Local Government Bill

Public Bill Committee, 13 February 2003.

Standing Committee A

New Clause 10 - Registered social landlords

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

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

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (a),

at the end of section 41A(1)(b) insert—

'(c) a registered social landlord's arrangements for cooperating with local housing authorities and for responding to the differing needs of tenants and applicants for housing in different areas.'.

Amendment (b),

at the end of section 41A(4)(b) insert—

'(c) shall cause to be sent to each tenant of the registered social landlord a summary of the report; and

(d) shall make available for inspection a copy of the report at such offices of the registered social landlord and within such convenient travelling distances as it determines of the tenants of the registered social landlord.'.

Amendment (c),

in section 41A(6), after '(1)', insert—

'(a) ensure that the demands of such inspections are proportionate to the size of the registered social landlord;

(b) '.

Amendment (d),

after section 41A(6) insert—

'(7) The Commission, when undertaking an inspection under this section, shall—

(a) consult including by holding one or more public meetings of tenants and applicants for housing in each area served by the registered social landlord about its management, efficiency, value for money and quality of service delivery; and

(b) offer to employees of the registered social landlord the opportunity to make representations on their findings before they are finalised.'.

Amendment (e),

in section 41B(3)(b), leave out 'the Secretary of State to represent' and insert 'be'.

Amendment (f),

in section 41B(5)(b), leave out 'the Commission to represent' and insert 'be'.

Amendment (g),

in section 41B(6)(b), leave out 'the Commission to represent' and insert 'be'.

Government amendments Nos. 184 to 186.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The amendments are the result of the Government's decision, announced last July, to establish a single inspectorate for housing in the Audit Commission. Before going into detail on the amendments, I should like to record my gratitude to the Housing Corporation and the Audit Commission. Since the announcement, they have forged a close and constructive relationship. That positive co-operation and understanding has made possible the achievement of our objective within a tight time scale.

The Government are determined to improve continuously the quality of service that social housing tenants receive from their landlords. The housing inspectorate will have the opportunity to build on the excellent inspection work of the commission and the corporation. The corporation's regulatory code is designed to ensure that housing associations focus on the needs of their tenants and customers, and improve the service that they provide to them. The commission has applied a rigorous and impressive best value inspection regime to councils since April 2000.

The new arrangements involve some change for housing associations. The corporation will remain the statutory regulator and continue to provide leadership for the housing association sector. The commission will use its expertise to focus on service delivery throughout the social housing sector. The corporation and the inspectorate will work together closely to ensure that inspection and regulatory activity are properly co-ordinated to avoid unnecessary burdens on housing associations, and to minimise the impact of the changes on social landlords.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The Department has given assurances in the past that the regime that is being put in place will not be a burden on the housing association sector and will not create competitive problems for it. Will the Minister ensure that the regime is monitored closely and kept under review, so that we do not end up with over-burdensome regulation?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The thrust of the Government's policy on inspection is to ensure that it is proportionate. The hon. Gentleman will know that the comprehensive performance assessment process relating to inspection has been developed with the commission and the close involvement of the Government. That has been designed to ensure that we focus on those areas where there is concern or a need to improve, and that there is a light touch for those

organisations that are clearly performing well. We want that broad approach to apply in relation to the housing inspectorate.

The principle is that inspections must be proportionate and must help authorities or RSLs to improve their performance, not impose unnecessary burdens. As I have said, there should be a particularly light touch for high-performing bodies. We certainly endorse that principle, and I am confident that the commission will want to put it into effect.

The inspectorate will be required to report the results of its inspections of housing associations to the corporation and to consult it about its programme of inspection. Our aim is to ensure that tenants receive uniformly high service standards, not to impose double regulation on housing associations. Inspections will be sensitive to the needs and requirements of both sides of the social housing sector, and will take account of the differences in status, structure and approach of individual local authorities and housing associations.

Transitional arrangements for the new inspectorate will take effect from 1 April this year. They will be based on section 40 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, which enables the corporation and the commission to agree programmes of comparative value-for-money studies of registered social landlords. I am grateful to the Audit Commission and the Housing Corporation for the efforts that they have made and continue to make to ensure a smooth transition. Initially, the commission will carry on the corporation's work as a going concern using the same inspection methodology applied by the same staff. Changes to the methodology after the transfer to move to a common system will be needed over time, but will be made after fully consulting those affected.

For the longer term, we need a more comprehensive and permanent basis for operating and financing the new inspectorate. That is what the Government amendments will provide. In Wales, the position is slightly different. No decision has been taken that the Audit Commission should take over inspection of housing associations there. The National Assembly recently launched a consultation exercise on the regulation of registered social landlords and will decide what inspection arrangements are appropriate for the housing associations that it regulates. Our amendments will allow the provisions to apply in Wales as well as England if the Assembly so chooses. In describing the new powers, references to the corporation should be understood to apply to the Assembly if it chooses to adopt the powers.

The substance of the amendments is contained in new clause 10, which inserts two new sections in the Audit Commission Act 1998. The first gives the commission a new power to inspect registered social landlords, and makes provision about the issuing of reports, access of inspectors to premises and information, and consultation between the commission and the Housing Corporation on a programme of inspections. The second gives the Secretary of State the power, following consultation, to make an order authorising the commission to

charge fees for inspection. That does not imply that we intend to introduce fees now. However, there are good reasons for making provision in the Bill that would permit the charging of fees after due consultation. Local authorities pay charges for inspection to the Audit Commission, and it would be anomalous if there were no possibility of charges to housing associations under a single inspection regime.

Charges help to maintain the independence of the inspector, and give the body inspected a stake in the process. A charging regime would allow associations to request additional work if they wanted to do so. I understand the anxiety that the proposal may cause, but I have already given a clear assurance, which I am happy to repeat today, to the National Housing Federation that there will be full consultation before charging is introduced. The commission is not authorised to charge fees unless and until an order is made following consultation. If such an order is made, the commission will have to consult on its proposed scale or scales of fees.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that assurance. However, I am led to believe that he also told the National Housing Federation that foreseeable future payments for inspections would be made through a transfer of resources between the Housing Corporation and the Audit Commission. Will the Minister confirm that?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The Housing Corporation currently meets the cost of inspection. There will be a transfer of funds with the transfer of responsibility, so that the Audit Commission can maintain the programme in the transitional period, as I described. A transfer of the funds currently available to the Housing Corporation will ensure that the Audit Commission has the funding to do the work. The subsequent arrangements are entirely a matter for future consideration. We are simply making the provisions available so that a charging regime could be introduced if it was thought to be appropriate, following proper consultation. However, I have made it clear that there is no current intention to introduce such a regime. The transfer will not involve the imposition of charges from April this year.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that. Is the provision really needed in case the Audit Commission would like to charge for consultancy services as opposed to fees and charges for inspection, or do the Government envisage that this measure could be used for charging fees for inspection?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As I have made clear, under the current framework the Audit Commission charges local authorities for inspection. There would be a slightly curious position if, when we have a combined inspectorate that inspects both local authority housing departments and registered social landlords, the Audit Commission had the power to charge local authorities but not registered social landlords. As the hon. Gentleman rightly identified, a body that has been inspected may ask the inspectorate to do further work in a purely voluntary capacity to build on certain

conclusions or findings from the inspection. A local authority can choose to do that and it pays a fee to the Audit Commission.

Without that power, it would not be possible for the Audit Commission to charge a fee to a housing association for the kind of consultancy service that the hon. Gentleman identified. There is an obvious logic in making that power available. It would enable voluntary consultancy to be available immediately. If there were a longer-term change to the arrangements involving a standard scale of fees applicable to all bodies subject to inspection, it would be a matter for full and detailed consultation with all interested parties before there was any question of the appropriate order being made.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am concerned that the Minister talks about voluntary consultancy services rather than additional inspection services. It is important to distinguish between the role of the inspector and that of the consultant. Otherwise, the inspector would be inspecting an authority more to see whether it had implemented his management suggestions than to see whether it had implemented an appropriate set of management arrangements. Can he confirm that he is talking more about extended inspection services than about consultancy?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman should not read too much into the use of the term ''consultancy'' by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). I said that it would be logical in certain cases for a body that had been inspected to request some further work arising from that inspection. I then said that that would be a form of consultancy because it would be a voluntary rather than an obligatory process. It would be commissioned by the individual housing body. I use the term ''consultancy'' in that sense, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that this should essentially be follow-up services after an inspection. We do not envisage the Audit Commission challenging KPMG or other consultancies, although that might attract one or two people in the future. At present there is no such intention.

Subsection (2) of the new clause is needed to enable these arrangements to be applied separately to Wales if the National Assembly so chooses. Subsection (3) requires the Commission to balance over time income and expenditure on inspection of housing associations. Subsection (4) allows the payment of grant by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to the Commission to cover the costs of such inspection. Amendments Nos. 184 to 186 are consequential amendments to the commencement provisions. I hope that that explains the purpose of the new clause and the amendments. Inspection is an important tool, which is already helping to drive up standards for tenants. Moving to a single inspectorate for all social landlords will improve the effectiveness of that tool and ensure consistency throughout the social housing sector.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Before I call the next speaker, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we debate the amendments to the new clause as part of the

general debate on the new clause itself. Otherwise, there might be confusion between Government amendments and Opposition amendments. As they are all related anyway, it seems a neater way of dealing with the clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Good morning, Mr. Conway. That is helpful advice. I will leave my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) to deal with his amendments. I want to concentrate on new clause 10. I suspect that the Government may be rushing into legislation without thinking the matter through properly at the edges. We need to probe a number of aspects of the new clause.

The helpful brief from the National Housing Federation states that when the ODPM announced a single inspectorate, it was intended that the Audit Commission should absorb the inspection functions of the Housing Corporation and the Housing Corporation would retain its regulatory role. The Minister nods; that is most helpful. We must be clear about who does what and check that there is no overlap or double function. The brief also says that it is unclear what housing associations will be inspected on, apart from quality of services and continuous improvement. What is meant by ''continuous''? The only similar point of reference is the continuous improvement for which local authorities with a statutory duty strive. We need to know which regulatory body is doing what.

The matter is further complicated because the National Audit Office has a role. The Government are about to lay before the House two statutory instruments, which have been printed so prematurely that they do not even have numbers. The first is the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Examinations by Comptroller and Auditor General) Order 2003, and the second is the Government Resources and Accounts 2000 (Rights of Access of Comptroller and Auditor General) Order 2003. The explanatory note to the second order refers to other functions that the National Audit Office has in addition to those of the Audit Commission. Thus three different public bodies are involved in meddling with housing associations—the Housing Corporation, the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office.

The explanatory note to the first order states:

''This order implements part of the Government's policy set out in its response, published on 13 March 2002, (Cm 5456), to Lord Sharman's report ''Audit and Accountability in Central Government.'' The order gives the Comptroller and Auditor General access, for the purpose of his financial audit of the account of government Departments and non-departmental public bodies, to documents held or controlled by the following''.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The hon. Gentleman has made the bizarre point that he does not want the Comptroller and Auditor General to have powers of audit over bodies that spend public money. That is an extraordinary statement from the Conservative Front Bench. Does the hon. Gentleman want to withdraw his statement before he digs himself into an even deeper hole?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

That was a pretty fatuous intervention. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the point that I was making. He deliberately misrepresents what I said. I am probing the Government on the functions that each of the public bodies undertakes because I want to find out whether they are duplicated, which would mean rolling up the costs of administration and bureaucracy. It is typical of the Liberals to try to misrepresent our position.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Quisling.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Exactly. Quisling, as my hon. Friend said.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. We will not have words like that bandied around.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I am in a difficult position, as I have called the hon. Gentleman a number of things. In withdrawing and apologising, may I ask for some similar offences to be taken into account?

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Indeed, as long as it is the last of the similar offences.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Perhaps I, too, had better withdraw the word. The hon. Gentleman's intervention and misrepresentation caused considerable irritation. We need to know what each public body does.

What exactly is a registered social landlord? Is it a private or a public body? Until 1988, housing associations were funded entirely by public funds. Since then, they have had £14 billion of private sector loans, combined with public grants, and that further clouds the issue. They have many of the characteristics of private bodies—they have directors, for example. If they are private bodies, is it right that a huge regulatory regime should be heaped upon them?

The Minister said that the new clause introduced a new power, but I question whether it is new. The new clause refers to the Audit Commission Act 1998, but section 41 of that Act contains the power that is proposed in the new clause when combined with sections 10 and 11 of the Local Government Act 1999.

Section 41 of the 1998 Act states:

''The Commission may if authorised to do so . . . require a registered social landlord, or any officer or a member of a registered social landlord, to supply such information as the Commission may require.''

The Act also enables the Commission to require that information be supplied or documents be made available.

Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 states:

''The Audit Commission may carry out an inspection of a best value authority's compliance with the requirements of this Part.''

Section 11 states:

''An inspector has a right of access at all reasonable times . . . to any premises of the best value authority concerned.''

Section 11(6) mentions:

''Any expenses incurred by the inspector.''

Those Acts give the inspector the power not only to inspect and to require documents to be produced but to charge. I am therefore not sure what is the purpose

of the new clause and the new power that Minister seeks to give himself. Perhaps it is just that clarification is needed.

I should like to move on to discussing the charging. Many parish councils have seen their auditing charges increase by several 100 per cent. a year as a result of the Audit Commission's activities. Only this week, I wrote to the Minister about the case of a parish council in my constituency in which the charge has gone up enormously. If the experience of parish councils is typical, we could expect individual housing associations to face hugely increased bills, if they start to be charged for the audit function. The Minister shakes his head, but the precedent is there and plain for all to see. People running housing associations will want reassurance from the Minister on the matter.

I understand that a proposal for a block transfer grant from the Housing Corporation to the Audit Commission is under discussion. However, presumably the Housing Corporation will seek to recover that money from the individual housing associations. The Minister shakes his head, so we learn something.

Will the Minister assure us that the auditing charges will never fall on the individual housing associations?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

No.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister is not saying that, so they will have to start paying for those auditing functions. He nods in one place and shakes his head in another. Perhaps we will get some clear answers when the Minister replies.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Before the hon. Gentleman goes on confusing himself unnecessarily, I made it absolutely clear—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not listening—that there will be a block grant transfer from the Housing Corporation to the Audit Commission in the short term. Because that is a transfer from one Government body to another there is no question of any impact on housing associations, as the hon. Gentleman inferred. I have already made it clear that, if there were to be any question of the introduction of a charging regime, full consultation would take place with all interested parties before that happened.

Will the hon. Gentleman now stop scaremongering and listen to what the arrangements will do, before he continues with other misleading and wholly unjustified comments?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I listened carefully to the Minister's words. He said that there was to be a block grant transfer. That is fine, providing that continues to happen. He then went on to say that if there were any changes, there would be consultation. He therefore must have changes in mind, because otherwise he would give us a categorical assurance that the individual housing associations would not be charged as a result of the introduction of the power.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am so sorry that the hon. Gentleman has once again not been listening. I had a lengthy exchange with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on that matter. The provision for the power is necessary, so that if housing associations wanted to commission additional work on top of the basic inspection from the Audit Commission, the Commission would be able to do that work and charge for it. That is why we are introducing the provision. If, in future, a different approach to charging were to be adopted, consultation would be appropriate.

However, the good reason for the provision being included in the Bill is to enable the sensible arrangement that I discussed with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to apply. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not listening.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister keeps saying that I was not listening. He may not want to hear my probing and criticisms, but that is a different issue. However, he must hear those criticisms, and I hope that I shall get some answers.

As I understand it, there are already powers under the Local Government Act 1999 for inspectors of the Audit Commission to charge expenses. When I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, if the National Audit Office wanted to provide a service over and above what it was statutorily obliged to provide, it could charge for it. In summing up, will the Minister say whether, if an individual housing association wished to commission a particular service from the Audit Commission, it could charge for it?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

No.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

He says that it cannot. I wonder whether that is right, because under the Local Government Act 1999 the National Audit Office can charge for additional services.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is once again confusing matters. The Audit Commission can charge local authorities. That is why the power is there under the Local Government Act 1999. It is precisely because we are bringing together in a combined inspectorate the inspection of both local authorities and registered social landlords to whom different provisions apply that the clause is necessary.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Again, the Minister's comments are tangential. Any public body is entitled to employ consultants, including accountants, to give it advice on any of its statutory services. At present, housing associations with a problem can go to any accountant in the country, including the Audit Commission, for consultancy advice. The Minister is creating a smokescreen by introducing this charging regime to allow housing associations to do something they can already do.

The Housing Corporation will have to absorb the block grant. Will the Minister say what the block grant will be? In giving the new power he must have worked out what it is to be. It is coming off the bottom line of the Housing Corporation's budget. I presume that the Housing Corporation will at some point seek to

recover it from housing associations, otherwise there will be less grant for every housing association in the country.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is getting even more confused and is confusing himself by his own verbiage. The function of inspection is being transferred from the Housing Corporation to the Audit Commission. There will be a transfer of funding associated with the transfer of function. There will not be any residual costs to be recovered from housing associations, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Does he understand that where there is a transfer of functions there should be an associated transfer of costs?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister would be right if it was entirely a matter of like for like, but precedent shows in parish councils that once the Audit Commission is involved—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs and shakes his head, but the facts are there. In many cases in parish councils the audit costs have gone up by several hundred per cent since the Audit Commission's involvement. If he does not believe that, I will write to him again with the facts of the parish council in my constituency and place them on the record by asking him a parliamentary question.

I would like an assurance from the Minister that the Audit Commission will seek to recover the block grant at only the exact current cost of the function to the Housing Corporation and that in no way will the finances of the Housing Corporation be worse off as a result of the new clause.

Moving on, Mr. Conway, the new clause gives rise to another conflict of the functions of different bodies relating to guidance issued by the Housing Corporation under section 36(7) of the Housing Act 1996 and by the Secretary of State in relation to best value authorities under section 26(1) to (3) of the Local Government Act 1998. Is this double regulation? What guidance will the Minister give under new clause 10 that he does not already give?

Our exchanges this morning have been interesting. [Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh. They do not like the Opposition probing the Minister's intentions vigorously. The housing associations listening to these debates and watching what happens will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I look forward to some answers.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I wonder whether a more interesting line of inquiry would be about the future of the Housing Corporation. The corporation traditionally has two functions: grant distribution and inspection. It was subject to a recent fundamental review that put arguments that made one wonder whether a nationally based Housing Corporation was necessary. If it loses its inspection function and the housing strategies are further regionalised, perhaps to the regional development agencies or regional authorities—the Minister accused me of saying that such authorities would have no functions, but I accept that the only substantive

function would be this puny one—one starts to reflect whether there is role for the Housing Corporation. One wonders whether its functions would not be more effectively administered in a different way and at a different tier.

On top of that, we must consider the Deputy Prime Minister's statement on additional house building, in which he talked in imprecise terms about new delivery mechanisms, including a development corporation for the Thames gateway and Thurrock area. The Government may be moving towards bringing together funding and planning delivery vehicles to achieve housing development. The Select Committee on Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions has examined the matter and seen many possible disadvantages, while the waste that the additional houses will produce and that will have to be disposed of has been considered elsewhere.

Putting those thoughts together, are the Government wondering whether, in the medium term, the Housing Corporation, which was set up to do a specific task in specific circumstances, is still fulfilling a worthwhile function or whether different mechanisms should be adopted? If so, we may look back at this time as when we began to see the track appearing through the fog. Will the Minister speculate gently on that, given that he was just about the only Minister who came out with any honour from Sir Andrew Foster's retrospective on interference with the Audit Commission?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I rise to support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). He explored in some detail the question of charging by the Audit Commission for inspections, and I will not go down that road again because he drew out some interesting responses from the Minister. I am concerned that once we give a public body the power to charge, its charges are inclined to rise somewhat more quickly than the rate of inflation. I am sure that that matter will be consulted on in due course, but it is worth putting on the record that far too many public bodies charge those who are forced to be their customers too much. The Audit Commission has a poor record on that.

The Minister has been generous to my local authority recently, and he will be sorry to hear that it decided yesterday to set a rate increase of 14.5 per cent. It had been talking about an increase of 18 per cent. before the Minister's generosity became known, but 14.5 per cent. is still indicative of the fact that local authorities and other public bodies will allow charges to escalate too much unless they feel immediately threatened by the retribution of their electors or customers. I am sure that the fact that local elections in my constituency are some time away has taken the heat off the people who set the charges.

I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold about the danger of handing the power to charge untrammelled to the Audit Commission. I accept that the Minister does not intend to do that today or tomorrow, but the Secretary of State is being given the power to do so in the future, and I fear that that power may be abused, because of

market failure. If there is only one inspectorate, the customer has no choice of inspection service. There can be a range of inspectors, as in the Ofsted process, which is effective. However, the Minister has chosen to impose a single inspectorate, which is what the new clause does, so there will be no competition in the delivery of inspection services of the sort that would drive down, and has driven down, charges and raised efficiency under the Ofsted inspection process.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend is on to a good point, but there is some benefit and consistency in having one auditing body for all the Housing Corporation's functions. On the other hand, should not the Audit Commission, as the sole auditor, seek to minimise its charges rather than to charge a maximum rate, and should not those charges be in line with what the private sector would charge?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The commission should certainly seek to minimise its charges, and I hope that such a requirement will be included in any order that may follow consultation. However, it is not necessary to have a single inspector to operate a single inspectoral framework. Ofsted has demonstrated very well how a range of inspectors can operate a single inspectoral framework. The Minister has chosen not to go down that road. He may have good reasons, but I would like to hear what they are. It may be because there are relatively few housing associations compared with the number of schools, but I would like to know his reasons for choosing a monopoly.

Lawrie Quinn (Labour, Scarborough and Whitby)

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who obviously has great experience of the private sector. Will he say what proportion of a private company's turnover he would expect to be used for auditing and accountancy and how, in his experience, that would compare with the public sector?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I cannot answer that question. I may have given the appearance of having considerable experience of the private sector, but most of my experience is of working in the public sector. Before I got this job, I worked for a London local authority.

Lawrie Quinn (Labour, Scarborough and Whitby)

Which one?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The London borough of Southwark. The public sector is not necessarily a glowing example of efficiency, but I am sorry if I have misled the hon. Gentleman in any way about my past experience.

Since Ofsted's introduction, the competition between its inspectors has driven down costs and enabled it to raise the quality of available inspection, but the Minister has chosen not to go down that road, presumably for good reasons.

I am sure that we all agree that an inspection process is justified, but the Opposition are always concerned about the proliferation of public bodies and ever greater intrusion into the operation of the market. The problem with social housing, as with schools, is that there is no effective market for providing it for two

reasons. The first is that tenants cannot easily move from house to house if they believe that their landlord is not effective. We must recognise that. I see that the Minister is nodding; he has recognised that. The second is that there is a monopoly provision of social housing in some areas. That has worsened in recent years as small-scale registered social landlords have amalgamated into larger ones.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman's recent remarks about the lack of an effective market, for the reasons that he outlined, including the fact that tenants do not have the freedom to move. However, I was surprised at his comment that there has been a tendency in recent years towards a monopoly provision in certain areas. In general, social housing provision has become more diverse. The number of registered social landlords has increased the social housing sector, which was dominated largely by local authorities until some 20 years ago. I accept that that is not the case in every area, but it has been the general trend.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

It depends what one means by recent. Certainly, we have seen diversification of social housing provision during the past 20 years, but more recently, particularly since 1997, there have been amalgamations of smaller registered social landlords. Two in my own constituency, Medina and South Wight housing associations, have had to amalgamate with mainland housing associations because, they claim, of rent controls imposed by the Minister, which prevent them from generating sufficient income to invest in property development. Other larger mainland housing associations, in contrast, make profits elsewhere that they can invest on the island.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The history of the two housing associations provides a wider and more extensive background to the mergers. It is not simply a consequence of rent policy. However, I pass over that and suggest that though mergers affecting registered social landlords are occurring for efficiency purposes, a trend is discernible towards greater diversity with more large registered social landlords operating in many parts of the country than ever before in the past.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am certainly pleased to hear that, as I was about to move on to the relatively small number of social landlords.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Before my hon. Friend moves off, I recently had a similar discussion with the Fosse Way housing association. The Housing Corporation is exerting pressure on smaller associations to merge into bigger ones. That might produce greater efficiency, but sometimes tenants feel that their landlord becomes more remote as well geographically removed and that services decline as a result of the merger.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That is certainly the feeling among tenants. The jury is out on whether that will be the consequence of the amalgamations in my constituency. I see the Minister nodding in support of my hon. Friend's point. It is certainly a danger:

whether the perception turns into a reality or larger landlords can devise effective consultation methods with tenants remains to be seen.

I tabled amendments (a) to (g) principally to ensure that the inspection process is as sensitive and light-touched as the Minister proposes. Amendment (a) requires the Audit Commission in undertaking inspections to recognise the differences between different landlords in different areas and includes an obligation to take account of the needs of applicants for housing as well as those fortunate enough to have succeeded in their applications. Notwithstanding the provision of a single housing list, the treatment by different landlords of applicants varies considerably. To some landlords, applicants are seen as a thundering nuisance who get in the way of effective delivery of services to tenants. To others, they are viewed as prospective customers whose interest needs to be nurtured, and such landlords try to provide housing as close as possible to where it is needed rather than feeling that they have fulfilled their obligation by providing a house somewhere. If housing is available in a rural area, it is important that it should be offered to applicants in the village where they live rather than moving them to a town. The amendment would require the Audit Commission to respond to the differing needs of urban and rural areas and of tenants and applicants.

Amendment (b) would require that a report on the outcome of the inspection be made available to tenants and other interested parties at the office of the registered social landlord within a reasonable travelling distance for the tenants. Libraries, schools, village halls, and offices of town and parish councils would be appropriate places for the reports to be made available.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

And the internet.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My hon. Friend suggests the internet, to which a number of people now have access. However, the suggestion at a public meeting last Monday that a report by my local health authority was available on the internet drew catcalls from those in the audience for whom it was not available. The internet is not yet universally available. The sooner it is, the better—in some respects.

Proposed new paragraph (c) in amendment (b) says that a summary of the report should be sent to every tenant. That is tremendously important. It replicates a provision in the schools inspection arrangements whereby a summary of the report is made available to every parent, and the full report is made available in the school.

Amendment (c) requires the inspection process to be proportionate to the size of the registered social landlord. I welcome the Minister's remarks that the thrust of the policy is to ensure that the inspection process is proportionate and that there is a light touch for organisations that are performing well. However, the word ''proportionate'' also means that sometimes a standard will be different in different areas. The

Minister talked about delivering ''uniformly high service standards''. Some people in rural areas accept that, because they live in rural areas, a different service standard is appropriate from that which is available in urban areas. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) shakes his head.

Lawrie Quinn (Labour, Scarborough and Whitby)

Until now, I thought that there was a great affinity between the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Isle of Wight, and Scarborough and Whitby. However, his last point about rural dwellers somehow being prepared to accept a lower standard or lower quality is a bogus argument in my experience of rural constituents. The Labour Government have done their utmost to move forward to a level playing field approach to ensure that there is no distinction between urban dwellers and rural dwellers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will re-read the rural White Paper to see the difference between the Labour party's policies for rural dwellers and those of the Conservative party.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I will indeed do that, but I used the word ''different'', not ''lower''. I will, if I may, refer to an example from outside housing—I am sure that you will allow me a brief excursion in that direction, Mr. Conway. It is clear that larger hospitals are regarded as more efficient, and that a number of consultants are needed in a hospital to provide the highest possible quality of service. However, if one lives on an island, it is not good enough to be told that the only way to receive such a service is to go to the mainland.

Phil Sawford (Labour, Kettering)

We all live on an island.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I mean a small island. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I have inadvertently lapsed into using the European definition of island, rather than the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' definition. The fact is that smaller populations recognise that sometimes they have a different level of service, and it is a level of service that is appropriate and acceptable to them. If I live in a village, I know that I will have to travel for some minutes before I get to a supermarket.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

With the example of hospitals, I feel more confused than ever. The argument that consultants need to see a certain number of patients to keep skills might be a good argument for a bigger hospital, but it gives me no understanding of the differing housing needs in rural areas. My constituency is largely rural, and my constituents expect housing to be of a high standard and appropriate to their needs—some for single people, some for small families and some for larger families. Will the hon. Gentleman explain further what he means?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I can very easily. The distance that one has to travel to pay one's rent may be considerably longer in a rural area, particularly if it has no post offices, than in a town. A garage or place to park a car may be much more important to tenants in rural areas

than in urban areas. It may be a trade-off, but a high-rise block of flats may be more acceptable to a tenant in an urban area where many tenants live in such places than in a rural area.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the key differences is that where there are many RSL houses in one spot it is easier to have stronger housing associations and proper tenant participation in the management of their houses? In large diverse rural areas, that is far more difficult.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My hon. Friend gives a good example. If I were to give another, it is that in an urban area one might expect a tenant's hall to be provided as part of a social housing estate, as it is in many areas. In rural areas it is more likely to be a community hall, which is the village hall in the area and in which the registered social landlord does not have an interest. Those are the kind of differences to which I refer.

I will not detain the Committee, but we have given examples of the sort of debate that could take place.

Amendment (d) also requires the closer involvement in the inspection process of the tenants in particular but also of applicants for housing. That is akin to another means sometimes highly used in the Ofsted inspection process: people should be given the opportunity to make representations through at least one public meeting.

Many people find it difficult to make representations in writing or over the internet, but a public meeting is a widely recognised and well-used means of making one's voice heard. It gives people the opportunity to support each other on an issue. Two or three people making their voices known in the same way will have a greater impact than one or two people writing separate—and perhaps rather ill-phrased—letters that the recipient might discount. Seeing someone with an objection face to face is different from reading a letter. I am sure that hon. Members have had that experience in their surgeries; I certainly have. I think that most of us find it necessary to be available to see people face to face.

The inspectors should be available to hear what tenants and applicants for housing feel about the registered social landlord. When they have prepared a draft report, it should be made available to employees, particularly the chief executive, so that they can comment on its contents.

David Lepper (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Pavilion)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has conferred with the hon. Member for Cotswold on the points that he makes. It seemed that his hon. Friend was arguing for reducing management costs in implementing these proposals, whereas the hon. Gentleman seems to be adding layer on layer of procedures that would increase management costs.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My hon. Friend certainly argued for lower charges for the procedure. I think he would also argue, as do I, for a higher quality of service. The way one meets that is by achieving greater efficiency

through the introduction of the market to inspections. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but in the school inspection process we have a walking, talking example of how we can drive up the quality of inspections while driving down the cost.

Amendments (e), (f) and (g) are simple. They require the commission to consult with registered social landlords and not with people whom it thinks may represent registered social landlords. I do not apologise for drawing on my experience in the education sector; it is one thing to consult bodies appearing to represent others and another to consult the bodies on which one's actions will have an effect.

There is no obligation for every registered social landlord to read the consultation document, to respond to it, or even to open the envelope in which it arrived. Direct consultation is far more effective and generates a much better response than indirect consultation. Indirect consultation may smooth out some of the bumps and glitches in the responses, but that is exactly why it is less effective.

I am happy to support the amendments.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Before I call the next speaker, if the hon. Member for Isle of Wight wants to press any of his amendments to a Division, I ask him to advise the Clerk during the debate.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I have one or two questions for the Minister and I shall be brief. Can he say what has to be inspected under section 41A(1)(a) and (b) and why the proposal is expressed in those terms? There is no problem with paragraph (1)(a), which refers to the quality of services provided by a registered social landlord. One would expect that to be the focus of the inspection. However paragraph (1)(b) refers to ''securing continuous improvement''. That may be welcome, but it is usually a statutory duty on a local authority. Registered social landlords are not public bodies, so I am interested in why the Government are placing a statutory duty usually associated with the public sector on a non-public body.

Why have the Government made a specific reference in terms of the inspection requirements to the guidelines set out by the Housing Corporation? The Housing Corporation, in undertaking its inspection role, has very clear guidance, which is not about to be ripped up. Will the Audit Commission's inspections be based on the same guidance or will a new set of guidance be issued? The Minister said that there would not be double regulation in theory, but that is what we may get in effect. The matter must be clarified as the housing association sector and registered social landlords need to know the guidelines to which they are working before the inspectors arrive.

Why did the Minister decide to use section 11 of the Local Government Act 1999 as the basis for the new framework for registered social landlords? Why not use the Housing Act 1996—the primary legislation that governs registered social landlords? The Minister's decision seems odd, but I am sure that he will explain it to the Committee.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have had a wide-ranging debate and several useful points have been made. I shall try to respond to the issues that have been highlighted.

The hon. Member for Cotswold asked about the division of responsibility between the Housing Corporation and the Audit Commission. The Housing Corporation will continue to be the regulator of registered social landlords, as it is statutorily obliged to be. It will also continue to have a number of other functions, which I shall refer to in responding to the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). The commission's role will relate to inspection. It will look at the performance of registered social landlords and, for reasons that I shall set out when I respond to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), seek continuous improvement in their performance.

The hon. Member for Cotswold asked about the role of the National Audit Office. The new arrangements for the NAO arise from the recommendations of the Sharman report, which gives the NAO the role of external auditor to all non-Departmental public bodies, including the Housing Corporation. To enable it to carry out that function, the NAO is allowed access to RSL data to the extent that it is part of the financial audit of the Housing Corporation itself. The NAO is not taking over the inspection regime: it is simply being allowed access to information that is pursuant to and arises from its primary role as the external auditor of the Housing Corporation. I hope that that explains why there is not a model of three separate organisations. There is a perfectly proper role for the NAO in its overall scrutiny of public finances—the point rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton.

The inspection function will clearly be with the Audit Commission and the Housing Corporation will continue to be the regulator of registered social landlords.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

While the Minister was choosing his words very carefully and there may be a hair's breadth between the functions of the NAO and the Audit Commission, there will nevertheless be two different auditing bodies asking the Housing Corporation similar questions. That will result in duplication of effort, if not costs. Would it not be better for one of those two bodies to do both functions?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

No. It is perfectly proper for the NAO to keep the overview of all non-Departmental public bodies. It would be a curious framework if it were prevented from doing that. That is in the interests of overall scrutiny of public finance.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The Minister may be interested to know that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) fully supports Lord Sharman's conclusions and recommendations.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Of course he does. He looked at the matter in some detail and clearly wants to ensure that we have a proper framework for oversight of public

finances. The NAO should rightly have that function. That does not in any way involve a confusion of the specific roles that I have outlined. The Audit Commission will perform an inspection role in relation to registered social landlords and the Housing Corporation will continue to perform its regulatory function.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Yet again the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has misrepresented what I was trying to say. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee when I was on it. We both support the Sharman recommendations. One recommendation was that the NAO should also audit the discharge of the Housing Corporation's functions to registered social landlords. In other words, there should be just one auditing body auditing all the functions of the Housing Corporation.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

That would be a fundamental change and would seriously affect the role of registered social landlords, which are not public bodies. The hon. Gentleman asked whether they were public or private bodies. I was going to answer that. It would be a major departure to give the NAO a responsibility for auditing bodies that are not public bodies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is not necessarily the right way forward.

The hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that until 1988 registered social landlords were funded purely from public funds. They were not. They are voluntary bodies. Some were set up in the 19th century. Many were in existence before 1974 when for the first time they became eligible for public money. They were mostly established as charitable or similar bodies such as friendly societies. They were non-profit making bodies and since 1974 they have been eligible for public funding, which was provided primarily via the Housing Corporation. That is their legal position. They remain essentially independent bodies. They might be deemed to be private by some people. I would describe them as independent because they are not for profit. Private often carries a connotation of profit-making, which they are not. They are certainly not public bodies.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Minister raises an important point. Does the power apply to all types of bodies such as almshouses, housing co-operatives, housing companies and not-for-profit companies? Is there any distinction or does the new clause cover all the bodies that are funded by the public sector? If bodies are not funded by the public sector—for example private co-operatives—will they still be covered?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question, because a diverse range of housing associations exists. Some are in effect non-operative, having ceased to develop and having only small property holdings that were developed many years ago. They are not doing any active work or

receiving any public money. It would be odd for a huge inspection to apply to all 2,000-plus registered social landlords when some of them are not active.

The focus will be on organisations that are operating as registered social landlords, and the Audit Commission will simply carry forward the inspection function that the Housing Corporation had put in place. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, our intention is to ensure a proportionate regime. I will come on to the issue of proportion in a moment, because there are questions about small operations that can be risky. However, in general, the inspection regime is designed to focus on active housing associations that are in receipt of public money rather than those that are dormant.

The hon. Member for Cotswold asked about the audit fees charged by the Audit Commission and raised fears about parish councils. Although they are separate from the issues that we are discussing, it is right for me to remind him that the Audit Commission has introduced a new policy on the audit of parish councils, which specifically safeguards the position of the smallest parish councils by setting small maximum audit fees for small councils. Larger parish councils may require a more detailed audit because they are disposing of significant amounts of money, and we have covered that situation by introducing the provision, which we debated earlier, for grants of £30,000 for best value parishes. That will enable them to meet the best value obligations, including the more rigorous audit.

There may be individual cases in which parish councils have had increased audit fees, but many others have had substantial reductions as a result of the Audit Commission's policy, which is simply to cover its costs. There is no question of the commission trying to make a profit; it has simply to cover its costs and meet the obligations of efficiency savings of at least 2 per cent. per annum, which we rightly impose on it as well as local authorities. I have covered the issue of the budget transfer, but in case the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, I should make it clear that there will be a transfer of £1.8 million from the Housing Corporation to the Audit Commission to cover 2003-04.

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon raised some interesting questions. He will know that the future and role of the Housing Corporation has been debated as long as the corporation has been in existence, because its role has an interesting dualism. It is both the regulator of registered social landlords and the moneybags—the funder. That can provide a certain tension, and I have heard many debates over many years about whether it is right for a single body to fulfil both functions. In practice, it is right, as it makes sense for the body that is responsible for regulation also to ensure that public funds are channelled to the registered social landlords that are capable of using them to best effect. We do not see a problem or tension in the Housing Corporation continuing to perform those functions.

We also envisage the Housing Corporation having a considerable role in the communities plan, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister

announced over a week ago. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is right to say that the Housing Corporation will be involved in the delivery of that plan and that are there interesting questions about its relationship with other delivery vehicles. However, it would not be right to speculate further other than to say, as someone who worked closely with the Housing Corporation as Minister for Housing and Planning—as did the right hon. Gentleman—that I have great confidence in it and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman shares my confidence. I firmly believe that the Housing Corporation has an important future in providing the necessary comfort to lenders by maintaining a robust regulatory regime and in ensuring the effective delivery of the Government's communities plan.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reference to Sir Andrew Foster's recent observations, which made it clear that this Minister was adamant in defending the independence of the Audit Commission.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

But not others.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I recall references to the role of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), but I shall not comment further because it is irrelevant to our proceedings.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to the absence of competition for inspection, though he accepted the need for consistency. Consistency is indeed crucial, and we should expect a standard level of inspection for bodies delivering social housing, whether they be registered social landlords or local authorities.

Amendment (a) is aimed at ensuring that an inspection will cover arrangements for co-operation between local housing authorities and registered social landlords and for responding to the differing needs of tenants and applicants for housing in different areas. We intend inspection to assess services to tenants in the widest sense and to examine the extent to which they are tailored to customers or potential customers. Relationships between registered social landlords and local housing authorities are important, but the Housing Corporation will maintain an interest in the light of its continuing investment and regulatory functions in respect of resources and strategies, and policies relating to local area needs. Comprehensive performance assessment of local authorities also examines the relationships between authorities and their partners. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment (b) is designed to amend the requirements on publication of reports to require summaries for each tenant and full copies to be made available at convenient offices. Tenants will be involved in the inspection process and will naturally have an interest in the findings and follow-up action. Both the Audit Commission and the Housing Corporation publicise inspection findings widely, making them available on the internet and providing free copies on request. It is up to the local authority or registered social landlord to arrange any further publicity to tenants and residents.

Registered social landlords are required to communicate the executive summary of inspection reports in ways appropriate to the communities that they serve. Given that reports will be readily available, it is right to leave it to individual landlords to communicate with their tenants in the most appropriate way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) pointed out, the requirements in the amendment would impose an excessive burden on registered social landlords.

Amendment (c) would make the demands of inspection proportionate to the size of registered social landlords. That level of detail is unnecessary to the Bill. The Housing Corporation's existing programme is already proportionate to size and levels of activity, as I made clear to the hon. Member for Cotswold, and we anticipate that the Audit Commission will adopt a similar approach. The key requirement is that the level of inspection be proportionate to risk. Size is one factor that determines risk, but not the only one. As Minister for Housing and Planning, I was involved with some significant cases where relatively small registered social landlords got into serious financial difficulty. It is incorrect to view the inspection as proportionate only to size, so the amendment is inappropriate.

Amendment (d) would place potentially onerous requirements on the Commission to hold meetings with tenants and to consult employees on findings as part of the inspection process. Again, it is unnecessary and unduly burdensome.

Finally, amendments (e), (f) and (g) are about consulting registered social landlords individually rather than their representative organisations. It is our practice to consult all registered social landlords as well as organisations representing them on key policy issues. I have already given an undertaking that there will be full consultation on the issue of fees. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to consult persons representing registered social landlords, and I am happy to reflect on whether it would be appropriate in practice to consult all registered social landlords before making an order authorising the charging of fees. There is nothing in the new clause to prevent our doing so.

I do not, however, think that it would be appropriate for the Audit Commission to be required to consult registered social landlords individually on fee scales. The requirement in relation to local authorities is for consultation with associations representing local authorities. Having responded to those points, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked why there was a requirement for continuous improvement. It is a matter of consistency of approach towards local authority housing departments and registered social landlords. Local authorities are already subject to a continuous improvement obligation and so, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, it would be odd not to expect a similar approach from

registered social landlords, which, in many cases, are providing more housing than individual local authorities. Some registered social landlords are very large, and it is right that they should be subject to the same expectation of continuous efficiency gains and improvement as local authorities.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Housing Corporation guidance would apply. The answer to that question is yes. There will initially be a straight transfer of the existing approach from the Housing Corporation to the Audit Commission, but as the integration progresses there may be—we would expect there to be—changes in guidance. Initially, however, the Audit Commission will work specifically on the Housing Corporation plans and guidance.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Will there be one set of guidance? Presumably two sets will not be allowed to run in parallel at any one time?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We certainly do not want the confusion of two separate guidance arrangements. The Audit Commission will work initially according to the Housing Corporation guidance. However, as the integration progresses, inevitably there will be some consideration of the need for new combined guidance. We do not want to see a framework in which there is a confusion of separate forms of guidance in operation. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to set out specifically why we are using section 11 of the Local Government Act 1999 as the basis rather than the Housing Act 1996, and I hope that he will accept that explanation.

I urge the Committee to support the new clause and the Government amendments, and I urge the hon. Member for Isle of Wight not to press his amendments.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am not wholly satisfied with the Minister's explanations on amendments (b) and (d), but I am sure that this will not be the last piece of housing legislation this millennium, and that if we find that this does not work, we will have the opportunity to press such amendments in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

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

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 18—Repeal of section 2A of Local Government Act 1986—

'(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (c.10) shall cease to have effect.

(2) No order under this section shall be made unless the Secretary of State has certified that—

(a) appropriate guidance has been issued under section 403(1A) of the Education Act 1996 (c.56); and

(b) an appropriate mechanism has been established for consulting parents of registered pupils by ballot about the contents of any written statement made in pursuance of section 404(1)(a) of that Act.

(3) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Amendment No. 10, in

schedule 7, page 105, line 38, at end insert—

'Local Government Act 1986 (c.10) section 2A'.

Government amendments Nos. 135 and 137 to 139.

Amendment No. 8, in

clause 122, page 69, line 9, leave out 'and 114' and insert

', 114 and (Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality)'.

Government amendment No. 140.

Amendment No. 9, in

clause 122, page 69, line 12, at end insert—

'( ) section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (c.10)'.

Government amendments Nos. 141 and 142.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

In beginning the debate, I stress that new clause 1 and the related amendments have been tabled in a spirit of cross-party unity on the issue. I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) who, although he is not on the Committee, is in the Room today. I am also glad to say that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has attached his name to the new clause, along with other Conservative Members.

It is not just in the House of Commons that there is cross-party unity on the issue. At the recent meeting of the executive of the Local Government Association, representatives of all parties were determined that they should campaign to remove this legislation from the statute book. It is against that background of different people of different parties having moved significantly on the issue that we are debating the new clause.

In my remarks I will look forward, as I hope other hon. Members will also do, rather than looking back at the history of which party did what at what time, because that is irrelevant. I will look at how we can move forward on the issue. It is important to remember the number of changes that have taken place in legislation and guidance in this area since the original legislation was passed. At the time, some of us were against that legislation, but many other people can now be against section 28 as a result of the changes.

I am sure that other hon. Members have a more comprehensive list, but the Learning and Skills Act 2000 makes it clear that local authorities have no responsibility for sex education, which makes section 28 completely redundant. It prohibits the national health service from producing material for sex education for adult gay men, and ensures that it cannot be used in schools. Section 148 of that Act ensures that

the Secretary of State must provide relevant sex and relationship guidance for schools. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2001 provides a strong framework of protection for children—not that section 28 was ever about protection for children. Nevertheless, people who are worried about that can now point to that Act.

One could name many other pieces of education legislation. Previous Governments, as well as this one, have issued much guidance on the subject, and parents always have the right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons in school. Given that panoply of guidance, this Committee needs to approach the debate differently to the way in which Committees and Parliaments in past decades have approached it.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Is the hon. Gentleman asserting that parents have the right to withdraw their children from sex education?

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Yes. Section 5.7 of the sex and relationship guidance, published in July 2001, states:

''Parents have the right to withdraw their children from all or part of the sex and relationship education provided at school except for those parts included in the statutory National Curriculum (see section 3).''

The parts that section 3 lists are quite a narrow part of sex education. The guidance states that when parents exercise the right to withdraw their children from sex education:

''Schools should make alternative arrangements in such cases. The DfEE will offer schools a standard park of information for parents who withdraw their children from sex and relationship education.''

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman a copy of that guidance if he wants to read it.

There are many reasons for removing section 28 from the statute book. I shall not talk about them at length, as I know that many hon. and right hon. Members want to speak about the issue, but I shall mention a few. We should remember that there is a high incidence of homophobic bullying in many of our schools. My noble Friend Lord Tope has done a great deal of research on that in partnership with some of the teaching unions and the Local Government Association. An important corollary to that is an anxiety among many teachers that they cannot support children who are suffering from that bullying. That anxiety may be the result of a misunderstanding of the law, but it is a fact. This House must legislate on the basis of fact. If we are concerned about that homophobic bullying, we should remove section 28 to make it clear that teachers with pupils who are suffering have an unfettered duty to help them.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

No one would argue with that, but the hon. Gentleman cannot say that a false perception exists and then claim that it is a fact. It is a fact that there is a perception, but the perception is inaccurate.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The hon. Gentleman is arguing against himself. He agrees that the perception is a fact, which is what I was saying.

We should be clear about the effect of allowing homophobia and homophobic bullying to remain in the system and of not working sensitively to remove it.

I am sure that other hon. Members will have figures to hand, but there is good evidence that the number of suicides among young males correlates to their sense of guilt and bullying as a result of their sexuality. The incidence of suicide in that group is higher than in any other section of the population.

We all have friends, colleagues and acquaintances who have suffered because of their sexuality. I heard after I left university that a colleague, a very talented young man, hanged himself in a toilet in the college. His friends believed that he committed suicide because of guilt about his sexuality and because he felt that he could not go back home and confront his parents. That is the reality; that is the sort of discrimination and fear that people have. When we approach the matter, let us forget the tabloid headlines, but remember the reality of many people who suffer because of their sexuality.

There are other reasons in favour of the proposal—issues related to sexual health and to the bizarre notion, which I completely reject, that a particular sexuality can be promoted and that people can be converted to it. There is no independent professional support for that view; the British Medical Association, for example, completely rejects it. It is a strong reason for getting rid of section 28, and there are many others. I do not want to labour that point, as I am sure that other hon. Members can do it better than I can.

Hon. Members need to be aware of the support for repeal. A huge number of bodies are in favour of our proposal, although I know that others are against. However, there is an impressive list of people and organisations that want the legislation to come off the statute book.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Can the hon. Gentleman explain something to me? I understand that not only are a range of organisations in favour of scrapping section 28, although several are against, but the Government are in favour of doing so and will be sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's proposal. That being so, why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government have not tabled an amendment to that effect themselves?

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I asked the Minister that question on Second Reading and I was not terribly happy with his answer. I am surprised that the Government have not tabled their own amendment and I wish that they had done so. However, as I said earlier, I do not intend to make party political points on the issue because it is too important.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

My understanding of my party's policy and the Government's position is that it is their clear intention to introduce a Bill in its own right. Seeing an opportunity, as my hon. Friends have, of using the Bill to scrap the the measure at an earlier date, I would prefer to congratulate the Government on taking that opportunity, rather than denigrating them for not waiting to do so.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I would rather congratulate the hon. Lady on her initiative than the Government.

David Lepper (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Pavilion)

In the light of what my hon. Friend said, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the sentiments that I expressed on Second Reading—that it matters not who introduces the amendment; the important thing is that the iniquitous section 28 is repealed.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The hon. Gentleman will know from the tenor and substance of my remarks that I agree with him, but I ask hon. Members on both sides of the Committee not to make these points but to move on.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I am anxious to come to the Minister's defence, although he may think that he does not need me to do so. I wonder whether the Government discussed whether to include a proposal to repeal section 28 in this Bill. Discussions about what to include in a Bill can be quite acrid; the Minister may have wanted such a proposal, but other members of the Govt, mindful, perhaps of the Daily Mail, may not, and they won the argument. That is pure, idle speculation.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman says is idle because he is held in great respect on both sides of the House. Let us get this issue out of the way. I think that the Government did not deal with it in the Bill because they feared that the other place might hold up the legislation. Obviously, there could have been a separate Bill at the same time, but I think that that is probably the judgment that they reached. That is one reason why it is incumbent on those of us who want the provision to be removed from the statute book to talk about the legislation, as I am trying to. We must send a message to the other place that the democratic House wants it off the statute book, and that that is not a partisan point, but one made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If we make our remarks as I suggest, we will send a very strong signal to the other place that it should stand aside and allow the democratic will of this House to prevail.

The long list of organisations that support the repeal includes ChildLine, Barnardo's, Save the Children, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, fpa—which was formerly the Family Planning Association—One Parent Families Scotland, the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, the Church of Scotland committee on education, Amnesty International, the National Children's Bureau, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, the Methodist Church and the British Youth Council. A very long list of people who are specialist in this field want section 28 off the statute book. Let no one be in any doubt: there is huge support for new clause 1.

Finally, and possibly unwisely, I shall comment on new clause 18, which was tabled by some Conservative Members. I understand their difficulties and concerns, but I caution them about going about dealing with those concerns in this way. They seem to want to allow parents to be balloted on this type of issue. That would be a retrograde step. Local ballots of parents on issues such as this would give licence to outrageous campaigns. People would hijack the issue, and people from outside would stir up hatred.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Like in the local government elections in Oldham.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about Oldham. I am sure that the Government Whip could enlighten us about that if he so chose.

I am simply saying that there are mechanisms to ensure that parents are consulted. Indeed, that is a very important part of the guidance. There are protections through parent governors and local education authority representatives on governing bodies. As we have made clear, there is the fundamental protection that parents can remove their children from lessons. If the Conservative party wants to be seen as tolerant, modernised and facing up to its responsibilities, it should not suggest this type of approach. I hope that the Conservatives will withdraw their proposal.

Mark Todd (Labour, South Derbyshire)

Is it not also intellectually inconsistent, when considering a matter of individual sexuality, to suggest that a majority vote in a school should determine what approach should be adopted? Our concern should be for the freedom and protection of the individual, not for a democratic process in this matter.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. In a liberal democracy, the need to protect minorities properly sometimes means that protection cannot be achieved through the ballot box and that some things are not appropriate for a vote. We need the protection of such rights in the framework of law and, sometimes, in the framework of the constitution.

In making those remarks on new clause 18, I am not trying to goad certain hon. Members in the slightest. I understand that they have had many problems and that many of them have come an awful long way on this issue. We should celebrate that across parties, because above all we need consensus to take the issue forward and get rid of such discrimination.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Before I call other Members, I remind the Committee that we are also discussing new clauses 18 and 10 and the Government amendments as set out on the amendment paper. The amendments will be taken formally this afternoon, but we have to dispose of the new clauses by 11.25 am, which I am sure that hon. Members will bear in mind in their contributions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I was interested to see that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton started in a reasonable manner by saying that the debate would be non-partisan and non-political, before spending five minutes attacking our new clause. I can hardly see how that was a non-partisan way of introducing the debate.

The controversial issue of section 2A has dogged the debate on sex education for some time. The genesis is the Local Government Act 1986, which was then amended by the Local Government Act 1988 to give powers to local authorities. This was then made redundant by the Learning and Skills Act 2000, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, because section 148 of the 2000 Act, which amends the Education Act 1996 section 351, to add subsection 7, says:

''Except to the extent provided in subsection (6), nothing in this section shall be taken to impose duties on a local education authority with regard to sex education.''

In other words, section 2A has been made redundant anyway, so it would be nonsense if we voted for new clause 1. It would make the law an ass if we tried to preserve something in law that could not be enforced.

The Education Act 1996, as amended by the Learning and Skills Act 2000, also imposed duties, including a duty to produce guidance and to maintain a statement and materials in schools. I have examined the guidance, and I urge anyone who has not read it to do so. It is 33 pages long and was issued in July 2000 as document DfEE 0116/2000. It is written extremely well and sets out the subject in great detail in a reasonable and balanced way. At the risk of taking a large document and quoting selectively from it, the Committee will benefit if I read out some brief quotations. It will give Members who have not read the guidance a good idea of what is being used in schools at the moment.

It is introduced by three points and starts by saying:

''Sex and relationship education should be firmly rooted in the framework for PSHE'',

which is personal, social and health education. It continues:

''Effective sex and relationship education is essential if young people are to make responsible and well informed decisions about their lives . . . The objective of sex and relationship education is to help and support young people through their physical, emotional and moral development . . . The new PHSE framework will help pupils develop the skills and understanding they need to live confident, healthy and independent lives. It will play an important role, alongside other aspects of the curriculum and school life, in helping pupils deal with difficult moral and social questions . . .

This is the first time that schools have had a national framework to support work in this area. As part of sex and relationship education, pupils should be taught about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children. But the Government recognises . . . that there are strong and mutually supportive relationships outside marriage. Therefore pupils should learn the significance of marriage and stable relationships as key building blocks of community and society . . .

Effective sex and relationship education does not encourage early sexual experimentation. It should teach young people to understand human sexuality and to respect themselves and others. It enables young people to mature, to build up their confidence and self-esteem and understand the reasons for delaying sexual activity.''

We can begin to see how reasonably this document is written.

On page 9 the document says:

''The materials used in schools must be in accordance with the PHSE framework and the law. Inappropriate images should not be used nor should explicit material not directly related to an explanation. Schools should ensure that pupils are protected from teaching materials that are inappropriate, having regard to the age and cultural background of the pupils concerned.''

I hope that hon. Members will take that paragraph into account when I develop my argument in a minute or two. The guidance states on page 10:

''The Department recommends that all primary schools should have a sex and relationship education programme tailored to the age and the physical and emotional maturity of the children.''

My final quotation from the guidance document is on page 16:

''In England in 1998 there were over 100,000 conceptions to teenagers, of which over 8,000 were to girls under 16.''

Of those teenage pregnancies, 38 per cent.—almost 39,000—ended in abortion. We must get this sensitive subject right.

The guidance is balanced and written fairly, but some of the material circulating at the moment, particularly in Scotland where the law is different, is frankly more pornographic than educational. It is almost obscene. I have with me a booklet produced by ''Face West''—the gay man's HIV prevention project, providing welfare rights advice and support for people living with HIV—which includes detailed pictures of homosexual practices, including rimming and skat. I do not even know what such practices mean. This little booklet is funded by public money and is circulating among teenagers as young as 12, which is quite unacceptable and inappropriate.

I have with me another booklet, which was produced by the Scottish Executive—in other words, with 100 per cent. funding by the Scottish taxpayer. Different sections apply to different ages. The section aimed at seven to 11-year-olds gives a detailed explanation of anal intercourse, masturbation, the clitoris, oral sex and bisexual sex. That is quite unacceptable for seven to 11-year-olds.

Still another document produced by the Avon health authority is aimed at nine, 10 and 11-year-olds. Under the title,

''Challenging heterosexism and developing discussion on issues of sexuality in the classroom'',

its opening sentence states:

''Homophobia interferes with the healthy development of all Young People''.

Again, it is unacceptable. We want to ensure a balanced debate and that schools adhere to the guidance. That is why my new clause 18 strengthens the need to use the guidance and to change it.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does my hon. Friend accept that the excellent guidance to which he has referred deals only with schools? No such guidance is provided for youth clubs. The repeal of the section would permit the distribution of all these documents in youth clubs.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

My hon. Friend is right. The little booklet that I quoted was designed for and was circulating in youth clubs. With the repeal of section 2A, the guidance should cover all Government organisations; any organisation funded by Government money should have to adhere to the guidance. We are looking for materials that are appropriate to children of a particular age. What is appropriate for children of 14 to 16 is inappropriate for seven to nine-year-olds. A huge difference applies.

David Lepper (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Pavilion)

Could the hon. Gentleman clarify whether the words that he quoted from the Avon education authority document were intended to be read by children of the age that he mentioned, or were they part of the guidance for teachers in approaching discussion of those issues?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I have no idea whether the teachers were using the document or letting the children read it. I suspect that the teachers probably did, and that the children found it inappropriate. I do not want to get into a facile debate. What is clearly wrong about the document is that it is written in a way that is unsuitable for nine to 11 year-olds.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

The document comes with a video that is intended to be, and is shown to children in schools. The clear message of that video is that a young boy in any doubt as to his sexual feelings and proclivities should experiment with all the different kinds available so that he can make up his mind. That is the sort of filth being peddled in schools.

Kali Mountford rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I give way to the hon. Member for Colne Valley.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that each governing body has its own curriculum committee containing members of the governing body, including parents, who have to discuss and agree the content of the curriculum for their own school? I can only assume that parents in Avon made that choice. Does he also accept that the other material that he has demonstrated to the Committee is not being distributed in schools and would not be covered by section 28 in England and Wales?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am grateful for the first part of the hon. Lady's intervention, which brings me nicely to our new clause. I do not want to get into an argument about which materials are available in schools. All that I am saying is that these materials have been prepared with public money for education in schools. I am surprised that anyone in the Committee is having an argument about this. These materials are inappropriate for the ages they are intended for. Therefore, I think that the guidance is reasonable and that is why I want to turn to my new clause 18.

Before I do so, I refer to section 405 of the Education Act 1996, which enshrines a provision for exemption from sex education:

''If the parent of any pupil in attendance at a maintained school requests that he may be wholly or partly excused from receiving sex education''.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made that point. The Secretary of State has to provide a plan for such children. That provision is unsatisfactory for two reasons: first, the children become stigmatised among their peers; secondly, and more important, well-trained teachers should be able to teach sex education as part of a balanced package in addition to any parental guidance that pupils may receive, otherwise what is the point in having sex education at all?

We have come to the current legal position in which local authorities have no locus; the governors of maintained schools have a locus. The guidelines in operation are perfectly adequate, provided that they are enforced across the piece, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said. That applies not just to materials in schools but to all materials that might be

used for teenagers of an inappropriate age. If section 2A is to be repealed, there needs to be something else in its place to strengthen the existing situation.

The guidance, which is excellent, needs to be strengthened and maintained. It should be incorporated into legislation and it should not be changed until a statutory instrument is approved by Parliament, so that it is still acceptable to Parliament; that would be the new guidance used in schools.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I want to probe my hon. Friend. I have a quote from a spokesman for the Scottish Executive on guidelines with reference to the incident that my hon. Friend mentioned. It reads:

''These guidelines are there for teachers but it doesn't mean that they are going to be used.''

Does that not reinforce my hon. Friend's point that the guidelines need additional force?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

As my hon. Friend says, the guidelines need additional force, and the second part of our new clause is also needed. As the hon. Member for Colne Valley said, there must be a proper curriculum procedure, the materials must be available in every school and there should be a written statement, which accords with this reasonable guidance. All that is enshrined in legislation, but we also need a mechanism whereby parents in a particular school can object if they believe that the written statement or the materials go outside, or do not conform with, that guidance. I am not rigid about the form that that should take, but we propose that there should be a ballot to decide whether the material should be rewritten and reintroduced if 25 per cent. of parents in a school object to it.

The regulations for the ballots would be issued in the form of guidelines from the Secretary of State. At least half those parents would have to vote for withdrawing the written material before any withdrawal. If it were withdrawn, the governors and head teacher would rewrite and resubmit it. If necessary, there should be another mechanism whereby another 25 per cent. would trigger another ballot, after which the material would be sent to the Secretary of State for adjudication as to whether it complied with the guidelines. If it did not, he would substitute national materials and statements as a default.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The hon. Gentleman rightly said that this is a sensitive matter. Does he now want ballots to be held throughout the country in different schools to deal with it?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I do not believe that that would happen often, because the ballot mechanism would deter any head teacher or governing body from straying too far from the guidance. The last thing a school wants is a ballot. It is a failsafe mechanism. If enough parents are aggrieved by the school's policy, there should be a mechanism through which they can ensure that the material is withdrawn and rewritten. The 25 per cent. trigger may be enough to cause the material to be withdrawn and rewritten.

One could consider the matter in various ways, but there must be a double-lock safety mechanism, which our new clause would provide. We must ensure that the guidance is available and strengthened so that it cannot be changed, except by Parliament's consent, and that there is an adequate mechanism to consult parents, if necessary by ballot.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his new clause would lead to numerous ballots in schools resulting in a withdrawal of section 2A in some places but no withdrawal in others, which would be confusing and unsatisfactory?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I made clear how the mechanism works. The parents can call for a ballot if 25 per cent. of them are dissatisfied with the material. The material produced by the governors and the head teacher must be withdrawn and rewritten if the majority vote against it. There may then be a provision for another ballot, or there may not. The matter needs to be considered. If the parents were still dissatisfied, the material would be sent to the Secretary of State for adjudication, and he would substitute national materials and a national statement as a default. There can be no stronger or fairer safeguards, and a ballot would deter any head teacher or governor from straying too far from the national guidelines, which are perfectly reasonable.

The materials should be educational, not pornographic, but if the Minister wants consensus, or even unanimity, on new clause 1, he must reassure the Committee that either our new clause 18 or something similar will be passed, so that people who are aggrieved by the nature and type of materials circulating in schools feel that adequate safeguards are in place.

If the Minister can give that reassurance or, even better, accept our new clause, and if we can achieve unanimity in the Committee on voting to abolish section 2A, that will send a huge message to the House on Report, and to the other place. I say in the strongest possible terms to hon. Members that section 2A is redundant in law—it gives local authorities powers that they do not have under the Learning and Skills Act 2000. Therefore, the law as it stands is an ass. If we do not vote today to get rid of section 2A, we will emerge from the Committee with discredit.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

I am grateful for the sensible remarks made by the hon. Member for Cotswold. Also, I thank the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who set the reasonable tone for the debate. Members across all parties have wanted the repeal of section 28, as it has come to be known, for many years, and I agree with him that rehearsing the whole argument, which started in 1998, and casting blame here, there and everywhere would do us no good at all.

However, I note that two parties here today—the Liberal Democrats and Labour—opposed section 28 from the beginning. My mother would say that, if something is part of a person and natural to them, they can take no credit for acting on it, because that is what they would do anyway. The people who deserve credit are those for whom change is an effort. We should therefore give particular credit to, for example, the

hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who have changed their view within their party. That is honourable and laudable. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but no doubt he will clarify his position later. People who move with the times and recognise that things are different, rather than those who knew their position from the beginning, deserve credit.

The hon. Member for Cotswold made a clear case that this is a redundant section of the Local Government Act 1986, as did the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. However, we should not believe that it has had no effect because it has never been acted on since its introduction and has never been used as a recourse in law. We need to consider that effect.

I have received many letters and e-mails since before Christmas, when I started to discuss a repeal of the section. People have written to me about their experiences of it. A local councillor said that, as LEAs do not have direct control over sex education in schools, it seems unlikely that the section could have an effect. However, in one school in that area, a young man, who had produced an extraordinary amount of artwork, died. The school wanted to put on an exhibition of his work, but was prevented from doing so because the young man was gay. It was felt that congratulating him posthumously would somehow promote his sexuality.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That is bonkers.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

The hon. Gentleman says that that is bonkers, and I agree. Nevertheless, it happened.

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

My hon. Friend says that section 2A is redundant. To a certain extent, that is the case for the LEA role, but does she acknowledge that it still has power in relation to other local government services? It is occasionally used by local authorities as an excuse to block grants to organisations that assist or provide services specifically for the gay community.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

My hon. Friend is clearly right, although I am happy to say that that has not yet been the case in local authorities that I have had direct contact with. Interpretation of the Act obviously varies across the country, as some people feel that it is possible to give grants and others do not. That mixed feeling and confusion about the section has caused so much trouble, not just in schools, but outside.

A local community group wanted to see a play called ''The Laramie Project'', which emerged after the tragic death of a 21-year-old in Wyoming. He was beaten to death because of his sexuality, which outraged the whole community. It is about not just the young man who died, but everyone's feeling of horror that people can behave in such a discriminatory way to the point that someone was mutilated and died five days later.

The play is not about sexuality; it is about crimes of hate, yet the people who wanted to produce it were told that they could not as it contravened section 28.

In the United States, however, the play has received popular acclaim and is viewed not just as a fantastic work of art in its own right, but as a useful mechanism for introducing discussions with young people about their feelings, their sexuality and their fears about other people's sexuality when it is not understood. The play offers a means to discover different ways of settling differences, rather than resorting to violence.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Like the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, the hon. Lady has described effectively the misunderstanding about the purpose of section 2A. Surely that is an argument for making clearer what the law means. A local authority does not need an excuse not to give a grant to a gay organisation as it has the discretion to do so or not to do so. My local authority, which, as hon. Members will know by now, does not have a majority of Conservative members, voted overwhelmingly against the repeal of section 2A. Misinterpretation of the law is not a reason to change it, but a reason to get it properly understood.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

In this case, I feel that the law has no purpose at all. The fact that local authorities can decide what grants to give without having to resort to an excuse shows that the law is redundant. Some local authorities make a decision in one direction and other authorities make a decision in the opposite direction under the same legislation, so it clearly has no purpose. Abolishing that legislation would not change what decisions local authorities could make. It would simply change the reasoning that they might give for a decision.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Does the hon. Lady agree that the discussion on the scope of section 2A and the difference of interpretation as to what it extends to emphasises even more the need for our new clause? In abolishing section 2A, we will need stronger guidance extending to all public sector bodies that receive any public money so that the material produced for children has to be appropriate to their age?

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

The hon. Gentleman needs to have more faith in the electorate and whom they elect. He has demonstrated well how the guidance currently works in schools in England and Wales, and the guidance is very good. Local authorities, outwith schools, also have a responsibility to behave appropriately, but that appropriateness of behaviour is different from the responsibility inside a school, where people might want to go for counselling for particular worries.

In a counselling session, people need to have the freedom to give the advice that is properly sought in its whole context. That might include using terms and images that I personally would prefer not to see, but I do not seek guidance and am therefore not the person for whom the material is written. It must be written in

such a way that the professional person who is giving counselling and guidance knows that it is best for the individual to whom they are giving guidance.

I am concerned because I do not think that Parliament is the right body to decide the precise terms in which a counselling session can be run and the images that can be used in it to help a person who is worried to gain proper understanding. The right people to decide that are those who are trained in counselling and in giving medical and educational advice. People should be able to mature appropriately and without fear. They should not have to contend with the overarching and overbearing interference of Parliament.

Certain people seem not to trust our local councillors to appoint appropriate people, whether family guidance or youth guidance officers. However, each local authority employs various types of officer and makes it own decisions about that. They also make their own decisions about their spending, and the electorate can call them to account on that.

The hon. Gentleman has expressed concerns about how guidance could be used and how people could have a democratic input to that. He referred in particular to schools. I believe that democratic accountability already exists in various forms. There is no need for an extra bureaucratic layer, and heaven knows what it would cost to run lots of ballots or to impose another overarching mechanism on local authorities. Let us consider how people do their work now. The hon. Gentleman said that section 28 was redundant and had no bearing on these decisions, but if that is so, why do we question it? Things seem to be running perfectly well without all the extra strictures that are proposed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The hon. Lady is perhaps not doing her cause any good. We all want to move forward together on this sensitive subject and to take as much of the country with us as possible, with consensus. The problem is that, if the sort of material that I have talked about continues to circulate, there will be more division in schools, more unhappiness about sex education and more parents unilaterally withdrawing their children from schools. The whole system of sex education will become less effective. Surely it is in all our interests to move forward on this issue with consensus, and if we are to move forward, we must ensure that those materials do not reach children of an inappropriate age.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

I agree that inappropriate material should not be used with very young children, and that I would not particularly want certain images to be seen in schools, but the hon. Gentleman did not demonstrate that the material that he has talked about is used in schools. It is used in other establishments for older teenagers. There was nothing to say that the material is used in schools. I understand that the documents are available in Scotland, but not particularly in England and Wales. Others have a completely different structure, but that is a matter for them to decide on. I do not intend to dictate to anyone

how they should live their life. However, it is incumbent on us to give children the guidance and advice that they desperately need.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Will the hon. Lady clear up one important point? In common with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, she is arguing that on the one hand section 28 is completely redundant, as it has been superseded by legislation, but on the other hand that it still has an effect because of the incident that she quoted as an example of the gay artist and the painting. Will she clear up that point?

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

The hon. Gentleman has understood my case well. In law, section 28 is redundant; in practice, it sometimes has an effect. As the leader of the Conservative party said in an interview with Giles Brandreth—I hope that I have not mispronounced his name, given that he is so famous—section 28 sent out the message to gay people that we dislike them.

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

One point that I wanted to make is that section 28, whatever its practical consequences, has caused tremendous resentment and enmity in the gay community. The feeling in the gay community is out of proportion to the practical effect. For no other reason, the removal of the section will make a great difference to how gay men and lesbians believe themselves to be considered in this country. Will she comment on that?

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

I will comment on that, because we need to be an inclusive society, and an inclusive society means acceptance of everyone. I say acceptance rather than tolerance, as people should not be merely tolerated. If we cannot embrace and love everyone—I do not suggest that we can—the least that we can do is accept each other as human beings on an equal footing without any discrimination or distinction of each other in law or practice. That is why section 28 is truly redundant. It has had its day. The hon. Member for Cotswold continues to feel the need to uphold some parts of it to provide extra layers of protection and perhaps assurance to people that they have nothing to fear, but people have nothing to fear already.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am not sure that the hon. Lady is living in the real world. There is a huge perception of fear, and unless we dispel it in some way, we will not move forward on the matter with consensus. She must recognise that parental fear if she wants to vote for the abolition of section 2A.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

We have a problem with competing perceptions, and that presents us with a great difficulty. There is one perception that section 28 is causing a problem and another that without it there would be chaos and madness in schools and that children would not be protected. I suggest that we get rid of all such perceptions but not by introducing extra layers of bureaucracy, particularly those with ballots, which would make it difficult to achieve a good result. A remarkable consensus exists among politicians and among communities. People's perceptions and fears dissipate once they see that in practice their children are being properly educated and supported.

People have no need to fear. As I have said, every school has a curriculum committee and every committee has a parent. In any event, there will always be parents' days. In my area, if parents are not happy with any aspect of what is happening in a school, they will pack out the school hall to make sure that their views are known. Any head teacher, governing body or head of governors who does not take cognisance of the parents will soon find that their roles crumble away. Parents will simply take their children out of the school, which is their right if they are not happy with how the head teacher is running it.

Consulting parents by ballot is unnecessary. It will make it look as though there is still something to be fearful of when there is not. The hon. Gentleman should support new clause 1, because that is the clearest way of making sure that these misinterpretations and perceptions are gone for ever.

David Curry (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

I was born in the 1940s. I was a child in the 1960s. I tried hard to embrace some of the more strenuous enthusiasms of the 1980s and 1990s, but I fear I have relapsed into a weary tolerance, which may be a fairly sensible posture to bring to politics. [Interruption.] In politics it is difficult always to be tolerant enthusiastically, so perhaps a weary tolerance is the best to which one can aspire.

There are three reasons why we need to get rid of this provision. First, at best it is inoperable; at worst it is very confusing. It is inoperable in the sense that it sits on the statute book but is incapable of being applied. It is confusing with regard to the people to whom it is addressed, which is no longer relevant to the way most practical management takes place, and therefore it is the statutory equivalent of the tonsil or the appendix to the human frame. It serves no discernible purpose except to cause irritation and discomfort from time to time, and the sensible action would be to remove it.

Secondly, it is offensive. We have to draw a distinction between what a piece of legislation or literature says and the impression conveyed by the manner in which it is articulated. Pieces of legislation or literature that are relatively inoffensive can none the less assume significance and be used in an offensive way. The problem with this provision is that the set of attitudes behind it are becoming increasingly out of date. I make no criticism of its authors, but if one looks at the society we live in today one comes back to my noble friend Lord Hurd's stricture at a Conservative party conference, where undoubtedly he was having a difficult time on a difficult subject, which is that we have to live not in the world we wish to live in but in the world that exists not as we wish it to be. That is another example of a certain world-weariness, but it is a reality.

We see a world changing rapidly around us. My children are all around the age of 30. I will have achieved the distinction—if it is one—of marrying off three children within 364 days, which is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer refers to as an asymmetric event. They live in a wholly different world from that in which I was brought up, just as my parents lived in a world wholly different from that in which my

wife and I live. I notice things that they do not; they take for granted things that I do not take for granted. The environment in which we live is different, and we must accept that it is a good thing that we live in a more diverse world that is more tolerant in many respects, although ugly intolerances still emerge.

The third reason is a purely party political one. I am not often accused of making party political points, but this is a liability which my party needs to liquidate. It has been with us for too long and it is a nuisance; we have talked about it for too long and we must get it out of the way and move on to different things.

I appreciate the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold to ensure that what is taught in school is appropriate. I speak from experience as a Minister when I say that there are two words that government should never seek to define: one is ''appropriate'' and the other ''reasonable''. The system of government depends upon those two adjectives, neither of which is capable of being defined. Without them, the entire system would collapse. We are all assumed to know what we mean by ''appropriate'' and, funnily enough, in general terms, we do.

The Conservative amendment is a noble attempt to get us off the hook. It expresses genuine anxiety. There are difficulties in schools, especially in some urban areas where there are large ethnic minority groups, which bring a different, and sometimes conflicting, baggage to these matters. I hope that the Minister will say something to bring us together to abolish a measure that does none of us any credit. It is time that we moved beyond it.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The Committee has had its ups and downs, but this debate has unquestionably been one of the ups. There has been a serious and entirely proper consideration of sensitive and difficult issues and an absence of bigotry and stereotyping that, sadly, too often characterises debates on this subject. Much is owed to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton for the way he moved new clause 1; to the hon. Member for Cotswold for his pragmatic recognition that section 28 has no further useful purpose; to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley—she raised the issue on Second Reading and is associated with the proposal, which I hope that the Committee will accept—for movingly describing the adverse consequences of the legislation on the lives of vulnerable people; and to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon for his sound and thoughtful advocacy of repeal, which was laced with references to weary tolerance. I thought that I detected in the hon. Gentleman's comments an oblique reference to Cromwell at the end of the Rump Parliament, ''You have sat here too long . . . In the name of God, go.'' The right hon. Gentleman was referring not to a Member of the House—least of all himself—but to section 28.

The effect of new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 8 to 10 will be to repeal section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. The section was inserted in the

1986 Act by section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 and so became known as section 28, and I will continue to use that familiar shorthand.

Section 28 is an unnecessary piece of legislation; as I shall explain, contrary to popular belief it has no application to schools and therefore has no effect on what is taught in the classroom, as was widely recognised in Committee during the debate. What is taught in the classroom is governed by the Education Act 1996—

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Not for a moment. Repealing section 28 would not change that situation. However, section 28 is deeply offensive to many people, as it stigmatises certain lifestyles. The Government are committed to tackling actual and perceived discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, so I support the amendments to repeal section 28.

Amendments Nos. 135 and 137 to 142 are tabled in my name; they are all consequential and have the effect of repealing provisions in other statutes which refer to section 28. These provisions would be obsolete if section 28 ceased to have effect. Amendments Nos. 137, 138 and 141 relate to references to section 28 in the Education Act 1996 and the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The reference in the Education Act 1996 provided that a pupil referral unit is a maintained school for the purposes of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. If section 28 ceases to have effect, the provision becomes obsolete.

The reference in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 substitutes certain words in section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. The original wording—

''county school, voluntary school, nursery school and special school''—

was replaced with the generic wording,

''a maintained school or maintained nursery school within the meaning of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998''.

Again, if section 28 ceases to have effect, the provision is obsolete. Indeed, as local authorities have no role in setting sex education policy, the provisions currently have no practical effect.

Amendment No. 141 will provide that both repeals will take effect two months after Royal Assent, which is the normal period for the implementation of anything other than extremely urgent legislation. Amendments Nos. 135 and 140 relate to the reference to section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 in the Local Government Act 1988—in other words, the original section 28. Clearly, all references to section 28 of the 1988 Act would become obsolete on its repeal. The effect of amendment No. 140 is again to provide that the repeal will take effect two months after Royal Assent.

Amendments Nos. 139 and 142 relate to the reference to section 28 in section 104 of the Local

Government Act 2000. Section 104 inserted into section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 the clarification that nothing in the general prohibition should be taken

''to prevent the head teacher or governing body of a maintained school, or a teacher employed by a maintained school, from taking steps to prevent any form of bullying''.

Again, if section 28 ceases to have effect, that provision will become obsolete, although it would continue to be right for teachers and head teachers to take action to tackle and prevent any form of homophobic bullying to help safeguard vulnerable young people, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton rightly highlighted. Again, amendment No. 142 will provide that the repeal of the provision will take two months after Royal Assent.

I do not believe that new clause 18 is either necessary or beneficial, but as the issues are sensitive and prone to misrepresentation, so it is important that I make it clear why the new clause would have no beneficial effect. An example of such misunderstanding underpins the new clause. In linking section 28 to sex education, it fails to recognise that section 28 has no impact on what is taught in schools for sex education. Legislation already makes provision for it to be a matter for government guidance implemented by governors, parents and teachers, as the hon. Member for Cotswold recognised in his frequent and supportive references to the guidance. The repeal of section 28 would not change the position.

The intention behind new clause 18 is already sufficiently provided for in the Education Act 1996, as amended by the Learning and Skills Act 2000. That places the responsibility for sex education in schools firmly on teachers and governors and a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance. The guidance has been in place for nearly three years. It is explicit that parents should be involved in devising the school's policy and, as I will explain, the low rate of children being withheld from sex and relationship lessons indicates the widespread success of the approach.

The Government issued guidance in July 2000. As required by the Education Act 1996, the guidance is designed to secure that all pupils in maintained schools learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children. The guidance—

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. Yesterday, 20 clauses and three schedules were a casualty of the timetable motion. Today, I hope that the record will show that no Member opposed to the repeal of section 28 was able to catch your eye during the proceedings, entirely as a consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's timetable motion. I hope that that will be taken note of in another place.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order. What hon. Members intend to say is not a matter for the Chairman. The Chairman is concerned only with their conduct when they are saying it.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The guidance makes it clear that it is not the role of teachers to promote any particular sexual orientation. It emphasises the importance that should be attached to the value of the family, marriage, good parenting and stable relationships. It also tackles issues of prejudice and bullying.

Section 401(3B) of the Education Act 1996, which was inserted by the Learning and Skills Act 2000, requires governing bodies and head teachers to have regard to the guidance in devising each school's own policy on teaching about sex and relationships. In doing so, they should involve parents to ensure that they have the opportunity to influence the school's policy. Furthermore, the Department of Health issued guidance on health to health bodies in September 2000 to ensure that they had regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State when they produced materials for schools.

The framework produces policies that have widespread local support. None the less, I entirely understand that a few parents may want to withhold their children from sex education lessons, which they can do from the non-statutory elements; that is, the parts of the national curriculum that science does not cover. That happens with less than 1 per cent. of pupils, which is clear evidence of the success of the current approach. Accordingly, a ballot by parents on the school's policy is an unnecessary requirement. The amendments are not appropriate. We urge them to be withdrawn, and urge that the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to be accepted.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 2.

New Clause 18 - Repeal of section 2A ofLocal Government Act 1986

Standing Committee A

Local Government Bill

New clause 13 - Fire brigade establishment schemes:

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

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

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 188 to 192.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The amendments remove several powers given to the Secretary of State under the Fire Services Act 1947 relating to fire authority establishment schemes. The repeals are an essential element of the new framework for a modern fire service set out by the independent review chaired by Professor Sir George Bain. As the review identified, our primary objective must be to make the service more responsive to local needs and better placed to deliver community safety. Moving to a flexible, risk-based approach to fire cover offers a real prospect of reducing the incidence of fire, deaths and injuries from fire, as well as other threats to community safety. As with our wider local authority policies, we will focus on outputs and outcomes rather than inputs.

New clause 13 and amendment No. 188 remove the requirement in section 19(4) of the 1947 Act for fire authorities to seek the Secretary of State's approval before making any reduction, no matter how minor, in the number of firefighting posts or fire appliances, or before the closure or relocation of fire stations.

The Government do not believe that in a modern fire service the Secretary of State should take those decisions. We believe that democratically accountable fire authorities should take them, acting on the professional advice of chief fire officers, and after taking account of the views of the local community. That is entirely consistent with the Bill's broad approach to remove unnecessary requirements for consents and to devolve responsibility to local authorities within the national framework set out under the best value arrangements.

Members of the Committee will have seen a briefing paper from the Fire Brigades Union and my letter explaining why the Government are taking forward these repeals now. The briefing paper contends that the Government were under a duty to consult the Central Fire Brigades' Advisory Council about the repeals proposed in the amendments. Indeed, the FBU sought judicial review of our proposals. A High Court judge yesterday dismissed that contention as

unarguable and expressed the view that these were legislative matters before Parliament in which it was not a function of the Court to intervene.

My letter to members of the Committee refers to the concern that removing the need for the Secretary of State's approval to changes in fire cover means that local communities will no longer be consulted. That is not the case. There is no duty on fire authorities to consult under current section 19 powers, but existing guidance makes clear the Secretary of State's expectation that fire authorities will consult local communities and stakeholders about significant changes in fire cover. I should make it absolutely clear that our expectations on consultation will continue unchanged.

The new approach to fire cover recommended by the Bain review is, of course, being considered. But again, any new approach would still necessitate local consultation, and any new guidance would make it clear that the current arrangements for consulting the public, fire service employees and the fire service inspectorate on the reallocation of resources should continue.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

What would happen if a fire authority failed to consult properly in the way set out in the guidance that the Government will produce?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The fire authority would be open to the very course of action that I have just describe judicial review because it would be failing to act in the way that any reasonable fire authority should act. I hope that that would not happen. Certainly the fire service inspectorate would want to keep a good watch to ensure that proceedings followed in the way outlined.

Mark Todd (Labour, South Derbyshire)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the new clause is added to the Bill it will be wise to produce new guidance on consultation, bearing it in mind that some fire authorities will have viewed the fall-back process of a referral to the Secretary of State as effectively negating some part of their duty to take the consultation process seriously?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I can give him an absolute assurance that it is our intention to issue new guidance. We have reached an understanding with the FBU that there will be consultation with it and with the local authority employers through an ad hoc forum on a range of matters relating to the Bain proposals and other issues that are not being considered within the national joint council for determining pay and conditions. We intend to begin those consultations in the near future, and we will then make more widely available the proposed guidance that the fire inspectorate has prepared.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Just for the record, can the Minister confirm that the courts could take the guidance that the Government will issue into account in the judicial review of the case of a fire authority that allegedly not consulting properly?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am not a lawyer, so I enter the caveat that what I say would be subject to any legal view, but it is certainly my understanding that guidance issued by Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate would be permissible evidence and could well be used in evidence in such proceedings. Under the best value provisions of the Local Government Act 1999, fire authorities have a general duty to secure continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. For the purposes of deciding how to fulfil that duty, a best value authority must consult, among others, representatives of persons who use, or are likely to use, its services. In addition to any guidance, there will be the clear presumption, which is embedded in the best value regime, that people who are likely to use the service must be consulted. Obviously, that means the local population that depends on the service.

New clause 13 and amendment No. 188 will remove the requirement for fire authorities to provide an annual return on their establishment schemes contained in section 19(3) of the 1947 Act, together with the Secretary of State's powers to make an establishment scheme under section 19(5) and to hold public local inquiries into the exercise of his functions under section 19(8). Fire authorities provide information on their establishments by a number of other means, and that provision is now unnecessary. The Secretary of State's powers to make an establishment scheme represent a degree of central control that no longer rests comfortably with a modern and flexible fire service that responds to locally identified needs and is accountable to the community that it serves.

Martin Caton (Labour, Gower)

My right hon. Friend has referred to the letter that we had from the FBU, and he has, in his remarks and in the letter that he sent us, answered some of its criticisms. However, the main criticism that he has not yet addressed is that the present scheme ensures national uniformity and consistency, but repealing section 19 will abolish that uniformity and consistency. Will my right hon. Friend comment on whether we are losing any Government quality control by repealing that section?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

My hon. Friend makes a very important and fair point. We certainly do not intend in any way to reduce the level of cover and the confidence that the public can have in the effectiveness of the fire service. However, he will understand that a modern assessment of need must take account of the threat to life and today's location of people at risk.

The problem with the old national standards is that they relate predominantly to property types. For example, if a fire occurs in an empty office block in a town centre in the middle of the night, it is necessary under the existing national standards for two fire appliances to reach the site within five minutes, and a third within eight minutes. However, if a fire occurs at the same time in a house in a suburban area that is occupied by a family whose lives are at risk, the current standard requires only one appliance to attend within eight to 10 minutes.

An approach based on property classifications is not the right way forward. There should be a more sensitive assessment relating to the threat to life and the needs of individual people and communities. That can best be developed within each area by those able to make those assessments and within an overall framework set by the national inspectorate. That approach was recommended by the Bain report and is the right way forward.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

It is important that the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) is clarified. As I understand it, the task group on the fire cover review, whose draft conclusions are on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, will set the national guidelines for the minimum standards for fire cover. Local fire authorities, in deciding on their own risk management schemes, will have to adhere to those national minimum standards agreed in consultation and with the inspectorate.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The intention is to issue guidance, prepared by Her Majesty's chief inspector of the fire service, to inform individual fire authorities how they should draw up integrated risk management plans along the lines that I described in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower. The guidance provided by the chief inspector will form the national framework, which will then inform the preparation of local plans to address local issues.

In the modern context, that is the correct and proper way to achieve a broad national approach setting out the objectives that need to be met, as well as a local analysis based on a local understanding of today's circumstances and risks. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) will accept that that is consistent with our general approach to delivery of services. It is not right for central Government to try to cross every t and dot every i; it is right to set out broad objectives and standards, and to allow each democratically accountable local delivery body to be responsible for putting them into effect in their own area. That is our approach.

Mark Todd (Labour, South Derbyshire)

It is worth drawing the Minister further on what would happen if a fire authority were shown by the inspectorate not to be performing its duties. The clause addresses a narrow issue of performance, and one can argue legitimately, as the Minister appears to be doing, that it is not a true measure of how well the fire service is delivering. It would reassure the Committee if the Minister set out how the Government intervene in a case of poor performance that is reported by the inspectorate, which he referred to in his letter.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

There are several options. The inspectorate already performs an important function in regularly examining the performance of individual fire brigades and authorities, and that will continue to happen. However, the best value framework, to which I already referred, specifically provides for intervention powers to be available to the Secretary of State when they are necessary because of a failure.

The Government will not use those powers lightly. We would be accused of being heavy handed by the Conservatives if we did. However, as in the case of other local authorities, we will use the powers on the basis of evidence and advice provided by the Audit Commission for local authorities and by the fire inspectorate for fire authorities when it is clear that they are necessary to ensure that the service is delivered properly and effectively. I hope that that is the safeguard that my hon. Friend was seeking.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister gave a long reply to the intervention by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, but it was not entirely clear. Is he saying that the guidance will contain no prescriptive standards for response times or cover levels but that it will deal with the procedure by which integrated risk management plans are to be developed?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have undertaken to consult the FBU and the local authority employers on the draft guidance, and I do not want to go further into that at this stage. I hope that the guidance will have been made public by the Report stage, and I will want to ensure that it is available so that we can have a full debate on the issue. I should make it clear that the aim is not to have prescriptive, rigid guidance, such as that on the standards of fire cover for property to which I referred earlier, but to have guidance that is designed to encourage individual fire authorities to develop their own arrangements around the framework that it provides. It is important that the fire service should be able to respond to locally identified needs, and it will be monitored by Her Majesty's fire inspectorate.

I was talking about the various repeals. The Secretary of State's powers to hold a local public inquiry for the purposes of his function under section 19 are made redundant by the other changes in the amendment, but he will still retain the power to hold a public local inquiry into the manner in which any fire authority is performing its functions by virtue of section 33(1) of the 1947 Act. There will remain a power analogous to the intervention power for those circumstances but not in the limited frame of section 19 related to the level of establishment.

New clause 13 also repeals part of section 7 of the Fire Services Act 1959. This provision applies section 19 to fire authorities constituted by a combination scheme. The amendment would repeal the requirement to obtain the Secretary of State's approval for the making of establishment schemes by combined fire authorities. Amendments Nos. 189 to 192, which amend clauses 122 and 123, provide for the repeals to take effect on Royal Assent. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister has outlined the Government's agenda in seeking to repeal most of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. On this side of the Committee we have no wish to obstruct any genuine modernisation of the fire service. The Minister painted the removal of section 19 in terms of the general thrust of the Bill. As all members of the Committee will know, there is some disagreement

about whether the Bill's overall effect is to introduce freedom and flexibility to local authorities or whether it is about taking power to central Government.

Wherever one stands in that debate, it is slightly disingenuous of the Minister to introduce new clause 13 as a provision that accords with the Bill's general principles. If it did, I presume it would have been included from the outset. New clause 13 is clearly a response to events over the past six or seven months, and specifically to the Bain report's recommendations, which the Minister mentioned. The intention as I understand it is that local fire authorities aided and guided by their chief fire officers will produce risk-based assessments, which will be the basis for a redeployment of assets in the way that provides the optimum response to the identified risk.

That sounds like a sensible approach. I shall return to the concerns around possible interpretations of that redeployment of resources. On the face of it, new clause 13 removes the Secretary of State's role and delegates to local level decisions about the deployment of fire and emergency cover resources. The guidance the Minister spoke about will direct and inform the preparation of these integrated risk-management plans.

The most obvious area where this is needed is a refocusing of attention on lives to be saved rather than property at risk. It is not merely, as the Minister said in his example, that the large commercial properties likely to receive a significant first response compared with domestic properties at night will be unoccupied; it is also the fact that most of them, at least most modern ones, will be well protected by their own fire systems. They usually have on-site security, and good fire alarm and firefighting systems. The world has moved on since 1947, thank goodness. We need to take account of that and try to ensure that our fire service is organised in a way that can maximise the saving of lives at risk. Modernisation of the New Zealand fire service clearly showed that a risk-based reorganisation of a fire service can substantially increase the number of lives saved.

That is the good news, but I have one or two concerns. First, will the Minister say something about the proposed time scale for the preparation by all fire authorities of the integrated risk management plans? I understand that local authorities and chief fire officers have already been asked to start work on a risk management-focused approach. I also understand that there will be an opportunity for public consultation before those plans are adopted. I am concerned about the opportunity for public scrutiny of those draft plans.

I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the school summer holiday is not, in most people's eyes, a proper and reasonable period for public consultation or scrutiny. I realise that there is some urgency, but I ask the Minister to ensure that the public consultation is held outside the summer holiday season. Let us call it the general election closed season for the reason that people cannot participate in that consultation if they are not around.

My second point is blindingly obvious, but I shall make it none the less. Delegating the power to make politically sensitive decisions locally about fire stations, manning levels, levels of cover and response times is in accordance with the overall scheme that the Government say that they are trying to promote. We see much merit in it, but we also have to recognise that hard decisions are sometimes difficult to make locally. As the hon. Member for Gower said, the Secretary of State's involvement may in many cases have been a fig leaf, behind which local politically elected authorities could avoid more difficult and contentious decisions by passing them up to the Secretary of State.

The Minister will know that the Fire Brigades Union has already mounted an effective campaign at local level. Firefighters are in the almost unique position of having the sympathy of the communities that they serve. People are predisposed to be sympathetic to their arguments, and they will be in a strong position to exert considerable local influence on the process. That is one of the potential hazards, as well as one of the benefits, of a functioning and flourishing local democracy. On balance, a flourishing local democracy is better than the alternative. I should say to the Minister, however, that I fear that the Government are mistaken if they imagine that they will speed up the process of taking tough decisions by delegating those powers and removing the Secretary of State from the equation. It may be democratic and a good thing, but I suspect that it may cause more delay. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's assessment.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I believe that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's concerns is that we must not consider the repeal of this section in isolation from a range of other modernisations that will accompany it to ensure better service. That is the real test of modernisation—a better fire service for the public. If we view this move in conjunction with other measures, the hon. Gentleman's concerns can be met.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I agree. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: we all aspire to a fire service delivering greater levels of safety to the community. However, it cannot have escaped anyone's notice that, although the Government are proposing to delegate responsibilities down to local level and to remove the Secretary of State from the equation, they still control the purse strings. Throughout the negotiations during the fire dispute, we found that he who pays the piper can have a considerable input to the tune. Once the Secretary of State is out of the loop, he no longer has direct political responsibility for decisions taken at local level, but as long as he controls the financial resources available to fire authorities, he will effectively constrain their ability to act.

If the integrated risk management plans are about starting with a clean sheet of paper, assessing the risks that the community faces and objectively identifying the resources required to address them and the Government are prepared to meet the cost of delivering the resources, it is clearly a positive approach. My concern is that we will not start with a clean sheet of paper but, at best, with existing resources, and re-allocating in a laudable attempt better to deal with the identified risks.

Many people are concerned, both inside and outside the House, that modernisation must not become a fig leaf for a cost-cutting exercise. During the course of the fire service dispute, both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have said clearly that meeting the existing claim—or any part of it—by the fire fighters above the level of inflation must be self-financing. Approximately 85 per cent. of the fire service costs are for wages and salaries. It takes no great mathematical capability to work out that self-financing must mean higher pay for a smaller number of firefighters. If that is, as it seems to me, the case—the Minister may wish to respond in due course—the integrated risk management plans are not based on a clean sheet in the sense of a zero base, or a redeployment of existing resources, but on a new deployment of fewer resources than at present.

In some cases, where the identified risks can be addressed adequately, fewer resources may be appropriate. I would not deny that, but I simply do not have the information. I am concerned, however, that the integrated risk management plan approach will not be seen by the public as a genuinely risk-based resource-blind approach to the problem if it is viewed in conjunction with Government statements that any settlement for the firefighters must be self-financing, which means in practical terms, fewer fire service jobs and fewer resources available.

What reassurance can the Minister give the Committee that the resources identified by the integrated risk-management plan as necessary—whether greater or lower than current resource levels—will be made available and properly funded through the usual grant formulas? Will the Government also reassure the public by setting themselves testing targets to reduce loss of life through fire?

The reorganisation of the fire service should be set against self-imposed, rigorous targets for a reduction in the overall number of fire deaths—we would prefer targets that do not get dropped the year before a general election—and large percentage reductions in such deaths have been delivered in other countries where fire services have been reorganised. The public would then be greatly reassured that the agenda is about modernisation, and not simply about cutting costs or cutting deployed resources to achieve that same cost but with higher pay for firefighters, which is equally bad from the public's point of view.

My next concern is local participation. We must balance a working local democracy with the risk—let us be blunt—that political cowardice may sometimes intervene to prevent appropriate decisions from being made at local level.

I have spoken about the substance of the proposals. I now turn to the procedure and how it will be scrutinised. There are serious anxieties about whether it is a genuine move to risk-based resource allocation or just a cost-cutting exercise. There are genuine worries about ensuring that the local community is fully engaged in consultation and participation with the integrated risk-management plans at the outset,

and on an ongoing basis, as plans are changed and updated. The Minister said that the Government intend to issue new guidance in due course, but that matter is under discussion with the stakeholder parties in what the Deputy Prime Minister would probably call the fire industry.

I understand the Minister's concerns. These are sensitive issues and it is important that Parliament has an opportunity to understand what underlies the primary legislation that we are being asked to approve.

The Minister said that he hopes to be able to publish draft guidance to hon. Members before consideration on Report, but we should go further and ask him for an absolute commitment to publish the draft guidance before then. Having said that, it is not immediately obvious that there will be an opportunity for him to table a new clause on Report. Notwithstanding that I said that we broadly support his intentions, I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote against new clause 13. If we are unsuccessful, I will table an amendment on Report that would reinstate section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. I emphasise that that is not because I love section 19, but because I want him to present his draft guidance to Parliament and to debate it on the Floor of the House.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

May I suggest an alternative route? If the hon. Gentleman is agreeable, I am happy to proceed on a cross-party basis. We could table an amendment to the new clause if it is accepted today. It would require the Government to allow parliamentary scrutiny of guidance issued by the Secretary of State. That would ensure a debate on Report and be more in tune with the policy that the hon. Gentleman supports.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and I have also explored whether that route would be workable. I understand that the guidance may not be issued in a form that is susceptible to the usual parliamentary scrutiny—for example, by use of a statutory instrument—but I am willing to explore any practical avenue.

This is a procedural attempt to give the Minister the opportunity, if he is willing to give such an assurance, to present draft guidance to the House on Report. If hon. Members have had a chance to examine the draft guidance and perhaps to obtain answers to many of the questions about consultation and the resource base for the integrated risk management plans, they will be able to have a more informed debate.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and I hope that there will be the opportunity for a substantive further debate about the issue on Report.

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

About three or four years ago, there was a proposal by the fire authority in Lancashire to remove one of the retained pumps from Leyland. The consultation by the fire authority was considered inadequate by the local community in Leyland. I lobbied the then Minister with responsibility for the fire service to send the proposal back for further consultation. Although the pump was eventually lost, the local community felt that they had had a proper opportunity to be involved in consultation.

My concern is that, without seeing the guidelines for consultation that the Minister will have prepared, we could be removing the safeguard that would allow the local community to be part of the consultation exercise. The removal of the clause, and the probable major changes in the fire service to meet the new needs, which may involve the building and construction of new fire stations, but also the closure of old ones, must be handled very sensitively.

Local communities find it difficult to recognise that fire cover has been improved if the station based in their community has been moved somewhere else. Over the past 20 years, there have been major improvements in fire cover in my own constituency of South Ribble. However, for me to say that we had extra pumps in Penwortham and Bamber Bridge did not make much difference to the people of Leyland when they saw one of their pumps being removed.

It is therefore crucial that the guidance for consultations be robust, and that the local community should have confidence in it. I understand the logic behind this, but I am concerned about the robustness of any consultation requirements. We must get that right before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

With regard to the public consultation being rigorous, will my hon. Friend tell me what he thinks about the role of local authorities in that process? In the experience that he referred to, was it the first time that consultation took place that he thought that it was inadequate? Did it not include, for example, proper debate at local authority level?

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

My part of the country is a shire county. Therefore the fire authority covers the whole of the county, and is largely run by members of Lancashire county council, whereas the focus within the community tends to be the small district council. That is where local councillors and local community leaders get involved, and there was a feeling in South Ribble at that time that the district council and their representatives were not given a formal role in an adequate way. It is crucial for that sort of issue to be taken into account when the guidelines are drawn up by Ministers.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I welcome the new clause, because it is part of a wider agenda to produce a better fire service for the country. My concern about the modernisation debate is that sometimes modernisation is portrayed as a process simply to save money. If that was the case, I would be against it. We should judge modernisation by asking if it will save lives, which must be the key performance measure of whether it is successful. Having read the Bain review and its submissions from the fire authorities, and having looked at extracts from the famous grey book, I have no doubt that modernisation has the potential to save a lot of lives. That is why it must be embraced.

The firefighters I have spoken to begin the conversation with the FBU line and say, ''Well, if we take away night cover and change the crewing arrangements, and if we do this and do that, it will

be very dangerous.'' But when one argues the case clearly and rationally with them they agree; most of them understand the case for reform because they want to save lives. That is why they joined the service; they want to serve their local community. If we embrace the debate about modernisation and reform in a mature, adult way, put the facts on the table and get away from the scaremongering, we will do our communities a great service and liberate firefighters to do what they really want to do: to serve their communities and save lives. The proposal will help, but only in context, with the other reforms proposed. If it was by itself I would have some concerns, but I do not think that that is the Government's intention.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made an important point about whether we were creating problems in reform by sending political decisions down to the local level, and we had a helpful exchange on that matter. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, with the Fire Services Act 1947 as it is and national Government having a role, there has been no modernisation or reform. Successive Governments have acted in a cowardly manner and not been prepared to embrace reform and modernisation. It is not so much whether matters are considered at local or national level but the overall framework that needs reform. If we reform the framework we can trust local fire authorities, which are accountable to their communities, to get it right. However, it will depend on consultation measures that come from the guidance. That is why the draft guidance is so important, why the Committee needs it before Report and why the House needs it before it sends the measure on its way. I am glad that the Minister has given us those assurances.

Consultation should consider the detail of the integrated risk management plans, which is incredibly important as it will drive the process. Should there be a proposal in my constituency to remove a fire appliance or to close a fire station—I am sure that there will not be—I hope that the consultation process will be robust. It is important that all hon. Members think carefully about the matter. There is a lot of cross-party consensus on reform and modernisation, and, as constituency MPs, when we are faced with a decision about a fire appliance going from one of our local stations, an establishment being cut, or a station being closed or relocated, we want to be sure that the framework we set in place allows our local community to get involved in the decision, to ensure that it will improve the local service, not undermine it.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that, in the context of a reduction in total manpower and thus a net loss of resources deployed, it will be difficult to convince the public of the case?

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

It is possible. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example, which the Minister touched on in his remarks in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Gower. There would be some reduction in manpower through natural wastage, which would not reduce cover. London is the classic example: because of the requirement and the crewing arrangements in

the grey book, one often has to ensure that the same number of appliances and firefighters are in a station 24 hours a day, even though the risks change over that 24 hours.

When there are lots of people in the City of London, there are, rightly, lots of fire appliances and firefighters to provide support for the people working there. However, under the current rules the same number of fire appliances and firefighters have to stay there 24 hours a day, even though those people return at night to the suburbs, including my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. The resources to protect them cannot go with them.

If we are about saving lives and ensuring that resources are in the right places—where the people are—we need modernisation. That may or may not lead to a loss of staff, but it is not for this Committee or the Secretary of State to judge that, because each circumstance will be different in different towns, cities and regions. That is why the overall thrust has to be right. Key to our job is ensuring that the consultation framework is robust.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman understands by the Prime Minister's statement that any pay settlement above inflation must be self-financing. The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is not for the Secretary of State to determine the level of resources, but does not that statement by the Prime Minister mean that the physical number of firefighters deployed has to be reduced?

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

That is a possible implication, but if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall deal with the resourcing issue later. If I do not cover that point, I should be grateful if he would intervene again. I want to focus now on the consultation, which is the nub of the issue before us. We must be sure that all the right people are consulted—the stakeholders and the whole community, not just local councillors and the staff, although they are incredibly important to the process.

As the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) made clear, if the public do not see a proper and open consultation process, they cannot have faith in it. An interesting point arises from his observations: if the public are engaged and given the full facts, they can often be convinced of the need for change. We should trust the people, as the saying goes. If they have the full facts, they will embrace change, because change is aimed at improving the level of protection. That is the point. If the facts show that the changes will produce that end, people will vote for them, because they will want to be protected more effectively.

We need to ensure that the consultation process and the guidance on it ensure that everyone is consulted. We also need to recognise that it is a two-way process. The information that the public and the stakeholders need to make a proper judgment should be made publicly available. The analysis behind the integrated risk management plans needs to be available at the start of the process. People need to be fully informed

and to have the facts at their fingertips at an early stage. The Minister will be well aware that many people will try to present the facts in a slightly distorted way, and there might be local campaigns that present the facts in slightly the wrong way. It is very important, if we have a local consultation process, that the facts on which the decisions are made are out in the open from the start.

We also need to be clear about how long the process will last. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made an important point: it should not take place over the summer months, when people are not around to go to the meetings and lobby their councillors and members of the fire authority. We must ensure that the consultation is genuine. The Government have to approach the guidance with two stages in mind, because over the next two or three years, we shall see significant changes to our fire services. That is almost like a one-off change. Because there has been a lack of reform for such a long period, if we try to put that right too quickly, there is a danger that the consultation will not be seen as genuine, but as something that was forced through. In producing the guidance for consultation the Minister must be sensitive to the fact that he has asked for an awful lot of change by local fire authorities in a relatively short period. The guidance needs to be particularly aware of that.

The guidance must also stand the test of time. There will be a second stage of the guidance's life when there will be ongoing change. The first tranche of changes will make significant alterations, but there will still need to be adaptations as populations move and new towns and communities are built. The consultation must take cognisance of both those objectives. If the guidance can be presented in that way, the Committee can probably agree to it because there will be sufficient local safeguards built into the system. That will be a proper way forward.

Our final concern is about resources. That remains a problem partly because, for understandable reasons, the issues of pay and modernisation have come together. That has probably been a good thing for ensuring that the reform agenda is embraced. There is also a danger that linking the two inextricably gives the impression that modernisation and reform are only about saving money. I do not believe that that is right. As I said at the beginning, the drive of modernisation should be about a better fire service. In some areas that might mean more money: we should be honest about that. I am sure that many communities are not getting the level of fire cover that they need. Some areas will need more money.

Even in those areas where there may be room for savings, it is often necessary to spend to save. We first must invest in the new buildings, the new equipment and the new fire prevention techniques before we can suggest reducing that bit of fire cover because we know we have the framework in place that guarantees that it can be done safely. The Government said in their most recent statement that there would be transitional funding, but I have yet to be convinced that they have accepted the amount of money that may be required to make this major reform. The Minister may

not feel able to do this today, but could he at least indicate that the Government are open-minded about the amounts of transitional funding that may be required to oil the wheels of this significant change?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The hon. Gentleman is still using the term ''transitional'' implying that he accepts that once the system has settled down it will be possible to deliver a better service with fewer resources. Does he accept that?

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I accept that savings can be made through modernisation and reform in some areas, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would accept that too. Our position is driven by the need for a better fire service. That is the test. That might mean more money. I would not want the hon. Gentleman to go away with the impression that, just because I believe transitional funding will be needed, I am arguing that we should cut the money to the fire service. I do not argue that at all. As the Minister said right at the beginning of his remarks, this is not about inputs but about outputs. If we can save more lives and that costs less money, it is a better result than spending more money and saving fewer lives.

My other major remark is about the distribution of resources, particularly transitional funding, but also longer-term funding. Some fire authorities and services have already begun to embrace modernisation. They tend to be in areas in which there are more retained firefighters, but that is not always the case. We need to be sure that the fire authorities that have reformed and already taken the financial benefits of modernisation will not be penalised. We have asked about that, and the Government have given us nods and winks but never been completely clear. We must be sure that the authorities' pioneering efforts will be taken account of in future grant allocations.

I know that I have strayed slightly from the new clause before us, but it is important to see it in the wider context. I hope that in replying the Minister will not restrict his remarks simply to the narrow confines of the new clause.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We have had a full and constructive debate, and I welcome the contributions made by all hon. Members. I shall try to respond to their detailed comments and questions.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked about the timetable for the introduction of integrated risk management plans. Local fire authorities have not yet formally been asked to start preparing plans, although I expect them to have started to think about how they will do so when they are asked. As I have already outlined, we intend to consult the Fire Brigades Union and the local government employers about the draft guidance, which, when issued, will initiate the process of preparation.

Like every other hon. Member who has spoken, the hon. Gentleman asked about proper public consultation, and I want once again to make it clear that a framework for full and proper public consultation is essential in the development of the

local integrated risk management plans and in regular decisions on resource allocation in each fire authority's area. The guidance will make it clear that we believe that that is essential, and I have already given the reassurances sought by Members about how we will address the problem if a fire authority fails to consult.

The hon. Gentleman asked an interesting question about whether it would be more difficult for hard decisions to be taken at a local level, pointing out that passing the buck to someone else may sometimes be an easy option for an authority that faces strong political pressure against doing something that it believes is right but that is superficially unpopular. If we concede that point, and make it easier for authorities not to take hard decisions, we will never achieve the objective that we all share of effective, responsible and democratically accountable bodies taking the right decisions for their communities. We all know the temptations of trying to get someone else to take a difficult decision, and I accept that that is part of life. However, in the long term, we do not do a service to our democracy if we make it easier for people to duck the responsibilities that they should assume when they hold public office.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I agree with what the Minister is saying, but my question was to find out whether he thinks that the changes will speed up a process that has been slow in the hands of Secretaries of State.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I was going to come on to that point via another issue, which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) raised with his comment that the current arrangements have not ensured swift and effective implementation. They do not provide a justification for not ensuring that responsibility is taken at a local level.

In response to the specific point that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge just raised, my point is that Sir George Bain and his team—it would be wrong not to acknowledge the important contribution of Sir Tony Young and Sir Michael Lyons who were the other members of the report team—recommended this way forward.

Other key players, notably the chief fire officers through the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and the Local Government Association, and many others, all told us in their response to the Bain report and subsequently to our proposal to make this repeal that this is the right thing to do and that it will help speed up decision making. That is the view of those in the best position to make an authoritative judgment. I accept that judgment, although I also accept the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, which is a perfectly natural one.

Resources became a major subject for discussion. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that modernisation must not become a fig leaf for cuts. I wholly endorse that view. Modernisation is about achieving a better, safer, more efficient service that responds more effectively to today's needs.

There is no question that modernisation will deliver savings in some respects. The enormous variation in the cost-effectiveness of control rooms is one example. Some control rooms covering large areas, such as those in London, are very cost-effective. Others run by small brigades—I shall not name them—incur quite disproportionate costs because they are very small in relation to the number of calls that they receive, and it is simply not cost-effective to keep them staffed to a level necessary to provide cover 24 hours a day.

Amalgamating control rooms between brigades or pursuing the option of joint control rooms between the fire service, the police service and the ambulance service would give the scope necessary to deliver a more cost-effective and, in many respects, better service. There is no question of any reduction in the availability of firefighters to respond to incidents, but savings will be delivered that can help meet the costs of any settlement that may result from the negotiations. That is only one illustration of the scope for savings without reducing safety and with the considerable potential benefit of a more efficient service.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister is kind enough not to mention any particular local authorities, but the fire service control room in my constituency is very expensive. However, I am very pleased to hear him suggest that it will now be easier to operate joint control rooms, not necessarily with the police service but with services such as the ambulance service, home care and CCTV centres, which could considerably increase the efficiency of the service.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We believe that the Bain report correctly suggests that consideration should be given to joint control rooms or the amalgamation of control rooms run by different fire authorities to achieve improvements in the quality of service. It is not for us to prescribe, but is a matter for each fire authority. I hope that they will consider the option under the proposed arrangements.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister has identified an area where he believes that savings may be made, and has outlined a case that supports that perception. Does he also accept that a totally new integrated risk management approach may throw up a requirement for additional resources, perhaps on large suburban housing estates? Does he also accept that if the integrated risk management programmes are to be credible in the eyes of the public, they must be resource blind when they are drawn up? The risk must first be identified, and the resources required to address those risk must then be quantified. Are the Government therefore committed to funding the level of resources required properly to address the risks identified in appropriately drawn up integrated risk management plans?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

No plan produced by any public authority can ever be resource blind. Inevitably, one has to take account of the likely available resources. However, I wholly endorse his proposition that the fundamental focus must be on safety, driving down unnecessary deaths, reducing the number of fires and

producing a better and more effective service. I agree that there will be additional costs in some areas.

It is likely that a greater focus on fire prevention will increase costs, but if that in turn reduces significantly the number of fire incidents, not only can you save lives through the avoidance of potentially fatal fires, but you can make compensating savings, as you may not need to deploy so many people to intervene in coping with incidents. This is a complex area that needs to be looked at in the round. Safety should be at the forefront.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Is it not also the case that if the integrated risk management plans put fire prevention at the top of their agenda, as is proposed, that would enable the fire service, in some cases, to earn revenue from advising the commercial sector and providing consultancy on how best to protect its buildings and staff?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Member raises a proper point. The Bain report identifies a number of areas where there may be scope either for cost recovery or some additional earning capacity for the fire service. Clearly that needs to be looked at by fire authorities.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister, in his reply to my previous intervention, lapsed into the second person, saying, ''You can do this,'' and, ''You may have to spend more money.'' Will he ensure that the formula by which local authorities receive their Government grant fully reflects the requirements that they identify in their integrated risk management plans?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I will come to that point, and I will in no way duck the question, but I want first to explore further the important issues of saving lives and resource allocation. Two observations often made by people who have looked at fire cover and safety involve the marked variations in the number of incidents at different times of day. One of the Bain report's recommendations is that there should be more flexible crewing arrangements to take account of those variations.

The second observation is that, despite the fact that there are generally fewer fires at night than during the day, there is no simple day and night curve. The pattern of fire incidence shows the greatest number occurring in the early evening, possibly because of people returning home, cooking and so on. That tails off later in the evening and in the night. The variation is clear to anyone who looks at the figures.

Having said that, although there are fewer fires at night, the number of people who die in fires at night is unacceptably high. That leads some to argue that we need high levels of crewing at night. I am afraid that that is a sad and incorrect conclusion, because the reason for the high levels of deaths at night is that many people are overwhelmed by fires that take hold before they are even aware and which begin when they are asleep, or they are overwhelmed by the smoke before they wake up.

In those situations the only way to achieve a dramatic reduction in deaths, which we must achieve, is through more effective prevention: getting more smoke alarms into people's houses and dealing with

the causes of fires so that they do not occur in the first place, rather than believing that having a large number of people available to respond to fires is the most effective response. That is why an intelligent analysis of how we can reduce the number of fires and deaths and deploy resources to best effect is critical. Having made the point to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that there may be some additional cost from an increased emphasis on fire prevention, I went on to say that there may be some consequential savings if the number of incidents is dramatically reduced. I could continue with many other examples, but I will not.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

I agree with my right hon. Friend's important point on deaths at night. However, I invite him to return for a second to the question of the maximum ability to save life by looking at the possible dilution of the expertise in the fire and rescue control rooms were they to be amalgamated with police and other control facilities. I was impressed when I visited the Bedfordshire fire and rescue control centre to see that the staff have a crucial role in advising people who have dialled 999, and who may be in a building that is on fire, about how to get out, not to panic and so on. Those crucial steps save lives too. If those skilled people are to be reduced in number or if they are eventually disappear, that is a significant issue.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I did not specifically advocate either solely joint control rooms with other fire services or solely amalgamations between different fire brigades and their control rooms. I said that the two options needed to be looked at. I believe that if one amalgamates the control rooms of two or more fire brigades, one can achieve exactly the same expertise among the crews and control room staff, but one may also achieve more cost-effective solutions. That would be answer.

It is possible to achieve joint control rooms combining police, fire and ambulance staff with a high level of relevant skills crossing the disciplines. There is a lot to be learned. For example, the police control rooms probably have far greater expertise and skill in coping with a large number of false alarms, not to mention the distressingly high number of hoax calls that still occur. There may be scope for learning from other services about how to filter out calls that generate a response from fire appliances that is unjustified, as they are not genuine or are simply false alarms.

Those issues must be looked at by people who are on the ground and understand the needs of the area and who can determine, on the basis of their integrated risk management plan, what is the right way to deal with them. We would not argue for a prescriptive approach. We would not say that one answer is the right answer, but that the issues need to be looked at from the point of view of delivering a high quality service with the proper level of expertise and in a cost-effective way.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The Minister talked earlier about fire prevention. How do the Government intend to push the take-up and increase the number of properties that

are protected by smoke alarms and sprinklers? That may be an issue for national Government, possibly through regulations. It may not be something that can be done through integrated risk management plans at a local level.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I believe that there is scope for both a national contribution and local initiatives. There is often nothing better than a suitably experienced person, whether it is a fire fighter or someone trained in fire prevention, visiting vulnerable communities and explaining face to face what needs to be done. No amount of leaflets or publicity programmes run by the Government can equal that, but the Government have a role to play. Publicity undoubtedly has a role to play. The publicity that was arranged before the strikes in the autumn and earlier this year probably played a role in alerting people to the key safety message. The number of incidents that occurred during those strikes reduced.

Messages about the irresponsibility and criminality of hoax calls also appear to have had an impact because by the end of the last series of strikes, hoax calls were down to around 4 to 5 per cent. That is still an appalling high figure, but it compares with around 15 per cent. at the beginning of the strike period. It is possible to influence opinion and outcomes through national initiatives. We certainly recognise that. Equally, one must see the importance of local, sensitive and targeted intervention to deal with the needs of communities that may be especially vulnerable. Again, there is a high incidence of life-threatening fires among many vulnerable groups, such as those that live in multi-occupied houses, that have very low incomes and that have particular disabilities. This matter therefore requires central and local initiative.

I now want to make progress, because I have taken rather a long time to respond to the many questions that were raised. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked about targets for cutting deaths. Yes, we have targets, which we review and roll forward regularly. Currently, our target is to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in accidental fire-related deaths in the home over the five years to March 2004, as compared with the average over the five years ending March 1999. We are broadly on track to achieve that target, although the latest figures, which relate to the year ending March 2002, are not encouraging, in that there was an increase in fire deaths during that year. That only reinforces the importance of all that we have said about the need for more focus on reducing fires and therefore deaths. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the importance of learning from overseas experience and driving down the number of deaths.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would make the guidance available to the House before Report. Indeed, we heard an interesting discussion between him and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton about the most effective way of ensuring that that happens. I can give a clear undertaking that, barring unforeseen circumstances—I have to say that, although I do not expect such circumstances to

arise—it is my firm intention that all members of the Committee and the House should have full access to the draft guidance in good time before we reach the debate on Report. I fully understand if the Opposition believe that, for technical reasons, it is right to move an amendment to reinstate section 19, even if they do not believe that that is the right policy response. That would enable a debate to take place. In that spirit, I hope that we can make progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked about the concerns in his constituency about the availability of pumps. He rightly focused on the importance of prevention and local consultation. I wholly accept the importance of effective local consultation and the need to engage local communities and for these difficult issues to be faced and discussed. There is a sense of reassurance about the availability of a fire appliance in one's immediate vicinity. People feel strongly about that, and it is right that they should be fully aware of any plans to change arrangements for their deployment.

It is also right to discuss with the community how to reduce the incidence of fire, how to improve safety and how best to use the resources available to achieve what we are all determined to achieve—a significant reduction in the number of fire deaths. These issues should not stand in the way of change where it can be demonstrated that change will deliver a better service in the future.

I have covered virtually all the questions raised by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge raised the issue of the funding of any transitional requirements under the pay settlement that may emerge from the negotiations. We have made it clear that it is a responsibility for the employers to negotiate a settlement that is self-financing beyond the sums of money that were already provided for in the initial offer of 4 per cent. last autumn. We understand that there are differential impacts in terms of the scope for delivering savings from modernisation. Some will come more easily in some areas, and some will take longer to deliver.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government are prepared to put in place a reasonable level of transitional funding, provided that he is satisfied that over the period of the settlement, the package is self-financing. That is the right approach to ensure a proper level of financial discipline and the flexibility to cope with the circumstances that I have outlined.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister is again talking about transitional financing. To be absolutely clear, is he saying that the cost of delivering all the integrated risk management plans prepared by fire authorities must be overall no greater than the current cost of the service? If so, is he not prejudging the assessment of risk that the plans are required to make?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

No, I am talking about any pay settlement that may be reached between the employers and the Fire Brigades Union in the course of the current negotiations. The hon. Gentleman has raised a separate issue about the costs of introducing our

proposed integrated risk management plans. We have to work within the spending review allocations for the current spending review, but we will examine the implications of proposals going beyond the current spending review period and take them into account when framing the necessary financial allocations for future years.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have had to be flexible to meet additional costs necessitated by providing the military cover during the periods of strike action. We are not a rigid Government who will not consider any additional costs, but a prudent Government who are clear that when there is scope for delivering a more cost-effective and better service, we should pursue those options. We expect to see robust plans to achieve reductions in deaths, improved fire safety arrangements and a better service, and we expect to do so in a cost-effective way.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The Minister has made an important statement. If I have understood him correctly, he has said that when we look beyond the current spending review period, if the integrated risk management plans show that extra resources are needed to improve fire cover in particular areas, the Government will examine them to see whether money can be found to ensure that the fire protection is improved. Will the Minister confirm that that is what he said?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I do not want to bore the Committee by repeating my response. I said that, but I also added that we would expect authorities to operate in a prudent way to ensure that they delivered services that achieved the safety objectives in the most cost-effective way. It is not wrong to emphasise that those two elements must go hand in hand.

With that, I think that I have covered all the issues that have been raised by hon. Members. I hope that the Committee will agree that new clause 13 should be added to the Bill.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

We are running out of time, and I do not want to delay the Committee any further other than to say that there is broad degree of general consensus about the direction in which the Minister is going. However, there are several assurances that Committee members want, and we cannot have a definitive debate or satisfy ourselves finally on the issues until we are able to see the draft guidance. For that reason, I welcome the Minister's almost unqualified commitment to making the guidance available before Report. However, if he cannot do that for any reason, we will have to discuss what happens. It would be intolerable if the House of Commons passed the measure without Members having seen the draft guidance.

Assuming that we see the guidance, it is necessary for an amendment to be tabled, however bizarre it may appear. Otherwise, as I understand it, the Minister will have no opportunity to secure such a debate. As I said earlier, I will table an amendment, and to maximise its chances of being selected on Report, I need to ask my hon. Friends to vote against new clause 13.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

That may be debatable.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. It would be helpful to the Committee if we could have your guidance. I am concerned that if the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge votes against the new clause, it may prevent him from tabling the amendment that he suggested. If that were to be the case, and the hon. Gentleman's actions were counter-productive, I am sure he would not be happy about it, and neither would I.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

There is some doubt about that, and we could not say exactly what might happen. We feel that it might not be necessary, but to speed things up we may as well move quickly to the vote, and then we will know that we have not lost the opportunity.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 5.

New Clause 3 - Relief for charities and certain sports clubs

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

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

New clause 3 seeks to give the prerogative of charities to those sports clubs that are defined as

community amateur sports clubs under the Finance Act 2002. There has been pressure for some years to give assistance either through tax relief or relief from rates to those voluntary sports clubs operating in the local community that are not registered as charities. The 2002 Act set up a category of sports clubs called community and amateur sports clubs. Sports clubs registered under that category were given certain reliefs that were previously only available to charities, as well as access to a £20 million capital fund for which they could bid.

At that time, discussions also took place about the possibility of extending a similar scheme on business rates to similar clubs who do not qualify for the 80 per cent. charitable relief under the existing provisions. That was recommended by the Select Committee when it considered the draft Bill, and early-day motion 702, signed by 151 Members, supported such a provision.

That is the background to new clause 3. Its effect would be to allow those amateur sports clubs that have registered under the scheme laid down by the 2002 Act to qualify for 80 per cent. relief, as charities may do at present. I understand from discussions I have had with Ministers that the provisions in clause 63 of the Bill, which covers small business relief—50 per cent. relief up to £3,000, and a sliding scale for rateable values from £3,000 to £8,000—would be beneficial to many such sports clubs. That is undoubtedly the case. However, I am aware from discussions with a number of colleagues, and from representations that I have received from sports clubs and their representative bodies that clause 63 does not go far enough and that many clubs, particularly amateur clubs with extensive capital assets but a relatively small turnover, would not benefit from it.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

Is it not even worse because larger community sports clubs might face higher rate bills because the clause is to some extent self-financing?

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The clause is supported throughout the Committee and among the sporting community more widely. I hope that when the debate comes to an end, my hon. Friend—

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Do not clubs that favour water sports face a particular difficulty, because they are on riversides in grand areas where the rateable values are higher?

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

One problem is that sports clubs with considerable outdoor or indoor facilities have often acquired them through lottery grants or gifts, but rely on voluntary contributions to maintain them. Comparison with business rates is difficult because the sports clubs often do not have the turnover. I see that we are running out of time, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to make some encouraging noises at the end of the debate.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I support this good proposal on behalf of my party. I had the good fortune—or misfortune, I am not sure which—to serve on the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill last year, which introduced the legislation to which the hon.

Gentleman referred. During the debates in that Committee the same point arose. When the Government spoke about providing tax relief for sports clubs in the run-up to the previous election, many treasurers across the country realised that the sort of measures tabled by the hon. Gentleman today were what the Government had in mind. Any tax relief is welcome to a struggling local community sports club, but the measures in last year's Finance Act did not go anywhere near as far as people believed that the Government intended. The proposal before us comes at an opportune time and provides the Government with a chance to go as far as people were led to believe that they intended.

It is a fine proposal. According to a briefing from Sport England, the amount of money required to make it possible is, after taking account of existing discretionary relief and the linked refunds from central pool, an additional £10 million per annum. Although not insignificant, it is not a huge amount and the £10 million would be well targeted at the local grassroots sports clubs up and down the country. Hon. Members will have a range of such clubs in their constituencies. They will know from their own experience that many of these clubs exist hand to mouth. The funds from this relief, however small, could be vital to help them to survive, grow and invest in the youth of local communities.

I hope that the Minister will give the new clause a fair hearing. It is likely that he will reject the clause—I hope I am wrong—because he does not have the Treasury's permission to grant the relief. The usual way of things is that the Chancellor stands up on Budget day and announces a range of goodies for everyone. This Chancellor is kind to Labour Back Benchers, for whatever reason, so he might look kindly on the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for South Ribble. However, I suspect that he would be the one to announce the measure if he wanted to go down this road.

If the Under-Secretary is not going to accept the new clause today, will he undertake to go to No. 11 or Treasury Chambers and tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much support there is for the measure and to see whether this could be an early Budget submission? Will he assure us that if we cannot vote on the new clause today, we will not have to wait too long before community amateur sports clubs can enjoy this much needed extra relief?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I concur with most of what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said. In the Committee that considered the Finance Bill to which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton referred, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) supported amendments with a similar thrust to reduce the burden on community amateur sports clubs. We are talking about sums of money that are small but that would have a significant impact on the beneficiary bodies.

I urge the hon. Member for South Ribble to read the Committee debates on what became the Finance Act 2002, if he has not already done so. He will find that some of the issues about the possible benefits of the small business relief and its applicability to

community sports club were debated then. The differences between businesses and community sports clubs were adequately discussed. There is clearly a need to address the specific problem that many community sports clubs will not be able to benefit from the reliefs targeted on small businesses.

I, too, share the scepticism expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, but I hope that by taking up another couple of minutes of the Committee's time I will have helped the Under-Secretary to be able to report to the Chancellor that there was genuine all-party, all-member support in the Committee for the proposal.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I was wondering why it fell to me to respond to the new clause, and the many reasons have begun to hit me.

This has been a short but worthwhile debate, and there have been significantly strong points about the virtues of giving support to community amateur sports clubs that do a great deal of important work in most of our constituencies, especially in engaging young people and the wider community, in particular the more disadvantaged communities, and involving them in community activity in general. In that sense, the motivation behind the new clause is good. I regret to say, however, that we cannot accept it for several reasons.

In recent years, there have been positive moves towards providing significant help to community amateur sports clubs. In November 2001, the Charity Commission announced a change in the definition and that it was more predisposed to allow community amateur sports clubs to be defined as charities if they promoted community participation and health recreation by providing facilities for particular sports. If they are more able to qualify as charities, they can receive 80 per cent. mandatory relief from their rates. There is already a great opportunity for community amateur sports clubs. It would be difficult to give those sports clubs extra treatment towards that mandatory relief outwith the usual charities arrangement as opposed to other organisations that might equally be virtuous.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am sure the Under-Secretary knows that that is exactly the point that generated the clause. When we were debating this issue in Committee on the Finance Bill last year, it became clear that many community and sports clubs did not want to go down the charity route because it put them into a part of the law that was burdensome on the people running those clubs and some of them described that route to Committee members as bureaucratic and onerous.

The idea was that with a clause such as that tabled by the hon. Member for South Ribble one could ensure that a new group set up under the Finance Act 2002 could get the same benefits as those sports clubs that felt able to go for charitable status, thus providing a level playing field. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I added at the end that not all sports clubs would

necessarily want to go down that route. However, it is a new opportunity if they want to obtain the rate relief qualification. I am more reluctant to allow particular exemptions and anomalies for specific organisations. It would be better to apply rate relief schemes more generally. That is why the small business rate relief scheme in the Bill will significantly help many sports clubs. I accept that about half the sports clubs we know about will be able to benefit from the provision, but nevertheless it is a significant step forward in giving extra help to sports clubs.

Also, as has been pointed out, the Finance Act 2002 has given welcome generous tax relief on income and donations to community amateur sports clubs. Local authorities too have discretion to give 100 per cent. relief to non-profit bodies, so a number of routes are already available to amateur sports clubs. I can understand the sentiment behind new clause 3, but we need to see how some of the more recent initiatives benefit the sports clubs before we review the suggestions made in this new clause. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that argument and withdraw his new clause.

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

I listened to my hon. Friend's comments with interest. I am aware that if one is trying to get money out of the Treasury for a good cause, it often takes a while and it is better done on an all-party basis and with community support. That was the basis on which the existing relief in the Finance Act 2002 was gained. We may have to push this matter a little further to get a result. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members would like to return to the issue on Report and Third Reading and I would not wish to deny them the opportunity to do so by causing a Division at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 8 - Amendment of Local Government Act 2000 (Scrutiny Function)

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 9—Amendment of Local Government Act 2000 (Standards)—

'(1) The Local Government Act 2000 (c.22) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 53 (standards committees)—

(a) in subsection (4) the words ''(a) at least two members of the authority, and'' are omitted; and

(b) in subsection (5) the words ''executive leader, and (b) may not be chaired by'' are omitted.'.

New clause 15—Special responsibility allowances—

'. Section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (Schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members) is amended as follows—

In subsection (1)(c), for the words ''any such member who has'' there are substituted the words ''not more than one-quarter of the members of the authority, provided that they each have.''.'.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am pleased to speak to these three probing new clauses. I want to find out the Government's view on three aspects of the implementation of the Local Government Act 2000, which seemed to be mild abuses of that Act running contrary to what may have been the Government's best intentions in that respect.

New clause 8 is about the scrutiny function, which is central to the effective operation of the Government's new arrangements for local government. It is particularly important that the council's majority party does not dominate the scrutiny process to the extent that scrutiny is ineffective. If I draw attention to the arrangements in my local authority, it is not to suggest that it is the only local authority to go down that road or that only local authorities of that political persuasion have gone down a road that is contrary to the best wishes of the Government.

My local authority has 31 members in its ruling group and 18 opposition members, but the ruling group has chosen to take all the chairs of all the scrutiny committees and to ensure that all places on the scrutiny committees are allocated in proportion to the council membership, so that the governing group has a majority on the scrutiny committee. My first suggestion is simply that in section 24 of the Local Government Act 2000, the requirement for political balance on local scrutiny committees should be amended by disregarding members of the council's executive from the calculation. My second suggestion is that the scrutiny committee chairmanships should be allocated in proportion to the council membership, in much the same way that we allocate chairmanships of Select Committees in this place.

New clause 9 deals with a similar possible abuse—of standards committees—that the Government did not want to happen. I am pleased to say that my local authority had a standards committee well before 1997, and it was amended in 1998 to ensure that its composition did not include any councillors. From 1998 until the implementation of the Local Government Act 2000, the standards committee

membership was entirely independent of the local authority. Its nomination process was also independent, because nominations were made by the magistrates and district judges, the lord lieutenants and deputy lieutenants, the Association of Town and Parish Councils and other bodies that, for the time being, I forget.

The point is that the process did not involve councillors or ex-councillors. My proposal, which is merely permissive, is that standards committees no longer have to include councillors. That would be done by the removal of subsection (4)(a) of section 52 of the Local Government Act 2000. That would enable the Isle of Wight council and other local authorities to have standards committees that include no councillors. Furthermore, it is wrong for members of the executive, who have considerable additional delegated powers under the new arrangements, also to be members of the standards committee. It is more likely that members of the executive will be subject to allegations than others.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.