Orders of the Day — Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

House of Commons, 10 February 1999.

REDUCTION IN AGE AT WHICH CERTAIN SEXUAL ACTS ARE LAWFUL

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, after' (buggery);' insert— '(aa) in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 3 (buggery) of Schedule 2 (punishments, etc.);'. I am pleased to see that the Home Secretary has joined the Minister of State, Home Office on the Treasury Bench. We are delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman in the Chamber but we are not sure what his presence signifies for the free vote that we on these Benches have been promised on this occasion. We hope that we will still have one. I stress that I strongly support the clause. The purpose of the amendment is to explore ways in which the clause may be improved along the lines that I described in my contribution on Second Reading. It must be remembered that the clause deals with equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals in sexual matters relating to the criminal code. Amendment No. 1 draws attention to some of the other areas in which there should be equality. There has not been a proper debate on such details for years and perhaps decades, if not centuries. Previous debates, especially on sentencing, have often taken place in the dark hours in the other place, at the last minute, and have been on measures tagged on to other Bills. This is the first opportunity in the context of a Government Bill for us to debate properly how equality in sentencing and other matters might be achieved. Perhaps the most significant previous debate took place in the 1880s. The Government claim to be undertaking a process of modernisation, which some of us support. It is high time to modernise these laws. We understand that it might be thought that some of these matters are covered by the Government's review of sexual offences. However, there is concern about the timetable of that review, first because these are relatively urgent matters, given that we are dealing with unequal sentences and other unequal provisions, and secondly because we are in danger of achieving equality and fairness in one part of a series of offences without making consequent changes in sentencing or in other respects covered by other amendments. Amendment No. 1 deals with sentencing and other amendments deal with who can be charged with an offence. Other matters must be dealt with as new clauses and will be discussed in Standing Committee. It is important to emphasise that in all these debates we are speaking about consensual offences. When we consider the appropriate sentence for such offences, whether heterosexual or homosexual, it is important that we restrict our consideration to consensual offences. Non-consensual offences fall outwith the remit of the clause. I hope that we will be careful to make that distinction. We must recognise that when we seek equality, which is the thrust of clause 1, we mean equality as between consensual anal intercourse between men—by which I mean buggery; it is also called other things, but I shall try to stick to the term "anal intercourse"—and unlawful sexual intercourse between a man and girls—in the case of offences that will remain criminal, even when the Bill is enacted—under the age of 16. It is vital that we make that connection when we speak of equality. When we speak about maximum sentences, we should not propose such penalties unless we anticipate the courts using them. It is not satisfactory to hope that the courts will use their judgment if the sentence is too steep. It is the job of legislators to legislate and to ensure that when we set maximum sentences, we are prepared to see them carried out. If we are not prepared for that, it is incumbent on us to legislate for appropriate sentences and to take the earliest opportunity—which is afforded by the selection of the amendment—to legislate for equality in sentences relating to offences that have been legalised for certain people but remain illegal in other cases. Various sentences apply to gay men and their sexual activities, but do not apply to heterosexuals. In the Bill the Government refer to consequential amendments affecting sentences, but they have not grabbed the bull by the horns and tackled all the discriminatory sentences that exist, nor have they adjusted the scheduling of the sentences to the provision that they are seeking to enact, with support from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and across the House. If one was decriminalising activities between the ages of 18 and 16 under certain circumstances—what those circumstances are falls outside the scope of the clause—one would expect to see the sentencing schedule amended to replace the word "eighteen" by "sixteen", where it applies. If one considers the sentencing provisions that the Bill and my amendment seek to amend, under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, buggery or attempted buggery between a man and a person under the age of 16 is an offence—that is for consensual buggery—punishable by life imprisonment. For the similar heterosexual offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, the maximum sentence is two years. There is a provision for a life sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl of 13 years of age or less, and that is an appropriate maximum sentence, but there is no similar provision for anal intercourse between a man and a young male under the age of 13, which should also carry a life sentence. That could be on the basis that the age is clearly too young generally, or that the act could not be properly consensual at that age. That is something that the Bill does not remedy and I am unable to do so with the amendment either, but I hope that the Government will say what they consider to be the right sort of sentencing framework in that area. We therefore still have the discrepancy between a life sentence for consensual anal intercourse between a man and a person under the age of 16 generally, and unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl, where the maximum sentence is two years. A further provision under section 12 of the 1956 Act, relating to buggery, that the Government are not amending is that, where a person is under the age of 18 and the accused man is over the age of 21, there is a maximum five-year sentence. There is no equivalent age provision for unlawful sexual intercourse with a female, so the two years still applies as the maximum sentence, which is lower in this case. If the Government were seeking to recognise that the law had changed in respect of buggery and attempted buggery, they might have reduced the age in that clause from 18 to 16. That clause also covers buggery with an animal which attracts a life sentence; otherwise the offence attracts a sentence of two years. That is a hotchpotch, and my amendment seeks to recognise that the Government have not even started to address it in this legislation; it is vital that they do so. As drafted, without the amendment, there is no change in the Bill's sentencing provision for buggery, which is surprising, as the age of 18 is written into the schedule. In section 13 of the 1956 Act, which is covered by the clause by virtue of its reference to section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which in turn covers section 13 of the 1956 Act, which concerns gross indecency, one can detect another inconsistency in the current law between men and women. First, gross indecency is an offence which can apply only to men. There is no similar provision for unlawful consensual sex short of sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 16.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman said that it was vital that the Government should address those anomalies. Will he explain precisely why? I accept that the anomalies exist, but why it is vital that they should be dealt with escapes me.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree—perhaps he does not—that where there is unjustified discrimination it should be removed at the earliest legislative opportunity. That is why the Labour party's general election manifesto said that, in the context of civil liberties, the party would seek to remove unjustified discrimination wherever it exists. We know that the Government use the words "at the earliest legislative opportunity" as an almost automatic caveat. We on these Benches understand that. This is the earliest legislative opportunity. If we believe that it is vital to correct discrimination that is unjustified—I do, and I believe that that view is shared by other hon. Members—it is clearly vital that this opportunity be taken. 4.15 pm Gross indecency attracts a sentence of two years except where the accused is over 21 and the other party is under 18, when the sentence is five years. The Bill makes the consequential amendment to that provision and changes 18 to 16. The maximum sentence for gross indecency is still two years in all circumstances, except where the accused is over 21 and the other party is under 16. There is no equivalent age differential for unlawful sexual intercourse, or sexual activity falling short of that, with a female under the age of 16. My amendment would change schedule 2, which relates to section 12 of the 1956 Act, dealing with the offences of buggery and attempted buggery, by substituting 16 for 18. The problem with the amendment, as the Minister will no doubt point out, is that it does not change the discrimination that exists. The Committee may be interested to know that I tabled a much broader amendment that would match exactly, for consensual offences, the maximum sentence for homosexual offences with the equivalent sentence for heterosexual activity. That fell outwith the scope of the clause, however, and cannot be discussed on the Floor of the House today. I understand that, but even if the Government had made the obvious consequential amendment and substituted 16 for 18, buggery or attempted buggery of a person under 16 would attract a life sentence. Substituting 16 for 18, however, means that buggery of a person under 16, when the accused man is over 21, would attract a maximum sentence of five years. As the Minister is aware, those two are inconsistent.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

So why table the amendment?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

The Minister asks a reasonable question. I had hoped to make it clear that I question why the Government could not have introduced a wider measure to achieve equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals for these consensual offences. People understand that that would be sensible, given that, over decades, we have not had an opportunity to change a law which hon. Members on both sides of the House agree is anomalous and discriminatory. Many people think that the law is heinously discriminatory, because people suffer longer sentences for a similar act purely on the basis of their sexuality, not on the basis of whether the sentence is proportional to the offence. Society has moved on. It is time we addressed these issues; and the general concern is that, although the Government have initiated a review of sexual offences, we have no clear timetable for legislation, even with the caveat "parliamentary time permitting". It is of grave concern that there may be no such legislation during this Parliament. We may be faced with a more illiberal, old-fashioned Government in the next Parliament. I hope that we will not be; it will not happen if our party is represented among them—although we cannot guarantee that, even to our most avid supporters. There is also concern that, if the timetable is such that the only opportunity to legislate arises just before the next general election, the Government may be tempted to decide that there are priorities higher than the much needed reform of sexual offences legislation. I have tabled the amendment to give the Minister the opportunity to explain how he intends to tackle the discrimination that exists in sentencing and to accept that, without widening this measure, legislation containing unjustifiable discrimination in sentencing will remain on the statute book. Although I will not push the amendment to a vote, I should be grateful if he responded to the points that I have made, as I informed him of them well in advance.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

This is truly a probing amendment, and I shall deal with it in that way. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) presents an amendment that is fundamentally flawed. Its effect would be to create a gross anomaly. He claims that he tabled it to highlight the fact that there are numerous anomalies in current legislation. We have long accepted that there are anomalies in the law relating to sexual offences, which is precisely why we have determined to establish an inclusive review of sexual offences that reflects the broad range of opinions on those issues. The review will draw on academic and legal expertise, on our faith communities and on practical good sense—indeed, common sense—in approaching those issues. We must ensure that we have a rational and comprehensive system of law relating to sexual offences with, at its heart, the protection of vulnerable people. The Committee upstairs has spent a considerable time debating that, and we shall address the issue this afternoon. Indeed, that issue motivated us to introduce this legislation. We want to ensure, first, that we have equality before the law and, secondly, that we do everything in our power to protect vulnerable people who are prone to the depredations of those who would abuse their trust. The Bill deals with those two separate issues. Clause 1 has a simple objective: to bring about a change based on the principle of equality. It makes the age of consent in England, Wales and Scotland 16, and in Northern Ireland 17, for homosexual as well as heterosexual activity. There are anomalies and inconsistencies in the way the criminal law treats heterosexuals and homosexuals. We shall ensure that the review deals with those anomalies and that the protection of children and vulnerable people from those who would abuse them is central to the objectives of the system of penalties. We look to the sexual offences review to guide us on that objective. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon seeks to obtain from the Government an undertaking that we will legislate in the course of this Parliament. He will realise that I cannot give such an undertaking. I am prepared to tell him, however, that we intend to carry out the review within 12 months. It will be done with due expedition and, as I said, in an inclusive way that seeks to stimulate an informed public debate on those issues. We shall then consider the outcome of the review. That, in turn, will be subject to a proper consultation process and, in due course, legislation will be introduced. That is how we intend to proceed. It is right that we should proceed in that way—with expedition, but at the same time ensuring that, at every stage, this vital area of the law is subject to proper reflection and consideration. Wide consultation is essential if we are to obtain a public consensus around a rational system of sexual offences law. We must tackle existing anomalies, but above all we must protect children and vulnerable people. We oppose the amendment for the reasons I have given. It is technically flawed, and would create yet another unconscionable and unacceptable anomaly. Were the hon. Gentleman to push the amendment to a vote, our recommendation to the House would be to reject it. The House has heard the points that he has made, and he has heard me accept that there are anomalies and say that they will be considered by the sexual offences review. In the light of that, and of the amendment's obvious technical flaws, I hope that he will withdraw it.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Throughout the Minister's reply, he did not accept that the current sentencing provisions are discriminatory: he said that they are anomalous. They are clearly anomalous, but does he accept that they are discriminatory? A 22-year-old man who is convicted for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl of 15 faces a two-year maximum sentence, whereas a man of 22 who has unlawful anal intercourse with a young male of 15 can be given life imprisonment. If all the other circumstances of the case are broadly similar, does the Minister think that such disproportionality based only on the different sexuality of the two men is acceptable? Is it not discriminatory? I shall give the Minister an opportunity to intervene to explain whether the Government accept that the present sentencing provisions discriminate against homosexuals. If he remains silent, it is difficult for people to have confidence that the review will deal with such unjustifiable discrimination.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I do not want to be churlish so early in the proceedings, but I thought that I had made it clear that the purpose of the review is to address undoubted anomalies in the legislation. Among those anomalies is the obvious discrimination in the sentencing legislation, and we are addressing those issues. We have asked the review body to deal with them, and we shall reflect on the outcome of the review. It is right that we should do that. We should recognise the importance of approaching this matter holistically and rationally. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are acting in good faith on this matter so as to ensure a proper debate and discussion of the issues and anomalies that he has identified with some skill.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, at end insert— '( ) In section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (buggery)— (a) at the beginning of subsection (1), there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (1D) below"; and (b) after subsection (1C), there shall be inserted the following subsection— (1D) No proceedings shall be taken under this section against a person under the age of sixteen where the other party has at the time of the offence attained the age of sixteen. ( ) In section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (indecency between men)— (a) at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words "(1) Subject to subsection (2) below"; and (b) at the end, there shall be inserted the following subsection— (2) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section against a person under the age of sixteen where the other party had at the time of the offence attained the age of sixteen.".'.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 20, at end insert ';and after subsection (11) there shall be inserted the following subsection— ( ) No proceedings for any offence under subsection (5) above which consists of committing a homosexual act shall be commenced against a person under the age of sixteen where the other party had at the time of the commission of the offence attained the age of sixteen.".'.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I intend to brief, because other hon. Members want to contribute, and I shall leave it to them to develop some of the points. The amendment deals with discrimination in the culpability, chargeability, prosecutability, convictability, sentenceability and imprisonability of the younger person for consensual, illegal acts. Clause 1 seeks to reduce the age of consent for homosexual sex—which we support. It will ensure that, in many circumstances, although not all, homosexual sex above the age of 16 is legal between two consenting people. However, glaring discrimination remains, because the younger person whom we are seeking to protect through these sexual offences measures is made a criminal by virtue of the same Act that makes him a victim. The provisions of the clause could be amended by this or a similar amendment. There are significant jurisprudential problems, and it is important that the Government accept the effect of the amendment. There are problems with the philosophy of criminalising a victim. We also have duties under the European convention on human rights. It is difficult to ensure that offenders are appropriately brought to book when the people who may be able to report offences are subject to criminal prosecution for the same acts that have made them a victim. Surely that will deter people from either seeking help or resorting to the impact of the law. The lack of a provision such as the one I suggest is a glaring omission in the Bill. 4.30 pm A girl who has unlawful sexual intercourse committed against her when she is under 16 cannot be charged with the offence. At the end of the last century, the Tyrell case, which is quite well known in case law, showed that she could not be successfully prosecuted—even if she was the instigator—for aiding and abetting the offence. I consider that entirely appropriate: men, especially older men, must take responsibility for their actions, and must not be able to pass off age-of-consent offences as the responsibility of the younger party. It is vital for that anomaly to be removed. I use the word "vital" again for the benefit of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). In the Sutherland judgment, the European Commission of Human Rights said that part of the problem with British law was the provision whereby the younger party was criminalised, and the effect of that criminalisation was disproportionate to whatever society wished to achieve. I think that both sides of the age-of-consent argument will agree that the anomaly must be removed, that we must decriminalise victims of the offence and that this is the right legislative opportunity for such a move. We can act now, in Committee, or at least at some point during the Bill's passage. That will achieve the Government's two aims, which—as both the Secretary of State and the Minister have eloquently conveyed—are equality and the protection of young people. I ask the Government at least to take on board an amendment such as this.

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

Unlike my speech on Second Reading, this speech will be brief. I support the amendment for a number of reasons. Since 1967, legislation on this subject has always started from the standpoint that any sexual activity between males is illegal and wrong; it has merely decriminalised activity in certain regards. It has never introduced an age of consent in the sense that is recognised in the case of heterosexual relationships. That applies to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and to this Bill. The amendment would introduce the protections for the younger party in consensual sex between someone below the age of consent and someone above that age that already exist for heterosexuals. Twenty-odd years ago, I saw a booklet produced by the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, which dealt with the discrimination in the gamut of laws affecting gay men. The issue is complex, and I do not suggest that the Bill is necessarily the right way in which to put things right. I also realise that Ministers are conducting a sexual offences review, during which a number of the problems and anomalies will be examined. However, following the Euan Sutherland decision the Government promised to amend the law in two ways. That is why we are considering the Bill. The first way in which the law needed to be amended related to the age at which it became an offence to engage in sexual activity. That is why we are equalising the age of consent at 16 in England and Wales and 17 in Northern Ireland. Secondly—this has not been referred to generally, although the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has referred to it—there was the penalising and criminalising of the person who is under the age of consent. It is essential that, if we are to respond properly to the Euan Sutherland judgment, we ensure that the Bill deals not only with the equalisation of the age of concept, but with the criminalisation of those under the age of consent. I will leave it there.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I trespass into the minutiae of the discussion with some diffidence because, unlike the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), I have not made a detailed study of the case law and the consequences thereof. I have three points to make. The first is that there is a curious ambiguity around the word "consensual" The proper meaning of the word is that there is an equal readiness by both parties to indulge in the behaviour, yet there is an understandable and proper anxiety that, where one party is older than the other—and particularly where the younger one is below the age of 16—there is a serious risk of pressure of varying forms being put on the younger one, so that, although the appearance is given of consent, in practice, it is a reluctant consent.

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

Given that there would be pressure by the older person on someone under the age of 16 to become involved in sex, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that criminalising the younger party in that relationship would make it less likely that he would feel able to report and to seek the protection of the legislation, and that he would be more likely not to report the offence because of the fear that he had committed a criminal offence and could be charged? Instead of protecting the younger person, the measure would make it more difficult for him to be protected.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

The hon. Gentleman, perhaps inadvertently, tries to rush me through my remarks. I was going to move on to that matter. It is important to be clear that the term "consensual" carries within it the ambiguity that, where there is a disparity in age, the younger person may appear to have given consent, but, if he had been genuinely free to decide on his behaviour, might have refused that consent. On my second point, I share the hon. Gentleman's view that to criminalise the younger party when he is under 16 for such behaviour—which allegedly was consensual, but may not have been—makes it harder for him to seek the protection and advice that we all wish to make available to him. That is the view of most of the professional counsellors and services working in the sector.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

That view must be wrong then.

Andrew Rowe (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

My hon. Friend has a cynical view of the professions. Sometimes he is not altogether unjustified, but if we are to proceed at all rationally, we have to allow that people who have devoted most of their working lives to assisting young people to work their way through the complexities and confusions of their sexual behaviour probably have a superior contribution to make; it is certainly superior to the one that I make. I am prepared to accept their view that criminalising the behaviour of the younger, perhaps reluctant, party does not help to solve the problem. Therefore, I have considerable sympathy with the amendment. The third point is a more general one. It goes back to a debate that the Minister of State, Home Office had in front of what in those days, before the change of name, was called the all-party group for children. The group, of which I am an officer, believes strongly that girls below the age of consent who are engaged in prostitution should be regarded as victims of abuse and not as criminals in some conniving way. I very much hope that there will be a change in the law to that effect. From time to time, the law has a useful declaratory purpose, but its interpretation is also important. Today's debate provides an opportunity to improve the law and I support the amendment. Police forces and prosecution services have become much more aware of the dangers of criminalising young people, and only a few prosecutions take place. Finally, we talk rightly and properly about protecting young people from predatory behaviour by older people. Sadly, however, there is an increasing number of severely damaged young people whose only recourse, when looking for excitement, comfort or whatever, is to try to seduce older people sexually. It is important to put on the record the fact that teachers and other adults are often put in a difficult position by young people to whom they are trying to extend care and affection when, because of the damage that they have endured during their young lives, their response is to try to titillate the older person into going too far. When we talk about protection, we should recognise that older people—particularly when the opportunity for blackmail or damaging someone's career is taken into account—need protection, too.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said that he chose his words carefully when he said that it was vital that the amendment should be carried so that the anomaly that he identified would be addressed. I shall use the same word. I think that it is vital that the anomaly should remain and I shall explain why. The anomaly that the hon. Gentleman identified is that a girl under 16 who has consensual sex with a man over 16 is not prosecuted for having given her consent and indulged in that illegal activity, whereas a boy under 16 who has consensual sex with a man, or indeed a boy over 16, may be prosecuted for having given his consent. That is an important distinction and an important principle because it shows that the law continues to identify a clear difference between homosexual activity and heterosexual activity—between a girl under 16 exploring her sexual desires and a boy under 16 exploring an unnatural sexual desire. It is important that the law should send a message that for a boy under 16 to explore sexuality in that way is not acceptable, is illegal and carries a penalty. We should send the message that the two life styles are not equivalent. 4.45 pm I realise, that I am now treading on the subject matter of the debate on Second Reading, but I think that we should revisit the principles dealt with in both amendment No. 2 and the earlier debate. In the Second Reading debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House—although rather more Labour Members than Opposition Members—accepted the principle that one's sexual proclivity is fixed and determined, and that one can have no influence over it. I accept entirely the experiences described by Labour Members in supporting the principle. I do not dispute their experience, or say that they are wrong on the principle, but they painted an incomplete picture. The experiences that were described in the earlier debate may be a valid description of the experience of some boys, whose sexual appetites and proclivities are fixed. Equally, I am aware of young men—young boys—under 16 who experience particular unnatural desires at a tender age, approaching 16, but are ashamed of those desires. They are appalled by their desires and repress them, and go on to outgrow them and live a perfectly normal life. They are ashamed and appalled by their desires because of the social pressures exerted by their peers, who say that it is not natural behaviour or something of which society approves. Maintenance of the anomaly will therefore play an important role in sending a clear message, from the law and from society, that such behaviour is not a normal or an acceptable way of life. The anomaly should therefore be maintained—so that the law's clear message is that it is an unnatural expression of human behaviour for young boys under 16 to explore their homosexual attitudes; that it is in no way an equally valid life style; and that young men are protected by the law from such exploration. Some young men will therefore never explore it, but outgrow it.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

This has so far been an interesting debate. I should make it clear now that my remarks are very much personal ones. For Opposition Members the matters dealt with in amendment No. 2—as with the other matters we have considered in the Bill—are, the subject of a free vote. My remarks are therefore only a personal contribution to the debate. I make it clear that my approach to the amendments is guided by a wish to give the strongest protection possible to children and young people. I have judged the entirety of the Bill by that same criterion. As a background to the amendments, I should say that, although the Bill aims to protect youngsters of 16 and 17 from abuse of a position of trust by an older person, it is fast emerging, as we consider the Bill, that that protection is far from comprehensive, that it contains many loopholes and anomalies, and that it could go much further than it does. That is most true of youngsters under 16, who are the subject matter of amendment No. 2. The Bill and its provisions on abuse of trust do nothing at all for youngsters under 16. In the previous debate, I listened carefully to the Minister's comments on wanting to protect vulnerable people. I join him in that wish, and shall certainly support him in any reasonable endeavours to realise it. However, he will have to face the fact that those under 16, who are most in need of protection—the younger the person concerned, the greater the need for protection—will receive no protection from the Bill's provision. That is the criterion by which I judge the amendments. The Utting report forms the background to today's debate. That catalogue of abuse and misery—which was chronicled by hon. Members on Second Reading—predominantly concerned youngsters under 16. That is the background against which I set the debates on the amendments. Will the amendments help to protect youngsters under 16? It is obvious that the Committee is moving towards 16 as the age of consent. I think that it is a mistake, that 18 is more appropriate and that 16 is far too young. However, we must be realistic. This is a serious matter—we are talking about protecting young people—and we must see the best that can be done in the circumstances. When the Bill is enacted and 16 becomes the age of consent, sexual relationships involving youngsters under 16 will be unlawful, as they are now. As the law will then stand, it will be unlawful for a person over 16 to have a sexual relationship with someone under 16. As I understand it, where such a relationship takes place, both persons will be involved in the unlawful act. The amendment proposes that, in such a case, no proceedings shall be commenced against the party who is under 16. The argument made by the amendment's supporters is that the person under 16 should be regarded not as the perpetrator, but as a victim. I know that feelings run high on that matter, and it is perfectly possible to have strongly held and legitimate views on the subject. However, it is important to judge the position of the 16-year-old against the criterion that I set out at the beginning of my speech—the need to protect them from older people. The argument from the amendment's supporters is that the removal of any prospect of criminal proceedings for the younger party will make it more likely that the criminal offence committed by the older party will come to light. As has been said, in such cases, the sexual relationship is consensual. If it is not consensual, that is an entirely different matter and other serious criminal charges will be involved. I appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about the nature of consensuality. In cases where the younger party has been a consensual party in the activity, if he comes to realise that what happened was wrong and unlawful, he has to face the prospect that there is a theoretical risk of prosecution—something that may even be pointed out to him by the older party concerned. I say that there is a theoretical risk of prosecution because it would appear that, in such cases, the younger party is only rarely prosecuted, although the position is not entirely clear. I am not sure how much we should weigh that fact in the balance. On the one hand, it could be said that there is no need to change the law as the amendment proposes because such prosecutions are hardly ever brought. On the other hand, there remains the possibility of prosecution, however remote it may be. We must ask whether it is good to have a law in place that is only rarely enforced. For someone under 16, even a theoretical risk of prosecution is something that that party must take into account and be influenced by. I suppose that, the more law-abiding the person concerned, the more they would take that risk into account. I would like a strong, credible and well-enforced legal framework put in place to protect young people. I am extremely keen to protect young people from unlawful sexual activity, and anal intercourse in particular, involving older people, especially when the older person is substantially more mature and inclined to exploit the younger person's youth and inexperience. Sadly, there are such people around. For anyone over 16 to commit the offence with an under-16-year-old is a serious matter, but it is even more serious when the older person is perhaps 27, 32 or even in his 40s. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred to the case of Tyrell and the well-established legal position in respect of under-16-year-old girls in the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse. I listened with interest to the Minister's remarks on that subject. The low maximum sentence of two years for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl of under 16 is a glaring anomaly in our law that has been there for many years. I make no party point, as the anomaly remained under Conservative Governments as well as Labour. The Minister's remarks had an especial poignancy for me, as I can remember having exactly the same debate in proceedings on the Crime and Disorder Bill. We put exactly the same remarks to the Minister who was in charge of that Bill and he in many ways accepted the spirit of our point that two years was far too low.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I saw the Minister nodding vigorously, as he did in Committee upstairs, at the suggestion that the maximum sentence of two years was too low; but one must be realistic. The offence is widespread, as we can see from the number of pregnancies, abortions and births among under-16-year-olds. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should lock up fathers—irresponsible and law-breaking as they may be—for up to five years, he may be going down a path that is the reverse of what we want to do.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Given that the law has become so anomalous, with a maximum sentence for indecent assault of 10 years and for unlawful sexual intercourse of only two years, it is hardly surprising that the law is not being as vigorously enforced as it might be. I think that the latter offence is a very serious matter, especially when the older person is much more mature and experienced and is taking advantage of the girl in exactly the way that I have described someone taking advantage of a boy. The Minister's predecessor said almost a year ago that there would be a review of the law on unlawful sexual intercourse and that the Government would put it right but that they needed to consider everything in the round and consult the experts. Here we are, a year later, having the same debate, and the law has not changed. The legal authority of Tyrell goes back to the late 19th century. That well-known authority established that a girl under 16 cannot be guilty of aiding and abetting an offence of unlawful sexual intercourse, since the offence was created for her protection. I believe that there is merit in considering to what extent it is appropriate to take that approach for offences involving anal intercourse with a boy under 16. That is my personal view. We need to exercise some care in how we explore that approach, but I want to do what is best to protect the young person concerned. 5 pm We have to explore the matter with some care. It is my understanding that the amendment differs from the position established by the Tyrell case. Tyrell established that a girl under 16 commits no offence, whereas the amendment establishes that no proceedings should be brought. I do no more than note that there is a difference between those two positions. We need to be clear how the proposal fits in with other types of sexual offences. It would appear that, even if the amendment were accepted, two youngsters who were both below the age of consent would still be liable to face proceedings. That is important, and we need to preserve that position. There should be no question of our moving towards a de facto reduction in the age of consent below 16. We should be concerned about protecting the younger person from abuse by the older person. The law in respect of unlawful sexual intercourse with under-16-year-olds needs to remain in place. The protection aspect needs to be borne in mind when we consider anal intercourse between someone under and someone over 16 years of age. We need to be able to deal with every case, and we must think carefully about some of the rare and unusual circumstances that might arise.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Has not my hon. Friend raised the possibility of a rare and unusual case in which there would be an incentive for a young man under the age of 16, who was seeking to explore his homosexual desires, to select a partner over the age of 16? He would then be absolved from any wrongdoing, whereas, if he selected someone who, like him, was under 16, he would be committing an illegal act.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. In that case, the law should protect the under-16-year-old from himself. The person over 16 should be aware of that and should face condign penalties for taking advantage of an under-16-year-old who was in that frame of mind. I am concerned about the message that we might be sending. We must protect under-16-year-olds, not reduce the age of consent any further. As I said, I am concerned generally that we have reduced the age of consent too far and too fast. We have introduced one reduction in the age of consent hot on the heels of another. If the amendment is adopted, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, there has to be vigorous enforcement of that aspect of the law. An amendment like this has to go hand in hand with a vigorous approach and a strong and credible legal framework. I am worried about the apparent change in the number of prosecutions brought against people over 21 for offences of buggery with males of under 16 years of age. There is at least a coincidence between a big reduction in the number of such prosecutions and the reduction in the age of consent. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that the numbers of prosecutions of over-21-year-olds for buggery with under-16s in 1993 and 1994—before the age of consent had been reduced—were 293 and 291 respectively. Since then, there has been a significant collapse in the number of such prosecutions. In 1995—the first year in which 18 was the age of consent—there were 151 such prosecutions; in 1996 there were 73; and in 1997 there 103.

Mike Hall (Labour, Weaver Vale)

What has that to do with the amendment?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

It has everything to do with the amendment—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. Sedentary interventions from Members on the Front Bench do not help the debate.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

If we are to make a change in such a sensitive area of the law, affecting the legal position of under-16-year-olds, we must make sure that it goes hand in hand with vigorous enforcement of the law against older people minded to have sexual relations with younger people. That is vital. The figures show that a big change happened between 1993–94, when the age of consent was 21, and the period 1995 to 1997, when the age of consent was 18. The number of people over 21 prosecuted for having sex with people under 16 fell from 291 in 1994 to 73 in 1996 and 103 in 1997. I want to ensure that any change such as is proposed in the amendment will not be accompanied by a change in the priority given to those prosecutions. If the amendment is accepted, the law must be enforced vigorously, because we should do all that we can to protect those under 16 from the attentions of those over 21. Speaking purely personally, I hope that the law will be applied much more vigorously if the amendment is accepted. However, there is merit in exploring the extent to which the amendment would afford greater protection to people under 16. That is the criterion by which I judge it.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

There has been general, although not universal, approbation in this debate for the principle behind the amendment, which was expounded by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). Most hon. Members who have spoken have found it unacceptable that the person under 16 who engages in a homosexual act or in an act of buggery, in which the older party is 16 or older, should end up being criminalised, instead of being regarded as the victim. I am glad to note that general view. I am also glad to have been informed that a number of children's charities are worried about the degree to which under-16-year-olds, if we leave the law as it is, will end up being considered to have committed a criminal offence, rather than being regarded as victims. I am told by my officials that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnados and the Children's Society have all said—and have allowed me to say in public—that they would support the decriminalisation of the younger party in those circumstances. Several other anomalies have been debated, both upstairs in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Although we are seeking equality in terms of the age of consent, the law starts from very different points for males and females. Also, some aspects of the European convention on human rights, and other factors, mean that we do not start from a position that is wholly symmetrical, and I doubt whether we will end at such a position. We consider that it is appropriate for most of the remaining anomalies to be examined in the review of sexual offences that my hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned earlier. However—to return to the amendment and the parallel proposals for Scotland and Northern Ireland—in the interests of protecting children, we think that it would be sensible to take action along the lines proposed, in the course of the Bill's passage through the House. We accept the principle behind the amendment. We also acknowledge the cautious point made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who said that we must be careful and fully explore how the amendment would work. Therefore, if it is acceptable to the Committee, I propose that we examine the principle behind the amendments between now and the time when the Bill comes back on Report. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will have discussions with the hon. Members who tabled the amendment, if they so wish, and those discussions may also include the hon. Member for Hertsmere or any other hon. Member who might wish to take part. The aim will be to produce wording that is acceptable and technically competent and meets what I think is the will of the Committee. Those amendments can then be tabled when the Bill comes back on Report. If the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon disagrees with them, he can table his own amendments, on which the House will have an opportunity to vote at that stage. I hope that that is an acceptable way of proceeding in circumstances of general—not universal—approbation for what is proposed. We must however ensure that the wording is right and that the offences that we are eliminating deal only with this mischief and do not raise other mischief in their wake.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I give the Secretary of State a very warm welcome for those remarks, and thank him for his consideration of the broad principle. I am the first to accept that the drafting of the amendments is almost certainly incorrect. Indeed, we had such trouble drafting an amendment to pertain to Northern Ireland that it was not considered suitable to be selected for debate. So, of course we understand the need to return to the matter on Report. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) will join me in recognising that the work on considering the anomaly and bringing forward suggestions was not really done by us, but by organisations outside the House. I thank them for their work, and in doing so, thank the Secretary of State once again for his words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—

EXCEPTIONS

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The Home Secretary gave a very pleasing and gracious response to the previous amendment, which I hope will set the tone for debate on another simple group of amendments, which would make changes consequential to the lowering of the age of consent from 18 to 16. In preparation for considering this matter, I looked at the words of wisdom of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who spoke for the then Opposition on the Sex Offenders Bill in 1997. He must look back on those debates in Committee as halcyon days compared with working with the internal machinations of the Welsh Labour party. In Committee and on Report on the 1997 Bill, the right hon. Gentleman moved similar amendments to the ones that we are considering in trying to deal with the issue of offences between homosexuals aged 16 and 17 and whether they should appear on the sex offenders register. The response from the then Conservative Minister, Timothy Kirkhope, implied that the amendments should be rejected, primarily because the age of consent had not at that point been lowered. He argued: I am aware of the arguments for reducing the age of homosexual consent to 16, but the fact remains that Parliament has decided that for homosexual offences the age of 18 must remain the threshold. That being so, I am not prepared to lift registration where the offence is committed against someone who is a minor for those purposes."—[Official Report, 25 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 241.] If clause 1 is agreed unamended, and the Bill subsequently enacted, the lawful age of homosexual consent will become 16. Therefore, individuals of 16 and 17 years old will no longer be minors for the purposes of buggery and indecency offences. I argue strongly that we run the risk of putting on the sex offenders register people who are committing consensual, non-criminal acts. That very much works against the register's principle, which is to be careful about who it targets. It is an active register which targets people who are likely to commit further criminal offences. It would make no sense to register people who have committed acts that are no longer illegal and who represent no danger to the public. We hope that the Government will see the logic of the amendments and the risk that they may run if they are not prepared to accept them or similar ones. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), I am perfectly happy to concede that drafting errors may render the amendments unacceptable to the Minister at this stage. I hope that he will consider the principle of the issue: whether a sex offenders register, which I think everyone supports, and which is designed to be active and to enable the probation service, the police and other agencies to monitor people, should include those who have committed an act that is no longer a crime, particularly 16 or 17-year-olds whose acts will be legal subsequent to the passing of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and at least consider the anomaly, so that the sex offenders register hits the right targets. That was very much the spirit of the comments of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The amendments would boost the sex offenders register and treat people fairly, ensuring specifically that those who should no longer be on the register are omitted from it.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I hear what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) says. I appreciate the way in which he put his case. Amendment No. 4 would introduce further changes to the age limits for exception to the Sex Offenders Act 1997. Clause 1 is about the equalisation of the age of consent, and not about amending other legislation such as the Sex Offenders Act, unless that directly follows as a result of the change in the age of consent. The rationale behind registration under the Sex Offenders Act is based on the age of majority or adulthood, which is commonly accepted as 18 years of age. It is not based on the age of consent. Therefore, I do not find myself compelled by the hon. Gentleman's logic to accept his amendment. The Committee will find under offences that attract age-limit exceptions to registration in schedule 1 to the 1997 Act, that offenders who are guilty of indecent assault on a woman and on a man do not have to register if the victim is 18 years old or over and the sentence is under 30 months. Offenders guilty of assault with intent to commit buggery must register only if the victim is under 18 years old. Such provisions relate to girls as well as boys, where the age of consent is already 16. The hon. Member for Hallam will see that this matter is not about a form of discrimination between boys and girls, men and women, or their sexuality. It arises from the different bases of the register and of the age of consent. One is about majority and adulthood, the other about the age at which it is possible to consent to a sexual act. For that reason, I am unable to accept the amendment. As the hon. Member readily recognises, the amendment is technically flawed. Although we could not accept it for that reason, we cannot accept it anyway due to the separate basis of the Sex Offenders Act. To amend the Act as he suggests would go beyond what is necessary for amending the age of consent, and open up wider issues concerning the Sex Offenders Act. We do not consider this Bill as a vehicle for piecemeal amendments to the Sex Offenders Act, which is already subject to review. To make the age of consent of the other party a determining factor for registration would mark a new departure in the Sex Offenders Act. Although I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment, and give an undertaking to refer it in substance to the sex offenders review, I am not able to accept it for the reasons that I have given.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful for the Minister's final comments about considering the substance of the amendment in the sex offenders review. That is entirely appropriate. I sometimes feel that we are talking about entirely different subjects. It is certainly my understanding that there is a distinction between the treatment of men who have had relations with girls aged 16 and 17, and those who have had consensual relations with men aged 16 and 17. To consider that within the sex offenders review may be the most sensible way to proceed, given that hon. Members wish to move on to the clause stand part debate. I want, however, to put on the record that I am not content that we have understood entirely the anomalies, and shall seek to pursue them further with the Minister in his review. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Norman Fowler (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

I shall be brief. I believe that this is the third or fourth time that I have spoken on this issue. Our debates on the subject are becoming rather like the open and closed-list debates that we had some weeks ago, and I have a shrewd idea that I shall be defeated in the Division Lobby again. I pay tribute to the sincerity of the arguments that we have heard on the issue throughout the debate. I hope that although many of us may disagree with the Government's proposal, we shall not be regarded as antagonistic to the homosexual gay community, because that is not our intention. Clause 1 obviously raises the fundamental question whether the age of consent should be reduced to 16. I repeat that Opposition Members will have an entirely free vote on that decision. I shall try to review some of the evidence, but, in doing so, I shall express my personal views. In 1994, I voted for the age of consent to be reduced from 21 to 18. Eighteen is the age of majority, and it seemed to me sensible that young men should make up their own minds at that age. I did not go back on that judgment. There are some who think that even that went too far, but I agreed with the Bishop of York, who at the time said that it was a sensible step and allowed the evidence to be assessed. The question is whether, after less than five years, we should move to the next step of reducing the age from 18 to 16. My view is that we should not. It is not altogether possible to separate the principle of reducing the age from the protection for young people set out later in the Bill. I say that because, for many of us—as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) suggested earlier—the protection of 16 to 18-year-olds is the acid test. If the position of 16 to 18-year-olds is made worse, more precarious, we should recognise that and say so. In other words, I do not find the argument on the standardisation of ages for heterosexual and homosexual sex to be remotely the end of the debate. The crucial argument, surely, is that the House must be convinced that, if it takes this action, a group of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 will not be put at more risk. That, it seems to me, is the acid test. That may be an inconvenient argument, and it may not fit in with people's views on standardisation. However, it seems to me that the protection of young people must remain a proper—I would argue, a paramount—concern of the House. That is why, in June 1998, I said that I had a great deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Those concerned abuse by an older person who was in a position—in his terminology—of authority, influence or trust. That is why the Government have now been persuaded to introduce a new offence where a person aged 18 or over has sexual intercourse with a person under that age if the person aged 18 or over is in a position of trust. The first question that is raised for someone like myself is whether that protection is adequate. In Committee upstairs, the Minister of State—I have read what he said—has sought to set down four principles on the way in which that protection will be offered. In effect, he has limited the group of young people who are entitled to protection and those who are not. In Committee, and again today, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has demonstrated that we believe that there are some worrying gaps and that a worrying number of groups appear to be excluded, including members of youth organisations and members of Church and religious organisations. However, a more specific point troubled me when I related the legislation to a case that I knew something about, and which I quoted in June—that of Roger Gleaves, the self-styled "Bishop of Medway", who was convicted in the 1970s of offences against young people. I drew attention to that case in the House of Commons. Then, in 1998, he was sentenced to 15 years for further offences against young people. In other words, he has been pursuing a career of abuse year after year after year. He is a prime example of the type of person that we are up against and need to recognise. However, it is by no means clear to me that the cover that he gave himself on the last occasion, in the period leading to his 1998 conviction—teaching young people first aid at a sports centre—would remotely have come into the definition of protection that has been provided in the Bill. My next point is much more general. We all remember the words of Sir William Utting, the former head of the social services inspectorate at the Department of Health and Social Security. He served with me; he was an outstanding director. He said that persistent sexual abusers were a scourge of childhood. He said that their numbers were difficult to estimate, but that each one who adopted a lifetime career would amass hundreds of victims. However, his main argument was as follows: Their success depends on their ability to ingratiate themselves with adults and children. They establish themselves as trusted friends, colleagues or employees". In other words, seeking to obtain trust is the characteristic of their operations. That is what they try to do. That is the threat that they pose. It is very difficult to distinguish one group from another in the way that the legislation seeks to do. Therefore, the issue that goes to the heart of the Bill is as follows. We know that some people will want to take advantage of a reduction in the age of consent. We also know something about the extent of the problem. In our last debate, on 25 January 1999—column 33 of Hansard—I referred to a study edited by Donald West of the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, which found that 12 per cent. of women and 8 per cent. of men reported that they had been sexually abused as children. We are therefore talking about a very large number indeed. My concern is that we risk making the position worse, not better.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am certain that it is no part of my right hon. Friend's case—or that of any hon. Member—to suggest that every homosexual is an abuser or anything like that, but underlying the statistics that he mentioned is another statistic, which is not often quoted in the House. Although the vast majority of abusers are male, extraordinarily, 40 per cent. of those abused in children's homes in this country are male.

Norman Fowler (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

I accept what my hon. Friend says, and I emphasise what he said at the start of his intervention. I certainly do not wish to make a generalised allegation. I am talking about risk and our responsibility in the House. My question is whether that risk will be increased—whether we are making the position worse by taking the proposed step. I fear that we are. Obviously, I understand the argument for equality and standardisation of ages, but I hope that it is our duty to provide maximum protection for young people, and I hope that that duty is also recognised. It is not only Members of the House and lobby groups who should be heard on this subject. The public have a right to be heard. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), who I see in his place, made a much-admired speech on Second Reading. It was so good that even Alastair Campbell has publicly praised it. I am not sure whether that is the kiss of political death for my hon. Friend, but there is no question about the quality of his speech, to which I also pay tribute. However, on one point I disagreed profoundly with my hon. Friend. When considering the opinion polls on this issue, he said, in effect, that the slave trade would have been supported by opinion polls. I assume that that meant that we should disregard opinion polls on the issue that is before us. With respect, that is an extravagant use of the tactic of guilt by association. The issues are not remotely comparable. 5.30 pm I certainly agree that we should not try to govern by opinion polls. I say that with authority because no one could accuse the previous Conservative Government of slavishly seeking opinion poll approval. If we did, we were remarkably unsuccessful at it. However, when we find opinion poll evidence pointing in the way that it undoubtedly does in this instance, the House of Commons should at least take pause to consider. In 1994, a Gallup poll suggested that 71 per cent. of those polled supported the status quo for the age of consent at 21. However, when the NOP divided the question and provided a choice between 18 and 16, a small majority then favoured 18. Only 13 per cent. favoured the further reduction to 16. That opposition to that further stage has remained clear in opinion polls.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

May I point out to my right hon. Friend that there is another disparity? In the case of the slave trade, opinions were being expressed about what conduct should or should not be directed to other adults. In this instance, those who are polled are expressing opinions about what should or should not be done to children, in many cases their children, in respect of whom they have rights until they are 18.

Norman Fowler (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield)

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I have read what he has had to say in debate. I agree with him and it is a point that I shall come to. The opposition to going further from 18 to 16 has remained clear in opinion polls. The most interesting of the later polls was the Gallup poll last August, which was conducted after the House of Commons had voted to lower the age of consent to 16 and the House of Lords had voted the other way. When those polled were asked whether they personally thought that the age of consent for homosexual men should be 16 or 18, 65 per cent. said 18 and only 26 per cent. said 16. I now come to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). In my view, when it comes to such issues the public are a sensible judge. I tried to set out the experience that we had at the Department of Health when we were running the AIDS campaign in the late 1980s. In spite of all the predictions that there would be a backlash against gays or homosexuals, there was not one. There was none of that. The public accepted, understood and supported the campaign which we undertook. They showed their common sense and maturity on these issues. The same public are expressing their views in the opinion polls that are now taking place. We cannot say that they are mature in one respect and then say, when it comes to something that is inconvenient to one's argument, that they show an immaturity and fail to appreciate the arguments. I would take the general rule of trusting the public. In this respect, trusting the public takes on board the fact that the public feel genuine doubt, have a questioning attitude and feel opposition to reducing the age further. It is the same public who are making their views clear about reducing the age further from 18 to 16. There is one further point, and it has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East. Many of the people whose views are being sought are parents. They have concerns about their own children, the young people whom they know best. I believe that parents have a right to be heard, and I think that they are right on this issue. Far from rejecting public opinion, we should recognise its strength and sincerity. We reduced the age of consent to 18 years less than five years ago and I do not believe that the case has been made out to reduce it further.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I was thinking about an old adage when I was sitting in the train earlier. It is the old joke about the man who dreamt that he was making a speech in the House of Commons and woke up to find that he had done so. I ask myself why we are here again in the Chamber debating this issue so fervently. We are here again because the House of Lords gave us a second opportunity to think about it. Despite the overwhelming vote last time round, it seems profoundly right that the House of Commons should think again. Those of us who have spoken out against equalisation, as it is called, of the age of consent have been repeatedly accused by Members who have formed a lobby, at least outside Parliament, of prejudice and ignorance. It is curious that we have not only public opinion on our side but a substantial body of scientific evidence, to which I shall return. Above all, we have on our side of the argument all of the world's great religions. In that respect, the most recent contributor to the debate was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who made the profound comment that we must think about the signal that we are sending to the country at large. Of course, we must make up our own minds; we are in the House of Commons to make up our own minds and not simply take account of others' views. I have no wish to hate or dislike anybody, or to victimise anybody. The younger brother of my great-grandfather, as a student at Oxford, was a homosexual. He was afraid that he was being pursued by the police. There was no evidence subsequently that that was the case. He went into personal panic, fled across southern England and committed suicide in the most horrible circumstances. I have no wish to see anyone victimised or pursued for any particular reason. I believe that it is wrong to lower the age of consent to 16 and that one day views in the House of Commons will change. I believe the country to be right and the views expressed in the previous debate to be wrong. I shall allude briefly to the parallel that was drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) with slavery. I believe it to be a disgraceful reflection on the people of this country. In 1863, President Lincoln was fighting a war which cost a far higher proportion of blood and lives in his country than the first world war cost in our country. That war was being fought to abolish slavery. The President received a letter signed by thousands of Lancashire cotton workers. The comment was made in the letter that the effect of the American civil war and deprivation in Liverpool, as a result of the disruption to the cotton trade, was causing the most unbelievable hardship, even to the extent that many of the children of those who had signed the letter were dying of starvation. None the less, they, as the working class people of Liverpool, felt so strongly about the abolition of slavery that they believed that Abraham Lincoln was absolutely right to prosecute the war. He was reduced to tears by the letter and abandoned his Government's business for half a day to compose a worthy reply. So much for public opinion in this country on slavery, and back to the business of today. I wish to focus on whether homosexual activity is a matter of choice or whether it is somehow pre-ordained. Of course, activity that is consented to is always a matter of choice. However, there are those in the homosexual lobby, supported by a growing group outside it, who are arguing that activity is a matter of choice but orientation is pre-ordained. I have considerable respect for the British Medical Association and I have used its reports in many other contexts. However, it is the latest group to write in a rather generalised letter to Members of Parliament that the weight of scientific evidence is that homosexual or heterosexual orientation is decided long before the age of 16, and so it is wrong to focus on a potential change of orientation between 16 and 18. There is a substantial body of scientific evidence from all over the world that argues otherwise. I shall quote one study from a British source. As recently as 1992 King and McDonald, writing in the British Journal of Psychiatry, outlined a detailed study carried out on perhaps the most appropriate group of people—identical twins. Across a sample of identical twins in which one of the twins was homosexual, they found that in just under one quarter of the pairs of twins, the other twin was also homosexual. Surely there could be no more disturbing example. If a homosexual twin's own identical twin—genetically absolutely identical—is not also homosexual, how can it possibly be genetically determined whether someone is homosexually or heterosexually inclined?

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

Does my hon. Friend accept that the reality is perhaps neither all one case nor all the other? Does he accept that there may be some people who are genetically predetermined—physiologically, one might say—to be homosexuals when they mature? Does he also accept that although that may be true in some cases, in other cases people's experiences as young boys can determine whether they change from potential heterosexuals to potential homosexuals? I hope that my hon. Friend is not committing himself to saying that it is all one way or all the other.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

My hon. Friend anticipates my next few sentences. He has expressed the idea so clearly that I shall not repeat it. I am not arguing that no one is ever genetically determined to be homosexual or heterosexual. We do not know, and we probably will not know for decades. However, there can be little doubt that for a significant proportion—how large we do not know—sexual orientation is determined in their teens. What the scientists tell us is reinforced by ordinary experience. Most of us know someone who experienced homosexual activity in his teens—I did not, myself, but I know a number of people who did—and subsequently decided not to adopt a homosexual orientation. I can think of one case in which the person is now happily married. Many of us will have received the same letters on the issue from former homosexuals who have ceased to be homosexuals. I remember one letter from 15 former homosexuals, one of whom had the courage to come along on the day of the previous vote and sit in the Public Gallery. The testimony that that group provided was clear. Those men were attracted into homosexuality during their late teens by older males, and they want the protection of the law to make it a criminal offence for that to continue. There are always those who will break any law on sexual matters, but let us at least provide that measure of protection for those who are between the age of 16 and the age of majority. I shall leave the House with this thought: the word "discrimination" has been used a great deal. Discrimination refers to what someone is. In my view, it cannot be applied coherently to what someone does. It is clearly wrong to discriminate against someone because of his skin colour. If one discriminates against someone because he chooses to do something, surely the onus is on the other side to argue that that discrimination is wrong. If one is recruiting a driving instructor, for example, it would be right to refuse to recruit someone whose driving licence was covered with offences. Those who say that it is discrimination to treat homosexual offences separately from heterosexual offences must rest their argument on the basis that homosexual acts are unavoidable. Obviously, the acts themselves are not unavoidable. I have argued that the orientation is not unavoidable in every case. It is right for us to give those aged between 16 and 18 a measure of legal protection to decide where they stand on the matter. As the Archbishop of Canterbury and so many other religious leaders in this country—Cardinal Basil Hume, the chief rabbi and the previous chief rabbi—have argued, this is a matter that we should give young males a little longer to think about. I urge the House to vote against clause 1.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I shall speak briefly in support of clause 1. It worries me when I hear the opinion polls argument trotted out on one side or the other. If we believe that something is correct, we must decide whether we are prepared to take a lead and explain the background to our thinking, or whether we back off at the first hurdle because it seems that some people disagree. I remind the House that my party secured huge polls of 70 to 80 per cent. in favour of our policy of putting more money into education, but that did not translate into our winning general elections. It merely shows that the people polled say that they are in favour of education. I suspect that in polls on the issue under discussion, people are expressing their views on homosexuality, not giving detailed consideration to any change in the law. We are debating not what people do, but changes in the criminal law. We must not become over-ambitious about our influence. We cannot tell people what they should or should not do in their bedrooms. All we can decide is at what point we make them criminals for a particular act. No one has ever stood up and said, "My Government made me a homosexual"—to which the standard response, "If I give the Cabinet the wool, will they make me one too?" might be appropriate. At times, the debate verges on the point of saying that the Government are making people homosexual or not making them homosexual. In fact, the Government are deciding the point at which the criminal law starts and ends. We must be clear about that. The change that would be brought about by clause 1 is consistent with the religious principles that many people hold dear, and with rational ideas. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made an important speech in the previous debate in which he said that he could believe strongly that something was wrong on religious grounds, yet still not wish to make a criminal offence of it. We must recognise the distinction between what we personally believe to be right or wrong—we all hold a multiplicity of views on that—and what we as a Parliament and as a nation consider should bring someone before a criminal court. The rational grounds for supporting the change are bolstered by the support of many agencies that work with young people. We have heard the British Medical Association cited. Other organisations include the Royal College of Nursing. Barnados and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children are unhappy with the existing criminal framework.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the British Medical Association reconciles its support for the measure with the injunction by the National Blood Service that no man who has ever had anal intercourse should be allowed to give blood? Surely there is some contradiction there.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I do not believe that there is any contradiction. We are being tempted, as we were on Second Reading, to speak about issues such as disease. We are discussing the criminal law, which decides what is or is not criminal. It is not criminal for people over 16 to smoke, but they are undoubtedly causing themselves medical harm. The fact that a particular activity may cause medical harm is not a reason to criminalise a person who chooses to engage in that activity. The British Medical Association believes that the present criminalisation of 16 and 17-year-olds makes it difficult to give them the health advice which I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would want them to get.

John Townend (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Why then do the Liberal Democrats support criminalising eating beef on the bone?

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am happy not to pursue incorrect interventions. We should understand today that we are confining ourselves to a clause which effectively changes the boundary of the criminal law. It will have no significant effect in terms of people's behaviour: we are not creating any more or any fewer homosexuals in our community by dint of this change; we are simply freeing a section of our community, who have reached the age of 16 and 17, who believe themselves to be homosexuals, and who engage in homosexual acts, from the burden of the criminal law which, currently, on no rational grounds, places them under threat of punishment. Contrary to an earlier comment by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), the last thing that anyone in such a position needs is a short, sharp shock in a young offenders institution. The idea that it is somehow an appropriate form of advice and assistance to threaten any youngster exploring his sexuality with a criminal and custodial offence betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how sexuality develops—a development which we should allow to continue beyond a sensible age of consent of 16. Clause 1 will provide a much more rational framework within which we can engage that debate.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I was much impressed by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). He made a considered, intelligent and reasonable contribution on what is, for many of us, a difficult subject. Those of us who hold passionate views on the subject often find ourselves being pilloried. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said, we are often accused of prejudice and all the rest of it. There is a point in being able, at least in the House, to speak out and articulate one's views. The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield particularly mentioned, and on which we should home in, concerns the protection of young people. That has always been of great concern to Parliament, and not just this Parliament. In the previous century, Act of Parliament followed Act of Parliament regulating young people's terms of employment. That has not abated; it has continued through this century. Parliament has always been anxious to protect young people. Clause 1 dramatically strips away protection for young boys. I do not know whether you, Mr. Lord, or any other hon. Members, saw a recent television report on child abuse in a children's home in north Wales. A feature of that broadcast was that the victims were often shown in silhouette. Those young people, now adults, told horrific stories about how they had been scarred for life by the abuse that they had suffered, in particular by older men. It may be that when they initially suffered that abuse they were well under the age of 16. I perfectly well understand that. Those hon. Members who did not see the programme should try to do so before they proceed too far in support of the Bill, and they should reconsider whether they are doing the right thing in supporting it. The clause will extend the scope for the abuse of young boys. On the 364th day of a 15-year-old boy's life he is entitled to the full protection of the law as devised by Parliament, but the following day, he will be fair game to what I believe the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) calls a fruit. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) might be able to support me on that. Overnight, Parliament will decree that at one moment, at a minute before midnight, we protect such a boy, but two minutes later he will be out there on his own. The essential point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was that it is one thing to do that at the age of 18, two years on in a boy's life, but it is quite another thing to do it at the age of 16. We are confronted here with at least the possibility of giving a nod and a wink to those who are interested in abusing young men, and I fear that that is what will happen. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) graciously allowed me to intervene on some medical aspects. I am surprised that he should be so contemptuous of a point that I raised. Of course, this has to do with the law; it would be fatuous to suggest otherwise. But the hon. Gentleman and those who support the measure have a lot to argue for here on the medical front. It is no good him and others simply trying to dismiss the point. If the National Blood Authority believes, despite always being in pursuit of people who will give blood, that any man who has ever, even once, had anal intercourse, should under no circumstances give blood, is the House simply to ignore that and dismiss it in a cavalier fashion, as the hon. Gentleman did?

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Is it not a fact that people who disagree with my hon. Friend dismiss that or ignore it because it does not fit in with their politically correct view of life?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

My hon. Friend is correct. It is interesting to see how any factual arguments are dismissed, as my hon. Friend suggests. Not only is the medical evidence dismissed, but the opinion polls are dismissed. Our opponents do not simply say, as most wise politicians would, that we should not rely on opinion polls but that they give a broad direction. In this case, the opinion polls point clearly to the fact that the British public do not like what Parliament and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and his friends are doing, and they have made that perfectly clear. It is all very well to lead the public. At times, the previous Conservative Government enacted legislation which was not initially popular but which subsequently became so. The Minister of State may raise his eyebrows, but I shall not give a litany of the splendid measures enacted by that Government, the benefits of which are now hugely enjoyed by the public, because you, Mr. Lord, would chastise me if I did and, as I might wish to catch your eye on a future occasion, I need to be careful. Homosexual activity, and certainly anal intercourse, increases the risk of HIV. I could put it in rather dramatic and crude terms, although I am not sure that I will, but the House is suggesting that it will protect boys up to the age of 16 from HIV in the sense that it will provide draconian sanctions—of course, Parliament cannot stop people from acting in defiance of the law—but the moment they reach their 16th birthday, Parliament is prepared to allow people to makes decisions that could lead to their contracting AIDS, which is a life-destroying disease.

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

Can the hon. Gentleman tie in the views that he has expressed with those expressed by those organisations concerned with the sexual health of young people? All those organisations have argued that 16 and 17-year-old males will be protected from the spread of AIDS and HIV because the reduction of the age of consent will be a safeguard for them—it will enable better sexual health advice to be given. The hon. Gentleman's point is completely fatuous.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

That is what we were told when the argument that the age of consent should be reduced from 21 to 18 was put to the House. We were told all the things that those wonderful organisations said and that a reduction would enable the proper advice to be given to children. In fact, that reduction has had the opposite effect. There has been an increase—I have the figures here, but I cannot lay my hands on them. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, as far as I am concerned, any advice given by the Terrence Higgins Trust is 180 deg out. It is a most disreputable organisation and its literature is absolutely and utterly disgusting. When I was a Member of the House before, I campaigned to ensure that it did not receive a penny of public money. I believe that it now has to rely more on voluntary subscription and is not so readily able to dip into the taxpayer's pocket, in pursuit of producing its disgusting literature. The protection of young people goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve in wrestling with this matter. I refer to an article that appeared in The Sunday Times on 24 January, the day before the debate on Second Reading. It is by Melanie Phillips, who is an interesting and challenging commentator. She said of the Bill: It's no longer just about gay sex. Remarkably, it implies that both gay and straight sex are proper activities for children. The government has got itself into this fix because it tried to buy off opposition by promising to protect 16 to 18-year-olds against sex with gay adults in a position of trust, like teachers or scoutmasters. But not vicars, of course. Miss Phillips continues: That itself was ludicrous, since it conceded that gay 16-year-olds were in effect still children to be protected from adult sex—but only sometimes. That is the essence of the flaw in the case of those who argue for the measure and for the clause. Those people are prepared to provide protection for children, but only in certain circumstances. The whole basis of their argument is therefore completely and utterly destroyed. If they felt that there was no need to protect children, they would not have acceded to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), which, at the time, I supported. In doing that, those people have given the game away—the measure puts children and young boys more at risk and makes them more vulnerable. That is the effect that those people will have to live with. The charge will lie heavily on the shoulders of those who support the measure. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said in his measured and interesting contribution. The contributions of those who support the measure have been permeated by the word "equality", and I want to deal with that in a moment. One of the arguments about equality, which was used during the debate on the amendments, is that, whereas young girls are not criminalised if they are abused under the age of 16, boys are criminalised. I welcome the fact that the Government are to consider that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere argued a good case, and removing the criminality may lead to the better protection of children.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Does not my hon. Friend recognise, however, that there is a severe danger of a creeping reduction in the age of consent? As the Bill stands, a boy under 16 who explored his sexuality and had consensual homosexual sex with a boy over 16 would be breaking the law and could be punished. From the way the debate on amendment No. 2 went, it appears that the Minister will address that issue. It may be possible for young men under 16 to go ahead and involve themselves in that sort of consensual activity—whereupon, in effect, no age of consent will apply at all.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

My hon. Friend and I are absolutely united: we do not believe in the reduction of the age of consent to 16. We believe that 18 is the right age. His point is whether it is an additional deterrent to those under 16 that they would be committing an offence by engaging in such activity. The honest answer to my hon. Friend is that I am not sure. I have listened to the debate and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere made an interesting point. It is certainly one that I am prepared to explore, but I want to explore it on the basis that I want to protect children. Those who support the measure want to make children more vulnerable. That is the difference, and we will have to return to it. I do not want to take up too much more of the House's time, but I want to challenge this business of equality. The case of the Minister and those who support the measure is that, somehow, there is huge inequality and that—simply in the pursuit of equality and regardless of the facts, regardless of the medical evidence and regardless of the opinion polls—we have to lower the age of consent for boys from 18 to 16. That is not something that I accept. I believe that there are differences between boys and girls. They grow up and mature at different ages. I also do not subscribe to the view that there is equality between heterosexual and homosexual intercourse. One is natural and ordained by the Almighty; the other is not. Those are fundamental and incontrovertible differences which render the whole argument about equality invalid from the start. Moreover, if equality became the overriding principle in public policy, as is demanded by the gay rights groups, those who support the reduction of the age of consent would lay themselves open to the argument, with which they may agree, that there should be equality in everything else. Should there be equality in pensions? Should there be equality in terms of marriage, so that there could be homosexual marriages? That will be the next thing. Those who support the Bill have to answer this question: is this the end of the line or are they prepared to go further, as those in the militant gay rights outfits want? [Interruption.] Peter Tatchell is going off to Australia, which is good news. Those who support the reduction of the age of consent, and argue that they are seeking to achieve equality, also have to answer the accusation that there are anomalies, even as the Bill stands. First, although the age of consent will be 16 for England, Wales and Scotland, it will 17 in Northern Ireland. Where is the equality there? Where is the consistency throughout the United Kingdom? Furthermore, anal intercourse with a 16-year-old girl will remain unlawful, but anal intercourse with a 16-year-old boy will become lawful.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he thinks that anal intercourse with 16-year-old girls remains unlawful. The Bill permits anal intercourse with 16 and 17-year-old girls and boys, and exposes both equally to all the medical dangers of anal intercourse to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that correction. As the Minister is not contradicting my hon. Friend, I must take it that he is absolutely right. If so, I thoroughly deplore that provision in the Bill. I am sorry that I was not aware of it. Members of Parliament all have a grave responsibility to protect young people. I have outlined why this measure does not do that. The argument that we must strive for equality is not in itself sufficient justification for bringing about this momentous change, which does not command the support of the British people. It is out of step with public opinion and it threatens vulnerable boys. It will send out the wrong signals to a civilised society.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

There is always a danger in clause stand part debates that the arguments made on Second Reading are repeated. I shall not do that, but it must be said that this clause is the Bill. I am sorry to see the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) leaving the Chamber, because he tabled some sensible clauses for addition to last year's Crime and Disorder Bill. The other clauses in this Bill are simply a fig leaf. The provision on abuse of trust is nonsense. This clause is what the Bill is all about. I respect the view that homosexual and heterosexual acts are equal, although I do not agree with it. I sympathise with the view that the law should not be involved in personal relationships between two people, although I do not agree with that, either. One must then go on to determine at what stage the law comes into effect. I wish to make just three points on this clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, people may argue that heterosexual and homosexual acts are equal, but it is obvious to those who are willing to accept the evidence before their eyes that they are not. They are not equal biologically, physiologically or physically. They may be equal emotionally—I do not know—but otherwise they are not. Those who argue that such acts are equal deceive themselves. They are in thrall to their political correctness or to the single-issue pressure group, because it is simply not true and it is nonsense to pretend that it is. One might say that both acts should be allowed, but they are not equal. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot referred to the National Blood Authority, which does not believe that homosexual and heterosexual intercourse are equal. Should I ever have to have a blood transfusion, I will be glad to know that it has taken that position. My second point is one that I did not make on Second Reading. Some people have been praying in aid old martyrs to the cause of homosexual equality. Oscar Wilde has been much mentioned.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

The hon. Gentleman did mention him.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Only in an intervention. Since Second Reading, I have read a little about Oscar Wilde. I have studied several biographies, which say much the same, including the sympathetic biography by Richard Ellman. We should be careful about romanticising Oscar Wilde, as the placing of a statue of him in the Strand last year did. Clearly, he was persecuted by the father of his male friend, Lord Alfred Douglas, the Earl of Rosebery. He wrote some fine plays and was quite a good poet. However, those who are concerned about paedophilia and sex tourism should know that Oscar Wilde was a paedophile and a sex tourist—[Interruption.]Labour Members shake their heads. Let them read the biography—[HON. MEMBERS: "We have."] I can quote from memory that Alfred and Oscar competed for Neapolitan boys in 1897. What is that if not paedophilia and sex tourism? Let us hear no more nonsense about Oscar Wilde being a martyr to homosexual equality. 6.15 pm My third point is that the Bill is part of an agenda. It was once a standard joke that people who signed letters, "Yours disgustedly", were retired colonels from Tunbridge Wells. It shows how far this country has changed that on Monday I received a letter signed "Yours in disgust" from somebody to whom I shall refer as Peter from Liverpool. I will not embarrass him by naming him further. All Members of Parliament receive letters from nutters. They are usually heavily underlined, and that letter is underlined all over the place. I understand that Peter Tatchell has said that the age of consent should be reduced to 14. That is a perfectly respectable position, although I do not agree with it in any circumstances.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

It is not respectable at all.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Well, one may hold that view, but I do not. The letter to which I referred, besides being insulting and disgusting, says: We need to move forward and be positive about things and this means equality for all. Legalised marriage for same sex couples is long overdue and"— those words are underlined— other benefits already enjoyed by heterosexual couples need to be extended"— those words, too, are underlined— to gay couples. They include … adoption rights for same-sex couples, housing rights for same sex couples, pension rights for same sex couples. Thankfully, we have a government who are committed to the equalization of the heterosexual and homosexual ages of consent. I do not want to labour the point, but this agenda has been pursued within and without the House by the homosexual lobby, which is a very small lobby. Most people do not wake up worrying about this issue and we know from opinion polls that they are opposed to the equalisation of the age of consent. They do not take a homophobic view, but they happen to think that the homosexual case is different—as it is. However, the homosexual lobby has pursued this agenda with single-minded determination and its sustained campaign is now coming to fruition. The clause is supposed to be about child protection, but it is about a lack of child protection and about society's position on certain types of behaviour. It is the start, not the end, of the agenda. When the House passes it, as I fear it will, it should be aware of that.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Ironically, the reason for rejecting the clause is precisely the same as that for protecting it from amendment No. 2 earlier this afternoon. As it now stands, the clause maintains an important discrimination—or rather, an important difference of treatment, if my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will forgive me—in that it treats differently girls under the age of 16 who explore their sexuality and homosexual boys under the age of 16 who seek to explore theirs. That is an important distinction. However, from what the Minister said, it would appear that that "anomaly"—rather than important principle—may be dealt with on Report. It would therefore be much better to dispose of the entire clause as it now stands than see it amended in such a way. The important principle of treating differently sexual activity by homosexuals and heterosexuals under the age of 16 is that the law should reinforce social mores and give the clear message that the two life styles are clearly different. It is not as if life is a supermarket and one can choose life styles that have moral equivalence in the same way as one can choose a breakfast cereal. The problem is the extent to which a person has a choice in determining his sexual orientation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said. I take the view of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). On Second Reading, Labour Members said that experience clearly showed that the sexual orientation of many people was fixed and they had no role in determining it. I do not question that for a moment: I am sure that that is true. However, many people are in a different boat. They experience unnatural sexual desires in their early teens, when they are approaching 16 and beyond, and they would otherwise outgrow those desires because of peer pressure, and are ashamed of them. The law has an important role in making it clear what society expects and what is proper and acceptable. If we take away those social mores—which this legislation does—people will be encouraged to explore those sexual desires rather than to repress them. They will be encouraged to adopt a life style that they may regret later on, whereas they may otherwise have led a blameless life. It comes down to the question of what one regards as an acceptable life style. I make no apology for the fact that I believe that a homosexual life style is a much less commendable life style. It is a sterile way of life. It precludes giving life to future generations and having a normal, natural family life. The vacuum that is thereby created leads to promiscuity and instability. That in turn leads to the higher incidents of disease among homosexual men, and the state of the blood bank. The determination of the blood transfusion service not to take any blood from men who have had homosexual activity of a particular kind bears witness to that fact. On Second Reading, we were told that those who take this view on the clause are akin to the slave traders, and that the debate has a moral significance and equivalence to the slavery debate. I suspect that it is rather different. The consequence of rejecting the clause would be to require boys aged 16 who are seeking to express physically their homosexual desires to hold off for two years. I do not regard that as a huge inconvenience, or a huge impediment equivalent to a life of slavery. On the contrary, I regard it as most expedient for their own good, because it may provide them with the liberty and the freedom to escape a life style that, to many, is cursed.

John Townend (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I approach the Bill from the point of view of child protection. I ask myself why anyone should support the clause. I do not believe that OutRage is particularly worried about 16 to 18-year-olds. I am even more cynical about its attitude. I believe that it wants the clause to go through to allow older men to prey on younger boys. One of the great problems of many homosexuals is that they proselytise: they want to bring more people into their society. It is generally accepted that many youngsters, below and above the age of 16, experiment homosexually with other boys of the same age, especially at boys' boarding schools. In the past, they have been under pressure from society to rejoin normal life and become heterosexuals when they leave school. The overwhelming majority of them have done so, and have gone on to lead a normal life, to marry and to have children. What worries me about the clause is that, at 17, those boys may be preyed on by older men and may get involved in homosexual society. It is a close-knit society; it has its own social life with its own pubs and clubs. Once they are involved in that society, it is difficult to get out of it. The age of consent has been progressively reduced from 21 to 18 and now to 16. Will it be reduced to 14 next year? The debate is camouflaged with an enormous amount of political correctness. The word "equality" is used, but it is not equality. The Bill will put more young people at risk and a prey to evil older men. If I had been in the House at the time, I would have voted to remove the criminality from homosexual acts between consenting adults. That is right, but if we go further we will put our young people in danger. Much nonsense is talked about political correctness and about society. We should discriminate in favour of marriage and a heterosexual society. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury put many arguments against the clause, but he did not mention religion. It is important that the Christian religion bans homosexuality. I am worried that political correctness is creeping into some of the Churches and that they are giving up that original belief. It will be an ill day for this country if we pass this clause. It will put our young people at risk. We see the terrible social implications for young girls who become pregnant before the age of 16. Given what is happening on television, on the internet and on videos, our children need more protection now than they ever did, so I shall vote against the clause.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

Yet again, we have heard arguments against the clause. Significantly, but perhaps not surprisingly, many of them have been made by Conservative Members. It is right that hon. Members should express their views, which I believe are deeply held and genuinely felt. However, clause 1 is not about sex tourists, paedophiles, the exoticism of Neapolitan boys or political correctness. It is about the ability of young men to enjoy the same freedom as young girls. It is about decriminalising activity between two consenting young adults. Under the current law, their crime is not that they have strong feelings, but that they happen to be homosexual. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) referred to sterile relationships. My wife and I have homosexual friends whose relationships are not sterile: they enjoy relationships that are as loving and caring as any between two people who happen to be heterosexual rather than homosexual. I think it monstrously unfair to suggest that relationships between two people of the same sex can only be sterile.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

Can my hon. Friend tell us, on the basis of his research, the average length of such relationships? I understand that they tend not to last very long. Can my hon. Friend also tell us something about what happens within such relationships when an element of promiscuity is involved?

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

I will not detain the Committee by making a detour from my speech. I merely say to my hon. Friend that, in my view, we do no favours to ourselves or anyone listening to the debate by describing relationships between people of the same sex as though they were inferior to relationships between heterosexuals. Many heterosexuals could learn from the precautions—safer sex, and the prevention of transmission of HIV—that the homosexual community has introduced. I do not suggest that my hon. Friend takes such a view, but, if some people were not so bigoted and hypocritical, more heterosexual people would be alive today. They would understand that AIDS is not a homosexual disease, but an illness that passes from one person to another as a result of unsafe sexual practices.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his wise words. I assure him that, although he may feel outnumbered on the Conservative Benches, when the public are asked whether they think that homosexual behaviour is morally inferior to heterosexual behaviour, the more popular view is that it is not.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Tonight, we are discussing whether the present law is wrong. I believe that it is. We are discussing whether the present law is intolerant. I believe that it is. We are discussing whether it is without compassion. I believe that it is. We are also discussing whether we will allow two people of the same sex to enjoy a relationship that is loving, not criminal. That is why I think it right for Parliament to change the law tonight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) described the protection of those aged between 16 and 18 as an acid test. He said that the Committee must be convinced that they would not be put at more risk. I ask him of what risk he speaks, and what evidence he has to support what he says. Those who evaluate the risk—organisations that work in child protection, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardos, Childline, the Children's Society and countless others—tell us that the risk lies in leaving children unprotected, and that the current law does not protect them. Those organisations believe that protection is the central issue. It is because of the work that they have done that I, at least, have decided that it is right to lower the age of consent. I ask hon. Members who believe that the law should be left as it stands whether they have asked those organisations for their evidence. I suspect—his is not a criticism, but an observation—that many of my hon. Friends have continued to peddle a view which, although they hold it deeply and passionately, is not based on evidence for which they could have asked.

Christopher Fraser (Conservative, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Does my hon. Friend accept that some homosexuals in the community believe that the age of consent for homosexuals should remain as it is?

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

No doubt some members of the homosexual community believe that the age of consent should stay at 18, but the evidence from those involved in the argument about protection—the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield—suggests overwhelmingly that protection will be better served by a lowering of the age of consent. That is a different issue from that of the views of some homosexuals about the age at which they should be allowed to practise a loving relationship, or a relationship with someone else.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. He asked whether we had studied the evidence. I have worked extensively with the NSPCC on other matters, and have examined its evidence as well as that of others. I find evidence from such organisations unconvincing because of the overwhelming medical evidence from studies—most conducted abroad, although some have been conducted in this country—of the huge medical risks involved in the homosexual life style. An example is the incidence of venereal disease in the 50 states of America. There is an almost direct correlation between the incidence of venereal disease and the law on homosexuality, which varies hugely between states.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I say merely that I will not set myself above the British Medical Association; I will rely on doctors here who tell us that we would protect young people better by changing the age of consent to 16. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke of the duty to provide the maximum protection for young people. I could not agree more. It is because of that duty that I believe we should hear what the experts tell us, and then apply what we have heard and lower the age of consent. My right hon. Friend referred to the proposition that the public have a right to be heard. He made an important comparison, which was also made on Second Reading: he drew a parallel with the slave trade of the 18th century. I raised that issue because, in that instance, the House had to debate a great moral issue and, ultimately, to take action that, at the time, probably did not have much public support. I believe that, when we look at the changes that were introduced post-Wolfenden, we will see that Parliament did the right thing, and that public opinion has moved in the direction in which Parliament moved when it changed the law. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) defended his position, rather eloquently, by saying that slavery involved adults and that this issue involved children. There is a danger in that argument, which is caused by double standards. The law allows a young man of 16 to be a father. What greater duty can any young man have than to be responsible for the life of a child?

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

No, I will not. Anyone who has a child—I have four—knows about the burden of responsibility involved in bringing up children, but the law allows someone of 16 to do so. My hon. Friends talk about the need to listen to the public. That means listening to parents, but it also means listening to children and young people. I was the deputy director of Childline for nearly 10 years. Before Childline existed, it was thought that sexual abuse did not happen very much, that it probably happened among the working classes, and that, by and large, it was not a great problem. That was a serious mistake, which resulted from only one group of the public being listened to—adults and, from time to time, the unfortunate children who ended up in court having to be witnesses in cases against those who had sexually abused them. Childline brought about a fundamental change. It brought about the recognition that children and young people have a right to be heard. It would be grossly impertinent for the Committee to suggest that the will of a heterosexual majority should determine that we do not listen to the voices of young men and women who happen to be in a minority because they are homosexual. Childline listened to those young people, and has done a great deal to change the environment in which sexual abuse has been able to operate. That brings me to the importance of listening to organisations that work with young people. They tell us that the current law is wrong, because they listen to those young people. They tell us that the law fails to protect; they tell us that, in some cases, it hurts; and they tell us that it leads some young people who are desperate to take their own lives. We have a duty in the House to listen to that evidence, too—to listen not only to the evidence of our prejudices and of the majority heterosexual community, but to those young people and the organisations that work with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) asked us to focus on whether homosexuality is a matter of choice, or is pre-ordained. There is no question but that that is an interesting scientific debate, which will go on and on and runs the risk of leading the House into a cul de sac for one simple reason. The issue in the clause is not what makes people homosexual. It is whether someone who is recognised by the law as old enough legally to father a child and to take the responsibility of parenthood should, because they have a homosexual relationship, run the risk of a criminal prosecution. For socialists, it is an issue of equality and I respect that, but a Conservative should ask: why should we deny a homosexual young male his freedom when we are prepared to give it to a young woman? Why, because he practises his sexuality, often in a loving relationship, with someone of the same sex, should that be criminalised? Crucially, where is the evidence that supports the argument that young people are better protected by criminalising the activities of their early adult years?

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, but a lot of it is based on assumptions with which I do not agree. He talks about 16-year-olds committing suicide. I do not know how many have done so, but the issue for most Conserative Members—and, indeed, for Members throughout the House—who oppose the clause is not about two 16-year-old boys; it is about older men and 16 and 17-year-old boys. That is a fact. I do not mind what two 16-year-old boys get up to. What I am worried about is 40-year-old men and 16-year-old boys.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

I will come to the points that my hon. Friend makes in a moment or two. I do not dispute the fact that some young people who have a homosexual relationship at 17 may go on to have relationships with the opposite sex in later years. That is a matter for them. In so doing, they will enjoy the wonderful experience of having children, but the majority who enjoy a heterosexual life must look closely in their hearts at the consequence of imposing their chosen way of life on those for whom that is either not possible or not desirable. What right does one group, albeit a majority, have to make a misery and a criminal offence of what may be a loving, caring relationship between two people who just happen to be of the same sex? I cannot find it intellectually right and I cannot find it in my heart to be right. It is not compassionate, tolerant, just or based on evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) spoke about passion. Passion is an important friend for the politician, but it is also a dangerous friend. It can blind us to the arguments and the evidence and, indeed, lead us to ignore it. My hon. Friend said that the measure would expand the scope for abuse of young boys. We are not talking of young boys. We are talking of people whom the law allows legally to father a child and to take the responsibility of parenthood. We are talking of young men. We may be talking of abuse, but I remind my hon. Friend that if we want to deal with abuse, we should not be talking about the relationship between older men and younger boys. By and large, the majority of abuse is not committed by older men on younger boys. It is committed by randy old men in various areas throughout the country who chase after young girls. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is not proposing legislation or amendments to the Bill to rectify that. The current law makes it harder for young men who are abused. It is important to recognise abuse. The current law makes it harder for young men who are abused between the ages of 16 and 18 because, in reporting their abuse, they render themselves open to prosecution. 6.45 pm My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot had words to say about the Terrence Higgins Trust. I disagree profoundly with him. His words were injudicious.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

I will give way in a moment. My hon. Friend has had his say on the trust. The work that the trust, Crusaid, Stonewall and other organisations have done has saved lives and encouraged people to enjoy loving, caring relationships. It does not reflect well on the House to undermine their work not only to save people who have HIV, to help them to lead longer and better lives and to ensure that they do not spread that disease, but, crucially, to stop people getting the illness in the first place. If only the heterosexual community had been as sensible and had raised the money to set up such organisations, far fewer heterosexual people would have HIV and AIDS. As a result of the work of organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, fewer homosexuals have the disease. My hon. Friends the Members for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) talked of the Bill being the thin end of the wedge and said that efforts would be made to lower the age of consent even further. No hon. Member makes the case for lowering the age of consent even further. That is not part of clause 1. It is, in itself, a valid discussion. I personally would not support—through the Bill or any other way—lowering for either heterosexuals or homosexuals the age of consent below 16, but that is not relevant to the clause or the Bill. It is yet another distraction. I have received a number of letters from the public on the Bill, particularly following the previous debate. There is one that I should like briefly to quote. I do so for one simple reason. When I worked in television and was editor of "That's Life", we found that, by and large, if we went to the people who were affected—the people who suffer because of the way in which the law currently stands—we stood to learn a lot. The letter tells me that it is far from the case that homosexual people enjoy only sterile relationships. It does not come from a lobby group. It is not the expression of a militant individual. It is from a member of our society, our community, our country who happens to be homosexual. He says: As a gay man now in my late 30s I can still remember how terrified and isolated I felt about my burgeoning sexuality during my teenage years. My discovery from the dictionary that my feelings could be defined as homosexuality and later that such activity had been decriminalised from the age of 21 gave me some hope that I was not totally alone in the world. However the '67 legislation, ground breaking though it was then, felt more like the grudging acceptance of an adult male perversion than any positive affirmation of the adult I was to become. It was meant to. Those that meant it then and those that wish to perpetuate the status quo now have excluded us from society and then heaped criticism upon us for being unconventional. We are forced into life styles with which we are not always happy and then judged for it. It is often said…that homosexuality breaks down the nuclear family. It is prejudice against homosexuality which does that. We are products of the nuclear family and many of us wish to remain within its bounds of love and protection but are prevented from doing so by the perpetuation of the atmosphere of hate and prejudice by these people. He goes on to say that, in 1978, at the age of 18, he told his parents of his sexuality: I thank God that my parents fought their fears and prejudices and I remain a loved and loving son, brother, uncle and godfather. My family would prefer I were heterosexual but they have totally accepted who I am and I remain as active a member of my family as anyone else within it. I know very many others for whom the same is not true. The fear and prejudice of their families strengthened by that of society and enshrined in the law has resulted in their total exclusion from the family circle. Many others cannot even bear to tell their parents. Their self esteem is so low and their fear of rejection so great that they cannot begin to imagine that the people who should love them most could ever accept them. They leave home and disappear into self imposed exile for ever leaving behind an often bewildered and shattered family…Young families are often blown apart in such ways with damaging consequences for the adult, the children, the wider families and society as a whole. That letter says more than anything else about why we should ensure that the clause stands part of the Bill. The pain and suffering of younger people mean that we should listen to them and that we are duty bound do something about it. This is an opportunity for Parliament to do something good. It may not have majority support in the country at the moment, but we should remember that we are in a majority heterosexual community. We are not inviting people, as a consequence of the Bill, to take up homosexual activities; we are simply ensuring that certain individuals can have loving, caring relationships with people who happen to be of the same sex. There may be some present who do not like it and that is their prerogative, but the House has no right to discriminate because there is no evidence to suggest that young people will be better protected if we leave the law as it is. I do not believe that changing the law will send the wrong signals to a civilised society. In fact, Parliament doing the good thing tonight will help to civilise our society. I hope that hon. Members will choose to do that rather than leave in place a law that is patently, evidently and fundamentally unjust.

Ann Keen (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

I am honoured to follow the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). Like many of my hon. Friends, I totally associate myself with his entire speech. However, it is also important to put on record the manner and style of speeches by Opposition Members. Some expressed concern, but others showed blatant prejudice. We must take into account the important work of organisations that care for young people, and have taken the Bill and the original amendment very seriously. The British Medical Association and my own profession of nursing have been involved in serious work for a long time, bringing together all the organisations that care for young people. They are now asking our democratically elected Parliament to take their views seriously. On another occasion, I should like to ask Opposition Members why they feel that they have more wisdom than those organisations.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Keen (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)

No. I am making only a short speech. The hon. Gentleman has already contributed to the debate. Families involved with all young people in our community are equally important. Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers of lesbian and gay young people. In addition to coming to the House, they have also put their case to the wider media—on television and radio and in the newspapers—and for the first time they are being heard. There is a great deal of ignorance which breeds fear, and many brave people have been putting the case not just for equality, but for humanity. I fear that tonight, this place has let them down, but I am pleased to associate myself with the hon. Members who have stood shoulder to shoulder and said that it is now time for justice, equality, humanity, safety and the protection of our young people.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

I am delighted to follow the last two speakers. Before they spoke, it appeared manifest that the entire debate on clause stand part would be conducted solely by Opposition Members and from one point of view. I am on the Standing Committee dealing with the other clause in the Bill, and I have noticed a strange phenomenon that has been repeated here tonight. Certain hon. Members who were very vociferous on 25 January when we debated the Bill on Second Reading have been sitting as quietly as mice. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) spoke on clause 2 in Standing Committee—there was just a single speech from the main man on the Labour Benches—and this evening, we have heard one Labour speech—from the main woman. I find that orchestration somewhat unsettling in what should be a debate on an issue of conscience and a free vote. I have considerable experience of the way in which pressure groups operate and I have the impression that two pressure groups are operating tonight—an external pressure group in the form of the gay lobby and an internal pressure group in the form of the Government Whips, who seem to have carved a deal on the way in which Labour Members must conduct themselves in these proceedings. I shall not be as eloquent as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) because I am not reading out my speech word for word, but I noticed that at the end of the debate on 25 January, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) was kind enough to refer to me in my absence. He made various criticisms and imputed many motivations to my speech. Having made those remarks he was gentlemanly enough to observe: When I see him I shall remind him of what I have just said. He needs to be told and have that put in his face."—[Official Report, 25 January 1999; Vol.324, c.103.] Strangely enough, when we met later that evening, the hon. Gentleman did nothing of the sort. In fact, he was his usual charming, debonair and carefree self.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

When I saw the hon. Gentleman subsequently in the Corridors beyond the Chamber, the thought of speaking to him turned my stomach.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

That is just one more broken Labour promise. In explaining why I oppose the clause, it is necessary to spell out, as I did at the beginning of my speech on 25 January, that what concerns me is not homosexuality, but a dangerous practice that carries a high medical risk—the practice of anal sex. Time and again throughout the debate on Second Reading, I and other hon. Members challenged those on the other side of the argument—including my hon. Friend the Member for Witney—to explain, once and for all and quite clearly, that if the enormously higher incidence of HIV infection and AIDS in our male homosexual community in Britain had not been caused primarily by the practice of anal sex, what had caused it. Answer came there none. During today's debate, I and others have made it clear once again that our objections have nothing to do with the rights of adults. If my hon. Friend the Member for Witney had spoken in favour of a minority of repressed adults, I would have cheered him to the rafters, but he spoke in favour of allowing the act of buggery to be committed against young boys and girls of 16 and 17, when that act and the sharing of needles by drug addicts have resulted in a massively increased danger of contracting a deadly disease.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I feel that the hon. Gentleman is on another planet. Even if one accepts that certain acts carry greater risks when they are unprotected, in Britain we do not legislate against actions by private individuals that may be dangerous to their health. We do not legislate against heterosexual intercourse, which also can transmit disease, or against childbirth, although it can be dangerous. We criminalise drug use not because of the physical risks of human immune deficiency virus transmission, but for a series of other good reasons. So the hon. Gentleman has missed the point.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

I was happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and shall be happy to do so again if he will answer a question. Does he approve of legalising prostitution and brothels on the basis that doing so will help to protect people's health, as they will be better supervised and the sex will be safer? Would he care to intervene on that point, too?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I can only barely bother to get up to intervene on the point, which deals with an entirely separate matter. If a matter affects only private individuals and hurts no one else—which is what the Committee is judging for the age group we are considering—it should not be a matter in which the state should intervene. Prostitution and brothels are thought to affect society as a whole, and not only private individuals, as in the case we are considering.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

The hon. Gentleman was absolutely truthful when he said that I am on a different planet from the other people in this Chamber, whom he represents. But I think that they are on a different planet from the vast majority of British parents, who are worried about their 16 and 17-year-old children—I repeat, children—who are being allowed to engage in a sexual act that will put their health, perhaps fatally, at risk. I should like briefly to say a word about whether orientation is preordained, and hope that my words will faintly shine a bit of a spotlight on to my own motivations in opposing the provision. Although I know that Labour Members would like to portray me as some sort of secret hater of gays who does not have the courage to say so—[Interruption.] Yes, that is what they would like to do. I tell both Labour Members and my hon. Friends that my first experience of meeting a young boy who was gay was in my grammar school in Swansea. I remember his name and the great pity that I felt for him, because of the way in which—[Interruption.] Before hon. Members laugh, let them at least hear the story. I felt sorry for the boy because of the way in which he was persecuted and shunned by the other pupils. I also remember asking him how it was that he got into that orientation. He did not turn around and say to me that it was a result of the fact that he had always known that he had those feelings. He told me that it was a result of the fact that an older youth had taken him to a bedroom, tied him to a bed and interfered with him. [Interruption.] I am sorry to see that a Labour Member finds this so hilarious. Would she care to intervene and tell me what is so funny about it? I thought that it was a personal tragedy. Would she care to tell me? Evidently not.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman: the debate should flow as fluently as possible. However, I should tell the Committee that every Member is entitled to express his or her point of view and be listened to in the Committee. There are deeply held, opposite views on the question. They should all be heard in the Committee.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

I am particularly grateful to you, Sir Alan, for that ruling, and was appalled by that type of reaction. I still feel sorry for that lad. He was a very nice lad, and I feel sorry for what he went through. I wish that he had not had to go through it. However, in my opinion—and I think also in his opinion—there was no question of his having been born a homosexual. I should point out also that, in the attitude that one can have on the matters we are debating, it is possible to have, as I have, homosexual friends. Probably my closest female friend went through a period of a lesbian relationship. I was not happy that she went through that period, and was happy that she came out of it. Nevertheless, I should tell hon. Members who doubt my sincerity in the matter that, had she never come out of it, she would have remained my closest female friend. I would go to the ends of the earth for her, and I think that she would do the same for me. Therefore, when I express such considerations to the Committee, I do so not out of some hidden homophobia, but because the measure would legalise the seduction by people who are adults of people who are children into a physical act—the act of buggery—whether those children are male or female, putting their lives at risk. Everything in this debate has been expressed on the basis of equality. There is an apparent slavishness to the principle of equality. Regardless of what else happens, people who support lowering the age of consent tell us that it must be done in the cause of equality. Such a position comes close to being—I am not allowed to say hypocritical—insincere. If there were no way in which the homosexual age of consent could be lowered to 16—if the choice, therefore, were between keeping the heterosexual age of consent at 16 and keeping the homosexual age of consent at 18, or raising the heterosexual age of consent to 18—I would bet that all those hon. Members who have been prating about the supremacy of equality would sing a different tune. To them, it would be more important to preserve the differential as long as it favoured a lower age of consent for some form sexual activity. As I said in the debate on Second Reading, it is a mark of a civilised society that it raises ages of consent as it gets more civilised. The fact that the age of consent for heterosexual sex is lower than the age of consent for homosexual sex is not a sign that the higher age should be adjusted to the lower age. If equality reigns supreme, adjust the lower age to the higher age. But let us have enough of an insincere, dangerous and potentially fatal recommendation.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I suspect that there is a sense of exhaustion in the debate, as this is the third time that we have debated the issue. The first time was last year, at the Committee stage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; the second time was in the debate on this Bill's Second Reading; and the third is today. I have no intention of repeating what I said in the Second Reading debate, but shall content myself with making one point, on the protection of children. I should have hoped—the whole Committee should hope, as it is a rather sensitive matter—that, by the end of this week, we could stop arguing about the issue. However, I fear that the Bill's passage will not be the end of it, as those who promoted the Bill will come back again and again—until they have achieved full equality between heterosexual and homosexual practice, achieved the repeal of clause 28 and ensured that both practices are taught, with equal validity, in our schools. I fear that this is only the start of the debate. However, hon. Members should be concerned primarily not with ourselves, but with the protection of young people—including 16 and 17-year-old children, and particularly very young men. The Home Office recently published a report on sexual offences against children—to which the Minister of State, Home Office provided a foreword, and which I quoted yesterday in Standing Committee. Unsurprisingly, the report found that only 5 per cent. of sexual offences against children were committed by women. The report makes it clear that boys and girls are much more at risk from men than from women. However, we did not need a report to tell us that. Whatever people might say about equality between the sexes, there is no equality between men and women on that issue. We are talking almost exclusively about men when we talk about abusers. The Home Office report tells us that most abusers abuse girls. That is what one would expect, as the population is overwhelmingly heterosexual. The report finds that 60 to 70 per cent. of child molesters abuse girls. The implication of the Minister's remarks in Committee was that those who believe that boys are at risk from homosexual men need not worry because of the statistics. However, the Home Office says that 20 to 33 per cent. of abusers target only boys. That is a staggeringly high proportion. I accept that some of those who target boys will be women, but the report points out that almost all abusers are men. Up to a third of abusers target boys. No one has ever suggested that a third of men are homosexual. Academic studies vary, but the Office for National Statistics has said that 1 per cent. of men say that they have only ever had homosexual sex. The supporters of the Bill may believe that a figure of 1 per cent. of the population being homosexual is far too low, but even if that were completely wrong—even if it were 2 or 3 per cent.—how could we have a situation where 1 per cent., 2 per cent. or slightly more men are homosexual, but where they apparently make up more than 30 per cent. of child molesters? This is not prejudice—that is taken from the Home Office report. Suppose the exact figure for abuse was 15 per cent. That would mean that boys were 15 times more likely to be abused by a man than a woman. If the Bill is enacted, we will be ensuring that more boys are abused and damaged for life.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

I remind my hon. Friend that we are talking about relationships between consenting adults. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has looked for evidence, but the Bill is dealing with relationships between two consenting people. Child abuse, the abuse of young people, indecent assault or rape will remain crimes, and are not relevant to the Bill.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am afraid that they are relevant. My hon. Friend made a long and passionate speech, the purport of which appeared to be that 16-year-olds were adults. They may be adults in bodily form, but in many ways—emotionally and psychologically—they are still children. In many respects, they are still children legally. They cannot vote and they cannot be asked to die for their country. If the Committee is primarily concerned with protecting boys between the ages of 16 and 18—as it should be—it is taking a retrograde step tonight. The abuse of trust proposals in the Bill are only a fig leaf because they will not apply to youth workers, vicars and occasional supply teachers—all those people who will come into contact with young people. That is my concern. In conclusion, I accept that, in this world, we are all different. Many people are homosexual, and we recognise that. It would be lovely if we were all Conservatives and heterosexuals. It would be lovely if there were no crime or divorce. However, we must show understanding and compassion to those who do not share our views or way of life—including those who are homosexual. We reject homophobia, hatred and prejudice as passionately as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). However, we must believe that Parliament has a right and a duty to stand up for something that is right and pure. We are not just talking about gratification; sex is not about that. Sex is about raising children in the context of a loving family. So much of the debate on homosexuality is fundamentally sterile in that sense. It is not just that it can be an unhealthy activity; it is not just that it is an offence against many people's religious convictions. We believe that we are sending tonight the wrong message to a society which, again and again in opinion polls, has said that it does not approve of what we are doing. I hope that we will vote against the clause and the Bill in increased numbers.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I rise briefly to say that I firmly support the clause. I wish to respond to one of the several points made by Conservative Members to which I was tempted to respond. The allegation that homosexuals are sex offenders in the main or in the minority cannot be sustained. As the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) said, it is not the case that when talking about consenting acts, we are talking somehow about child abuse or sexual abuse. It may well be that a large proportion, but not a majority, of offences are directed against boys, but those are not by homosexuals necessarily. It is not a heterosexual act or a homosexual act to abuse someone—it is an abusive act. The distinction must be recognised. Although I warmly welcome the clause—and thank the Government for proposing it—it would make it much easier to defend the gay community against bigoted allegations of child abuse and sex abuse if amendments to sex offenders legislation could be made, within the Bill, to ensure that those offences that are no longer criminal are removed from the legislation on sex offenders requiring registration. I hope that the Minister will think again on that subject, so that, on Third Reading, we can have a Bill—including this clause—that is complete and fair.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

As has been made abundantly clear, this matter will be the subject of a free vote, and I welcome the opportunity to make my personal contribution to the debate. I do so with a certain caution, because it is not in my nature to lecture people on how they should run their lives. I always exercise great caution in making such statements. However, on a subject of great public importance such as this, we owe it to our constituents to set out our views. I have the opportunity to set out my views against the background of what I believe has been a very good debate. On such a subject, we owe it to our constituents to listen to the views of others with a certain amount of tolerance, and to listen to both sides of the argument. We have heard good speeches on both sides of the argument from both sides of the House. That has been of benefit. However, we must exercise a certain tolerance when listening to the views of others. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) observed, we have heard only one speech from the Labour Benches. It was a good, pertinent and passionate speech from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen)—albeit a short one—although I did not agree with it. She serves on the Committee, and I had been looking forward to hearing rather more of the views of other Labour Members who serve on the Committee this evening. That pleasure has been further delayed for me. I did not agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), but he has been consistent and he made his remarks forcefully. However, there was a certain element of self-destruction in his exchange with his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). The hon. Member for Hallam got it completely wrong when he dismissed the opinion poll evidence which shows that the majority of the public are opposed to a reduction of the age of consent by saying that, in opinion polls, people are expressing their view about homosexuality, not the age of consent. However, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said that all the evidence is that the public do not think that homosexuals are inferior. I agree with that, but it cannot be reconciled with the statement from the hon. Member for Hallam, who got it wrong. The public do not think that homosexuals are inferior, but they have a sense of unease about reducing the age of consent still further, from 18 to 16. We have to exercise our judgment on the age at which the criminal law should apply.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I wonder whether it is altogether wise at present for a Conservative Front Bencher to rest his case on opinion polls.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been with us throughout the debate, but several contributions have dealt with public opinion and we should take into account what the public have to say on this issue. This is not an occasion for party political points, and he has done the Committee no service by introducing such a note. The hon. Member for Hallam spoke about criminalising young people, but he must accept that we are being called on to exercise a judgment. The criminal law has to apply at a certain age, and I believe that that should be 18 rather than 16. We have heard many excellent speeches from Opposition Members on both sides of the argument. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who made an excellent speech, that the protection of young people should be of great concern and should go to the heart of what we are trying to do. He made the fair point that the clause takes away a certain amount of protection for 16 and 17-year-olds. We are trying, through our endeavours in the Standing Committee, to give young people protection from those who would abuse a position of trust. We have found that an extremely difficult task, and there may be more problems, but even those who support the clause must accept that it weakens the protection that is available. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) expressed characteristically honest and forceful views. He mentioned Oscar Wilde, and I shall certainly read with great interest the biography to which he referred. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was equally honest when he spoke about the need to protect young people and children. I agreed with him when he referred to the innocence of youth and childhood. Whatever the views of "Blue Peter" presenters these days, I seek to protect that innocence as much as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) expressed some forceful views that reflected a substantial element of public opinion. I do not agree with the conclusions of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), but I recognise that he made an excellent, powerful speech which contained a great deal of reason and emotion. He has clearly done a great deal of research and he made a very considered speech. He was right to bring the evidence that he found to our attention. He rightly referred to the importance of the Wolfenden report and the changes that it brought about, ushering in the age of tolerance, but I believe, personally, that he would do well to reflect on what Wolfenden said about the age of consent. Wolfenden fixed the age of consent at 21. The report also considered 16 and 18, and some members of the committee were in favour of 18, but the report made it very clear that people of 16 were too young and that young men were not mature enough at that age to engage in homosexual activity. I noted with great interest that, last June, the sole surviving member of the Wolfenden committee, Lord Mishcon, returned to the subject in an excellent debate in another place and once again said that 18, not 16, was the proper age. He still thought that, even in today's society, 16 was too young. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney made a moving speech, quoting a letter about the pain and suffering experienced by someone as a result of his homosexuality. It is right to use such moving material and there is no doubt that the subject causes deep emotion and heartache in families, but all that feeling will not be altered one scrap by a reduction in the age of consent from 18 to 16. A person in that situation will still find it painful and harrowing to have to talk to members of his family on the subject, and families will still have problems coming to terms with it. Homosexual acts should not be illegal, but we should be extremely careful about the age of consent. The letter illustrated the fact, also referred to by Wolfenden, that we are talking about a decision or experience for young people that will have a profound effect on them for the rest of their life. They should be protected from that decision until an appropriate age of maturity, and 16 is simply too young, as my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said. The majority of public opinion shares that view. People do not, by and large, dislike or fear homosexuals, although there may be some who are prejudiced and take that view. The large majority extend toleration and understanding to people of a homosexual disposition, but they still feel a deep sense of unease at the prospect of an age of consent at 16 rather than 18. They feel that, even though young people may grow up faster today, 16-year-olds are still far too young and need the protection of the law until they are 18. We must examine our consciences and ask whether we are doing right by our constituents and the young people of this country.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

This has been a long and wide-ranging debate. It has in many ways resembled a Second Reading debate, but, unlike the debate that we had at that stage, it has not always done us much credit. Bishops have been prayed in aid, Oscar Wilde has been traduced and every orifice has been explored. I do not intend to go down that path. We have to recognise that this clause stand part debate is about one thing, and one thing only—the equalisation of the age of consent. It is not about the protection of children and vulnerable people. That is something which we have explored upstairs in Committee, and it is something to which the House rightly gave considerable attention on Second Reading and to which it will return on Report. We are talking about equalisation. The points made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) deserve attention. They spoke about the welfare of children and the protection of young people. The question that those who support them have not answered is how it serves a 16 or 17-year-old boy to criminalise him for the expression of his sexuality.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

rose—

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

No, I shall not give way. That is the question that they have not been able to answer.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

Answer it now.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

The hon. Gentleman has had his say. They have not been able to answer that question because they must surely know that such a young person cannot be protected if he lives his life in fear, or if he, his doctor, the school nurse and all those who might have be concerned for his welfare are inhibited in meeting his needs by the fact that he stands in jeopardy before the criminal law. That is the point that we have been debating in our consideration of the Bill, and it is to that point that all hon. Members will need to turn their mind when they come to vote.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

rose—

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I shall give way in due course. It is a measure on which all Members will have an opportunity to exercise their vote freely. It is a measure to which all hon. Members will have to apply their judgment, and it is the judgment of those of us who support the clause that young people are better protected in the circumstances that we have outlined—by their being enabled freely to express their sexuality without fear of the intervention of the criminal law—than by being criminalised at the age of 16 and 17.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I know that the Minister is deeply concerned about child abuse and the welfare of young people, but he slightly traduces my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and me by suggesting that our focus is on criminalising young people. The issue is whether it is right for an older man to be able to introduce a 16 or 17-year-old to a homosexual life style to which he may be transitorily attracted.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

The issue is whether it is right to discriminate in those circumstances between heterosexual and homosexual acts. The concern of those of us who support the clause is not to do anything that would encourage 16 or 17-year-olds to have sex. That is not something which anyone seeks to encourage. Clearly, childhood needs to be protected and, where innocence can be protected, it should be. However, we do those young people no service by pretending that anything we do in relation to the criminal law will make one jot of difference to whether or not they engage in sexual activity. It will not. Young people of 16 and 17 will engage in sexual activity. Do we do them any favours by criminalising their actions? The view of those of us who support the clause is that we do no such thing. The clause is not to be viewed in the way that those who oppose it have on occasions described it. The clause is not a surrender to teenage carnality; it is, however, about recognising the importance of fairness and equality and about making sure, as we have elsewhere in the Bill, that those who have a special relationship of trust with 16 and 17-year-olds, with children and young people, should respect that trust or should face the full sanction of the criminal law. However, that is separate from the matters that we are considering, and hon. Members do no favours to anyone by merging the two. They are quite distinct. To suggest that people of a homosexual orientation are somehow more likely than not to be predators is to traduce people with a homosexual orientation. It is also to misunderstand and misinterpret all the evidence available to us about the incidence of abuse of children, which shows clearly and beyond any doubt that it is not possible to say that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children. The message that we have to send out is that abuse, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is abuse and that it will result in the full weight of the law being brought to bear on those who perpetrate it. It is quite wrong to suggest that those who will tonight vote for equality are somehow soft on child abuse. That is a wicked calumny, and does those Opposition Members who make that suggestion no favours. It is equally wrong to suggest that those who vote in favour of equality do so because they are the prisoners of a homosexual agenda, and that their next agenda will be geared towards homosexual marriage or the lowering still further of the age of consent. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government will have no truck with any suggestion that the homosexual or heterosexual age of consent should be lowered to 14. That is simply not part of our agenda or any agenda, and it is wrong to suggest otherwise. When we go into the Lobbies, let us be very clear about what we are voting on. We are voting on an issue of equality, on whether we believe that it is right to criminalise 16 or 17-year-old boys because they are expressing a homosexual orientation. If hon. Members believe that it is right to do that, they will vote against the proposition that there should be equality between the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual acts. If, however, hon. Members believe that it is right to respect people's differences and that it is right and proper to ensure that the law is equal as between all people, they will vote for the clause.

Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)

I shall detain the House for a just a moment longer—because the Minister declined to give way to me on a point on which he was demonstrably wrong. He said that he had not heard from those who opposed the measure why it was right to criminalise people below the current age of consent that he wishes to alter. It was pointed out time and again on Second Reading, by me and others, that that is a bogus argument because it is an argument against ages of consent generally. The purpose of ages of consent is not to criminalise the people below them but to criminalise those above them and stop them interfering with those below them. He may not like that answer, but he is wrong to say that the question has not been answered. I am surprised that he did not do his homework on that matter.

Water Industry Bill

PROVISIONS FOR WALES

Cynog Dafis (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would give the National Assembly for Wales maximum discretion on water policy in Wales. I spoke on Second Reading about the significance of water as a political, economic and ecological issue of major importance to Wales. I do not intend to rehearse the series of arguments that I made; I shall simply recall the main points. Water is a priceless asset—we are only just beginning to realise just how priceless it is. As a resource, it will be in increasingly short supply over coming years and decades. Wales should be allowed to utilise that asset responsibly—of course—and in the interests of Wales and its people, in the context of sustainable development, which the National Assembly for Wales has a specific duty to promote. The circumstances of water supply in Wales are very different from those in much, if not all, of England. Wales has a plentiful water supply. There is no prospect of Wales suffering a shortfall in water supply, even in the worst-case scenario of increasing demand and a diminution of supply as a result of climate change and other factors. There is, however, likely to be a significant shortfall of supply in parts of England, especially the south-east. Such different circumstances will result in different priorities, as on investment, as I spelt out on Second Reading. That could mean that Wales adopts a different charging system, because charges reflect such issues as the availability of supply. I argued on Second Reading that it is unacceptable to bundle together legislation for Wales with that for England, when the Bill makes separate provision for Scotland. The new clause would allow decisions on the Bill's provisions to be delegated to the National Assembly, which would enable it to make different provision on matters such as disconnection, charging, and so on. An example of the need for different provision is found in the recent Environment Agency proposals for limitations on angling in rivers in England and Wales. Angling is enormously important socially, culturally and, in large parts of Wales, economically, due to tourism, for example. The Environment Agency is proposing byelaws that impose uniform limitations on angling, such as on seasons, throughout England and Wales. That is a bad approach. Such limitations ought to be devised on the basis of river catchment areas. I believe that the proposals have more to do with the Environment Agency's administrative convenience than ecological or economic realities. I and other hon. Members have written to the Secretary of State for Wales asking that implementation on this very important issue be postponed until after the Assembly has been able to debate it and come up with appropriate byelaws for Wales—different ones, I dare say. I hope very much that the Secretary of State will listen to what is being said to him on a cross-party basis. It is an illustration of the need for a different approach in Wales that reflects its reality. What is the point, one might ask, of devolution, unless we can make our own different policies in Wales? Many might ask what is the point of establishing a National Assembly if it is not able to make decisions on such important subjects as water policy. 8 pm The new clause is not especially about disagreeing with the specific proposals in the Bill. I do not disagree with the proposals in relation to disconnection, although I would have serious reservations about the process of facilitating and promoting metering as a method of charging. The new clause is about the powers of the National Assembly for Wales, and about how legislation in London that affects Wales should be drafted.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has said that he does not object to key parts of this provision, because the continuation of rateable value as the basis for unmeasured charging is vital for most of our communities. I trust that he will not cast any doubt on that issue.

Cynog Dafis (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I am grateful for that intervention, and I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I feel that we need a better basis for charging than rateable value, which is well out of date. The best proposal is to charge on the basis of council tax banding; we should adopt that method. The danger of continuing to use rateable value is that, by doing so, we postpone the day when we can adopt such a method. However, the issue before us is how legislation that has such an important impact on Wales should be drafted. The Government of Wales Act 1998 gives English Ministries—I suppose that, technically, I should say England and Wales Ministries, but, from the point of view of Wales, they will be seen as English Ministries—specific override powers in relation to water policy in Wales. The Welsh Office guide to the powers of the National Assembly, entitled "Making a Difference in Wales", puts it thus: The Assembly will have all relevant functions to deal with water supply and water quality in Wales. That is good. However, if UK Ministers believe its actions in authorising discharges into rivers flowing into England, or allowing water to be abstracted from such rivers, or its actions in time of drought, would have a serious impact on England, they would be able to intervene to prevent the Assembly acting in such a way. It speaks similarly about the Environment Agency. I do not believe that such override powers are the right answer to what is a reasonable question. The guide does say—rather graciously—on the previous page that the Government do not believe that the National Assembly would wish to prevent people in England from having adequate water supplies. That is big of them; I am sure that the Assembly would not want to do that. However, I do not think that override powers are necessary. Other methods could have been used. There could have been a requirement for there to be consideration—a requirement for meetings to reach a consensus on how any conflict of interest might be resolved. I do believe, however, that the National Assembly should be able to override policy proposals in Westminster legislation if it does not agree with them. It should have that power in general terms. Would that we had had such powers many, many times in recent years. Wales would be in better shape if we had had such powers. The time will come—the sooner, the better—when the National Assembly will have full legislative powers, as the Scottish Parliament has. I am confident that that day will come. We might as well get it done as soon as possible. However, meanwhile, any primary legislation drafted in London surely must in future give the National Assembly maximum latitude to vary provision by secondary legislation. The Government should surely accept that principle. Legislation should routinely contain such provision when drafted. It should have been done in the case of the Bill. The new clause applies to clauses 1 to 11—the clauses that relate to England and Wales—and there are consequential changes to be made to clauses 16 and 17. The new clause would do what the drafters of the Bill should have done. We are merely putting right a deficiency in the legislative approach. There has been much debate in Wales and Westminster on the National Assembly's limited legislative functions. Apologists for the Government's approach—giving the National Assembly only secondary powers—would argue that not having primary powers is not a big deal, because primary legislation can be drafted so as to allow the National Assembly, which will have total democratic legitimacy in Wales, to draft legislation to make provision appropriate for Wales, however different that might be. I am not arguing for difference for the sake of difference; I am arguing for the right to be different in order to be appropriate to the special circumstances that apply in Wales. In that spirit, and bearing in mind the fact that we merely want to correct a deficiency—that we are doing what the drafters of the Bill should have done—I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. It is an opportunity to show willingness to legislate to empower the National Assembly for Wales, while retaining the primary legislative function in London. I expect and hope—well, I hope—that the Government will accept the new clause on that basis. If they do not, that augurs rather badly for future legislation. Alternatively, the Government might like to say that they consider that the issue is serious enough to merit further consideration in what is quaintly called the other place. If the Government were to say that they would consider exempting Wales from the requirements of the Bill by tabling an amendment in the Lords, we would be very pleased. However, I want to say something to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff—which one is it?

Cynog Dafis (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

That is right. I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman and other Ministers say that they recognise that future legislation should be universally drafted so that the secondary powers of the National Assembly give it the latitude that it needs if it is to put in place the strategies to enable us to build the new Wales. I look forward to the Government's response.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

When I first arrived in the House, I was instructed that, among the many people whom I would come across, bizarrely, the nicest would be Welsh nationalists. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) is no exception to that rule, and he has treated us to the delightful—and apparently charming—prospect of a slight technical amendment to the Bill to achieve what he described as an efficiency. As a matter of fact, the Conservative party in Wales strongly disapproves of the hon. Gentleman's views. [Laughter.] Yes, it is a matter of amusement to us that the Government's actions in these matters will have substantially recreated the Conservative party in Wales and its representation, as Ministers were good enough to admit—perhaps more than the Government originally reckoned on. However, the Conservative party in Wales differs from the hon. Member for Ceredigion on the matter of substance, in that its position is that if this is a good Bill for England, it cannot see why it would be a bad Bill for Wales. The Minister for the Environment has waxed eloquent on the Bill's virtues, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and I have never opposed the general principles underlying it, as Ministers know. Therefore we have argued that it is—taken by and large, and with some defects—good for England, and so good also for Wales. However, it is not on that matter of substance that I want to argue very strongly against the new clause. The hon. Member for Ceredigion raised, in a short speech, just about every major constitutional mistake that could be made in taking forward the relationship between the House and the National Assembly, and his new clause, alas, accurately reflects that programme. Water, as the Minister will very well know, is included as item 17 in schedule 2 to the Government of Wales Act 1998. Hence it is appropriate that it also appears as a subject in the remarkable set of documents that the Transfer of Functions (National Assembly for Wales) Order 1999 and its appendices have become. I do not think that the Minister was present for the entirety of our discussion on the order during the proceedings on the Government of Wales Bill. However, he may recall that there was a great deal of discussion of just what that order would do. No one doubted that its sole intent—the structure of what became the Government of Wales Act ensured that it would have as its sole intent—was to allow Ministers through the order, under the aegis of the House and Parliament, to transfer authorities that now reside with a Minister at Westminster to the Welsh Assembly. It is a critical component of the architecture of the Government of Wales Act that there was no suggestion that there would be under that transfer of functions any transfer of powers that resided elsewhere than with the Minister, and certainly no transfer of powers that resided with this Parliament under that order. That would have carried the Henry VIII principles far further than even Ministers in their most daring moments were willing to take them under that transfer of functions order. There is a large range of powers relating to water residing with Ministers. They are well covered, if not completely, in the descriptions of all the powers that are to be transferred under the order in relation to the Water Industry Act 1991 and its sequels and accompaniments. Every one of those powers is, as it should be, a power currently with the Minister. There is no suggestion anywhere of the transfer of anything other than a power that resides with the Minister. Unfortunately, the power that is the subject of the new clause—this takes us back to section 61 of the Water Industry Act 1991—is not the main power; it is not a power of the Minister—it is the power of the water undertakings to disconnect. The new clause would do something wholly outwith the spirit of the Government of Wales Act. It would arrange things so that the Welsh Assembly was able to legislate on a power that belongs to a third party. It would achieve that effect in another piece of legislation taken through this Parliament and not in the transfer of functions order. There are three reasons why that is of the greatest possible constitutional significance. First, there is what we can properly describe only as the ratchet effect. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will not disagree with this part of my analysis, though he will certainly disagree with my conclusion. It is fair to say that although this is hardly a packed Chamber, even some Labour Members present would have been extremely disheartened if anyone had suggested that the Bill and the new clause would be used as a method of doing the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do—that is to diminish rather than augment the powers of the Welsh Assembly. Had that been proposed by myself or my hon. Friends this evening, the hon. Gentleman would rapidly have left his place and shot off to the nearest porthole of the BBC or its Welsh equivalent to start broadcasting vehemently about the appalling attack on everything that matters in the world being perpetrated by Members who were suggesting a diminution of the powers of the Welsh Assembly. However, not many days—certainly not many weeks or months—after the passage of the Government of Wales Act, we find the hon. Member for Ceredigion and his entire parliamentary party coming forward with a new clause that significantly augments the powers of the Welsh Assembly. I prophesy—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not mind my so doing—that this will not be the last such attempt. I rather think that for as long as they, with their eloquence and persistence, hold their seats in this place, and for as long as the Government bring forward legislation that includes the words "England and Wales", we shall see on almost every occasion amendments brought forward to augment the powers of the Welsh Assembly in respect of a wide range of legislation. The new clause is just the first example. That is why I am strongly labouring the point that it is a ratchet. We shall never be allowed to get away with proposing any diminution, in any other legislation, of the powers of the Welsh Assembly. However, if we are not careful, we shall see before us dozens, if not hundreds, of amendments to every form of legislation seeking insidiously to increase the powers of the Welsh Assembly. 8.15 pm That is not anything that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would be ashamed of doing. On the contrary, it is part of their programme. I fully accept that. However, it is important that the House recognises how radical a proposal that is, and that tonight it sets a precedent—I hope very much that my remarks will have the support of Ministers—by refusing to be a party to that sort of ratchet. If the new clause is pressed to a Division, and if, by any strange mischance, Ministers should find themselves and their colleagues in the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and his colleagues, Ministers will have fulfilled in the most unfortunate fashion that dreadful phrase that the former Secretary of State for Wales used when we discussed these matters on Second Reading and in Committee on the Bill that became the Government of Wales Act. The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) used to say that devolution was not an end point but a process. In the circumstances that I have described, it will become a process—[Interruption.] I rather thought that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and his hon. Friends would not object to that. It will become a process that will lead us ineluctably to the very point that the hon. Gentleman lightly animadverted to when he said—I think that I paraphrase him accurately enough—that in due course, almost inevitably, there will be legislative powers to transfer legislative powers to the Welsh Assembly. Apart from the ratchet effect, the second reason why I think that it is of the greatest importance that the House pays serious attention to the new clause, and why I think that it is of the greatest importance that the House rejects it, is that the new clause, if it were accepted, would drive a coach and horses through the very mechanism which the Government of Wales Act sets up and which the Government believe that they have had established in order to get a grip from Westminster over affairs in Wales. There is a reason why the transfer of functions order is as it is. There is a reason why it is not cast in a way that mirrors the new clause. The text of the new clause says nothing about transferring functions. Instead, it states: The National Assembly for Wales shall … consider the provisions of this Act and make decisions". What relationship does that set up between the House and the National Assembly for Wales? It is a relationship of advice on the part of the House and consideration and decision on the part of the Welsh Assembly. By contrast, the transfer of functions order allows the House to allow a Minister to transfer some Executive authority from himself to another body. These are wholly different constitutional relationships. The attempt behind the structure and architecture of the Government of Wales Act was to give Ministers a grip on what was transferred and hence to create a natural obstacle to the ratchet effect by ensuring that no new powers would be automatically transferred and that no new scope would be given to the Welsh Assembly, whereas the new clause would obviously militate in exactly the opposite direction. If it were mirrored in a series of subsequent pieces of legislation, the National Assembly for Wales would gradually acquire the powers to consider the provisions of a range of English and Welsh Acts and to decide whether it would implement them. At that point, the distinction between a secondary legislative body and a primary legislative body would have virtually disappeared. That is, of course, the modest intent of the hon. Member for Ceredigion.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The hon. Gentleman will, of course, accept that the Welsh Assembly will have the power to change primary legislation with regard to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1997 and some other Acts associated with that.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I regret to say that, not surprisingly, the right hon. Gentleman is right. I and various of my hon. Friends lamented that at an earlier stage, but you will tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is not an appropriate matter for us to consider tonight. There is no doubt that precedents are already established, but they are strictly limited. The new clause would greatly extend the scope of those precedents and carry them into legislation other than the Government of Wales Act 1998. There is no doubt what that programme is—I would say "game", but it is in deadly earnest; it is a serious constitutional programme. The Welsh nationalists are attempting to use the new clause as the basis for getting to the point where the Welsh Assembly becomes de facto a primary legislative body. Unless Ministers were willing, as we would be if the motion were pressed to a Division, to state clearly that that is unacceptable, they would be driving a coach and horses through the structure of their own Government of Wales Act. There is a third point. This is a question not merely about the form of what is being done, but about the scope. In new clause 1, it is suggested that the Welsh Assembly should have the power to consider, first, whether the provisions of an English and Welsh Act should apply, and secondly, whether to substitute different provisions. The substitution of different provisions carries us a stage beyond what I have described—not simply into a matter of form, but into a matter of substance. The new clause, surprisingly, is a new constitution for Wales in the making. It gives the Welsh Assembly directly, in UK law, the ability to make law. At that point, the distinction between primary and secondary legislation disappears. It is a remarkably cunningly drafted clause. It has been drafted in such a way that as the ratchet effect occurs and as such a provision is introduced for Bill after Bill, a new constitution will have been made without ever having been discussed or declared. Quite apart from whether the Welsh people want a primary legislative body in Wales—they were never asked—that is no way for a constitution to be made. That is my third point. Even if it were right that the Welsh Assembly should have the power to consider and decide on the provisions of the Act, and even if it were right that it should, in general, have the power to substitute for Acts new de facto primary legislation, it would not be right that that should be introduced in this manner. It should be introduced only after mature consideration, possibly with a referendum and certainly with a White Paper and a great deal of debate and discussion. The third reason that Ministers would be acting wrongly if they had the slightest inclination to go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and his colleagues is that they would be admitting that it was proper to introduce such constitutional change on the sly.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful constitutional point. Has he considered the practical question of what would happen if Welsh Water, by this means, charged or applied regulations differently in Wales and in the large area around Bristol that it supplies? For example, Welsh Water could use the council tax in Wales, but would still have to use the rateable values in Bristol and elsewhere.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

My hon. Friend is right. That brings us to the question of the borders. I treat the subject with some hesitation because there are hon. Members present who remember that it was not my most glorious moment when I mistook the location of certain schools. That was due to a postal address confusion. That episode, shameful as it was in my case, illustrated all too clearly the very problems to which my hon. Friend refers. There are issues of great complexity that relate to the borders, and problems might arise in practice if the new clause were enacted and if, as a result of its enactment, the Welsh Assembly decided to take steps that led to Welsh Water behaving quite differently from the English undertakings. There is nothing in the new clause—this is what is so remarkable about it—that substantively causes that problem. The clause is drafted in a constitutional spirit. It says nothing about the outcome or about what the Welsh Assembly should or would decide. The hon. Member for Ceredigion made that clear. It is, so to speak, a permissive clause. It is, in other words, a transfer of powers. The new clause is a constitutional clause. It is intended to be that and has been drafted well. Unfortunately, it has none of the surroundings that would make it legitimate. If the House has any purpose—especially at 8.26 on an evening when it is hardly full—it is to bring to light the fact that something is being done that has consequences far beyond the apparently modest intent of the clause. I apologise to the House for having laboured the point. I know that some hon. Members present would have wished me to be more concise or to say nothing. However, it is of the utmost importance that these matters be put on record. I hope that we will hear from Labour Members who share the constitutional concerns that I have expressed—I see some of them in their places. I hope that it will be established that those concerns are not merely the concerns of the Opposition, but are widely shared in the House. I hope that when subsequent Bills are considered, and similar clauses are moved, people will be able to point back to the debate tonight as proof that we were awake and alive to the problems, and that we understood the implications, rejected them and set no such precedent. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how much he agrees with everything that I have said and how strongly he will move his colleagues into the No Lobby if there is a Division. If that occurs, we can let the Government off the hook of any complicity in this gunpowder plot, little and delightful as it may appear to be.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I shall be brief, but I shall make some fundamental points. We Liberal Democrats support new clause 1, which would restrict sections 1 to 11 and 16 and 17 to England, and determine that such a decision should be in the ambit of the Welsh Assembly.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

rose—

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I have just started my speech. I will give way at an appropriate moment. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that this would occur in Bill after Bill. We are considering the Water Industry Bill. He said that arrangements in England and Wales had to be virtually the same, but we have our own water company—Dwr Cymru or Welsh Water—which already behaves differently. It prefers to run a charging policy based on rateable value. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, we want such flexibility because it might, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) said, be based on council tax banding, for example. In short, it might be more appropriate. 8.30 pm That brings me to the subject of metering. Welsh Water would prefer to stick with the rateable value. I believe that it is open-minded about the council tax banding issue. But because Wales requires a huge water pipe infrastructure, because the sparsity of population in many places requires miles and miles of piping, different circumstances obtain in Wales. New clause 1 says that the Welsh Assembly should have an input into how the matter is proceeded with. I am a keen fisherman, and the issues of compensatory flow, for example, in Welsh rivers, and the abstraction of water from rivers in different places, are important. I have asked many questions in the past about whether compensatory flow is adequate in certain circumstances to sustain the ecology, the fish population and many other matters. Sometimes we must look carefully to see whether rules exist. As the hon. Member for West Dorset knows full well, there is a precedent. The Government of Wales Act 1998 acknowledges, for example, that if reservoirs are constructed in Wales the Welsh Assembly should be consulted as to their acceptability.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be embarking on a speech even more profoundly inclined to make people sleep than mine, but will he keep the House awake an instant further and tell us whether it is Liberal Democrat policy that a precedent should be set in this case permitting the constitutional transfer of powers—legislative powers—from this House to the Welsh Assembly; or is he merely making the point about this Bill, and is willing to state that it is not his party's policy to allow such a precedent to be set?

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The hon. Gentleman will realise that the Liberal Democrats are federalists and believe that decision making should occur at the appropriate level in the Government of the United Kingdom. Perhaps even the hon. Gentleman will admit that water, Wales's greatest natural resource, is an important issue to the Members of the Welsh Assembly. They will want to contribute to and influence policy on, for example, water regulations. Water is a politically sensitive issue in Wales, of which the House is surely aware. New clause 1 is a way of satisfying the needs and circumstances of Wales where they differ from those of England.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but I beg him to answer the question, which is perfectly fair and clear. Is he trying to establish a precedent, or does he think that this is a one-off measure which should not be regarded as a precedent?

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I do not wish to extend my speech to the length of the hon. Gentleman's. I merely say that we are discussing the Water Industry Bill and I am addressing—

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

No, I shall not give way now. We are specifically debating the Water Industry Bill. The hon. Member for West Dorset led me on to other paths, to which I have referred. If the hon. Gentleman insists that we have no influence in Wales on policy governing our greatest natural resource, that is an extreme view indeed.

Cynog Dafis (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I ask for clarification; it is better to have it at this stage than later. Is the Minister saying that the Assembly could ensure that a charging policy significantly different from that in England might be pursued in Wales? May we in Wales not implement any proposal that would encourage and facilitate the slide towards metering? Could the Assembly ensure that we move towards a fair system of charging, based on council tax banding, for example? Is he saying that the Assembly would be able to ensure such an outcome?

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

Will the Minister give way?

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My question is purely for clarification. Before he took the intervention from the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), was the Minister referring to clause 5 and the powers of the Secretary of State by regulations to make provisions for charging? Does he accept that any such transfer would of course be by a transfer of functions order or by the enlargement of the draft transfer of functions order?

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

I had not intended to make a speech at this stage, but the Minister said something so fundamental that it is important to clear the matter up now, so that we are under no misapprehensions as to what he said. I understood from our debate in Committee that clause 5 and the words the Secretary of State by regulations apply to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and that he, within the ambit of the Bill, will make the regulations and give the instructions to the regulator. It never occurred to me during those debates that there was any intention to transfer those powers to the Secretary of State for Wales or any other individual. I would appreciate it if the junior Minister intervened to settle the matter, on a point of information. He will agree, in the light of our debate, that the matter is very important.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

I will, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Through the hon. Gentleman, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether some of these issues will be the subject of a concordat?

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Through me, he invited the Minister to reply. I should be grateful if the Minister replied to my point and then dealt with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I ask the Minister to clear this point up, so that there can be no mistake and no misunderstanding. Will he clarify the reference in clause 5 to "the Secretary of State"? Which Secretary of State is referred to? Are there any proposals to transfer the powers in clause 5 to the Secretary of State for Wales? That is an urgent and important point for the Assembly.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

Is the Minister saying that, for Wales, there will be a transfer of functions from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Secretary of State for Wales?

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

Will the Minister clarify?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Interventions should come voluntarily: in the other direction, as it were. The hon. Gentleman makes matters untidy by inviting interventions. He should make his point so that we can get on with the business.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that that is untidy, but the Minister unexpectedly made some comments that made the whole subject somewhat untidy and confusing. I thought that the easiest way to tidy it up would be to take that slightly unconventional approach. However, I fully accept your ruling. Obviously, we will read Hansard extremely carefully tomorrow morning because a potential problem has unexpectedly arisen with regard to the Welsh Assembly and the Secretary of State. The problem may not exist and if we can clear that matter up, it will put all our minds at rest.

Cynog Dafis (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to bring this debate to an end. I had not realised what a constitutional can of worms I was opening in moving the new clause. My intention was much more modest than that for which the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) gives me credit. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman regards with horror the idea that Wales should be allowed to evolve, for example, its own charging policy. He seems to think it an awful prospect that Wales should be allowed to develop different policies of that sort. Such a decision could be important if the Assembly is, for example, to deliver its social justice agenda. For example, it is important for the Assembly to be able to consider what charging policy is likely to be equitable and to favour low-income families who have high water demands—of course within the context of environmental sustainability.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who gives way with his customary courtesy. I want to clarify that I do not view with any horror the making of regulations by the Welsh Assembly, under a transfer of functions order, when, under clause 5 of the Bill, a Secretary of State here would be given that power. That is entirely within the spirit of the Government of Wales Act 1998. I regard with horror the hon. Gentleman's new clause, which goes far beyond that in its constitutional intent.

Cynog Dafis (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

If the Government were prepared to table an amendment to achieve what I am trying to achieve in my new clause, but in a less constitutionally earth-shaking manner, I should be happy to hear about it from the Under-Secretary of State. It is terribly important for the Assembly to be able to deliver its own agenda on an issue of this sort. The hon. Member for West Dorset said that the Government of Wales Act gave Ministers a "grip"—I did not particularly like the metaphor—on the situation and that he wanted them to retain that grip and not let the Assembly gradually slide into acquiring greater powers and discretion. He spoke at length about transfer of functions and so forth. It was not my understanding that my new clause recommended any transfer as such. I was looking for a mechanism to allow the Assembly latitude to work within the functions that it already has. If that cannot be achieved without a transfer of functions, then the case for such a transfer is obviously strengthened. I make no secret of the fact that I want such a transfer. It is important to understand that the agenda for the next five years is to establish a useful working relationship between the Assembly and this place to enable devolution to be a success. In its first stages, that will involve give and take on both sides. It involves designing and drafting legislation—without transferring functions—that will enable the Assembly to have as much discretion as possible. It should have considerable discretion in education and other policy areas.

Ted Rowlands (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

That was the whole concept of concordats. Has the hon. Gentleman thought about that?

Cynog Dafis (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Yes, I have, but I will not pursue that issue in detail at this stage, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. Legislation should be designed in such a way as to give the Assembly maximum latitude and flexibility. I listened carefully to Minister, because I was hoping to have absolute clarification. I asked him whether the Assembly could ensure a distinct charging policy in Wales. I got the impression that that was not the case, and that that could not be done satisfactorily. If it is not the case, I am not satisfied.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I admire the hon. Gentleman's interpretive and exegetical skills. I was wholly unable to discern any clear meaning in what the Minister said. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would invite the Minister—if your patience would allow, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to clarify what on earth he was on about.

Cynog Dafis (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

If the Minister wants to intervene, I shall allow him to do so. I shall not urge him to intervene, however, given what Mr. Deputy Speaker has said.

Cynog Dafis (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Right then, I have a further question. Will the Assembly be able to depart from the provisions in the Bill to facilitate metering? I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of metering, but will the Assembly be able not to allow free metering and the right to revoke the arrangement after a year? It is important to have that power. I do not want more and more metering to be encouraged, because the price that those who are not on meters would have to pay would put them at a disadvantage. That would be a regressive social policy. My understanding is that such latitude would not be available to the Assembly. I am therefore unable to withdraw the motion, and we shall force it to a Division.

DISCONNECTION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF CHARGES

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'excluded premises' and insert 'any premises specified in Schedule 4A to this Act'.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I shall speak to all the Government amendments—Nos. 31 to 35, the manuscript amendment and new schedule 1—as they are all essentially part of the same package. They also deal with the substance of the Opposition amendments Nos. 13 to 24, so my remarks will address each of the premises described in those amendments. The Government manuscript amendment, which deals with a minor and consequential matter, should be made at the same time as the other, substantive Government amendments, and, with the leave of the House, I should like to make that correction at the first opportunity, rather than leaving it to be dealt with in another place. In Committee, we had a lengthy debate about the extent of protection against disconnection. Our main focus has been to protect household customers, so that vulnerable families and individuals do not face the possibility of being deprived of water, which is harmful to their well-being and damaging to public health. The Government are determined to improve the health of the nation, and this measure will play a part in that overall strategy. We recognise that premises other than households also fully deserve extra protection from disconnection and the use of limiting devices to enforce payment. Depriving such premises of their water supply could be harmful to particularly vulnerable groups that are of concern to society as a whole or to essential services. It is obvious that schools and hospitals fall into that category, so we have ensured that such premises could not be faced with the threat of disconnection. In debate, the case was put for extending protection to a further range of premises that also provide important services to the community. I agreed that I would carefully and sympathetically consider such cases and would be prepared to table amendments to the Bill to ensure that, where it was necessary for good social reasons, protection would be offered against disconnection and the use of limiting devices, such as trickle valves, to enforce payment. We have done that in amendments Nos. 31 to 35, new schedule 1 and the manuscript amendment, which would offer extended protection, notably in medical care, personal care and education. I shall briefly spell out the implications of that wide set of proposed changes. First, on medical premises, we propose to prevent disconnection for non-payment by nursing homes and mental nursing homes; premises used by registered medical practitioners and dentists; premises used as a pilot scheme for primary care under the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997; ambulance services and other emergency services. Much nursing care is provided in hospitals, as they are described in section 11 of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984. A relatively small number of premises fall outside that definition but offer vital nursing care to those who are mentally or physically ill. Those nursing homes provide care for vulnerable members of society and the Government consider that it is right to prevent such patients from being put at risk from the threat of disconnection of the water supply for non-payment of bills. We have also considered carefully the case for extending protection to premises used by doctors and dentists. They do not, of course, provide the same degree of residential care as hospitals or nursing homes. However, they can and do provide an essential level of front-line care, and they do carry out a technically important role in the community. Primary care services play a vital role in protecting and improving the nation's health. On balance, therefore, we think that the case has been made for the protection of such premises against disconnection for non-payment of bills. For similar reasons, we propose to extend protection also to surgeries—not necessarily headed by general practitioners—under the primary care pilot scheme. The ambulance service represents a further crucial component of medical care, particularly in emergency cases. Disconnection of premises at which the ambulance service is based could lead to deterioration in service or in response times, which could put members of the public in danger. I should be the first to recognise that the ambulance service is not the only service which saves lives and protects the public in emergency situations, as the same is true of police and fire services. We therefore propose to extend protection against disconnection to ambulance services, police forces and fire brigades.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

rose—

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I should be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is always diligent.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his compliment—I am as diligent as I possibly can be in the circumstances. Perhaps he will enlighten the House by explaining the circumstances in which fire, police or ambulance services could be disconnected. Is the provision not a worthless act? Moreover, he has exempted only premises occupied by the fire brigade but not, so far as I am able to tell from reading the Bill, fire hydrants. Therefore, if the fire service fails to pay its bill, is it not possible that, when it turns up at a fire, it will discover that the fire hydrant has been turned off?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The issue of fire hydrants—their availability and usability—is covered by other Acts of Parliament.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

What about this Bill?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

In this Bill, we are dealing with whether there should be protection from disconnection because of non-payment of bills. We are simply proposing that, in the case of all front-line emergency services, there should not be any risk of disconnection for non-payment. As I said many times when we were discussing the issue in Committee, in my view, the likelihood of such disconnections occurring in the case of the public services that we are talking about—the police service or the fire brigade—is exceedingly unlikely. The history of the past 10 years shows that the number of times on which there have been disconnections in such cases is virtually zero. Nevertheless, taking the spirit of what was pressed on me in Committee, I want there to be absolutely no risk that those who could be endangered because of disconnection will be so endangered. It is for that reason that I have now erred on the side of including all institutions that could in any way cause difficulties to members of the public in emergency situations or to those who are vulnerable, disabled or ill. They should be fully protected.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The Minister is, of course, right to say that there are almost no imaginable circumstances in which premises occupied by the fire brigade would be disconnected. Equally, there are almost no imaginable circumstances in which a fire hydrant would be disconnected. The nature of my earlier intervention was therefore to ask why he has decided to specify that the premises occupied by the fire brigade will not be disconnected but omitted to specify that fire hydrants will not be disconnected. My reading of the provision is that if the fire service fails to pay its water bill because of some clerical error, although the fire headquarters will not be disconnected, it is perfectly possible that hydrants in the street will be disconnected. Will he correct my misapprehension—if that is what it is?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The implication of the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that every building—including every private sector building and every commercial building—with a fire hydrant should be protected against disconnection for non-payment. That goes a great deal further even than the latitude that I have been prepared to allow. In respect of non-household premises, we believe that water companies should have the right to disconnect on the basis of non-payment. The only cases where I am prepared to consider protection is where members of the public who are vulnerable or in an emergency situation could be disadvantaged or endangered. I am not prepared to go beyond that principle. 9.15 pm I wish to refer to premises providing personal care. In this area, very strong arguments have made for protecting children's homes. I have made clear the importance that we attach to protecting children, and propose to prohibit the disconnection of children's homes. As some hon. Members may be aware, there are processes for local authorities to remove children from homes that do not provide an acceptable level of care. A home which could not provide children with water would clearly be failing in this respect. That provides considerable assurance that these vulnerable members of our society will not have to suffer the consequences of disconnection. I am erring on the side of caution, but there are no absolute guarantees that the relevant local authority would become aware immediately that a home had had its water supply disconnected. I therefore consider that it is right to extend protection in this way to provide full assurance on this point to children living in children's homes. On due reflection, we propose also to extend protection to residential care homes. By prohibiting disconnection of nursing homes, we shall protect those receiving nursing care. However, there is a wider group of vulnerable people who need the board and personal care provided by residential care homes. These include residents of homes for older people and, for example, residential premises providing personal care for people with learning disabilities. There is a process of registration for residential care homes provided by the private sector, similar to that for children's homes. That provides considerable assurance that residents will not experience deprivation where homes fail to secure a supply a water because they would be deregistered. However, for exactly the same reasons that I have outlined, we think that it is right to provide the added reassurance by prohibiting disconnection of such premises. I refer now to prisons and immigration detention centres. This further category of accommodation was brought to my attention in Committee. Prisoners do not automatically spring to mind as those among the most vulnerable in society. However, they do not have a choice in where they reside. [Laughter.] We hope that that continues to be the case. A significant proportion of the prison population could be affected if one prison had its water disconnected, requiring the transfer of inmates to other establishments. I can, therefore, see that there is a legitimate case for protecting such premises. The amendment therefore prohibits disconnection for the non-payment of bills for prisons, remand centres, young offender institutions and secure training centres. For the same reasons, protection will be extended to immigration detention centres. I wish to refer to education and children's day care. In education, we propose to protect premises used for children's day care and premises used for further and higher education—a point referred to by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). Schools, where attendance is compulsory, are already protected under the Bill. However, the Government are not focusing our efforts only on children of compulsory school age. The national child care strategy recognises that pre-school provision can have a major influence on children's development through their school years and beyond. Day care centres do not involve compulsory attendance, but we think that the case is made for extending protection in such cases, to ensure that children have appropriate facilities. At the other end of the spectrum, further and higher education premises also do not involve compulsory attendance, but it would cause substantial upheaval if they became victims of disconnection through no fault of their own so, on balance, we support the prohibition of disconnection for such establishments, including student halls of residence.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Compared with his continual interventions in Committee, the hon. Gentleman's abstinence has been remarkable, so I am glad to give way.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

I cannot remember from our discussions in Committee whether the definition of schools includes boarding schools.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

It includes boarding schools and schools in both the public and the private sector. We have made no distinction. I want to add, for the sake of completeness, that I made two important commitments on the clause in Committee. I assured the Committee that the Government would not allow sheltered housing for the elderly to be disconnected and I said that we wanted to protect tenants in bedsits. I want to confirm that the amendments that we have proposed would indeed cover those properties. In line with our general approach on dwellings, disconnection of such premises will not be permitted in the case of properties that are someone's only or principal home. We have taken the considered view, following the line of argument so eloquently and determinedly put to me in Committee, that we should provide for increased protection against disconnection and against the use of limiting devices to enforce payment, but I am sure that the House will recognise that our proposals continue to be carefully targeted on homes and premises that provide a vital role in the community. We do not seek to inhibit the operations of water companies more than is necessary to meet the key welfare concerns that have been raised. Water companies in England and Wales will still have the ability to disconnect the vast majority of non-household premises for failure to pay bills. We still think that that is right. In providing protection against disconnection, we have looked at the purpose of specific premises. We have not discriminated between the private and public sector bodies, or charitable organisations, that provide those key services. The Government have emphasised the importance that we attach to the prompt payment of bills for Departments and public sector bodies. I do not expect that there will be any adverse impact on water companies' income as a result of the measures, despite the long list of exemptions and protections, but the proposals in the Government amendments are designed to provide absolute assurance to members of the public who may be adversely affected as a result of disconnection and to ensure that, in cases in which we believe as a matter of principle that it is right to protect against disconnection, appropriate measures are put in place. I hope that I have listened attentively to all that was pressed on me and that I have responded positively and met the will of the House.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

It is an especial pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman. A significant number of amendments were tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends after our discussions in Committee. The Minister generously said in Committee that he would reflect on the points made by Opposition Members on a range of matters. If I remember rightly, it was two days ago that the Government tabled the new schedule and the ancillary amendments which, because of the procedures of the House, effectively leapfrogged the amendments tabled by the Conservative party, which urged the Government to adopt this point of view. I must confess that when the Bill was first published and when we were studying it in the run-up to Second Reading and the Committee stage, we were puzzled not only that the Government had specified in clause 1 that the Bill would apply to domestic dwellings that were the prime residence of individuals, but that it would apply to two other categories—schools and hospitals. As the Minister rightly said in Committee, no school or hospital has had its water supply disconnected because of non-payment of bills. We would all be extremely surprised if that had been the case. Nevertheless, the Government felt that it was important that these two types of institutions should be specified in the Bill so that there could be no confusion about the Government's intention. We were genuinely puzzled that the Government should restrict the specified bodies to the two types in question, important though they are. On reflection, we came to believe that there were several other equally important types of institution which, were the water to be disconnected because of non-payment, could cause serious public health risks and other problems. Given that the Government had conceded the point by specifying hospitals and schools, we felt that it was important that, for example, children's homes and registered homes for the elderly should also be mentioned. Some of the most frail and vulnerable members of society live in registered homes. By definition, they are not responsible for payment of the water bills, but they could be adversely affected if the owners of residential homes, or those responsible for running those homes, omitted to pay the bills, because of irresponsibility, a genuine mishap or forgetfulness.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that our bewilderment about schools and hospitals being specified in the Bill remains, as there is absolutely no purpose to the provision? Does he further agree that the categories set out in the new schedule and, indeed, in our amendments are perhaps much more worthwhile on the ground that there is a greater likelihood of, for example, a privately run care home omitting to pay the bill and being disconnected? There is a curious conundrum in the Government's proposals.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

I understand what my hon. Friend says. This is not a criticism, but one can get into difficulty if one starts to differentiate between various organisations on the ground of their supposed importance. However, my hon. Friend's point, which is 100 per cent. valid, is that experience shows that no school or hospital has ever been disconnected because of non-payment of its water bills, or of its water rates under the old system. However, as my hon. Friend correctly identified, there is a greater possibility of someone running, for example, a residential home for the elderly not paying the bill, because of forgetfulness or, in an extreme case, negligence. Prior to the Bill, that failure could potentially have led to the disconnection of the water supply. I am grateful that the Minister has been prepared to listen to the arguments deployed in Committee and is prepared to include in the new schedule institutions of further and higher education—universities, colleges and their halls of residence. 9.30 pm Again, it is possible that there could be a problem with halls of residence, if not with the main buildings. However, responsibility under the Bill for halls of residence is restricted to established halls of residence on campus, run by the college or university concerned. It does not include any private, freelance arrangements that students might make to rent accommodation in the town or city. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that analysis is correct. We welcome the inclusion of nursing homes in the provision, and we tabled amendments in Committee to that end. I give credit to the Minister for including sheltered accommodation for elderly people. He did so without a fight, and it is a wise decision. In Committee, the Minister raised the question of prisons. As he said earlier, prisoners do not usually stay in prison by choice, although—sadly—a small minority probably do. It would be catastrophic if prisons were to have their water supply cut off, but I suspect that the chance of that happening is non-existent. However, it is sensible to adopt a belt-and-braces approach: it means that the Minister will not have to return for extra powers within days of the Bill reaching the statute book if—sod's law being what it is—a prison were to have its water supply cut off. Conservative Members pointed out in Committee—as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—that doctors and dentists desperately rely on water to carry out their professional functions. Again, it is possible that, through forgetfulness or inefficiency, a water supply could be disconnected for non-payment, and the difficulties would be especially acute for dentists. Some patients may need urgent treatment, and any delay or postponement would cause inconvenience. We tabled our amendments in Committee for those reasons, and we are grateful that the Minister was prepared to listen to our arguments. I do not mean to be critical, but it is clear that, when the Bill was drafted, the Minister felt that it would be better if only a minimum number of categories were to be added to that of domestic dwellings. On reflection, on the basis of our arguments in Committee, the Minister has clearly been persuaded by the logic and compelling reasonableness of our suggestions. To be fair to the Minister, and to his credit, he has on certain issues—prisons and sheltered accommodation especially—been prepared to go further. He has not been constricted by the language of the civil service and has not taken a narrow and blinkered view. He has decided in one go to accept the arguments. Obviously, it would be churlish in the light of my remarks to say that the Opposition do not welcome the fact that the Government have adopted our amendments—albeit more finely drafted. The provisions have been more neatly encompassed in new schedule 1, rather than in a clumsy list in clause 1. I assure the Minister that, given that we are in total agreement on this issue, we shall not be opposing any Government amendment. In addition, for the obvious reason that the Government's drafting of amendments is superior, we shall not be pressing our amendments to a vote.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

In view of the length of speeches, I shall be brief. I welcome the Government's amendments and the way in which they are designed to protect individuals. I thank the Minister for receiving representations from people who are part of the Anglian Water experiment in Milton Keynes and Wellingborough, and who feel that they will lose out as a result of the Bill. As customers of Anglian Water with pre-payment meters, they feel that the sanction of the limiting device is the only way in which they are able to budget successfully. They fear that the Bill when enacted will put them back on the slippery slope to a life of debt. The Bill does not address that. In Committee, the Minister said that if the Government could find alternative mechanisms that assisted budgeting and did not lead to disconnections, they would be prepared to consider them. However, he said that responsibility for that lay with the water companies. If we are serious about social exclusion, we must protect the people to whom I have referred and find ways of assisting them with budgeting. If research is left to water companies, it will be conducted for their benefit. Their finance systems and interests will dictate such research. The Government have a role to play in the research in order to protect the people who are concerned about losing out under the legislation. Although I accept that the provisions apply to a very small minority, I urge the Government to take part in the research, put their weight behind it and find alternative mechanisms that will help to deal with this small but vital area of social exclusion.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I should like to start by claiming a Liberal Democrat campaign success: Government new schedule 1. I was also very flattered to note that, in the past few days, the Conservatives have quite unashamedly retabled many of the Liberal Democrat amendments that were tabled on 15 December, in order to extend the list of excluded premises.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

Let me please clarify the situation. I know that the Liberal Democrats will be terribly upset about not tabling any amendments on Report. I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that both his party and mine tabled amendments that were debated in Committee, and once the Committee reported and the Minister had given a commitment, it was open to both parties to retable them. We tabled all the amendments as soon as the Committee finished its sittings. The hon. Gentleman still has not done so.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

It is a pity that the intervention was made. I simply respond by saying that Liberal Democrat Members favour a less tribal form of politics, and would certainly welcome a free and unfettered exchange of ideas, but would like to get the credit for it when appropriate. Although I welcome the new schedule, I am surprised that, when the Bill was being drafted—I understand that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has mentioned this—the Minister and his massed ranks of civil servants did not believe that it was appropriate to add to the list of exclusions other categories, such as sheltered accommodation, prisons, dentists, doctors, and so on. The Government have now done so, and I am pleased that they have done so; they have agreed to take our suggestions on board. I hope that, in future, attention will be paid to detail at the appropriate moment. I must also question the role of some of the Labour Back Benchers on the Committee, who remained silent almost throughout its consideration of the Bill. However, I give them the benefit of the doubt. They may have been twisting the Minister's arm behind closed doors, and it may be for that reason that some of the amendments have emerged tonight.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

I thought that the hon. Gentleman did not like confrontational politics.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

But I am about to finish on a positive note. In Committee, the Government would give no firm undertaking that they would support Liberal Democrat proposals to protect the groups that I have mentioned. I am very pleased that they have listened to our arguments, and to our concerns and those of Conservative Members. This is a refreshing and novel approach to government, and I would commend it to the House. We are very happy to support all the amendments in the group.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), with whom I serve on the Select Committee on the Environment. He has an inexorable way of congratulating himself under all circumstances—he has that in common with the rest of his party. However, on this occasion, I am happy to congratulate him on the brevity of his remarks, if nothing else. I am also pleased to congratulate the Government who, I am glad to say, listened so carefully to what Her Majesty's Opposition said in Committee that they have tabled new schedule 1, which seems to incorporate all the powerful and passionate arguments that we advanced in Committee. I only wish that, in some of the other Committees on which I serve, the Government were as ready to listen to the great sense and power of our advocacy as they appear to have been in this case. I have severe reservations about whether domestic disconnections should be outlawed. However, if they were outlawed, it would be absurd if some of these very noble and distinguished public organisations were none the less allowed to suffer from disconnections. Equally, it would be absurd if, although schools could not be disconnected, institutions of further and higher education could be; and if, although hospitals could not be disconnected, organisations such as nursing homes could be. I therefore welcome the inherent logic in the Government's accepting our amendments Nos. 13 to 24—or, rather, replacing them with new schedule 1. There is a great deal of logic and sense in that, and Conservative Members welcome the Government's sense in listening to what we said and, to a limited degree, to be fair, to what Liberal Democrat Members said on the subject. None the less, a huge absurdity underlies this debate. Several times in Committee, a certain phrase was used—the words escape my mind, but there was a definite absurdity in the way in which the debate took place, for the following reason. Of course those worthwhile organisations should not be disconnected, but there is no circumstance, and no one—in Committee, or in the Chamber tonight—has been able to outline any circumstance, under which any of those institutions would be disconnected. There is no likelihood that a hospital would be disconnected. There is no likelihood that a fire brigade—the headquarters or the fire hydrants—would be disconnected. None of the institutions listed in new schedule 1 has the remotest likelihood, under any circumstances, of being disconnected. There is a curious feel about the debate. We are legislating against something that could not possibly occur. It is a waste of a debate and of a new schedule. The initial exemption of schools and hospitals that led to the new schedule and the debate was in itself an absurdity. 9.45 pm The second absurdity is that if we accept that there is no likelihood that the listed premises will be disconnected, but none the less the Government are to legislate against the possibility that that will happen—this may have more to do with Labour's determination to live with regulation and legislation bearing on every minute detail of our lives; it loves control from the centre and loves saying, "This is what you, the water companies, will do"—and if we assume that it is reasonable that they should do so, and that they should say that schools, hospitals and the other worthy bodies listed in new schedule 1 should not be disconnected, what is the position of all the premises that are not listed in the new schedule? For example, what is the position of Government offices? Under the Bill, it is possible that the Treasury or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, at its splendid new building opposite Victoria station, will be disconnected if an obscure civil servant somewhere on some occasion fails to pay the bill. Is that not ludicrous? Another example is barrack blocks. It is possible that soldiers in those blocks will be disconnected from a water supply because the Ministry of Defence has failed to pay the bill. The Palace of Westminster is not exempt from disconnection. It is perfectly possible under the Bill that the Palace will be cut off and that the water that Ministers enjoy as they sit on the Treasury Bench will therefore not be available.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to explain to the House in what way hon. Members in the Palace of Westminster are a vulnerable group.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

On reflection, one or two Members on the Liberal Benches might fall into that category. Those with minute majorities may well be looking vulnerable in two or three years' time. However, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we are not vulnerable groups in proper terms. Nor, indeed, are many of the categories listed in the new schedule. My point—perhaps I have chosen a vaguely absurd way in which to make it—is that Her Majesty's Government pay hospitals' water bills, as they do for schools and for most of the categories listed in the new schedule. The only circumstances in which the bill would not be paid would be either if the Government chose not to do so—if, for example, the school or hospital had become roofless or disused—or if, through some minor inefficiency in the lower regions of whatever Department, a civil servant on some occasion forgot to pay the bill. Surely it is reasonable that in those circumstances, the water company would have the ultimate sanction of saying to the Government, "Look here, guys, you have not paid your bill; if you don't pay it we shall cut you off." It is absurd that under the new schedule, many Government organisations may not be cut off even if they do not pay their bills, while other perfectly worthwhile Government organisations, such as the Palace and Government Departments, could be disconnected.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is in error in saying that civil servants pay the water bills of hospitals and other such premises. It is the employees of the health boards who do that. There are certainly health boards that I am acquainted with which make a mess of their financial affairs and might well come unstuck in this context.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. He is right in saying that, technically, it is not civil servants who pay the bills, although they are public servants. Perhaps that would be the more accurate expression. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is listening to me with such care as to spot the slight slip. I am happy to acknowledge his correcting it. These exceptions constitute an absurdity, as do the premises that are missing. The new schedule as a whole is not anything to do with real and important legislation; it is more to do with two other things. First, there is Labour's determination to limit, control and regulate every aspect of our lives. It is determined to write down in law the minutest detail of everyday life. When the Conservative Government introduced a voluntary code of conduct, we found that for many years, the water companies did not disconnect very many domestic customers. Far less have they disconnected any of the worthwhile bodies that are listed in the new schedule. A voluntary code of practice for the water companies has worked perfectly adequately for many years, but the Government have now chosen to regulate through the new schedule. The second aspect of new Labour highlighted by the new schedule is its love of the politically correct. It is marvellous for Ministers to say, "We care greatly for vulnerable people. That is why we will exempt them from disconnections. It is the fat cats in the water industry—those disgraceful people who are earning large sums of money—who have been cutting off schools and hospitals. We, the caring new Labour Government, are determined to stop that scandalous activity." The truth is that no school and no hospital has ever been disconnected. No school and no hospital ever would be disconnected. A school or hospital would be disconnected only if it had failed to pay the bill. There are two aspects of new Labour that the new schedule and the amendments highlight. One is its determination to regulate, down to the minute detail of our everyday lives. The second is its determination to be seen to be kind and fair to the most vulnerable in our society. Who would not be? It is a waste of Government time, legislative time and the House's time to legislate against something that by no stretch of the imagination would ever happen.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I shall reply briefly, as there were two or three points on which I can give a factual response. I was asked about the application of protection from disconnection in respect of student lodgings. Halls of residence attached to places of further and higher education will be protected, as will bedsits which qualify as houses in multiple occupation, and private dwellings where students rent rooms. That goes pretty wide. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) raised the important point about limiting devices—trickle valves—to enforce payment. I am aware that a small minority of people regard those as useful for budgeting purposes. I do not think that the retention of limiting devices is the best way to help them, but I take my hon. Friend's point that there is a role for Government to consider whether we should issue guidelines to water companies about ways in which they can assist individuals and families who want help with budgeting. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) had enormous fun and made a fairly knockabout speech. He argued that the new schedule was entirely fatuous because none of the institutions listed is likely to suffer disconnection. He is not quite right about that. The figures that we have, which are not complete because the water companies do not always keep such information, show that, over the past five years, for houses in multiple occupation where the landlord is not resident, there have been 16 cases of disconnection, and, for tenanted properties where the landlord is responsible for paying the bill, there have been 17 cases of disconnection. Both types of property involve groups who are vulnerable, and both will be covered by the provisions. The hon. Gentleman is being a little unconcerned in failing to recognise that there is a genuine purpose behind the provisions. I hope that we will not have a further lengthy discussion of the matter, and that he will accept that such protection is desirable and that he should support it, not mock it.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The right hon. Gentleman is right about houses in multiple occupation and the other worthy cause that he mentioned. My remarks were not directed at them. My point was about schools and hospitals in particular, which are the only two categories that he mentioned in Committee and that were originally mentioned in the Bill. Government agencies could reasonably be expected to pay the bills of both those categories.

PROHIBITION OF USE OF LIMITING DEVICES

UNDERTAKERS TO CHARGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHARGES SCHEMES

REGULATIONS CONCERNING CHARGES SCHEMES

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 3, leave out from end of line 19 to end of line 10 on page 4 and insert— '143A.—(1) In making a charges scheme under section 143 above, a relevant undertaker shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the matters listed in subsection (2) below. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may issue guidance relating to the following— (a) the factors to be taken into account in relation to the fixing, calculating and imposing of charges; (b) the making available to consumers of alternative bases of charging; and (c) the taking into account of the problems faced by the aged, ill and disabled. (3) The Secretary of State shall arrange for any guidance given by him under subsection (2) above to be published in such a manner as he considers appropriate.'.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

In Committee, more of the Government's thinking on the regulation of the water industry came to light. We were disquieted by the Government giving themselves enhanced powers. The force of the amendments is directed at what we see as a retrograde step in restoring more centralised control to a previously deregulated industry. I stress that the amendments are in no way intended to lessen a proper degree of protection for vulnerable groups in society. The Government have said that special protection should be available for customers with a metered supply who, regrettably, suffer from certain medical conditions that require a high consumption of water—some of which are quite common, such as incontinence—and for large families on low incomes who, as any mother knows well, have a water consumption just short of that of a small Chinese laundry. In an ideal world, the benefits system or the health service would be sufficiently sophisticated to deal with the essential needs of such people, but that seems unlikely at present. The Office of Water Services' national customer council believes that the majority of customers would not be opposed to a modest cross-subsidy within water companies' charging schemes to assist the most vulnerable groups of customers. Amendment No. 29 merely restricts the Secretary of State's powers to those for whom special provision must be made in company's charges schemes. It represents simply a finesse of the Government's intentions, as a constructive Opposition might well be expected to produce. However, amendment No. 26 reflects our serious concern about the enhancement of the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations as he or she sees fit. We take issue with the rather glib view that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), expressed in Committee that The Government have a legitimate interest in a wide range of charging issues. It must, therefore, be correct for democratically elected politicians to be able to play a role in decision making on the distribution of charges where distribution can have important social and environmental implications. Surely that depends a great deal on what playing a role means. Those enhanced powers are a potential area of conflict with the industry's regulator. The avoidance of conflict would seem to be possible only if the power and influence of the regulator is diminished in relation to the influence of the state. In case the Minister thinks that I am reading too much into the clause, I quote his defence of the enhanced powers. He said that they were necessary to avoid relying on Ofwat's economic regulation powers to achieve social and environmental aims."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 January 1999; c. 68.] That, too, can be found in column 68 of Hansard.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The Bill as drafted means that companies' charging schemes must comply with regulations set out by the Secretary of State. That represents a fundamental shift in the nature of United Kingdom utility regulation. Essentially, it makes the Secretary of State the regulator. The United Kingdom model of utility regulation is based on the principle of regulatory independence and is pioneering in the utilities market. That ensures that a regulator's objectives and duties, as well as those of the regulated companies, are those explicitly given by Parliament through primary legislation. The Government's position, as stated in the Bill, appears to be at variance with their conclusion to the first stage of their own review of utility regulation, which was concluded last autumn. They stated that regulators should continue to be independent while having "regard" to the guidance that Secretaries of State could issue on social and environmental matters. Ironically, our amendment better reflects the Government's conclusion than the Bill. I digress slightly to pick up an important point that was made when we were debating an amendment tabled by the Welsh National party, which relates to the question of which Secretary of State we are discussing. We learned a new piece of information about the Secretary of State's role in regulating the industry when reference was made to prescribing regulations during our discussion of new clause 1. We learned, to the surprise of Conservative Members, that the Secretary of State in question was the Secretary of State for Wales. That is a major constitutional point, and we did not get an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who asked whether that transfer of power would be governed by a concordat. I am reliably informed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that the Minister's clarification was inaccurate in that this Bill post-dates the transfer of functions under the Government of Wales Act 1998 and is not covered by it. The Minister may wish to revisit that issue in his reply. Clause 5, if unamended, would fly in the face of the Government's declared regulatory principles and it represents a backward step in utility regulation. It will make companies' charging schemes comply with regulations issued by the Secretary of State. Such regulations will impose on companies and regulators objectives other than those determined by Parliament. That is yet another example of the Government taking back central control and showing their disregard for Parliament.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

Not surprisingly, I begin by saying that the Government are against the amendments, which we believe would restrict the protection of vulnerable consumers provided by the Bill. We have made it clear that we intend to specify in regulations vulnerable groups of people with high essential water use that should—as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) pointed out—be given protection when they face the prospect of a measured water bill. We have also made clear which groups we intend to protect: large families with low incomes and those with medical conditions requiring high water use. We have good reason not to agree with the amendments. Amendment No. 26 would replace the Secretary of State's regulation-making power under clause 5 with a power to give guidance to water companies on the contents of charges schemes. We do not believe that that would lead to a better system of regulation. Indeed, it would not be better for customers because we would not be able to assure vulnerable customers that they would be protected from hardship. Of course, as the hon. Member for Meriden said, we could give the water companies guidance about the sort of assistance that they should provide. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) warned, the companies would then decide how, and how far, to implement such guidance. That could well lead to a patchwork of different entitlements and systems of protection throughout the country. For instance, companies might choose to offer no assistance to those groups at all. Such an outcome would clearly not be acceptable. Nor do we believe that it would be better for the water companies. We have made it clear that we believe that, where the Government involve themselves in charging matters to achieve particular aims, they must operate as transparently as possible. As drafted, clause 5 would provide the industry with a clear framework of essential requirements in which to work. The proposed amendment could lead to precisely the opposite, as companies seek to interpret the non-binding guidance and set out plans in the light of their interpretations. Therefore, the Government continue to believe strongly that the Secretary of State should have regulation-making powers in relation to charging schemes and we ask hon. Members not to press that amendment. Amendment No. 29 would restrict the use that might be made of the Secretary of State's powers to assist vulnerable groups so that protection could be narrowly focused only on those groups and that situation, which the Government have already announced that we intend to protect. Household income, the number of dependent children and a medical condition requiring higher-than-average water use are crucial factors that identify those people who might be particularly vulnerable to a charge based on the volume of water used. The amendment would prevent any other target group being protected on other grounds. We would be unable to offer further protection to the elderly, the sick or the disabled if that turned out to be necessary. On the face of it, that is inconsistent with the raft of amendments tabled by the Opposition to protect a wide variety of groups from water disconnection. Furthermore, it is unduly restrictive to say that the factors listed in the amendment are the only criteria on which it would be proper to identify those in need of help. The regulations, on which we will consult fully with the regulator, companies, customer representatives and other interested groups, will provide for the details of the scheme to protect vulnerable customers. Clause 5(3)(a) provides the overall framework within which the regulations will be prepared. The framework must provide sufficient flexibility for Ministers to respond promptly if it appears that charging arrangements are causing severe hardship to new groups of consumers. In contrast, the amendment would limit special provision to those people who are paying on a measured basis. That would prevent the Government from providing any protection if, for example, some future unmeasured basis of charging by the water companies turned out to cause severe hardship to some classes of consumer. Under present charging arrangements, for instance, we do not propose to provide protection to customers paying unmeasured bills, but, in that and other areas, it is important to provide flexibility to respond through regulation if hardship occurs. However, like my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, I can offer some reassurance about the use of those powers to identify groups for special concessions. The Government are conscious of the fact that every concession enabling a vulnerable customer to pay a lower water charge than he or she would otherwise face can be funded only from the generality of charges paid by all other customers of that company. For that reason, we are determined not to adopt a scatter-gun approach to help for vulnerable groups. With a highly targeted approach, we can ensure that the impact of water charges can be softened to a worthwhile extent where it is most needed without imposing noticeable burdens on other water customers. I hope that the hon. Member for Meriden will agree that the amendment is unduly restrictive and withdraw it.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on what I think was her first outing at the Dispatch Box—the first of many, I am certain. It was disappointing that the Minister was unable to accord her a similar courtesy across the Floor. It appears that the Under-Secretary is better at reading from the bit of paper in front of him than he is at making a more informed or amusing speech. I resent the Minister for the Environment implying that I was being flippant or having a knock about when I discussed the previous group of amendments. I was not. I was making serious points, albeit light-heartedly. One of the points that I made was that Labour is determined to ensure that every aspect of our lives is written down in the small print of legislation. The new schedule was unnecessary, and one could argue that clause 5 is equally unnecessary and interferes with our way of life. Clause 5 is a classic Henry VIII clause. It gives the Secretary of State powers that currently he does not have. It says, "You, Mr. Secretary of State, are the clever guy. You're the one who will decide which vulnerable category will be exempt from metering. You will decide our futures—not Ofwat, not the water companies, but the Secretary of State." That is why we have tabled these two amendments. The amendments would allow the Secretary of State to provide guidance to which the water companies must have regard. Under the Bill, companies charging schemes must comply with the regulations set out by the Secretary of State, which is a fundamental shift in the nature of United Kingdom utility regulation. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may say that I am reading my speech. That is quite right, but I hope that I am reading it with more passion, interest, authority and belief than the Under-Secretary. There is no question about it; there is a lot of passion in my speech. At the moment, Ofwat is able to use its discretion and to decide what to do, and the water companies can also decide what to do. The clause dictates that the Government will lay down the categories of vulnerable people who will be exempt, and the water companies will be required to live up to that regulation. It makes the Secretary of State the regulator. Ian Byatt, the regulator, has gone to great lengths to say that he believes the clause fundamentally unbalances the entire UK utility regulation. The UK model is based on the principle of regulatory independence. The whole notion behind utility regulation is that the regulators are independent. Their objectives and duties, as well as those of the companies, are given by Parliament through primary legislation. Parliament gives the regulator his rights; this clause takes rights back from the regulator not to Parliament, but to the Executive. It is a classic Henry VIII approach. The system of regulation that we set up in the original privatisation Bills is appreciated by all parties because it provides a balance between the Executive and the regulator. Clause 5 flies in the face of the Government's declared regulatory principles. It makes companies charging schemes comply with regulations issued by the Secretary of State. That regulation imposes objectives on companies and regulators other than those determined by Parliament. It ignores the duties and the role explicitly given by Parliament to regulators. That is the first point I want to make about clause 5 in justification of our two amendments. The second point is more meaty and concerns the vulnerable groups that clause 5 tries to protect. The Government are asking the water companies to provide a social service through differential tariffs. They are saying that these vulnerable groups will not pay, so there will be differential tariffs, which means that people who are not vulnerable will pay more. That is the clear implication of clause 5, and that is precisely why we are trying to amend it. That is not to say that Conservative Members are being less than caring about those vulnerable groups. All we are saying is that the water pricing mechanism is not necessarily the way in which to help them. If the Government are searching for a way to help vulnerable groups, it may be useful to mention the notion of variations in income support. It is a curious fact that water bills vary hugely across England, largely because of the length of the pipework taking water into a person's home. In London, they are low: £180 in the Thames Water area. In the south-west, where distances are much greater, the bills are £300 or £400 depending on the state of the market. Irrespective of the difference in water bills across the regions, however, the income support element is exactly the same. 10.15 pm If the Government are casting around to find useful ways in which to help vulnerable people, especially those who are least able to pay their water bills, let me repeat a suggestion that I made to the Secretary of State in Committee. He said then that he would consider it. May I suggest that the Secretary of State should have another look at regional variations in the water element of income support bills? That would be a real advance in helping those who are less able to pay their bills.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

Will my hon. Friend speculate for a moment on the principle that is at stake? It seems to me that the principle involves interference by the Government in a privatised company, and that the crucial aspect of that interference concerns the principle that is now being established. How far can that go? If we can interfere with the water companies, will there be interference in the future with other privatised companies in the fields of, for instance, energy or telecommunications? Will my hon. Friend speculate on that?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

rose—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not be tempted to respond to what I consider to be an extremely valid point. On Third Reading, we may have an opportunity to say more about the way in which the Bill takes away the water companies freedom to act, and moves them increasingly towards a quasi-regulated, quasi-nationalised status and away from the privatised status that they currently enjoy. Clause 5 is a classic Henry VIII clause. It takes into the centre—into Westminster and into Whitehall—powers that are currently in the hands of the regulator and, through the regulator, in the hands of the privatised companies. The clause is centralising, regulatory and bossy, and our amendments are designed to lessen its effects.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I support the amendment. During our debates on the Bill there has been some measure of agreement on core principles, including the importance of a voluntarist approach to the spread of metering. Unfortunately, under clause 5 of the Bill we have no voluntarist consensus: the Government have eschewed the spirit of voluntarism and have introduced measures of compulsion for which there are no obvious justifications. My support for the amendment is based on evidence provided by my regional water company, Anglian Water. It is at the forefront of innovative designs of tariffs for vulnerable groups. I think that that is accepted throughout the industry. I am thinking of two in particular. I shall not give details, but they cater for low-income large families, and take account of the fact that they should pay less than the normal meter charges. Pensioners are also able to receive discounts in exchange for not being subject to a standing charge. Innovation of that kind will be stymied by the compulsion in the clause, particularly in the way in which power to design and innovate will be transferred from the private sector to the Secretary of State. Under the clause, the Secretary of State has the power to set regulations. Many Conservative Members feel that this is an unwelcome move towards centralisation. In the free market world that we all seek to inhabit—even Labour Members seek to do so these days—is it not more sensible for private companies to design and innovate? A regulator or Secretary of State cannot possibly know or understand the particular customer profile or needs in a particular region. Are not private companies better placed to design products and particular tariff schemes to assist vulnerable groups? Is it not also true that the capacity of the 30-odd companies in the industry to promote innovative ideas must be greater than the capacity of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to do so? It is that drag on innovation, that eschewal—[Interruption.]

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

The thrust of our argument is that innovation is better secured by the private sector. Conservative Members thought that we had persuaded the Labour party of that sector's disciplines, but it seems not when we consider the wording and effect of the clause, which is why we press the amendment. There is the criticism that market failure may occur in the private sector. Perhaps water companies will not design innovative products to protect low-income families and vulnerable groups that we want to protect. What happens if bad water companies are not as innovative as Anglian Water? We do not have to look far to find the answer to that question.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Does my hon. Friend accept that, if direction goes to the Secretary of State and he starts to get involved in that matter, a number of companies, particularly in my area, where innovation goes towards assisting disabled groups—people with certain disabilities—encouraging them with their bills and developing the public service, may give up getting involved in that and wait for him to direct, so innovation will go out of the window?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

My hon. Friend makes the point succinctly, as usual. The pressure on the private sector to innovate will be sub-contracted upwards to the state. The private sector will feel little pressure to improve its performance, which is why we find the clause so disappointing. I asked earlier, what happens to non-innovatory private sector water companies? It is an obvious and important question. The answer is surely to go down a voluntarist route, which is to say that performance grades should be publicly released and publicised—naming and shaming those private sector companies that are not as assiduous in assisting vulnerable groups with new innovative schemes. We do that in relation to sewer flooding and customer complaints. Why cannot we do it in relation to new tariff designs? It is on that basis that I support the amendment.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

As the hour is late, I will not detain the House for long, but I should like to make some points arising out of the Minister's comments. I can assure the House that we will not press amendment No. 29 to a vote. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, in many senses it was a probing amendment. However, amendment No. 26 has far more serious implications. We made it plain during Second Reading and said vigorously in Committee that we had serious misgivings about the way in which the Government, through clause 5, seek to give the Secretary of State draconian powers to interfere and to regulate by order in a private company. I should like to take the Minister back to the problem over which he and his colleagues seem to be completely knotted up and at sea. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), was equally at sea when talking about the provision in the amendment, which is reflected in the Bill, relating to the Secretary of State. Throughout our discussions on clause 5 in Committee, references to the Secretary of State by the Under-Secretary and the Minister for the Environment related to the powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales explained earlier today that all Secretaries of State are one and that the powers to transfer the contents of clause 5 and, in effect, amendment No. 26, would be transferred to the Welsh Assembly through the transfer of functions order. I seriously question whether he was correct in saying that. As he may have discovered by now, the transfer of functions order was laid before the House on 14 May 1998, seven months prior to the Bill being published. How, therefore, can the order be used to transfer functions from clause 5 of this Bill from the Secretary of State to the Welsh Assembly? More than a simple transfer is needed because that order has already been made. I stand willing to be corrected, but I do not believe that those powers are included in that order. It would have helped matters if hon. Members had been given the opportunity to debate the order, but, despite demands from Labour Members, as well as my hon. Friends, it was not debated. I dispute whether an order that was published months before the Bill could now be used to transfer to the Welsh Assembly powers under clause 5 and the amendment, if it were made.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

It is correct that the clause post-dates the Government of Wales Act 1998, but the Government have made clear their intention to transfer to the National Assembly for Wales most of the Secretary of State's functions relating to water and flood defence. Those existing functions will be addressed in the first Order in Council under the Act. Schedule 2, paragraph 17, provides for new functions on water and flood defence to be treated consistently. The hon. Gentleman should consult clause 14 of the Bill.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to clarify the position. His point is interesting and I shall read clause 14 and the other document that he mentioned. It would be unfair of me to ask the Minister any more questions because we want to make progress. I find it staggering that despite the fact that the Bill is on Report, coming up to its Third Reading before it leaves this House to go to the other place, and despite the Committee proceedings, this is the first time that any mention has been made of the fact that the powers in clause 5 will be transferred, by whatever means, from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, through his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, to the Welsh Assembly. We had debates in which our speeches, which were not corrected, and those of Ministers were made on the basis that the powers in clause 5 would be used by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We had debates ad nauseam in which we said that those powers were too great to give to a Secretary of State and there should be guidance. At no time did Ministers point out that those powers did not relate only to that Secretary of State because all Secretaries of State are indivisible and are one, so the Secretary of State for Wales would have those powers and they would be transferred to the Welsh Assembly. That is new information at this late stage. I am surprised that it has never been mentioned before. I just wonder whether the fact that the powers will be transferred is new to Ministers, who became aware of it only in the earlier debate on Plaid Cymru's new clause 1. We shall not make any further progress on the issue today, so I shall not press it. The other place will be able to try to get to the bottom of it. Nevertheless, the Opposition feel as strongly about the matters dealt with in amendment No. 26 as we did in the debate on Second Reading. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to oppose the Government and to support amendment No. 26.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the previous debate, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) implied that there had been no debate in Committee about the transfer of functions to the Welsh Assembly. That was a mistake. At column 109 of the Official Report of Standing Committee A on 14 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), outlined the whole debate. Unfortunately—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I had anticipated that the Minister was seeking to correct his own remarks to the House. He cannot, on a point of order, seek to correct someone else's—that is a matter for debate.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I point out for the sake of clarity that—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. This is a matter for debate. I am sorry, but I misunderstood what the Minister was about.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

The Minister should be, in the circumstances.

RIGHT OF CONSUMER TO ELECT FOR CHARGING BY REFERENCE TO VOLUME

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 48, at end insert— '(12) When under subsection (4) the Director upholds a water undertaker's refusal to give effect to a measured charges notice the consumer shall have the right to opt to pay as an alternative to the current charge either:— (a) a charge assessed by the water undertaker by reference to the estimated volume of water supplied to the premises; or (b) the water undertaker's average household charge and any dispute between a water undertaker and a consumer as to the application of (a) above may be referred to the Director for determination under Section 30A above by either party to the dispute.'. I reassure the House that this is a probing amendment. We are simple seekers after information, which the Minister will no doubt give us. As any aficionado of the Bill will know, clause 6 adds new section 144A to the Water Industry Act 1991. It covers homes that currently pay for their water on an unmeasured basis under a charging scheme. It gives these consumers a new right to require their water company to charge them by reference to volume. Anyone who has been following the debate closely will know that, once the Bill becomes law, consumers who currently pay for their water on a rateable value basis will have the opportunity to have a water meter installed in most, although not all, cases. They will then have up to 12 months to decide whether they want to continue on a metered basis or revert to the rateable value basis. I suspect that many households will take that decision according to whether they like the size of their bills during those 12 months. Clause 6 also provides that water companies should not have to install a water meter where it would not be "reasonably practicable" or where it would be unnecessarily expensive for them to do so. The vast majority of hon. Members will agree that the Government are right to include that perfectly reasonable qualification. It would place an onerous burden on water companies if there were a blanket requirement in the Bill for them to install a meter in every household that demanded one, even if it were technically feasible for them to do so. The Bill makes no provision, however, for customers denied the opportunity to pay on an unmeasured basis—those required to continue to pay on a rateable value basis, which may involve their paying substantially more than if they were paying on a meter and thus paying only for the water that they consumed in a year. The Minister looks a little puzzled, so let me elaborate. I understand that it is late and that he has had to work hard. There are a number of properties in multiple occupation—most comprising flats—which share a supply pipe. Also, the internal pipework of some of these properties is such that flats have individual cold water supplies but joint hot water systems. Older, purpose-built blocks of flats—in the local authority and private sectors—may have one supply pipe, which would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for a water company to install meters. Ironically, especially with local authority flats in that category, it is possible that residents will include owner-occupiers, elderly single pensioners or families with young children. Clearly, families will consume much more water than single pensioners. The scale of the problem varies around the country, but it is widespread in the areas covered by Thames Water and Southern Water. The problem is likely to be greater in large cities such as London than in the south-west or more rural areas, where fewer blocks of flats are owned by local authorities. In such areas, the problem may be negligible. A case highlighted on a recent Radio 4 consumer programme involved a Thames Water customer who lived in a flat, where his annual metered bill for both water and waste water services was £122. When he moved to another flat of similar size and value, which could not be metered, he ended up with a bill under the old rateable value system of just over £1,000. His water consumption and use of waste water did not rise beyond what he had averaged in his previous property, but, through no fault of his own, his water bill rose by more than £800 a year. I am sure that the Minister has some sympathy for that customer, whose problem no doubt is replicated elsewhere. I am not asking the Minister for instant legislation, and I do not expect a solution tonight. However, by the end of this evening, the Bill will be only halfway through its progress through the House. I ask only that the Minister think about the problem to see whether a system can be devised that is fair to householders who are trapped in the way that I have described and who will not benefit from other provisions in the Bill. It is clear that the Government believe that the Bill will benefit consumers, and any system designed to overcome the problem that I have outlined must be fair to them and to the water companies. I hope that a realistic solution can be achieved. I should like to help the Minister by giving him some information about the way in which companies voluntarily try to solve the problem. Their solutions are, by definition, ad hoc. As was noted in Committee, water companies have produced their own unique schemes to try to help people and families who are less well off by lessening the impact of their water and sewage bills. I believe that I am right in saying that at least one of the water companies is prepared, if all residents agree, to meter an entire property, such as a block of flats that suffers from a problem, say, with a single-pipe supply, and split the bill equally. That may superficially appear attractive, and might, with some fine tuning and deeper thought, alleviate the problem. I see one flaw at the outset, however, concerning the metering of a block of eight flats, in which all families did not have similar backgrounds or consume similar amounts. One could use extremes to illustrate the point, such as a single pensioner who lives in the same block as a young family with one or two young children. Such billing would be disproportionately unfair to that single pensioner. Would one be able to fine-tune a scheme further and reach some agreement with all residents, so that they paid proportions of the bill? Could estimate bills be issued? To be frank, I do not know the answers to those questions. To be fair on Ministers, I would not expect them to come up with an instant answer. However, would they be prepared to think more about it, and consult the regulator and the water companies to see whether there is any way in which that might be a feasible way forward? Would it be possible to allow people who are caught in the traps that I have described to be charged on the basis of an average household bill? Again, I do not expect Ministers to be able to give an instant answer, although it is reasonable to ask them to think about the matter. They may want to consult the regulator and water companies, so that, voluntarily, the Bill's benefits are extended to people who, through no fault of the water companies or the Government in drafting the Bill, may not receive the benefits enjoyed by others who live in less difficult circumstances, such as a property where there is a clear-cut opportunity to install a meter. Neither of those ideas is ideal; they may not even, on reflection, be workable. It is however certainly worth the effort of looking into the matter further in order to come up with some other scheme that might seek to benefit further the customers to whom I have referred.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

I shall try to be as helpful as possible—certainly on some of the points on which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) required a response. As hon. Members are aware, the Government want a water charging system that gives customers increased choice. For some people, that will mean opting to have a meter installed because they would prefer to pay a measured charge. However, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford pointed out, in some circumstances it would be impractical, difficult or very expensive to fit a meter, such as in a block of flats where residents share pipes. We do not believe that it makes sound economic sense to force water companies to spend a disproportionate sum of money on fitting a meter in such instances. However, at the same time, we are concerned to ensure that customers who find themselves in such circumstances are not disadvantaged. At present, customers who would benefit from paying on a measured basis may request the installation of a meter, but if that is impractical, they may find that the water company is unwilling to change the basis of their charging from rateable value. In our consultative document, "Water Charging in England and Wales: A New Approach", we recognise that that could be a problem for customers, and propose that in such cases householders should be able to pay on an assessed charge. We therefore strongly support the principle of protecting customers' interests in such circumstances. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford rightly pointed out the rather strange case of Mr. Paul Slawson-Price, who moved from his flat in Kensington, where he paid a water bill of £122 a year, to one in Westminster, where the bill rose as high as £1,055.48. He rightly pointed out that the company—Thames Water—had existing powers to charge in the way that we would prefer, but that, although it had admitted that, it refused to do so. 11 pm The protection that we require for residents can be delivered effectively through the mechanism—which we propose to introduce by clause 4—for the director general to approve companies' charges schemes. Moreover, by contrast with the arrangements detailed in the amendment, the use of clause 4 would give water companies flexibility to consider arrangements for assessing charges that meet their customers' concerns. I appreciate the offer that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford made when he suggested that the Government should be open to on-going ways in which we can try to help establish better systems for people caught in this way. We would also expect the regulator and the water companies to use that clause to enable satisfactory solutions to be found to the problem. We therefore believe that it would be unnecessarily prescriptive to set out procedures for calculating assessed charges on the face of the Bill. In the light of the assurances and help that I believe that I have given the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Simon Burns (Conservative, West Chelmsford)

I am grateful to the Minister. May I seek clarification? At present, water bills are paid either according to a meter or on the basis of the rateable value system. Given those two systems of payment, would it be legal, at present or after the Bill becomes an Act, for a water company to start charging people for their water on a hybrid version of either scheme? What I—

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

As I tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman, there are ways in which assessed charges can be introduced now. The water industry Acts enable that, and it is for the water companies to achieve that. In the specific case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the water company, Thames Water, chose not to do so. I believe that that effectively means that, yes, it could place its own charges that are found to be acceptable, and which, like all other charges, may be open to challenge by the customer to the director general. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is correct in that assumption.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.