimidation, terror and violence mercilessly to try to achieve his own ends. We have no European Union observers there; we have to wait for the reports of other people. Let us hope for better times for Zimbabwe.

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in expressing real fellow feeling for and sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in view of the danger of his family being immediately involved in the crisis.

The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, to whom I am grateful for initiating this debate, quoted the American diplomat who asked: will the future of NePAD need to go through Harare? Whether or not it goes through Harare, it will certainly have to go beyond Harare. What do I mean?

As has already been mentioned in the Statement repeated by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and as mentioned by other noble Lords, last month—this is well known from the press— the British Prime Minister visited west Africa in order to support a document known as the New Partnership for Africa's Development, or NePAD. I understand that that deal has emerged slowly over the past two years. I also understand that it was with discreet British help that South Africa took the lead in drafting that document. Nigeria and Algeria supported it and, last year, the deal was presented—I gather with success—to the African Union. That new partnership for African development commits African leaders to better governance, stopping the continent's wars, spending less on guns, spending more on education and health, allowing the free market and private enterprise to flourish, fighting corruption, inspecting human rights and holding free and fair elections.

In an important article that recently appeared in the Tablet, the writer points out that those commitments have now become African commitments, signed up to by some 16 governments. The further message that the Prime Minister took to Africa, in the context of that document, was that if those commitments are carried out in future—and in the present—he will seek to persuade the other leaders of the G8 countries to give Africa a better deal on aid, debt relief and access to markets.

I am trying to look beyond Harare, not simply at it. The same writer in the Tablet also wrote:

"The best thing about Blair's vision for Africa is that it leaves Africa's destiny in Africa's hands".

There has been very welcome talk not so much about aid to Africa as about investment in Africa. The writer then added the punchline:

"But if Mugabe wins, solidarity among Africa's rulers will have prevailed over democracy and human rights. Mr Blair will be left looking foolish and humiliated by his African allies"

Dare I briefly offer a different conclusion? Whatever the outcome of the present crisis in Zimbabwe, I urge the Government, with respect, to continue to hold fast to the kind of vision that NePAD represents—a New Partnership for Africa's Development, which already involves 16 African nations. That is why I am encouraged by the fact that today's newspapers report that the Prime Minister is still saying, even in the face of this crisis, "I am passionate about helping Africa".

More than 20 years ago, I witnessed some of Uganda's darkest hours. I lived there. I have just returned from a Uganda in which primary school enrolment is up from 2.9 million to 6.5 million, in which clinics and health centres are steadily expanding into rural areas—I visited one in Mitiyana—and in which there has been, for two years now, a steady and consistent drop in the number of recorded AIDS infections. Dare I say, both to the British and French Governments, who are behind NePAD, "Go on being passionate about helping Africa"? Take heart. If Uganda can emerge from chaos, so even can Zimbabwe. I offer an old African proverb, which—I translate—puts the matter this way:

"The person who perseveres slowly will win the prize".

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for initiating this important debate. I, too, declare an interest: I have family in Zimbabwe. I also have many friends, black and white—the black ones date back to the days of resistance.

Time is running out. We are about to be faced, in Zimbabwe, with one of two equally critical and dangerous situations. In one, Mugabe, having disqualified voters, rigged the ballot and terrorised the population, will win or will claim to have done so. There are no EU observers and, for reasons of face, the African members of the Commonwealth will probably recognise his victory. No one will wait for the Commonwealth observers—still pitifully few—to report whatever they find. The ZANU-PF strategy has all along been to rig the election and then negotiate with the international community for recognition. But it will also feel free to destroy what remains of the opposition, who will be left to its mercy, and the people of Zimbabwe know that. They remember the 11,000 people—his political rivals—who Mugabe slaughtered in Matabeleland after he came to power, using the notorious North Korean trained Fifth Brigade. The world did nothing then. The people may feel, with justice, that unless they challenge Mugabe at once they are lost. They can expect nothing but a tightening of the chains. There may therefore be a serious deterioration in the security situation, if not outright civil war.

The other possibility—miracles do happen—is that the MDC wins. In that case, however, Mugabe, having bought the army, may declare martial law. The military leaders have already said that they will not accept anything but a verdict for Mugabe. Either way, I fear that we must expect some degree of serious disorder, civil disturbances and—certainly—social and economic collapse. The country is only just holding on. There will be refugees and there will be famine, and that will immediately affect the stability of at least five other African countries. There is now a widespread famine in Malawi, attributed largely to the fact that no maize is coming from Zimbabwe, which was hitherto the breadbasket of the area, and which itself will soon be starving because the regime's brave young veterans have been for the past year burning the maize crops and forbidding farmers to plant. The press is at last reporting on the true situation and is leaving us in no doubt of the monstrous nature of Mugabe's regime. That is killing for good, I hope, the comforting notion, so long held by many in this country, that this is all about a handful of white farmers sitting on land, and therefore something which, for fear of seeming colonialist, we can ignore and treat—in the famous phrase of a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, speaking of paramilitary violence against their own community—as "a little domestic housekeeping". What is happening in Zimbabwe is far more like Hitler's unchecked proceedings in Europe—unchecked because everyone so badly wanted to believe him when he said that each awful act was to be the last. Abuja was Mugabe's Munich—and ours.

The British Government have, at long last—thanks to the courage and the clear-sighted approach of the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth conference, which I welcome most warmly—recognised publicly that there is a terrible and immediate threat to the whole of southern Africa and that there must be action. He will have realised through his recent travels in Africa that the continent is a seamless robe. The fate of the DRC, with its boundless riches, its chaotic violence and its power to destabilise, is linked to Angola and Zimbabwe as well as to the Great Lakes and Uganda. Many of the international crooks, diamond smugglers and money launderers who work for Kabila and Mugabe also work for Al'Qaeda. The same arms dealers work for Zimbabwe and the Taliban. Mugabe's pillage of his country's assets has been on a far greater scale than that of Milosevic.

One of the most powerful figures in Africa today is President Gaddafi of Libya. Only too many African heads of state have been subsidised by him. He has a considerable voice in the OAU and calls himself the head of the so-called African Union. It is he who has made Mugabe significant loans to buy fuel, has sent him Libyan advisers and has been given land, control of various Zimbabwean enterprises and, not least, substantial numbers of Zimbabwean passports. Gaddafi's influence on South African policy also cannot be discounted. The ANC has a debt of honour to Libya for support and training in the days of its exile. Libya was the first country that President Mandela visited. Perhaps it is not too late for Gaddafi to be discreetly enlisted as the one man who could influence Mugabe to settle for a peaceful withdrawal: after all, we have given him plenty of time to move his money and evade the so-called "smart sanctions".

The world must act now. I am not asking for sanctions. I say that it is useless to wait for a supine Commonwealth, whose only test for membership appears to be free and fair elections, to declare that perhaps all was not quite right but go on to say that, as there is now a new elected government in Zimbabwe, we should all do business with it. If we end up with Mugabe and his cronies back in power, it will be relatively pointless to curtail their shopping trips and close a few doors to a few individuals.

Under Mugabe, this is, and will be, a terrorist regime, which brings in the North Koreans and the Libyans to help them to murder and to plunder their own citizens. But it is not only that. By its destruction of one of the few viable and flourishing economies in the area, by its extensive illegal international fiscal and economic operations, by its destabilisation of the whole of southern Africa, with repercussions northwards as far as Malawi, the DRC and Angola, it can bring down most of the continent. The country that will suffer most and which holds out, with Zimbabwe until recently, the best hope of prosperity and stability for so many, is South Africa. We must work with the Americans now, with the EU and with the World Bank to bring the African countries, especially South Africa, to understand the danger and see Mugabe not simply as a fellow African leader but as a serious threat to their own survival. They have not yet understood this, and they are sticking their heads in the sand. I fear that we should not consider them only as representatives of their peoples; they are also representatives of their own personal interests.

I urge the Government to think not only of the impending humanitarian crisis, for which I am sure they are well prepared, but of the need to prevent the economic collapse of much of the continent. We cannot wait for the Commonwealth and the EU and there has been a loud silence from the UN, apart from Kofi Annan, despite the UNDP's active part in the donors' conference of 1998. It is vital that we give heart now to the MDC to show it that Zimbabwe is not going to be abandoned the day after the election, whichever way it goes. This is a country which, apart from Mugabe, has long forgotten race. They are all Zimbabweans, as the Prime Minister has recognised. They have the common aim of restoring their country to peace and prosperity. That will include some land reform, but with the aim of enabling more black Zimbabweans to operate commercially viable farms rather than subsistence farming. This has long been the policy of the farmers themselves. Mugabe has preferred looting and destruction.

I repeat that we must act now before the election, not after it, to build a coalition of the willing with the African states so that Zimbabwe can regain its freedom. We must persuade them that it is in their best interests to recognise that the economic collapse of a neighbour will also destroy them in the end. Moreover, state terrorism has a habit of spilling over frontiers. Not least, we must be seen to offer sanctuary, especially in the first dangerous days. We must not send Zimbabwe citizens back. I hope that the Minister will give the House an assurance on that.

My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for introducing this most topical debate appropriately between the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and the forthcoming presidential election this weekend. Rather than repeat the many points that I and other noble Lords made during the previous debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth.. I should like to share some of my observations after a recent trip to South Africa, from which I returned last week.

I was fortunate enough to meet a number of Zimbabwean businessmen, trade union leaders and politicians, including several previous Ministers of President Mugabe's cabinet, as well as a number of farmers. In addition, I was able to meet a number of leading journalists in South Africa. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, I believe that it is vital that the future of Zimbabwe is to a large degree dictated by the countries in southern Africa.

I should like to eat my words as regards one of the comments I made in my previous speech. I said then that, in my opinion, this forthcoming election would be a non-event and that, if President Mugabe were re-elected, there would inevitably be civil war in Zimbabwe. I do not believe that to be the case. I should like to outline some of the reasons why I have reached that conclusion. Clearly, the elections will neither be free nor fair. It is inevitable that they will be rigged and, as much as possible, rigged to favour President Mugabe being re-elected.

I turn to the opinion of many very-informed insiders both in South Africa and in Zimbabwe, including Dennis Norman, who is known by several noble Lords. He was the Minister responsible for agriculture in President Mugabe's cabinet just seven years ago. He believes that the MDC will win. Further, in his view, the MDC will get over 75 per cent of the vote. He says that it is highly unlikely that Morgan Tsvangirai will be declared the winner. He believes that the best result from a rigged election would be a government of national unity in which he believes the natural heir apparent is Simba Makoni, the current Minister of Finance—or, perhaps I should say the current Minister without Finance—in Zimbabwe. In his opinion, President Mugabe will be phased out within a three to six-month period.

The problem is not just about President Mugabe; it is more about his so-called "cronies", who head up the military, the police and the civil service. For decades, they have been plundering and pillaging the country's rich resources. They are scared of having the many skeletons in the cupboard exposed. Moreover, the problem is not just about land reform—I was pleased to note that, in his Statement on the Commonwealth Head of Government meeting, the Prime Minister confirmed that Her Majesty's Government are committed to land reform in Zimbabwe—it is more a matter of corruption and misinformation.

The real problem is food. Whoever wins the forthcoming election will be faced with a massive food crisis, which is unlikely to be alleviated within a 12 to 18-month period, even in the best case scenario. Despite the Zimbabwe Government's assurances, the country is almost out of food. When I say "food", I mean that there is no milk, no sugar and certainly no eggs. If Mugabe loses and declares himself to be a winner, I say that there will be a double crisis. However, if the MDC wins, Zimbabwe will be less politically stable and still faced with a food crisis.

President Thabo Mbeki's preferred option is similar to that of Dennis Norman; namely, a government of national unity. Even though Mbeki has been more outspoken over the past few months, there is no doubt that South Africa's policy of quiet diplomacy has not worked. But South Africa needs a stable neighbour and certainly fears a massive influx of Zimbabweans into the country. It is estimated—this is an arguable figure—that there are almost 2 to 3 million Zimbabweans in South Africa today. That equates to almost 15 per cent of the Zimbabwe electorate. Most of those people would naturally vote MDC, and almost all of them have been disqualified from voting in the forthcoming election.

Of the eight recognised election observer missions, two are from South Africa—one representing the business community and the other representing politicians from all political parties. There are also two missions from SADC, including a representation of the Church missions. It is well known that these observer missions are almost powerless: they came too late, and, to a large degree, are now being obstructed by government officials and youth brigades from effectively monitoring the run-up to this weekend's elections.

In my opinion Mugabe is gripped by paranoia. He knows that he is likely to lose and I believe that he is looking for an escape route. His trumped-up charges of treason against Morgan Tsvangirai and senior members of the MDC are farcical. Furthermore, his claims that the MDC stands for recolonising Zimbabwe backed by Britain and the US are equally ludicrous. He thought that he would have enough food and, through intimidation, would bribe and force the people of Zimbabwe to vote ZANU-PF. That has backfired on him. The reality is that he is in panic mode.

However, apart from the state-sponsored violence, what concerns me is that the state-controlled television and radio are the only source of news for most of the rural population and are presenting Mr Mugabe as a liberation hero and Mr Tsvangirai as a terrorist and a tea boy for the country's whites and for European powers.

I have always advocated African solutions for African problems. There is no doubt that the recently-announced EU smart sanctions have been effective and a smart move, in that they have managed to split much of the Zimbabwe cabinet. What is critical now is that the international community, not just the Commonwealth, needs a co-ordinated action plan against Zimbabwe if the elections are proven not to have been free and fair.

I was not surprised that there were no sanctions imposed at the recent Commonwealth meeting. Southern Africa is going through momentous times, the big issues being Zimbabwe, Angola, the DRC and AIDS. With the recent death of Jonas Savimbi in Angola, this may be the catalyst for ending the 27-year stalemate in Angola. I sincerely believe that now Mr Mugabe's 22-year rule is coming to an end. We live in hope.

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Blaker that it is inconceivable that the Zimbabwe elections can be free and fair. Despite the presence of foreign observers—not nearly enough—Mr Mugabe is blatantly rigging the electoral process using the police, the army, the judicial system and the national press. Horrific human rights abuses continue to be perpetrated against members of the opposition, with Mugabe's thugs roaming the countryside, beating and torturing anyone whose allegiance to the 78 year-old despot is in question. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, it is a volatile situation.

Some Commonwealth governments have behaved strangely, to say the least, during these awful events. I believe that the Commonwealth will now have to ask itself a number of difficult questions. Sadly, the perception is that Commonwealth leaders, particularly some African statesmen, are condoning these heinous crimes. We witnessed their support of President Mugabe at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Australia. Do they really believe in democracy? What kind of message is that sending to Mr Mugabe? Why is a statesman such as President Obasanjo of Nigeria failing to speak out against President Mugabe when he, himself, was incarcerated in his own country by a despotic regime which was renowned for its human rights atrocities? As my noble friend Lord Blaker said, it is a puzzle that President Mbeki of South Africa chose to remain silent on the crimes being committed in Zimbabwe when he knows that it is his country which will pay the highest price for siding with Mr Mugabe. What will he do with thousands of starving Zimbabwean refugees flooding over the border into South Africa? What will he say to his electorate when Zimbabweans take South African jobs?

I welcome the Minister back from Australia and congratulate her on her important role. From her experiences there, can she give the House any insight into why some African statesmen club together to oppose the pressure from democratic countries in the West when they question Zimbabwe's good governance record?

Those statesmen happily propose Africa joining the global economy by asking for support for initiatives such as the NePAD, led primarily by Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo. Do they not see that in order for the West to support those kind of initiatives, it is necessary to adhere to good governance and democratic principles?

In January, SADC's heads of state in Malawi also issued a statement of solidarity with the Zimbabwean president; a man who is responsible for the terrible killings in Matabeleland in the 1980s, let alone the killing of hundreds of opposition supporters in the run-up to this election. They want African problems to be resolved by Africans, as Jonathan Moyo, Zimbabwe's infamous Minister of Information, reminded us in Australia where he also told our Prime Minister to "shut up".

That is the same man who is being investigated by the FBI for fraud after he misappropriated funds belonging to the Ford Foundation in Kenya. He not only had to leave Nairobi in a hurry, but soon after also Johannesburg, where he had been accused of similar misdemeanours when working at a university. He then sought the refuge of Mugabe's patronage and turned from being one of his fiercest critics into one of his most loyal lieutenants.

Mr Moyo is also responsible for the draconian Access to Information Bill, which he recently tried to bulldoze through the Zimbabwean Parliament to block independent and foreign journalists from witnessing the horrific violence being perpetrated on the ground. The Act was an attempt to play out his personal vendetta with the independent media, in particular those papers which have highlighted his fraudulent activity, such as the Daily News and the Zimbabwe Standard. For all his efforts in destroying press freedom in Zimbabwe, Mr Moyo has now been given a huge property in the Eastern Highlands, one of the country's leading tourist areas.

I mention that because here is a perfect illustration of genuine African problems: corruption and a general disregard for democratic principles. If Africa wants to become part of the global economy, it must show the same respect for the principles that govern other countries in the global village. Walter Kansteiner, US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, understood the regional consequences of the meltdown of Zimbabwe when he pointed out that the road to NePAD is through Harare.

The way in which Mr Mugabe's regime has toyed with international opinion and organisations leads me, I am afraid, to the conclusion that the ability to provide financial aid and support is one of the few remaining bargaining chips we have with governments of that ilk. We must now make it clear that the kind of aid anticipated by NePAD is dependent on recipient governments demonstrating a return to good governance and an acceptance of the will of democracy. Clearly, we must ensure as much as possible that aid reaches those innocent people most in need without being commandeered by government militia.

It is imperative that we send the strongest possible signal to the SADC countries that they should take action against the man who threatens to plunge the entire region into a catastrophic economic and political meltdown. All democratic nations have a responsibility to try and preserve democracy wherever it is threatened.

My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, who has done us a service in persistently raising this issue. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord St John for alerting Cross-Bench Peers in particular last week to this very worrying aspect of the crisis; namely, the food shortages that he has already mentioned.

It is well known that food shortages are becoming so critical that the word "famine" is no longer being used casually. The UN has estimated that over half a million face severe hunger as food stocks are exhausted. Months of drought have left parched fields in many areas, especially in Matabeleland.

This crisis affects the entire southern African region, although South Africa still has surpluses. The World Food Programme says that it is currently feeding 2.4 million in the region as a whole, more than half of them in Zambia, and the numbers could easily rise if the April harvest is as poor as forecast.

Since the World Food Programme was stepped up in Zimbabwe in October, the general food supply situation has worsened considerably, with many families unable to purchase maize, cooking oil, sugar, beans and other basic commodities. To date, the WFP has not received the level of financial assistance required to run its operation. It has been able to source only some 25 per cent of what it asked for. I hope that the Minister will comment not only on the UK contribution to the World Food Programme, but the extent to which she believes that the international community outside Zimbabwe is aware of the impending crisis.

Currently maize stocks are dangerously low. I understand that Zimbabwe has a national requirement of between 150,000 and 200,000 tonnes of maize a month but that the Government have so far purchased only 20,000 tonnes for the coming month. Lack of transport and foreign exchange and other demands on South Africa make it unlikely that regional capacity can match either this schedule or the expected demand.

Food shortages have also had a negative impact on the work of the NGOs, such as the Save the Children Fund. Its interventions often depend on people's ability to purchase food which is now unavailable. Meanwhile, the price of maize has doubled from 22 Zimbabwean dollars per kilo last October to 44 Zimbabwean dollars in February, forcing thousands more into emergency feeding programmes.

Two weeks ago the WFP and World Vision began distributing one month's ration of maize meal in Gwanda district, which is one of the worse hit areas of Matabeleland. However, this and other distributions have been suspended during the election period because of the obvious risks of violence and political interference. Food has already been an insidious weapon for the Government, as we know. Relief workers with Christian Care, which is Christian Aid's main partner in Zimbabwe, have been attacked simply for not carrying ZANU-PF cards. There were similar attacks in Bulawayo this week. The vicious tactics of the war veterans, in particular in the Chinhoyi area north of Harare, are reported in today's Guardian.

Whatever people's views on the land issue, few believe that the drought is the main cause of food shortages when the economy, as we have heard, is in ruins, inflation is over 100 per cent and so much havoc has been wrought among commercial farms. One tragedy, in my view, of Zimbabwe's redistribution land programme—which is an issue for a separate debate—is that there was never any provision to enable the farmers who had been resettled to grow feed on that land. Many of those who have been assisted by the white farmers are branded as collaborators.

The farm workers on commercial estates are often left out of account. One area of concern to NGOs in relation to the list of beneficiaries from the UN is that the commercial farm workers, despite their vulnerability and marginalisation, have not been included as recipients of food aid. A recent survey estimated that 70,000 farm workers, or one-quarter of the total employed, have been displaced by attacks on the farms. Many of these will have been further harassed by ZANU-PF, not surprisingly, for attending MDC rallies or sympathising with the opposition. I was horrified to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said on that subject.

A recent e-mail from Cathy Buckle, one of the victims of the land seizures two years ago, paints in the scene in Maschonaland East, which is a contested area east of Harare. She said:

"This entire week there has been no cooking oil, milk or refined maize meal in Marondera. The queue outside our town's Grain Marketing Depot was 250 strong on Monday morning. It took two of my friends 5 hours to get to the front of the line where they had to fill in a form with all their personal details before they were allowed to buy a 50kg bag of unground maize.

A couple of days later there was no queue as the grain had completely run out and the government helicopters clattered overhead, taking the President to political rallies in Manicaland".

Some aid agencies are concerned that the country, let alone being able to recover its lost food surpluses, no longer has the capacity to mount the kind of relief operation which was carried out, for example, during the drought of 1992–93. There is an urgent need to begin planning for such a contingency.

The logistics, procurement and distribution mechanisms have still not been worked out. The NGOs, the UN and other donors, local authorities and relevant government departments need to come together now if Zimbabwe is to avoid widespread starvation later this year. Can the noble Baroness say to what extent her department is prepared and has begun to plan for such a calamity?

Children are of course especially at risk. I know that the DfID is already in close contact with the specialised NGOs and is supporting a supplementary feeding programme. Can the noble Baroness give an assurance that targeted sanctions will in no way impede the work of NGOs or the process of food distribution?

I am sorry about my cough, but I have sought to present a picture of the impending food crisis, regardless of the political outcome, since it will be a major concern over the coming months at the very least. It is, of course, a supreme irony, as my noble friend has already said, that if Mr Mugabe does not win, his successors will be landed with a crisis they may be unable to manage; while if he does win, the Government's present inability to cope will simply be compounded.

My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, on his persistence in raising this matter over the last few months and on the timing of the debate, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has pointed out to us, nothing we say in this debate will alter the outcome of the elections on Saturday and Sunday.

Before turning to the elections, I wish to take up one of the themes which has run through the debate; that of NePAD which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Blaker and Lord Astor, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It is surely important that we do not abandon NePAD on the basis of the dictum, quoted by several of your Lordships, that the road to NePAD leads through Harare. The operative word is surely "through". If Harare is a road block on the way to NePAD it should not be allowed to derail it altogether.

It becomes even more important that we use NePAD because of the formula, quoted by the Leader of the House in repeating the Statement from the Prime Minister in another place, that the essence of NePAD is the promotion of good governance and good governance comes with the whole package. So, rather than abandon NePAD, we should reinforce it as a result of the tragic experience of the people of Zimbabwe in the election period that we are talking about today.

The other theme I wish to discuss is the disastrous effects of Mr Mugabe's agricultural policy; first, the destruction of Zimbabwe's agricultural potential, and, secondly, the throwing out of work of 70,000 rural workers made destitute as a result of that policy. There is also the disenfranchisement of those workers. They will no longer be living in their constituencies and, under the rules that Mugabe has made to suit himself, they will not be allowed to vote. It is important that we give support to those workers and ensure that they are not the victims of the exercise being conducted this weekend. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and other noble Lords that it is a great mistake to assume that we can tell whether an election is free and fair only after the poll is closed.

It is obvious in the case of Zimbabwe, as it already was when we discussed the matter last December, that the conditions for free and fair elections do not exist. I must reiterate the regret I expressed then that the Commonwealth failed to undertake a preliminary assessment of the conditions or to send a signal to Mugabe of the consequences of his failure to adhere to the Harare Declaration. In that regard, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that we did not sufficiently lay on the line to Mr Mugabe how we felt about the issue and what we thought about the preparations already being made at that time.

Non-governmental organisations could have made such an assessment if we felt that we could not do so ourselves. I fully recognise that it would have been difficult for ourselves, as the former colonial power, to have made and published an assessment of the conditions under which the elections were to be held. That would probably have been counter-productive. It would have lent credence to Mr Mugabe's frequently reiterated claim that we were trying to manipulate the politics of the elections. But the assessment could have been carried out by an NGO—plenty of which were capable of doing so in the absence of the political will of the international community to act.

Irrespective of that, we have enough evidence to conclude that whatever may be the situation next week, the people cannot exercise their choice freely in the mephitic atmosphere of hatred and fear that has been created by ZANU-PF, the Central Intelligence Organisation and the so-called war veterans. The signs are extremely ominous. We have already heard that hundreds of potential voters have been struck off the register, that the electoral supervisory commission is headed by an army officer and that, although the army commander has said that he will not accept an opposition victory, the polling stations are to be run by military personnel as well as ZANU-PF loyalists and war veterans recruited by the commission. There is no pretence of impartiality.

No local monitors have yet appeared to witness the crescendo of violence in the townships and rural areas. Civil society groups are to be prohibited from monitoring the election independently under the General Laws Amendment Act, which has been mentioned, even though it was rejected as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court last week. The law has now been enacted by presidential decree, showing the extent to which the rule of law has been undermined in Zimbabwe.

The Supreme Court also ruled that voters can only vote where they are registered. As noble Lords have already said, that has disenfranchised tens if not hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes by state-sponsored violence in known opposition strongholds. The head of the SADC observer mission has already condemned the violence, and members of his own team have been attacked, as were members of the South African team the week before.

In the face of all that evidence, the decision of the CHOGM to take no action until its observer mission reports in several weeks' time was incomprehensible. It did not even say that if the observer group finds that the election was not free and fair, Zimbabwe would be suspended from membership of the Commonwealth automatically, but left the matter to the unfettered discretion of its troika. The reasoning behind that bizarre decision can only be that when the observer group finds—as it must—that the election was not free and fair, the troika may nevertheless tolerate Zimbabwe's continued membership of the Commonwealth.

Mr Mugabe's attacks on business, agriculture and the media may have been designed to secure votes, but in fact, as has been said, the people know the score. They rightly blame Mugabe for the food shortages, 117 per cent inflation, dropping incomes, zooming unemployment and lack of investment in education and health. Zimbabwe was a relatively prosperous country but due to extreme mismanagement during the 22 years of one-party rule by Mugabe since independence it has fallen into an abyss of economic decline.

The voters now seem determined to seize the only chance that they will get of removing Mugabe and ZANU-PF from power. According to opinion polls, as many as 70 per cent of voters will support Mr Morgan Tsvangirai. The latest poll, by the University of Zimbabwe, shows that 60 per cent of those asked were too afraid to disclose even in confidence how they intended to vote, but of those who were prepared to say, almost two thirds said they would support the MDC and only one third Mr Mugabe. Obviously, the silent majority was likely to be even more in favour of the opposition, because those were the voters whose intentions, if revealed, would get them into trouble.

Will the observers from SADC, the Commonwealth and Norway be enough to deter ZANU-PF from engaging in the massive electoral fraud necessary to overturn such a majority? Let us be under no illusions. The regime will be unscrupulous in using whatever methods are to hand to hang on to power. Violence is likely to be used to obstruct voters in areas of known opposition support, as it has been regularly and persistently throughout the campaign. With every aspect of the poll itself in the hands of ZANU-PF, its private militias and the army there are bound to be gross and flagrant irregularities, some of which are bound to come to the notice of the observers.

Let us suppose that despite what is known about people's voting intentions, the electoral supervisory commission declares Mugabe the winner. What would be the response of the international community? Generally, we take the easy way out and accept the outcome of blatantly unfair and rigged elections, as we did with Fujimori in Peru in 2000 and as it now seems likely that we shall do with the elections on 27th December in Zambia. Will the scenario be the same in Zimbabwe, with procrastination being the thief of democracy? Will the situation be like that of Madagascar, which has had two presidents since 25th January because, even though the count was a shambles, the opposition candidate had clearly won?

The question is not whether the voters will have the courage and determination to turn up to vote on Saturday and Sunday. They have already demonstrated their spirit in the face of oppression that has reached a climax in these weeks before the presidential election, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, observed. I believe that they will do their part in ridding their country of a dictator, his terrorist supporters and his embezzling cronies. But then it will be for us—for SADC, the Organisation of African Unity, the Commonwealth, the EU and the UN—to act in support of the will of the people.

If we fail, the repercussions will be felt throughout the region, as many noble Lords have said. The result will be the starvation of millions of people not just in Zimbabwe itself but in places such as Malawi, as we saw on the "Ten o'clock News" last night. The recovery of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the health of South Africa's economy and the refugee situation in the neighbourhood and as far afield as Britain will all be adversely affected if the will of the people of Zimbabwe is subverted. We have not yet been able to persuade our friends and allies of the gravity of the situation, but we must redouble our efforts for the sake of Africa as a whole.

My Lords, we all warmly thank my noble friend Lord Blaker for bringing this issue before your Lordships' House once again and for arguing his views so eloquently in opening the debate.

I come to this issue with a mixture of sadness and anger, as I suspect do many of your Lordships. I feel sadness because we have seen a once fertile nation, full of prospects and promise, in effect destroyed. As we have heard in harrowing examples given by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, it is now reduced to starvation, pitiful queues and deprivation and destitution on a mass scale. That alone is a matter for deep sadness and wonder as to what we could have done earlier to prevent this unfolding tragedy.

I also feel sadness because I fear that the problem has dealt a terrible, immensely damaging blow to the reputation of the Commonwealth as a promoter of good governance and democracy. That is a great pity. I have always been a—I shall not overuse the word "passionate", for politicians do that too much—strong supporter of the potential of the Commonwealth. As a trans-regional network, it is very suitable for the 21st century, and it is an ideal channel through which this country—not the richest in the Commonwealth, but rich compared with many countries—could contribute effectively to the development of the poorer member states. It also provides an ideal network through which this country could develop its own interests and project its own influence in the world. There is no harm in our saying that we would like to do that.

I shall add one comment to those made during the discussion on the Statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, including the comments of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Luckily, the Commonwealth is about more than governments. Actually, the governments have made a poor fist of the whole affair, particularly in recent weeks and at Coolum. The Commonwealth is a bigger thing than mere governments; it is a massive network of non-governmental, semi-governmental and private agencies and links that run right across the world from Her Majesty the Queen down to the keenest, most eager young boy scout, girl guide or voluntary worker. It means a lot to millions of people, far more than some of the heads of state and Ministers appeared to understand, as they sat there at Brisbane, arguing about the details of trading communiqués and coming to their feeble conclusions.

I want to address three questions that have arisen from the debate. In a sense, it has been a harrowing affair, as we heard of the horrors that are going on. First, will Mugabe succeed? We shall know some of the answers to that this time next week. What we know now and have known for months—it is absurd to pretend that we do not—is that the elections will not be free and fair. Morgan Tsvangirai himself has said that the conditions do not exist in which there can be free and fair elections. We should put aside any absurd suggestion that, somehow, the elections will become free and fair over the weekend, regardless of who wins. The repressive decrees, the condoning of constitutional manoeuvrings and of violence by the forces of the state, the murders, the new devices for preventing people from voting and the absurdity, described by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of having the military, which is deeply hostile to the opposition, guarding the polling stations are all clear proof that the concept of free and fair elections has gone out the window. The pretence that it has not is merely delay and cover-up of the kind that has led us to the present situation.

If, by some miracle, the MDC wins and if, as I hope, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and others who have come back with that message of hope, are right, we must hear from the Government about the most elaborate and speedy programme of help. I hope that we and the rest of the world have already considered such a programme in anticipation of such a result so that we can help Mr Tsvangirai and the MDC with their economic plans and help them with the difficulties that they must overcome. We must see further dismantling of tariffs so that the agriculture sector can revive. We must not turn a blind eye to the sinister ZANU-PF declarations that we have already heard that they will carry on a third liberation war against the winner, if it is not Mugabe. I hope that we would be strong in our support of Mr Tsvangirai if that were to happen.

If Mr Mugabe wins—which, I fear, looks a bit more likely, whatever we have been told—what can we do? I understand the Prime Minister's disappointment. He is now calling for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, but, of course, it is much too late. That was urged months, if not years, ago. The calls for suspension came from people such as my right honourable friend Francis Maude, when he spoke on foreign affairs for my party in another place. He visited Zimbabwe frequently, at great personal risk. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is not here, but I would say to him that one must be cautious about condemning as armchair critics people who have physically involved themselves in the situation in Zimbabwe for some time. I would counsel caution in using that line of criticism of people who invested a lot in trying to help Zimbabwe before it slid into disaster.

We need a decisive coalition of forces to take action, as they should have done much sooner. The Prime Minister said this afternoon that he felt that the Government's position had been clear throughout. I think that even the Prime Minister's best friends would say that that was a little over the top. The truth is that the quiet dialogue policy was tried, and it failed. Half a billion pounds, said the Prime Minister, has been poured into Zimbabwe, with little result except the starvation about which we have heard. The European Union's efforts were humiliated; the Commonwealth's disapproval, expressed at Coolum, is extremely feeble and provides no guarantee that, if there is further intimidation and terror after the election, Zimbabwe will be removed from the Commonwealth; and the benchmarks set out by the Southern African Development Community, which, we all said, must be obeyed, have been completely ignored. None of the policies—clear or unclear— has worked; they have all failed.

An international coalition must be formed. If the Commonwealth cannot do it, if the EU cannot do it and if SADC is having difficulties, a coalition of all countries—not just western nations or richer countries— that value democracy, which is the vast majority, must be sewn together to put a ring around Mr Mugabe, if he wins, and see that he is, somehow, brought to face the fact that he must stop the ruination of his country.

Those are the immediate issues. We are having our debate right under the shadow of forthcoming events. I shall reflect a little on the geo-political aspects. There are those who say that what happens in Zimbabwe or in southern Africa generally is not mainstream to global stability and peace and that it is not in the same league as what is happening in, for example, Afghanistan. That is a short-sighted view. What has happened in Zimbabwe, in the context of the humanitarian concerns and moral standards of today's world, matters very much. The long list of murders; the endless denial of the rule of law; the harassment; the hatred; all the details that fill our e-mails day after day of the pitiful horrors of what is going on—all that is important.

Beyond that, there is the potential destabilisation of the region. The movement of refugees and immigrants will undermine the neighbouring economies. As my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth reminded us, with her usual accuracy, the economic climate has already been fatally affected. Not only has the rand fallen but investment in southern Africa has simply dried up, with disastrous results. That is a miserable starting position for NePAD. I salute the optimism of those who say that, somehow, we should make NePAD even more important, but the truth is that foreign private investment, which is crucial to the development of southern Africa, has been deterred and will not revive as long as Mr Mugabe is in power.

If, as we hope, there is victory for Mr Tsvangirai, it will not be a victory for outside governments, least of all this Government. It will be victory for the superhuman courage of Morgan Tsvangirai and his colleagues and for the very brave people of Zimbabwe. I pray to God that that bravery will be rewarded, but we shall live in doubt until we see the result.

My Lords, this debate comes at a propitious moment. Zimbabwe is on the eve of its most critical election since independence. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for initiating this important debate.

As many noble Lords have said, I have just returned with the Prime Minister from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Zimbabwe was discussed extensively and I should like to thank noble Lords for their positive comments on my role in that Commonwealth meeting.

This weekend's presidential election in Zimbabwe is a matter of intense international interest. Several noble Lords have discussed how the international community should respond if the result and process is flawed or if it reflects the will of the Zimbabwean people. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if at this stage I do not engage in speculation on likely outcomes. Noble Lords will know the clear position taken by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on the need for free and fair elections. That call has been echoed across the international community.

Zimbabwe is now at a crossroads. For too many years it has suffered corruption, economic mismanagement, human rights abuses and political misrule. After an appalling period of prolonged and unnecessary political violence, Zimbabwe now stands at the brink. This weekend, it is the people of Zimbabwe themselves who have to decide which way they want to go, and they must not be denied this opportunity.

The people of Zimbabwe hear much propaganda about UK government policy towards their country. Zimbabwe's state-controlled media tell them that we want to re-colonise Zimbabwe, that we want to deprive the people of their independence. They are even told that we fund and support the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. These allegations are not only malicious, they are mischievous. Britain helped Zimbabwe to its independence. We will not and have not shied away from speaking up for ordinary Zimbabweans, now or in the future.

I have said repeatedly, and I do so again this evening, that this Government have not been "inactive", a term that I believe was used by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. We have held numerous debates in this House on Zimbabwe and the Government's policy has been outlined in detail. We have worked with all our international partners, but I must remind the House again that we are dealing with an independent, sovereign nation. I cannot speak on behalf of other Commonwealth countries—for example, South Africa, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Blaker and Lord Astor of Hever, or other countries in the region. Different countries have different interests and they come to their deliberations on the issues in Zimbabwe from different starting points and with different histories. Certainly in the time that I spent not only in Coolum but also during the time that I have spent as the Minister with responsibility for Africa, discussing these issues with African colleagues, with Commonwealth colleagues, with colleagues from other countries in the European Union, with colleagues from the United States and other parts of the world, I have been struck by the fact that sometimes the analysis is shared, but that we differ vastly in terms of what we think about tactics and next steps.

For example, the Southern African Development Community has discussed this issue on many occasions, but it is important that we all recognise that the people of Zimbabwe must have their say. It is ordinary Zimbabweans who have borne the brunt of misrule. A country that was once capable of feeding the whole of the southern African region now faces food shortages. The economy has imploded. Zimbabweans are concerned about lack of employment and access to basic services such as health and education. And, of course, there is the issue of land reform. We have made it absolutely clear that we think that the issue is important and that it requires reform, but reform in a way that is transparent and just.

On all those issues, the international community has long sought a constructive dialogue with the government of Zimbabwe, not one side dictating to the other, but frank, open and honest discussion. Sadly, the current regime in Zimbabwe has taken the opposite course. Instead of a mature partnership, it looks for phantom enemies in the international community. It uses important issues like land reform to cover up its own failures and economic and political mismanagement. It makes false allegations about the UK's adherence to the terms of Lancaster House.

Zimbabwe was the host of the 1991 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting where leaders agreed the Commonwealth fundamental principles. These included respect for human rights and the rule of law. It is ironic and tragic that over recent years those principles have been systematically ignored by the government of Zimbabwe. That is why we argued strongly at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth. There was robust and widespread criticism of the government of Zimbabwe at CHOGM, but we must remember that the Commonwealth is a body of 54 countries representing over 1.7 billion people of diverse cultures and views. That diversity is the Commonwealth's strength, but there are perceptions that it is also the Commonwealth's weakness, because its decisions are unanimous. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his Statement made in another place this afternoon, there was no realistic prospect of a consensus to suspend Zimbabwe this close to the elections next weekend.

I do not agree that we could have achieved Zimbabwe's expulsion from the Commonwealth, for example, one or two years ago. Noble Lords are not looking at this issue realistically if they think that we could have achieved Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth at an earlier moment.

However, the Commonwealth heads of government did agree a statement on Zimbabwe which expressed deep concern about the violence surrounding the election campaign and called for free and fair elections. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about the process following receipt of the observers' report. Commonwealth heads mandated South Africa, Australia and Nigeria to reach a decision on the conduct of the election on their behalf once the Commonwealth election observers' report is received. Suspension remains very much on the agenda should the observers conclude that the elections were not satisfactory.

My Lords, is the troika empowered to make the final decision on suspension or will it have to refer the matter back to a superior authority?

My Lords, the troika has the power to make the decision. That is precisely why the troika was agreed; that is, so that the decision will not have to be taken back to all the Commonwealth heads of government.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that the Commonwealth acted on other countries, but not African ones. Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl that Nigeria was suspended from the Commonwealth, and that Sierra Leone and Gambia have only recently been on the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group agenda.

A number of noble Lords have argued strongly that Zimbabwe's elections cannot possibly be free and fair. That is difficult for any reasonable person to dispute. The fact that the Opposition could still win despite that is a tribute to the strength of democracy in Zimbabwe, a sentiment expressed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place this afternoon, and by my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside in his powerful speech to this House.

However, there is also evidence that the widespread violence and intimidation, sanctioned by ZANU-PF, is having an effect. As many noble Lords have pointed out in the debate, an election is not just about the polling day. The campaign in Zimbabwe began as far back as early last year, when the attacks on the judiciary and the independent media began.

When we come to make our own assessment of the election, the Government will be guided by the conclusions of the 28th January European Union General Affairs Council, negotiated by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. Those conclusions echoed the Southern Africa Development Community Parliamentary Forum's own election norms and standards. Those are: that Zimbabwean voters should be free to choose whom they will support, without intimidation or fear of recrimination; that political parties should be free to form and seek support through campaigning, without restriction or intimidation; that the independent media should be free to gather and impart information; and that reporting in state-controlled media should contain a fair balance of parties' views. Other important norms include impartial electoral administration, the early accreditation of independent monitors and observers, adequate equipment and ballots, and the prompt transfer of power to the winners.

The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, asked specifically about the numbers of observers to be deployed. The Commonwealth deployed 59 observers, the Southern African Development Community 37 observers, and South Africa 57 observers and a 20 strong parliamentary delegation. In addition, there are other observers from countries such as Nigeria and I am aware that the OAU has also sent observers. But have no information about those individual, bilateral observers.

The Government understand the deep anxiety of ordinary Zimbabweans and the concerns of those here who care about Zimbabwe. We have taken a strong, consistent line on the government of Zimbabwe's abuses of power. We have worked with our African, European, Commonwealth, North American and other partners to exert maximum influence on the regime. We have taken action. Once it became clear that the Zimbabwean Government would not allow a credible observation effort, the EU moved to targeted sanctions on 18th February and the US imposed a travel ban on 23rd February.

The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, suggested that we should be engaged in dialogue with South Africa and other African countries about the impact of the situation in Zimbabwe on the continent and the region. We have been engaged in such discussions. In fact, I recall that I have been criticised in this House by noble Lords on the Benches opposite for doing precisely that.

The noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, all mentioned the humanitarian situation and food shortages. Zimbabwe is indeed facing critical food shortages. Many thousands of Zimbabweans are now short of food, cooking oil and other basic goods. A deeper crisis is now certain whatever the election may bring. The projected figure for the 2002 harvest is 1 million tonnes. This is only half of the country's needs for the coming year. The causes of this crisis in production are complex but inter-related—the disruption to farming activities due to the fast-track land seizures; natural causes such as the prolonged mid-season drought; and, of course, the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

I am aware that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has been waiting for replies to his PQs on food aid. I apologise unreservedly to him for the delay in getting responses to him. I shall of course chase them up immediately.

In response to the widespread shortages, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development authorised in September last year £4 million support for a supplementary feeding programme targeting more than 300,000 people, mainly schoolchildren. This is being run through non-governmental channels. The UN World Food Programme also began targeted feeding at the end of February, but recently halted operations for the period around the election. It plans to reinstate its programme with full-scale implementation after the election. We have contributed £3.5 million towards this programme and pledged further support. Further support for food inputs in Zimbabwe is part of the DfID contingency plans.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked specifically about targeted sanctions. I can confirm that they will not have an impact on the work of NGOs or on the supply and delivery of food aid.

A free and independent press is a vital element in the maintenance of democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law in any country. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about SW Radio Africa. SW Radio Africa operates independently with its own sources of funding, and that is how it should be.

The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, asked about the prospects for the New Partnership for Africa's Development and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield referred to its importance. This is an African-led process and contains within it an important recognition of the need for political and economic governance, a point raised specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever.

The right reverend Prelate also referred to Uganda, one of the countries where we have an important development relationship. Primary education is one of our key areas, so I am pleased that the right reverend Prelate was able to see the success of our policy on the ground.

Africa remains a major priority of British policy. We are engaged in it for the long term. The international community's response to the New Partnership for Africa's Development will involve not only G8 action—and the G8 action plan on Africa is clue to be considered in June this year—but will also involve the response from other financial institutions, he EU, the UN and others.

Zimbabwe has been like a cloud hanging over the New Partnership for Africa's Development—it was a key part of the discussions at the last G8 planning meeting in Cape Town, for example—but it is important to remind noble Lords that NePAD is a process, one in which we will continue to be engaged. We want to see a strong mature partnership with African countries based on leadership and mutual accountability.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that good governance is an essential element of that partnership, but there are other key issues. We are focused today on Zimbabwe—and in many of the discussions we have had recently on Africa we have talked about Zimbabwe—but other major issues need to be addressed in Africa. There are conflicts in countries the size of DRC and Sudan—both of which are independently larger than Western Europe—and a long-term conflict in Angola, which finally has the possibility of being resolved with the recent death of Savimbi.

In major areas such as economic growth, trade and investment, Africa accounts for only 1 per cent of world FDI. These are the kinds of issues that we can address successfully through the New Partnership for Africa's Development. I hope that we will be able to secure agreement all round the House for the work that we are doing to make that partnership a reality.

I know that many noble Lords share the frustrations of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who described feelings of sadness and anger in speaking about Zimbabwe. No one should doubt the Government's commitment to the people of Zimbabwe. We will wholeheartedly support a truly democratic and inclusive Zimbabwe. But we must also recognise that Zimbabwe is an independent country. The ultimate responsibility for a change in direction lies with the Zimbabwean people themselves. It is up to them now to go out and vote and to ensure that their voice is heard. They must be allowed to do so.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a useful and important debate. We have agreed in general on the analysis although there have been some—but not very many—disagreements about the way ahead.

We have, in addition, agreed on four points. We can all see the potential for disaster and human suffering if things go wrong; it is difficult to be optimistic about how things will look in a month's time, although the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso shed a little light by his reference to a united government; we have faith in the ordinary people of Zimbabwe; and we see the enormous importance of a successful outcome for NePAD and for the Commonwealth. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 5, at end insert "—

( ) in paragraph 1(1) omit "only if the illness is a clinically well-recognised illness","

The noble Lord said: This amendment stands also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Darcy de Knayth. In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

The purpose of the amendment is to remove any unnecessary qualification from the definition of disability: that any mental impairment relied on to meet the definition must be "clinically well recognised".

The requirement is discriminatory. It reinforces a widely held, but erroneous, view that mental impairments are of an entirely different category to physical impairments. A disabled person who has been partially paralysed by polio does not have to prove that polio is a "clinically well-recognised" impairment. It imposes an extra legal hurdle on people with mental health problems that is not applied to those with physical impairments, which may be difficult to overcome because of medical disagreements.

Preoccupation with correct labelling distracts the court from the real issue: has this person an impairment which substantially limits normal day-to-day activities? The court may tend to feel that if this cannot be diagnosed, it cannot be serious. However, the NHS recently asserted the 40 to 60 per cent of medical symptoms cannot be explained medically, and of the 10 most commonly presented symptoms in general practice, only 15 per cent will have a clearly attributed physical cause after one year.

Secondly, despite a move towards court-appointed medical advisers, there is the problem of the cost of medical reports—which affects many disabled applicants. For people with mental health difficulties, the burden of producing expensive medical reports— for which applicants may have to pay £2,000 or more—already screens out many meritorious applications and contributes to making the legal process extremely intimidating.

I entirely support the notion that tribunals may need to be assisted in interpreting a "mental impairment", but the better approach is to reserve this for statutory guidance, with reference to expert material where appropriate. Adopting a diagnostic approach would stop the present position whereby, in the absence of medical reports, lawyers may be forced to act as doctors and to argue whether a particular set of symptoms was a "clinically well-recognised illness". Instead, they would have a legal duty to follow the guidance and turn to the World Health Organisation Classification of Diseases where there was any uncertainty.

I turn to Amendment No. 2. Its purpose is to give people with short-term but severe depression the protection of the DDA through broadening the definition of "disability".

To qualify as disabled for the purposes of the DDA, the claimant must have an "impairment" with,

"long-term adverse effect on normal day to day activities".

"Long-term" is defined to be a past period of at least 12 months or the likelihood that the period will be 12 months.

While some people with depression have a recurrent condition and gain the protection of the Act, others find that they fall outside it because the depression has not lasted 12 months; or because, although it has lasted 12 months, its effect on normal day-to-day activities has not been substantial for 12 months; or because the person cannot prove that there is an underlying recurrent condition.

One person in 20 will suffer some level of depression at some time in their life, but it is still not fully understood. The problem of "short-term" depression may often fall into the category known to lay people as a "nervous breakdown". It is characterised by a chemical imbalance in the brain, which in some cases can be accentuated by life events (as in post-natal depression). This type of depression can often react quite quickly to medical treatment, perhaps in two or three months; corrective medication can thus result in a smooth and expeditious return to work. It is estimated that 20 per cent of people who have a first episode of manic depression do not get another; over 30 per cent of those with depression have no further episodes. These people would not, therefore, be covered by the provision in the definition for recurrent conditions.

The reasons for disability discrimination legislation to cover people with short-term depression are: first, discrimination against them is commonplace; and, secondly, proof that will bring them within either the 12 months or the recurrent conditions rules is particularly difficult.

If a person suffers any impairment such as a stroke or a heart attack for a short term, and apparently recovers to full health, he or she is much less likely to suffer discrimination than the person with a period of mental illness on his or her record.

There is a precedent for a pragmatic approach to the definition. The Government have accepted the task force recommendation to amend the definition so as to include cancer and asymptomatic HIV because there is evidence that people with these conditions face stigma and discrimination. They should be similarly concerned for the discrimination faced by people with mental problems.

Reports from the employment tribunals also show this to be a consistent problem. In one recent case the applicant took five months' sick leave for depression and was on medication for over a year, but the tribunal was still not satisfied that,

"the effect of the applicant's impairment had a long term effect as it had not lasted at least 12 [consecutive] months".

If the substantial adverse effect has not lasted for 12 months but is likely to recur, the person will also be covered. The aim of this provision was to cover impairments whose effect on day-to-day activities fluctuate. For instance, with epilepsy or multiple sclerosis the underlying condition remains but the adverse effects are variable. When the Disability Discrimination Bill was before this House in 1995, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, welcomed the provision for recurrent conditions because it would cover illnesses such as depression. However, that may have been too sanguine a hope, as recent cases demonstrate.

In singling out a specific aspect of mental health for this amendment, there is no intention to make a special plea for one disability over another; the intention is to highlight and to target a serious and well-documented problem.

I turn finally to Amendment No. 3. The purpose of the amendment is to improve the coverage of mental health conditions within the definition of disability by including activities which are most likely to be severely affected for people with eating disorders, depression, anxiety disorders and schizophrenia.

Discrimination against people with mental health problems, in employment, in access to goods and services and in access to education, sadly, remains endemic in our society. However, several aspects of mental ill-health do not fit well into the DDA category of "day-to-day activities" and people can discover that they are denied the protection of the Act when on a commonsense view they should be covered.

The list of day-to-day activities was framed with physical impairments in mind and contains six physical activities and only two mental ones. The list of activities specifies speech; hearing; eyesight; continence; ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects; mobility; manual dexterity; physical co-ordination and continence; memory; ability to concentrate, learn or understand; and perception of the risk of danger.

The most relevant activities for people with mental health problems are "memory or ability to concentrate". This is amplified in guidance issued under the Act which states:

"Account should be taken of the person's ability to remember, organise her thoughts, plan a course of action and carry it out, take in new knowledge or understand spoken or written instructions".

During the passage of the DDA through Parliament in 1995, the view that the list of day-to-day activities was too narrow was raised in this House. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for the government, explained that there should be no problem for this group because no doubt their speech and mobility would be affected by their impairment if not their ability to concentrate. However, the problem is that one of these activities must be substantially affected and this might not be so, as has been amply demonstrated in cases involving schizophrenia.

The essence of that condition lies in the disordered perception of reality rather than inability to concentrate. The case leaves the legal status of schizophrenia as a disability profoundly doubtful. At least 250,000 people have been diagnosed as having schizophrenia—that is a large number of people who potentially face serious levels of discrimination in our society and may find it difficult to prove that they are covered.

Another category of cases involves people who suffer from anorexia nervosa or other eating disorders. It is both their ability to care for themselves and their perception of reality that is disordered, rather than an inability to concentrate or learn.

While "failure to perceive danger" is covered under Schedule 1(4)(1)(h), it is often tragically the case that people with severe mental health disorders are only too aware of the physical dangers to which they expose themselves; they do so to cause themselves harm or in some cases to end their lives. It is not their perceptions that are disordered, but their will to live, to care for themselves and to interact.

Likewise, depression does not necessarily fit into the list of day-to-day activities. People who have a severe depressive condition may exhibit a variety of symptoms. Disruption to normal sleep patterns, withdrawal from social life, loss of appetite, intermittent panic attacks, and a persistent pattern of self-harming may all be characteristic of a diagnosis of severe depression. None of these is satisfactorily encapsulated in normal day-to-day activities.

It might be possible to overcome the problems I have outlined through another form of words. It might also be possible for the Act to be amended by regulations. However, the best solution to end the bias in the definition against people with a mental health impairment would be the amendment proposed. Perhaps I may add that the Disability Rights Commission shares my concern in this area.

Finally, are the Government aware of the strength of concern indicated by these amendments? Will the Minister tell the Committee what they intend to do? I beg to move.

I am a signatory to these important amendments and warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Bragg on having tabled them.

Regrettably, I was unable to attend the debate on the Bill's Second Reading, a lapse noted with kindliness in speeches from both sides of your Lordships' House. Without knowing why I was not here, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that he was sure I would soon be joining the fray. In fact I was on, as it were, sabbatical leave on Capitol Hill, having been co-opted by the US House of Representatives on to a congressional committee of inquiry into the still undiagnosed illnesses of many thousands of now severely disabled veterans of the Gulf War.

My good and noble friend Lord Ashley referred at Second Reading to my having introduced 33 years ago, as a Private Member's Bill, what became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. My noble friend himself had a distinguished role in that enactment and will recall the care with which we worked to ensure that the Act's definition of disability embraced people with learning disabilities and mental health problems just as explicitly as it did people with physical and sensory disabilities. Indeed, such was our concern that, in Section 28 of the Act, a duty was imposed on Ministers to act to remove any misunderstanding that might arise on this crucially important aspect of the legislation.

The Act that these three amendments seek to improve—the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—is often described as a lineal descendant of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act; but, as my noble friend Lord Bragg has made clear, that claim is marred by the DDA's badly flawed definition of disability.

Of course, no fault lies with the Disability Rights Commission. It will see, as clearly as the supporters of these amendments, that for a statutory agency created to end discrimination against disabled people to be made to discriminate between one group of disabled people and another is both palpably wrong and patently absurd. That diminishes and demeans the Disability Rights Commission and the law as it stands needs amending.

How can it credibly be said that people afflicted by schizophrenia are not disabled? And who can say that it would "open the floodgates" to afford them the protection of the DRC? Speaking as a serial floodgate saboteur for over three decades now, I would not include the carrying of these amendments in that class of parliamentary activity.

I conclude with just one further point. In a country where 70 per cent of recorded suicides are among people with serious mental health problems, to lag behind other countries in protecting them from discrimination is a disturbing indictment of the way we live now. Yet a recent comparative survey of the disability discrimination laws of 11 countries shows that our Disability Discrimination Act is the most disadvantageous for people with mental health problems.

I hope very much to see these amendments approved and again I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bragg on his humane initiative in tabling them.

I speak in strong support of the amendments, which cover the concerns I raised on Second Reading. The current definition of disability in the DDA provides inadequate protection for those with mental health problems—in particular, as my noble friend Lord Bragg pointed out, people with depression, eating disorders and schizophrenia. My noble friend has covered matters so ably and comprehensively that I have little to add. I hope that the amendments will receive the Minister's support and that my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke will accept them as part of his Bill.

I give very warm support to the amendments, to which I have added my name. The severity of the discrimination was brought home to me most strongly when David Grayson, who was the chairman of the National Disability Council—the predecessor of the DRC—told the All-Party Disability Group that some people left gaps in their CV unexplained, preferring that an employer should assume that they had been in prison rather than revealing that they had been in hospital with a mental illness.

As I said on Second Reading, we on these Benches have a great deal of sympathy with the objectives of the amendments for people who suffer genuine mental illness. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, spoke to the amendments with great ability.

The amendments would extend the coverage of specific listed conditions. Is it the aspiration of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, should his Private Member's Bill fail, that all conditions deemed to constitute disability should be written directly on the face of any legislation that the Government bring forward? I understand that the Disability Rights Commission is currently considering revisions to the definition of disability to be published in October. Clearly, that will be too late for this Bill.

I rise only because of the comments of my noble friend Lady Wilkins, who asked whether the amendments would attract the Minister's support. None of the amendments will attract either the Minister's support or the Minister's failure to support. They are not amendments to the Minister's Bill. As I tried to make clear on Second Reading, my position is to keep a watching brief. If I can be helpful in giving information-based responses to particular questions, I am very happy to do so, but the origin of the Bill is my noble friend Lord Ashley and it is for him to decide how he wishes to respond to the views of my noble friend.

I have a couple of points to make to clarify the position, but I am neither endorsing nor failing to endorse any of the amendments. I shall probably not even seek to contribute on many of them. I shall intervene only if I think that I may be able to take the discussion forward.

The reason for the original terminology on clinically recognised illnesses is to prevent diagnoses of conditions that we have never heard of before, such as when two Californian psychiatrists diagnose fame addiction as a reason for a star going in for recurrent shoplifting. The aim was to winnow out the self-described, which has no serious impact.

On the second point, my noble friend may be brigading together two issues that we try to keep separate—the difference between disability, which is a long-term issue, and illness, which is not. In that sense, someone who suffers from mental health problems is not treated in any way differently under existing legislation from someone who has a stroke or a heart attack. I accept that it may be arguable that the long-term consequences of a short-term mental health illness may have discriminatory effects in a way that a short-term physical illness may not. However, the reason for the current provision is that we are trying to distinguish between illness and long-term disability that results in continued impairment.

It is worth emphasising that the DDA already covers 8.5 million people.

Will the noble Baroness give way?

Perhaps the noble Lord would like to come in after me. I am not replying for anybody. I am simply adding some comments.

I have a question for the Minister.

The Minister is not answering. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to answer questions, if I may say so.

I do not expect any government to seek to bring within the scope of the legislation not just the 8.5 million who are currently covered by the DDA, but anybody who has ever suffered an illness for any sustained period. That would involve a very large swathe of the population.

It may be worth correcting a misunderstanding over how the DDA deals with mental health. On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Bragg said that mental health does not fit readily into the list of respects into which effects on normal day-to-day activities fall into the DDA and that any substantial effect as required under the definition must be in one of those respects. I am sure that he recalls making that argument. That means that a person with a mental health problem could not rely on there being a cumulative substantial adverse effect across a number of limited respects in Schedule 1 to the DDA, such as mobility or ability to concentrate, learn or understand.

I am not arguing the merits or demerits of the amendments; I am simply seeking to be helpful to the Committee on points of clarification. The Act does not limit the effects of the impairment to only one of those respects. Where an impairment does not have a substantial adverse effect on a person in one of the respects listed, the effects of more than one can be taken together to result in a substantial effect in carrying out normal day-to-day activities.

I am sorry to put the Minister in this position. I appreciate that she is trying to prevent balls going out of court, as opposed to answering questions. It seems that the Disability Rights Commission believes that it is best-qualified to deal with discrimination against people with mental illness. Would not expansion there make sense?

It is already the case that the DRC can review the situation.

Can the Minister put us all out of our agony? If the Bill fails, will the Government come forward at an early stage with a disability Bill to tie up all the loose ends that will no doubt be debated later tonight?

No. I will do no such thing. This is a Private Member's Bill, not a government Bill. My noble friend has already held discussions with the Minister with responsibilities for disabled people. We agree that certain issues associated with disability need clarifying independently and beyond the effects of the European directive coming into play with British legislation. If and when legislative time permits, the Government may seek to intervene on those issues. It is not the case that the Government have any view on or support my noble friend's Bill—which must take its chances in the other place, as with all private Members' legislation.

With respect, that was not my question. If the Bill fails, do the Government have an aspiration to come forward ….

No. The Government accept that there are issues—not necessarily those raised by the Bill, debated tonight or covered by amendments. The Government may wish to revisit aspects of the 1995 Act in light of concerns that have emerged since and of European legislation. It is for the Government to decide whether that is an appropriate priority. My noble friend's Bill is a private activity. I am here to keep a watching brief. If it helps the Committee to provide information, I shall seek to do so—but in no sense will I offer a view on whether or not I support a particular amendment.

The debate has come down to a tango. I will comment briefly on the three amendments, which are some of the most important.

Of course I hope that any future Bill would incorporate a comprehensive listing, to avoid the many misunderstandings of the past. I extend the greatest understanding, as always, to my noble friend Lady Hollis, but she seems anxious to distance herself from the Bill.

Yes.

While I understand that she must, as a Minister, avoid giving a specific commitment, I am sure that when Members of the Committee raise points with her, she will be as forthcoming and comprehensive as possible.

After the detailed and comprehensive explanation given by my noble friend Lord Bragg, anything that I add may be superfluous. He more or less said it all. Nevertheless, one should bear in mind my noble friend's comment at Second Reading that mental illness is not regarded as equal to physical illness. There is a great deal of public confusion about mental illness—particularly the definition of a clinically well-recognised mental illness, with which Amendment No. 1 is concerned. The problems range from personal idiosyncrasies to severe schizophrenia—and the boundaries at different stages are hazy. The amendment would amend the Act's existing requirement for a mental illness to be clinically well recognised, which is unfortunate and irrelevant and should go. This admirable amendment is the best instrument.

Amendment No. 2 also deserves the support of the Committee, given that the 1995 Act was aimed primarily at physical disability. The Act's requirement that a disability must have a long-term adverse effect rules out anyone with acute depression that does not last 12 months, which is clearly absurd. As my noble friend Lord Bragg said, the definition of long term is some 12 months. Although that may be reasonable for physical disability, it should not debar people with mental illness from enjoying the protection of the Act. No one can deny that many people with severe but short-lived mental illness are likely to suffer discrimination in years ahead. They deserve and need the Act's protection.

Amendment No. 3 deals with another anomaly in the 1995 Act—its preoccupation with physical disability. The Act lists day-to-day activities that have to be affected for the person to qualify. Most are physical. The amendment properly inserts provisions that are relevant to individuals with mental illness and thereby makes the Act a vehicle for helping mentally ill people and a more rounded whole. I accept the three amendments.

I am warmed by the welcome given to the amendments and the support that they have received in all parts of the Committee. I know that many people who suffer from mental disability will also be warmed, because they have high hopes for the Bill. I hope that no one feels that I am being too selective by particularly thanking my noble friend Lord Ashley for his Bill and for the opportunity to table and speak to the amendments.

My thanks go also to my noble friend the Minister for taking questions and a wonderful display of shadow boxing, which I greatly enjoyed. I would appreciate a detailed letter covering some of the points that were raised. I was speaking strictly to the notion of mental disability. It would be interesting to study in some detail the challenges brought against my arguments. I reiterate my thanks to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 5, at end insert "—

( ) at the end of paragraph 2(1) insert"; or

(d) if the mental impairment consists of or results from depression, it has lasted or is likely to last at least three months","

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 5, at end insert "—

( ) at the end of paragraph 4(1) insert—

"(i) ability to care for oneself;

(j) ability to communicate and interact with other people; or

(k) ability to perceive reality","

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 1, line 14, at end insert—

"7B (1) A person who has been certified by a consultant ophthalmologist as blind or partially sighted is to be deemed to have a disability and hence to be a disabled person.

(2) A copy of a record of examination to certify a person as blind or partially sighted or a record of registration as such with a local authority shall be conclusive evidence, in relation to the person to whom it was issued, of the matters certified.

(3) Unless the contrary is shown, any document purporting to be a record of examination or registration shall be taken to be such a record and to have been validly issued.""

The noble Baroness said: I should like to express my appreciation to Caroline Ellis of the RNIB for her advice on this matter.

The purpose of Amendment No. 4 is to ensure that those who are certified as blind or partially sighted are automatically counted as disabled for the purpose of the DDA. It should be an uncontroversial amendment as it falls in line with the Disability Rights Task Force recommendation and the Government's proposal in Towards Inclusion—their final response to the DRTF recommendations.

As the DRTF and the Government both acknowledged, all visually impaired people, and certainly those certified or certifiable as blind or partially sighted, ought to meet the definition of disability under the DDA. They further acknowledged that, in practice, employers and service providers have sought to challenge this even when someone has been registered. That has been very distressing and stressful and has led to at least one person becoming clinically depressed. Visually impaired people have also been faced with an uphill struggle in establishing before a tribunal that they are disabled people for the purposes of the Act.

Being certified as blind or partially sighted is traumatic enough without further being required to prove one's impairment or being forced to go into endless details about its impact on one's life. The amendment proposes that people should be able to use either registration with a local authority or certification by a consultant ophthalmologist as proof of being blind or partially sighted because documentary evidence of one may sometimes be more easily available than the other. There is often considerable delay between certification and registration.

I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke will accept this amendment as it would assist the applicant in discrimination cases, provide certainty to the respondent, and allow the tribunal to move to the substance of the case and address the discrimination that may have occurred. Currently, more time is being spent arguing over whether someone is "disabled" under the tortuous criteria set out in the Act and guidance than addressing discrimination. I beg to move.

The amendment promotes a very sensible principle: in legislation dealing with certain types of disability, we should not have to provide endless definitions; one definition should be acceptable. There have been cases involving disabilities other than blindness in which it has been questioned whether a condition actually constitutes a disability. Surely we should be able to agree on definitions that are established and agreed by professionals. If we can do so in relation to one disability, we should be able to set the standard by which other disabilities are considered. I support the amendment.

This amendment would bring much-needed clarification to a confused and confusing situation. Although it is stating the obvious, I remind the Committee that blind and partially sighted people see nothing or very little. They surely have a profound disability. It seems wrong to me that people certified as blind or partially sighted are not regarded as disabled. But that is what happens. This amendment would give them a guarantee that their certification is accepted as proof of disability and that they will accordingly be entitled to the protection of the DDA. I accept the amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his support.

moved Amendment No. 5:

After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

"EFFECT OF COPING AND AVOIDANCE STRATEGIES

(2) In Schedule 1 to the 1995 Act, after paragraph 6, insert—

"6A (1) An impairment which would be likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities, but for the fact that the person concerned has unreasonably modified his behaviour to prevent or reduce the effects of the impairment to a minor level, is to be treated as having that effect.

(2) The person concerned shall be taken to have unreasonably modified his behaviour if he has developed coping or avoidance strategies which significantly restrict his range of activities or ability to undertake them, even if the person accepts that level of restriction and therefore underplays the effects of his impairment.""

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to ensure that coping or avoidance strategies are taken into account when determining whether someone has a disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act so that the true effects of an impairment are considered.

Currently, the statutory guidance on the DDA definition suggests that if a person can reasonably be expected to modify his behaviour to prevent or reduce the effects of an impairment to a minor level, then that person may not meet the definition of disability. However, this is irrelevant in terms of any discrimination which he experiences since, whatever he does, he may still face discrimination because he has an impairment.

Many disabled people, like everyone else, will avoid activities or situations that lead to difficulties. They may stop watching television, stop reading the newspaper or stop going out for walks because they do not feel able or confident in doing so and they do not receive adequate support. They may also employ coping strategies that they regard, after many years, as unexceptional, such as appearing to follow a conversation that they cannot hear properly. At tribunal, many people underplay the effects of their impairment and consequently risk being denied their rights under the DDA.

That was the situation in the case of Wright v. Discount Cards and Stationery Limited in which a woman with cataracts was working for a greeting cards company. Her job required photocopying, which generally took her longer to complete as she had to hold the material closer to her eyes than others would. She was consequently dismissed. At the employment tribunal hearing, she significantly underplayed the impact of her visual impairment and the hearing found against her, saying that she was not disabled for the purposes of the DDA.

The Disability Rights Task Force argued that the statutory guidance should make it clear that unreasonable coping strategies should be disregarded by tribunals and courts, including those that significantly restrict the person's range of activities or ability to undertake them, even if the person accepts that level of restriction. However, in their response in Towards Inclusion, the Government argued that subsequent case law has clarified this issue. When deciding whether someone is disabled, tribunals must now focus on the things that an applicant cannot do, or can do only with difficulty, rather than the things that the person can do.

The RNIB and other organisations argue that the 1995 Act itself and not just the guidance should be amended to reflect that understanding. Case law is not as accessible as provisions on the face of legislation, and revisions to statutory guidance can be quickly superseded. This amendment to Schedule 1 would give the greatest level of clarity possible. When the DDA was passed, the effects of medical treatment were seen to warrant inclusion in Schedule 1 of the Act; that being the case, so should the effects of coping and avoidance strategies. I beg to move.

I wish to say simply that this is a sensible amendment. If people with disabilities are to function, their coping strategies are by definition a part of them. If they do not have such strategies, they will not be in employment in the first place because their disabilities will overpower them. They are an essential part of the person and should be included.

In any walk of life it would be unacceptable to penalise people for trying to solve or cope with personal problems. It is particularly wrong that blind and partially sighted people should lose out by trying to overcome their disability and cope effectively with it. I accept the amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his comments and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for accepting my amendment.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 4, line 7, leave out "to (8)" and insert ", (6) and (8)"

The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 6, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Swinfen.

The first duty of any elected government is defence of the realm. That is surely an accepted and unambiguous view of those on all sides of the House.

The Disability Rights Task Force report of December 1999, From Exclusion to Inclusion, stated that the employment provisions of any civil rights legislation should cover the Armed Forces while recognising the need for adequate safeguards to maintain operational effectiveness. The Government in their March 2000 response to the report—Towards Inclusion on civil rights for disabled people—did not accept that the current exemption of the Armed Forces from legislation prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of disability should be dropped.

In a speech to the United Services Institute on 19th December 2000, General Sir Charles Guthrie, the former chief of staff, now the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, said that the demands of the disabled to serve in the Armed Forces were "ill-conceived" and would cause untold damage to their combat effectiveness.

The then shadow Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Iain Duncan Smith, responded:

"We are in agreement with General Sir Charles Guthrie. The issue is not about the disabled, it is about the Armed Forces being able to make decisions from a practical standpoint on the basis of what works".

The Bill does not seek to instil any of the inadequate safeguards that the Disability Rights Task Force deemed necessary. The deep concern that we have with this aspect of the Bill is that it creates a situation in which serving members of the Armed Forces could put themselves and others at unnecessary risk. The overriding consideration must be operational effectiveness. Like my noble and gallant friend, as a former Army officer with some experience of active service, I can attest to the very difficult and dangerous situations in which members of the Armed Forces can find themselves.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said that the Army is a massive industry and that its tail is enormous. The Armed Forces has out-sourced many of the non-combatant jobs to civilians. To give just a few examples: civilians act as driving instructors; they train tank crews; and they man base repair maintenance workshops. Civilians do much of the administrative work of the Armed Forces. Static establishments have civilian catering firms and they carry out military guard force duties. Undoubtedly some of these civilians are disabled.

We oppose this aspect of the Bill for reasons of pragmatism, not discrimination. The Armed Forces are clearly concerned and we on these Benches support the Government's very sensible position.

I know that my remarks will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for whom I have the greatest respect. However, I assure him of my very real desire to fight whenever I call for the interests and aspirations of all disabled people. I beg to move.

The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is waiting for me to speak and then he can fire all his ammunition after I have done so. That is a typical soldier's tactic.

The provision in my Bill merely seeks to extend the protection of the DDA to disabled service personnel. But as the whole question of the role of service personnel has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, perhaps I can respond briefly.

It has been claimed that everyone in the services should be capable of fighting. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said at Second Reading that even butchers in the services should be able to fight. In raising this relic of the past, he may have thought that they could butcher the enemy with knives and choppers, but as modern wars are fought largely with computerised equipment and communications, the British Army would be in a sorry state if it had to call on butchers to operate those computers.

I see nothing ignoble in extending the DDA to protecting disabled service personnel from discrimination. To claim that making that discrimination unlawful will affect the fighting ability of the splendid British Army, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, will put disabled people and others at risk, is absolute nonsense. That is tantamount to saying that the British Army is effective only when it discriminates against some of its troops. That is obvious moonshine. No one can really go along with that kind of theory.

I believe the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, said, that demands for disabled people to serve in the Armed Forces were misguided. I am not sure of the exact words that he used. The fact is that disabled personnel are kept on in the Army and other services when they become disabled during service. That is fine and I fully agree with it, but it contradicts the principle put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and, on Second Reading, by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. If it is wrong to have disabled people in the Armed Forces, why are disabled people retained when they become disabled during service? As I say, I warmly welcome the fact that those people are retained, but the noble Lords' arguments are illogical.

The disabled service personnel in the Army today are those who have become disabled in the course of their service. So, denying them the protection of the Disability Discrimination Act means denying reasonable protection to people who are injured while fighting to protect their country, or training to do so. Where is the sense in denying them protection just because they have become disabled in the service of their country? That does not make sense or add up. Despite the kind words that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said about myself, I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment.

I greatly admire the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. Earlier he sprang to his feet thinking I had indicated that he should speak. However, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, wanted to speak and I indicated that she should speak before me.

The noble Lord and the Committee know that I have spent the past 20 years in this House fighting for disabled people. I shall continue to fight for disabled people. However, I shall not continue to fight for them to be put into a position where they risk a greater chance of being killed because of their disability than an able-bodied person, or for them to be put in a position where they stand a strong chance of having their disability made even worse because of enemy action.

The briefing I have received from the Disability Rights Commission refers to a policy in the past of dismissing servicewomen who became pregnant. Pregnant women are now retained in the services as those who were dismissed won substantial damages. However, what the briefing does not state is that the Armed Services, particularly the Army, are now considering carefully the physical ability of women to carry the loads and to take the physical stress involved in combat units. It is well known that female recruits often suffer much in the way of injury during their normal recruitment training due to the physical work that they have to do. That position is changing.

I used a bad example at Second Reading when I said that a soldier could be a butcher. If you have ever seen a carcass being butchered, you will know that it requires a considerable degree of fitness and force. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, knows, fighting nowadays is often done on a computer in brigade or divisional headquarters. You need mechanics to service and maintain the vehicles. You need clerks to do the paperwork and to make certain that orders go out. You need people to maintain and operate radios. They can often carry out those tasks it' they are disabled. I do not deny that. The noble Lord said, if I understood him correctly, that the Armed Forces retained servicemen who became disabled in the course of their service. We know that; that has been done for years and for generations. However, they have not retained servicemen who have been disabled to the extent that they cannot operate effectively.

It has been said recently that most warfare today is carried on from 30,000 or 35,000 feet. However, the Kosovo campaign would probably have ended a great deal faster if we had put troops on the ground at the same time as the aerial bombing took place. You still need to be able to put troops on the ground who are capable of physically fighting the enemy and holding that ground once they have captured it.

The noble Lord, the promoter of this Bill, will know that the exploits of the Long Range Desert Group and the Special Air Service, now a very fine regiment, in the 1939–1945 war in North Africa operated far behind enemy lines, attacking their supply lines and their headquarters in order to deal them very severe blows. The same could happen to us in action.

Since that time, other nations have developed similar forces and are quite prepared to use them against us. We now have an escalating terrorist situation. There has been one in Northern Ireland for over a generation, but it has now become a world-wide problem. Our headquarters, our tail, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, is very large, can be attacked. The soldiers in that tail, whether butchers, bakers, candlestick-makers, computer operators or wireless maintenance individuals, will have been trained as soldiers before they take on those tasks. They, as any other servicemen, have to be prepared to fight in exactly the same way as those in the front line.

Although I appreciate the noble Lord's desire to improve the lot of people with disabilities, I believe that in this instance he is making a mistake. I hope that he will take that on board and accept this amendment.

I am in danger of trying to wave a white flag of truce between two embattled sides, and I promise that that will be my last pun. What the noble Lord said about the Army's defensive strategy is accepted. It is true that many troops go through basic training and even through wars without handling guns, but it is accepted that they may have to. That is part of military thinking.

However, what concerns me is not so much the fact that disability may prevent people from fulfilling basic infantry functions—the primary point to which I think the noble Lord was referring—but the suggestion that if one has a disability, one can be removed by means of a blanket ban. I again use the example of dyslexics—we have reached Clause 4 of this Bill without my mentioning them by name, so I have not done too badly—who have undoubtedly formed a part of Her Majesty's forces, and still do. Indeed, I have known several people with dyslexia, albeit perhaps not in its severest form, who have held commissions.

The current provisions of this Bill could result in a perfectly effective soldier, seaman or airman being removed from the job because someone decides that he does not like the idea of dealing with slightly incorrect spelling on a report form. That example should possibly be borne in mind when consideration is given to the issue of a blanket ban.

In an attempt to reach agreement on this matter, I should like to make a suggestion for consideration by both sides involved in this argument. The Bill contains many good provisions. However, there is room for compromise. At present everyone appears to be running frightened and screaming about this matter, but it would not be worth while to allow the argument to wreck the Bill.

Having read my Bill very carefully—I have read it three times—while the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was speaking, I can find no reference in the provisions to pregnant women. I therefore do not intend to detain the House on that subject.

The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has conceded that disabled people are able to operate computers. He then spoke about the SAS and the Long Range Desert Group. Having been in the Army, the noble Lord should know that it is extremely difficult, even for some of the fittest men and women, to obtain membership of the SAS or the LRDS.. They are unique regiments. It is therefore clearly preposterous to refer to the activities of the SAS and the Long Range Desert Group in terms of the whole Army, Navy and Air Force being involved. He simply used "scare" phrases, which do not really cut any ice. A butcher could not operate with the Long Range Desert Group because he may not have the relevant skills. The noble Lord chose the wrong example.

The noble Lord overlooked another matter. By objecting to this element of the Bill, he is defending discrimination in the armed services. However, there is no justification for doing so. We all know that he has done splendid work for disabled people and that he always makes distinguished contributions to such debates. His approach is not in question, except in relation to the armed services. It is completely wrong to deny the defence of the DDA to disabled service personnel—Army, Navy or Air Force.

I am sorry that I am unable to agree to the amendment, but at least we hav`e had a good exchange of views.

I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for his support—he set out the case very clearly. I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that I fear that there is no ground for compromise on these Benches. I also hope that the Government will not compromise on this matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, referred to our not defending discrimination. We are not defending discrimination in the Armed Forces, but we could be discriminating against able-bodied servicemen if the proposal were agreed to. I fear that we must disagree on this matter. I believe that the Government are absolutely right. It would be inappropriate to divide the Committee at this point but if there is a vote on this matter at any other stage, we shall support the Government. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 7:

After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—

"DISCRIMINATION AGAINST VOLUNTARY WORKERS

(1) The 1995 Act is amended as follows.

(2) After section 9, insert—

"9A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST VOLUNTARY WORKERS

(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the provisions of this Part apply to work sought or carried out by a disabled person on an unpaid, voluntary basis as if he was an employee or an applicant for the employment concerned with such modifications as are specified in the order.

(2) Before making any order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall conduct a review.

(3) Unless he has already begun or completed a review under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall begin to conduct a review immediately after the first anniversary and if no order is subsequently made under subsection (1) he shall conduct a further review after the third anniversary.

(4) Any review shall be completed within nine months.

(5) In conducting any review, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such organisations representing the interests of disabled persons in voluntary work or seeking voluntary work as he considers appropriate; and

(b) such organisations representing the interests of employers as he considers appropriate.

(6) If, on completing a review, the Secretary of State decides not to make an order, he shall no later than one year after the commencement of the review lay before Parliament a report—

(a) summarising the results of the review; and

(b) giving the reasons for his decision.

(7) Any report made by the Secretary of State under subsection (6) shall include a summary of the views expressed to him in his consultations.

(8) In this section—

"anniversary" means the anniversary of the coming into force of this section; and

"review" means an assessment of the effects of extending the scope of Part 2 to disabled persons who seek or undertake unpaid voluntary work and what modifications to the provisions of Part 2 may be required in respect of voluntary workers.""

The noble Lord said: The amendment would bring voluntary workers within the scope of the Bill. There is much agreement among those concerned—indeed, the Government, agreed—that a voluntary code should cover voluntary workers. The Disability Rights Task Force issued a recommendation, which stated:

"In principle, voluntary workers should be covered by civil rights legislation. However, in recognition of the diversity of voluntary workers and organisations that engage them, a good practice approach should be adopted. Organisations engaging volunteers should be consulted on the preparation of guidance and a power taken in civil rights legislation to bring volunteers into coverage through regulations".

The Government said that they prefer the voluntary approach, but such approaches take time. One could still be trying to reach an agreement 20 or 30 years down the line. People often decide not to agree because the relevant matter does not bother them. That is 'why we have to legislate in this regard. If everyone was a reasonable man, we should never have to pass any legislation. That is why the amendment is necessary. I beg to move.

I support the amendment. It is important for disabled people to be able to give something without discrimination. Volunteering is useful not only because it builds one's confidence and provides some form of employment but also because it is important to be able to contribute something to society when one is so often on the receiving end.

It is one of the little oddities of life that voluntary workers are not usually taken as seriously as those who are paid, and their efforts are often not sufficiently appreciated. The amendment goes a considerable way towards redressing the balance.

The Government said that they will take the power to bring a range of voluntary workers into the DDA when legislative time allows, and that they will use the power if necessary. I assume that this amendment, which covers the necessary point, will be uncontroversial.

There is a quote from Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in the admirable briefing from the Disability Rights Commission saying, in another context, that leaving matters to a voluntary approach would mean taking 20 years to secure the necessary changes and that setting new legal standards will bring them forward by a generation. I hope that the Government take that message on board. I accept the amendment.

I thank the noble Lord for that response, and the noble Baroness for her support.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 8:

After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—

"EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS TO QUALIFYING BODIES

(1) In the 1995 Act, after section 15, insert—

"15A DISCRIMINATION BY QUALIFYING BODIES

(1) It is unlawful for an authority or body which can confer an authorisation or qualification which is needed for, or facilitates, engagement in a particular profession or trade (a "qualifying body") to discriminate against a disabled person—

(a) in the terms on which it is prepared to confer on him that authorisation or qualification;

(b) by refusing, or deliberately omitting to grant, his application for it;

(c) by withdrawing it from him or varying the terms on which he holds it;

(d) in the way it affords him access to any relevant services or facilities provided in connection with the conferment of an authorisation or qualification or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him access to them; or

(e) by subjecting him to any other detriment.

(2) In this section—

(a) "authorisation or qualification" includes recognition, registration, enrolment, approval and certification;

(b) "confer" includes renew or extend;

(c) "relevant services or facilities" includes the means of course delivery and assessment.

(3) In the case of an act which constitutes discrimination by virtue of section 55, this section also applies to discrimination against a person who is not disabled.

(4) Sections 15A to 15C do not apply to the extent that a qualifying body is already subject to any provision in sections 28R to 28T."

(2) In the 1995 Act, after section 15, insert—

"15B MEANING OF "DISCRIMINATION" IN RELATION TO QUALIFYING BODIES

(1) For the purposes of section 15A, a qualifying body discriminates against a disabled person if—

(a) for a reason which relates to his disability, it treats him less favourably than it treats, or would treat, others to whom that reason does not, or would not, apply; and

(b) it cannot show that the treatment in question is justified.

(2) For the purposes of section I 5A, a qualifying body also discriminates against a disabled person if—

(a) it fails, to his detriment, to comply with section 15C; and

(b) it cannot show that its failure to comply is justified.

(3) The taking of a particular step by a qualifying body in relation to a person does not amount to less favourable treatment if it shows that at the time in question it did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that he was disabled.

(4) Subsections (5) to (7) apply in determining whether, for the purposes of this section—

(a) less favourable treatment of a person, or

(b) failure to comply with section 15C, is justified.

(5) Less favourable treatment of a person is justified if it is necessary in order to maintain necessary and appropriate professional or trade standards.

(6) Otherwise less favourable treatment, or a failure to comply with section 15C, is justified only if the reason for it is both material to the circumstances of the particular case and substantial.

(7) If, in a case falling within subsection (1)—

(a) the responsible body is under a duty imposed by section 15C in relation to the disabled person, but

(b) fails without justification to comply with that duty, its treatment of that person cannot be justified under subsection (6) unless that treatment would have been justified even if it had complied with that duty."

(3) In the 1995 Act, after section 15, insert—

"15C DUTY OF QUALIFYING BODY TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS

(1) A qualifying body must take such steps as it is reasonable for it to have to take to ensure that—

(a) in relation to the terms on which it is prepared to confer authorisation or qualification, disabled persons are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled; and

(b) in relation to any relevant services and facilities provided in connection with the conferment of an authorisation or qualification, disabled persons are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled.

(2) In considering whether it is reasonable for it to have to take a particular step in order to comply with its duty under subsection (1), a qualifying or awarding body must have regard to any relevant provisions of a code of practice issued under section 53.

(3) This section imposes duties only for the purpose of determining whether a qualifying body has discriminated against a disabled person; and accordingly a breach of any such duty is not actionable as such.""

The noble Lord said: I saw this amendment initially while I was going through the wording with those who helped me with the drafting. At that time I was appalled by its length, but not by its content. "Qualifying bodies" are one of those groups that are on the increase in our society because everyone wants his own professional qualification. Those bodies that are traditionally qualified, or going through the mainstream part of the university structure, are increasingly bringing them in.

By historical accident and also by not being traditionally a part of legislation, those bodies have, thus far, been outside the cover of most mainstream legislation. The Disability Rights Task Force recommended that they should be brought in under such legislation; and, indeed, there is a requirement under an EU directive that such bodies should be brought under the same type of legal framework as applies to other forms of qualification.

If you cannot get the qualification, you cannot get the job. It is that simple. So, if we can remove any possibility of discrimination in this respect, we shall be enabling many people. It is totally in keeping with the original Bill, which dealt with employment, goods and services. I beg to move.

I should like to express my support for the noble Lord's amendment, and speak also to Amendment No. 9, which is tabled in my name. The noble Lord's amendment deals with "qualifying bodies" and would implement the requirements of the EU directive. It is quite wrong that disabled students should be denied the choice of studying in order to pursue a profession that they could perfectly well practise if they could get over the hurdle erected by some professional bodies. Discrimination would be justifiable only if it were a question of maintaining professional or trade standards.

Amendment No. 9 is, I fear, of similar length and wording to the noble Lord's amendment. I wish only that my speech could be as short as the noble Lord's introduction. However, not having his ability to paraphrase and to do wonderful things with words, I am afraid that the Committee may have to put up with a little more by way of delivery. My amendment seeks"to ensure that disabled students will be protected against discrimination by employers while on various forms of work placement and work training programmes, and that they enjoy equal opportunities with their non-disabled peers. The EU directive covers access to all types and all levels of vocational guidance training and retraining, including practical work experience.

My amendment would ensure that, in addition to schools and FE and HE institutions having duties not to discriminate against disabled learners in arranging work placements, the employers would also be obliged not to discriminate against the person concerned and to make reasonable adjustments. Comparable provisions exist in the Race Relations and Sex Discrimination Acts. No such obligation with regard to people with disabilities exists at present. Indeed, employers can even refuse them a placement.

I moved a similar amendment with the same aim, though it was much shorter, during the proceedings on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act but it was resisted by the Government. Work experience is becoming increasingly important not only in further and higher education but also in secondary education. Further, the actual experience of work is particularly important to the student with a disability—indeed, probably more so than with the ordinary able-bodied student—because he can then judge whether he is capable of pursuing the career that he has in mind, and work out how to do things and find ways around his problems.

I am pleased to note that the Disability Rights Commission is in favour of the amendment. Indeed, on 4th February, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, wrote to me following Second Reading saying that, as she mentioned in the debate,

"the Government will be considering the next steps in legislating to amend the DDA in the light of the outcome of the Article 13 Directive which is currently underway. This includes changes that might be needed in relation to practical work experience".

I understand the reluctance some people feel about imposing a duty on employers which may be expensive and may be for a short time if the accommodation is specific to the individual. If we are to make it work, work placements and work-based training will have to be backed up by funding to ensure that the employers get a fair deal.

As part of the new 14–19 reforms, additional resources are being made available, including £25 million in 2002–03 for the development of education/business links, including opportunities for work experience, and increased levels of investment are promised in future years. But as yet there is no consistent funding stream of support for disabled pupils and students while they are undertaking work experience and work-based learning. In the case of disabled pupils in schools, they would not be funded by the LSC, nor would any support specified in their statement of SEN necessarily carry over into a work placement.

Will the disabled students' allowance be increased to cover the cost of some kinds of reasonable adjustments to the workplace, or could employers be reimbursed by an extension to the access to work programme? It would have to be ring-fenced to ensure that it followed the student on the work placement. It would he illogical for the funding plans not to include funding for employers to make reasonable adjustments to allow disabled pupils and students to benefit fully from work experience and work-based training.

I wonder whether I can entice the Minister into commenting briefly on the question of funding. That may be unfair as I have not warned her. However, if we are able to give encouragement to employers, that would be useful. I look forward to hearing whether the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, feels that he can accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 9 also appears in my name. I do not propose to say a great deal on it because all that needs to be said has probably been said already. However, there is the question of reasonable adjustment. A number of people will say that for disabled people who are volunteers or on work placements the cost would be far too great and therefore would be unreasonable. However, we must not forget that the length of time that the individual will be in post will be taken into account when deciding whether or not any adjustments are reasonable. Therefore, I am sure that unreasonably expensive adjustments for short use will not be permissible.

Perhaps I may be of assistance to the Committee. Clearly, there is a question of who counts as an employee in those circumstances. Where someone is an employee, the employer has a responsibility under the DDA, given reasonable expense, to make physical adjustments. With a placement scheme, factors such as whether a person comes from a school or a voluntary organisation, and the length of the placement, constitute a grey area. I have taken advice on the matter. However, where Members of the Committee seek information on this matter and on other matters which have arisen during tonight's debate as to the current state of the law and its application, perhaps I may write to them. I shall ensure that my noble friend has copies of all the correspondence. That may be helpful. It would not be easy to give a "yes" or "no" answer to the noble Baroness on this question. At what point the employer is required to make reasonable adjustments, and if so who pays, would depend on the circumstances.

I thank the Minister for that reply, which is helpful. As she mentioned that she would have to implement the directive, I threw out the thought as to how we would give a sweetener to the employers.

The response by the Minister was helpful. I welcome the fact that in tabling Amendment No. 8 the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seeks to bring qualifying bodies within the orbit of Part II of the DDA. The amendment would implement a recommendation of the task force and would bring our policy into line with the EU employment directive. I understand that it has largely been accepted by the Government.

The amendment is important because it would substantially enhance the employment opportunities of disabled students. Qualifying bodies are gateways to entry for a large number of professions, occupations or trades. It cannot be right that sex and race legislation covers these bodies yet the DDA does not; and in consequence it would be perfectly lawful for them to discriminate against disabled students. I accept the amendment.

Regarding Amendment No. 9, put forward so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, I am sure that the Committee will recognise that when people become disabled at an early age, they face greater difficulties than those disabled later in life when they have had valuable experience and perhaps training.

At one time it was virtually impossible for young disabled people to obtain training. Although it is a little better today, many gaps remain. The amendment closes an important one. As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has pointed out, work placements and work-based training is an essential part of the qualification needed for many jobs. If it is missing, it is like a ladder with some steps knocked out. Schools and higher education institutions already have non-discrimination duties, but until employers offering training programmes have similar duties, the whole process resembles a faulty and hence a useless ladder.

It has already been said that the EU Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment requires the UK by 2006 to implement provisions similar to that proposed by this amendment. But why should we wait until then? Why not move now? If the Bill is accepted, that means early movement. I am happy to accept the amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness for supporting my amendment, if only very briefly. I apologise for not supporting her amendment. The issue has a long history. I know that the noble Baroness has battered away at the problem for a long time. She has spotted a hole in the problem which is as important in practical terms as the one that I have brought forward. There is no point in getting through a course and passing a professional body's exam in order to become whatever it is, if one is then denied the essential practical experience. So they are two branches certainly of the same tree.

moved Amendment No. 9:

After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—

"EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS TO EMPLOYERS PROVIDING VOCATIONAL TRAINING

(1) In the 1995 Act, after section 15, insert—

"15D DISCRIMINATION BY EMPLOYERS IN THE PROVISION OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING

(1) It is unlawful for an employer who provides vocational training services or facilities to discriminate against a disabled person seeking or undergoing such training—

(a) in the terms on which he affords him access to those services or facilities;

(b) in the manner in which he affords him access to those services or facilities;

(c) by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him such access; or

(d) by terminating his training or subjecting him to any other detriment.

(2) In this section "vocational training" means any work-related education or training including work-experience placements and work-based learning programmes for disabled persons in secondary, further or higher education by whomsoever arranged.

(3) In the case of an act which constitutes discrimination by virtue of section 55, this section also applies to discrimination against a person who is not disabled."

(2) In the 1995 Act, after section 15, insert—

"15E MEANING OF DISCRIMINATION IN SECTION 15D

(1) For the purposes of section 15D, an employer discriminates against a disabled person if—

(a) for a reason which relates to the employee's disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and

(b) he cannot show that the treatment in question is justified.

(2) For the purposes of section 15D, an employer also discriminates against a disabled person if—

(a) he fails, to the employee's detriment, to comply with section 15F; and

(b) he cannot show that his failure to comply is justified.

(3) The taking of a particular step by an employer in relation to a person does not amount to less favourable treatment if he shows that at the time in question he did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the employee was disabled.

(4) Less favourable treatment, or a failure to comply with section 15F, is justified only if the reason for it is both material to the circumstances of the particular case and substantial.

(5) If, in a case falling within subsection (1)—

(a) an employer is under a duty imposed by section 15F in relation to the disabled person, but

(b) fails without justification to comply with that duty,

his treatment of that person cannot be justified under subsection (4) unless that treatment would have been justified even if he had complied with that duty."

(3) In the 1995 Act, after section 15, insert—

"15F DUTY TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS

(1) Where—

(a) any arrangements made by or on behalf of an employer, or

(b) any physical feature of premises occupied by the employer,

place the disabled person concerned at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled, it is the duty of the employer to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to prevent the arrangements or feature having that effect.

(2) Subsection (1)(a) applies to—

(a) arrangements for determining to whom work-related education or training should be offered, and

(b) any term, condition or arrangements on which work-related education or training services are offered or afforded.

(3) In considering whether it is reasonable for him to have to take a particular step in order to comply with his duty under subsection (1), an employer must have regard to any relevant provisions of a code of practice issued under section 53A.

(4) In this section "the disabled person concerned" means—

(a) in the case of arrangements for determining to whom work-related education and training should be offered, any disabled person who is, or has notified the employer that he may be, seeking such education and training; and

(b) in any other case, a disabled person who is undergoing such education and training.

(5) This section imposes duties only for the purpose of determining whether an employer has discriminated against a disabled person; and accordingly a breach of any such duty is not actionable as such.""

The noble Baroness said: I have spoken at huge length to Amendment No. 9. I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington— somewhat late but extremely helpful as always—for supporting the amendment. There was a very helpful intervention from the Minister and a great deal of support from the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I am delighted that the noble Lord accepts the amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 10:

After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—

"APPLICATION OF ACCESS TO GOODS AND SERVICES PROVISIONS TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

(1) The 1995 Act is amended as follows.

(2) In section l9(5A) after "provision of a service" insert "to disabled pupils or students".

(3) In section 19(5A) at end insert "but this Part does apply in respect of services provided by an educational institution to disabled persons who are not pupils or students".

(4) In this section—

"disabled pupils" has the same meaning as in section 28Q (2) and (3); and

"disabled students" has the same meaning as in section 31 A (2) and (3)."

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 10 is to ensure that vital services provided by schools, FE and HE institutions to disabled people who are not pupils or students, such as careers services, access to school or college facilities, continue to be covered by Part III of the DDA.

This is an important issue. It needs to be sorted very soon as the provision involved comes into force in September of this year. SKILL, which is the national bureau for students with disabilities—of which I should declare that I am the president—has picked up a damaging anomaly introduced by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. SENDA amended the Disability Discrimination Act by inserting new rights for disabled pupils and students in education, which is Part IV of the DDA. In introducing the new rights, the Government amended Part III of the DDA so as to remove the exemption of education but also to provide that no services covered by the new Part IV could also come under the goods and services provisions of Part III. A new subsection (5A) was added to Section 19 of the DDA. It states:

"Nothing in this part applies to the provision of a service in relation to which discrimination is made unlawful by section 28A, 28F or 28R".

That would not be a problem if all it meant was that disabled pupils and students enrolled at the institutions concerned could not bring a case about the same service under Part III as well as Part IV.

However, its effect is much wider than that. The subsection effectively excludes any services covered by Part IV from the ambit of Part III. The definition of services to which the new schools and HE and FE provisions apply is wide. For example, in relation to schools it includes not just educational but associated services, which includes access to school facilities. In relation to HE and FE institutions, it includes careers services and catering and leisure services provided wholly or mainly for students. So disabled people who are not pupils or students would no longer be covered by Part III when they use such services. That will have particularly devastating consequences for access to careers services at a time when, following the Harris report, much emphasis is placed on their importance to people after they have graduated.

Obviously, some adjustments put in place for disabled students will also be of benefit to disabled ex-students—for example, the installation of a lift. But other types of support are specific to the individual—such as a sign language interpreter for an interview. That type of provision is likely to be under threat when the law changes. Disabled parents would lose the right to reasonable adjustments to enable them to attend parents evenings, school plays, fetes, and so on, because access to schools facilities is part of the associated services covered by Part IV.

The Education Bill envisages a greater role for schools in providing community services and facilities, but, unless this Bill is amended, disabled people will be denied the same opportunity to enjoy those services as the rest of the community. I am sure that that is a mistake. I cannot believe that the Government intended to create this loophole. I mint ask the Minister to give us her view. It may be that Skill has misread it; it may be that she can set our minds at rest. Does the Bill need amending—and before September—if we are to plug this loophole? I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who I hope will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.

Again, I have been invited to comment on the situation. As I understand it, university and HE careers services are not at present required to continue to make provision for graduates once they have left the institution for study, irrespective of whether the students are disabled. It has been recommended that higher education institutions should do so, and obviously some do. In that sense, no act of discrimination is taking place because it is a matter for the individual institution whether or not it continues to make services available. I speak from experience of my university. As I understand it, a continuing careers service is not currently a requirement of university provision for any students. The issue therefore does not arise.

Obviously, it would be deeply unacceptable if universities made provision for non-disabled students but failed to give the same service to disabled students. My understanding is that at present they are treated in the same way: neither group of students has an automatic entitlement to a continuing service once they have left university.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall ask for some advice. I shall see what Skill say about that. I find it rather alarming; I should say that disabled graduates probably need advice even more than non-disabled graduates.

I am not arguing about whether disabled graduates need advice; I am certainly not arguing that they should not be covered in a way that non-disabled students would take for granted. All that I am saying is that my understanding of the law as it stands—I shall write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong—is that no graduates of a university are automatically entitled to continuing careers advice once they have left the institution.

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask her what she feels about the community use of schools by parents and siblings of schoolchildren who are disabled.

That is a different issue. We are talking there about physical access to premises and whether that counts as a service and therefore falls within the 2004 remit. That is a very different point. If I may say so, the noble Baroness is brigading together two important but rather different issues.

I thank the Minister, but I would welcome her writing to me if there is anything further. We will have a communication outside the Chamber.

The Minister has again been very helpful to our debate. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has raised this important issue. It is rare for legislation to achieve perfection in the eyes of its beneficiaries when it comes to implementing new laws. Anomalies and loopholes are bound to appear.

There is some controversy about the issue. At least, we will get full clarification at a later date. I am happy to accept the amendment.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. We need to clarify things, and I will continue a dialogue with the Minister outside the Chamber, with the help of SKILL and the DRC.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 11:

After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—

"EXAMINATION, TEST AND ASSESSMENT SERVICES

(1) The 1995 Act is amended as follows.

(2) In section 19 after subsection (3)(h) insert—.

"(i) the provision of examination, test and assessment services in relation to education and training by an awarding or other body."

(3) After subsection (3) insert—

"( ) In subsection (3)(i)—

"awarding body" means any body involved in awarding general, vocational or other qualifications not directly linked to entry to a particular trade or profession and which is not a responsible body for the purposes of Part 4;

"other body" includes bodies such as the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for England which provide statutory assessment test papers for disabled learners.""

The noble Lord said: This amendment would ensure that awarding and examining bodies had a clear duty under the DDA to strengthen the rights of disabled learners in respect of tests and examinations in education and training.

The position of such people in respect of testing has been strengthened by recent legislation. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 has done much to help and has brought most people taking examinations under Part III of the DDA. However, there is one area in which there may be a loophole, and the Minister may be required to answer on this issue. Whether an awarding body is caught by Part III will depend on whether it is deemed to be providing a service to the public or a section of the public. SKILL and the RNIB believe that the service provided by awarding bodies is the award itself, which is a service to students.

If that means that certain sections and certain qualifications are not covered, we must examine it again. If the Minister can assure me that I am wrong, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, as there is no point in using the Bill to insert useless wording. If the Minister is in some doubt, we should have it in to guard ourselves. I beg to move.

I support the amendment wholeheartedly.

There seems to be an assumption that this is a government Bill and that I am responsible for deciding on the desirability of amendments. I have tried to make it clear that I am happy to provide information, but I am at arm's length from the Bill. It is not reasonable for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to say that, if I can give a satisfactory answer, he will withdraw the amendment and, if not, he will press it. That is not my responsibility; that is about his relationship to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke.

Awarding bodies will be covered by Part III of the DDA where they provide a service to the public. Whether they are doing so in a particular instance is determined case by case.

It is because the Minister is so popular that we want to hear from her on every subject. That is why we keep asking her questions. I thought that she would be willing to give the clarification asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but, of course, we recognise her situation.

The amendment would give duties to awarding and examining bodies under the DDA. It would strengthen disabled learners' rights regarding tests and exams. People should not be penalised because of irrelevant disabilities. I am happy to accept the amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for his acceptance. I am sorry that the Minister felt that she was bounced into that question; it was a purely technical point. The answer that she gave was that the matter would be considered case by case. That should not be so. If there is an examination open to all and someone has to take it, those running the examination should make sure that some form of reasonable adjustment is made.

The noble Baroness has been very helpful. According to my logic, she has proved that there is a need for the amendment. In thanking her for the technical information, I hope that the Committee will feel able to accept the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 12:

After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—

"EXTENSION OF THE 1995 ACT TO POLLING STATIONS AND ELECTORAL SERVICES

(1) The 1995 Act is amended as follows.

(2) In section 19, after subsection (3)(h) insert—

"(i) access to and use of electoral services and facilities".

(3) After section 21, insert—

"21B ELECTIONS ACCESSIBILITY STRATEGY

(1) It is the duty of each local authority to prepare and implement an elections accessibility strategy.

(2) An elections accessibility strategy is a strategy for, over a prescribed period, ensuring that disabled voters are able to participate fully and equally in all aspects of the registration system and electoral procedures and facilities for parliamentary, local government and European parliamentary elections by—

(a) ensuring the physical accessibility of polling stations for disabled voters;

(b) ensuring the accessibility of electoral registration and electoral procedures for disabled voters;

(c) ensuring the accessibility of postal voting information and procedures for disabled people;

(d) ensuring the delivery to disabled voters—

(i) within a reasonable time, and

(ii) in ways which are determined after taking into account their disabilities and any preferences expressed by them, of information about electoral services, procedures and facilities which is provided to non-disabled voters or which concerns arrangements for securing their access to electoral services, procedures and facilities; and

(e) taking steps to ensure any pilot schemes including arrangements for e-voting are fully accessible to disabled voters.

(3) An elections accessibility strategy must be in writing.

(4) Each local authority must keep their elections accessibility strategy under review during the period to which it relates and, if necessary, revise it.

(5) In preparing and revising their elections accessibility strategy a local authority must consult—

(a) disabled people in the local authority area, and

(b) organisations representing disabled people in the area.

(6) A local authority must have regard to any guidance issued as to compliance with the requirements of this section.

(7) In preparing their elections accessibility strategy, a local authority must have regard to—

(a) the need to allocate adequate resources for implementing the strategy; and

(b) any guidance issued as to—

(i) the content of an accessibility strategy;

(ii) the form in which it is to be produced; and

(iii) persons who must be sent copies of the strategy.

(8) As soon as practicable after any occasion when they prepare a new strategy or alter their strategy, the local authority must—

(a) publish the strategy or the strategy as altered in such manner as they think fit; and

(b) send a copy of it to the Secretary of State (in the case of an authority whose area is in England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in the case of an authority whose area is in Wales) and to such other persons (if any) as may be specified in guidance.

(9) The authority must also—

(a) cause a copy of their elections accessibility plan to be made available for inspection (at all reasonable hours) at such places as they think fit;

(b) give notice, by such means as they think expedient for bringing it to the attention of the public, as to the places at which a copy of it may be inspected; and

(c) supply a copy of it (or any part of it) to any person on request, either free of charge or at a charge representing no more than the cost of providing the copy.

(10) Guidance under this section may be issued—

(a) for England, by the Secretary of State; and

(b) for Wales, by the National Assembly.

(11) In this section—

"prescribed" in relation to Wales means prescribed in regulations made by the National Assembly;

"disabled voter" means a disabled person who is entitled to vote as an elector at parliamentary, local government or European parliamentary elections.""

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, for which I am indebted to Ruth Scott and Jonah Grunsell of Scope, and to Caroline Ellis of the RNIB, for their help.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that electoral services are included on the face of the DDA as services to the public, subject to the duties under Part 3 of the Act. It would also require local authorities to prepare and implement a comprehensive elections accessibility strategy so as to ensure equal access to the whole electoral process for disabled voters.

Over the last three general elections, Scope has conducted the Polls Apart campaign, amassing evidence of the discrimination which disabled people face in the election process. It revealed that in the 1997 general election, 94 per cent of polling stations were inaccessible and discrimination against disabled voters was widespread. For instance, many disabled people had to vote in the street, had their ballot paper marked by someone else or had to go home without voting at all.

This was one disabled voter's experience in Chichester: "I had to shout from outside two sets of doors to try and get someone to help. Eventually another voter asked someone to come out and help me. There was no provision at all for disabled people. I had to vote in a car park and pass my vote to a stranger to put in the ballot box. I hope that they did. To top it all, it was raining and I had to wait outside during all this".

The Representation of the People Act 2000 introduced a number of measures to remedy this situation, but as the Polls Apart report of the 2001 general election revealed, while a significant amount of work had been done by the Government and returning officers, 69 per cent of polling stations could still be inaccessible. Some 38 per cent did not have a large print notice of the ballot paper on display, and 49 per cent had no tactile template available for blind and partially sighted people—both legal requirements of the Representation of the People Act. The RNIB concludes that for visually impaired people, the right to vote independently and in secret is for the most part still a right denied.

The current legal position is that no one can say with certainty whether electoral services and polling stations are covered under the DDA, and if so, in what ways. If it was clear that electoral services and facilities were subject to Part III of the DDA, with guidance to local authorities and disabled people explaining how the duties apply, then local authorities would give the matter the priority it needs and disabled people would know their rights and be in a position to challenge unacceptable provision.

Amendments to electoral law as recommended in the Disability Rights Task Force report would not provide the necessary protection against disability discrimination. It would not provide an avenue for redress if a disabled person was treated in a worse manner than non disabled voters or in a discriminatory way by polling staff.

Consequently, this amendment seeks to ensure that polling stations and electoral services are specifically included under Part III of the DDA in order to guarantee disabled voters' rights to vote in secret and with dignity.

The second part of the amendment addresses the clear need revealed by the Polls Apart campaign that local authorities be required to create a comprehensive strategy for improving access in the long term. Such a strategy should be regularly reviewed in consultation with disabled voters and local disability groups. It should specify a detailed time-scale for improvements and ensure that adequate resources are allocated to fund the strategy.

Due to the lateness of the hour I will not argue this in detail, but at a time when there is widespread concern about voter apathy, it seems utterly foolish to allow barriers to remain in place for one group of voters who are desperate to vote. Now more than ever, as we begin to debate different ways of voting—by post, telephone or over the Internet—we need to reassert the primacy of guaranteeing a secret ballot and accessible electoral procedures to all disabled people. If we do not, there is a real danger that new systems will further exclude disabled people from the voting process rather than empower them.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept that much more needs to be done to honour the civil and human rights of disabled people to participate in this democratic life—I do not expect her to reply—and the amendment seeks to ensure this. I beg to move.

I support the amendment because it relates to an issue I have long been pursuing. The new e-mail voting and other measures will be extremely useful because they should be very accessible. It is extremely important that that should be so. It has always been a question of accessible polling booths. My local polling station—the local school—has been accessible for a long time. The importance of that was brought home to me because I am allowed to vote in European elections. I changed my mind three days before polling day and I would have been furious to think that my vote was inexorably winging its way towards the wrong target.

There have been numerous complaints about the difficulties experienced by people with disabilities in voting in both parliamentary and local elections for many years. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will accept the amendment and that when the Bill becomes law the Government will ensure that the proposed new clause is put into action very quickly indeed.

My noble friend Lord Bassam and I, having spent many years in local government, have sympathy with the thrust of the amendment. Clearly, under the Representation of the People Act, it is desirable to have full access to polling stations. Obviously, that issue is being pursued. However, sometimes balances need to be taken between the convenience of a location, which may be a local school as opposed to somewhere much further away.

My noble friend Lady Wilkins did not mention postal voting; the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, did. She said that she hated to think that her vote, cast three days before, would have winged on its way. I was appalled at the thought that she was a last-minute floating voter who would seek to change her mind in the last two or three days on major issues affecting the well-being of this country. If that is what being a Cross-Bencher consists of, I am not at all sure that it is a wise use of their powers.

It is clear that the Electoral Commission will probe this issue.

The Minister is doing the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth a great disservice. She had obviously taken a long time to think very seriously about the matter and given it a great deal more thought than a lot of voters who automatically vote for one party or another.

I am sure that she had. It was the thought that she may have wanted to change her mind in the last 48 hours that dismayed me. It was a tease.

Coming back to the more substantive point, I have been doing some work on postal ballots and the use of e-mail, mobile polling stations and a range of voting hours in which one can express one's vote. The Committee may be interested to know that my own local authority—I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Bassam has had the same experience—was one of the pilot authorities for all postal ballots. In two of the wards in the City of Norwich, the only way one could vote was by postal ballot. Far from this being stigmatised, the result in those two wards was that the voting rate went up by more than 50 per cent.

It is an example, following the question that we debated the other day, that if you provide physical access for disabled people a whole swathe of other people benefit in consequence. Here was a case clearly where many people had regarded themselves as debarred from voting for whatever reason—they might have children, caring responsibilities or whatever—and were able to enjoy the much more appropriately generous provisions of the new postal ballot system, which does not require the "medicalisation" of a form in order to achieve access to a postal vote. As a result, the voting rate in those two wards went up by 50 per cent.

I am sure my noble friend Lady Wilkins will agree that what matters is the access to the service and not necessarily to the building. Of course it is desirable that there should be access to buildings but, ultimately, what really counts is access to the service. I hope that she will join with me in recognising that there are important moves afoot which will benefit a very wide range of the community.

I intervene because I cannot resist the bait thrown to me by the Minister. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for his defence of me.

I have always argued with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has always said that a postal vote is perfectly satisfactory. But the point is that a huge number of able-bodied members of the public do not make a voting decision until the last few days before an election. This Cross-Bencher would like a vote on what the noble Baroness may consider to be an important matter; namely, the euro.