Commons Sitting of 11 November 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked —
  TREASURY

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: What is the total number of inquiries to date on the telephone hotline for the working families tax credit; and what percentage of these has led to successful awards. [96990]
    Mr. Ian Stewart: What steps he is taking to increase public awareness of the working families tax credit. [96997]
    Liz Blackman: How many people have been identified to date as eligible for the working families tax credit who were not previously claiming family credit. [96998]
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the working families tax credit. [97001]
    Ms Linda Perham: What progress is being made towards the implementation of the working families tax credit. [97003]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Since the Prime Minister and I launched the publicity campaign, there have been 700,000 inquiries about the working families tax credit—the biggest ever response to a Government advertising campaign—and 250,000 new applications have been made. We believe that 800,000 children will be taken out of poverty as a result of that and other measures.
    Mr. Williams: I congratulate the Chancellor, and I pay tribute to the Financial Secretary for her excellent work in publicising and increasing awareness of that excellent new benefit. It will give poorly paid families £10, £20 or £50 a week, and will be a great help in tackling child poverty.
    However, might there be a proactive role for the Inland Revenue in increasing awareness of the working families tax credit? Although we think of the Inland Revenue as being responsible for detecting tax evasion and
    1270
    maximising the tax take, does it have an equivalent obligation to advise people, especially low-paid workers, of their rights and entitlements?
    Mr. Brown: The Inland Revenue will continue to publicise the new tax credits available to working families, but the best publicity for the benefit will be those working families who have been able to acquire it. Many of them are £50 a week better off as a result of what has happened. It is time for the Conservatives to tell us whether they will now drop their opposition to the working families tax credit and start supporting working families in this country.
    Mr. Stewart: I welcome the measures taken by the Government to date, which were enhanced by the Chancellor's statement yesterday. My constituents in Pendlebury, Swinton, Eccles, Irlam and Cadishead will, as they say in Salford, be well chuffed. The working families tax credit will allow families with a full-time worker to achieve a guaranteed income of £200 a week, and to earn up to £235 before income tax kicks in. Does the Chancellor agree that the Opposition are very sad—indeed, quite mad sometimes—in saying that they will scrap that tax credit? Does that not show that they are extremely unelectable?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend. He represents a constituency in the north-west, and I can tell him that 210,000 families in the north-west are benefiting from the new working families tax credit. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that if the Opposition abolished the working families tax credit, it would be a £24-a-week tax increase for some of our poorest working families. It is unfortunate that the Opposition has said that they will abolish it. Perhaps today the shadow Chancellor will answer the question—will he now drop his opposition to the working families tax credit?
    Liz Blackman: Why has my right hon. Friend the Chancellor extended working families tax credit and the attendant child tax credit so far above family credit? Does he consider that over-generous?
    I must tell him that those are not questions that are posed by families in my constituency, who welcome the additional resources that give them the security to bring up and care for their families. Apart from the general opposition to working families tax credit espoused by the Conservatives, why are they so particularly opposed to this extension? Does my right hon. Friend think that they have canvassed eligible families in their constituencies—or do they rely on getting their information from the Dispatch Box?
    Mr. Brown: In my hon. Friend's region, 110,000 people are benefiting from the working families tax credit. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that the working families tax credit is similar to the earned income tax credit in the United States. It was a policy that Ronald Reagan could support—even Milton Friedman supported it—but it is not supported by the Opposition.
    Mr. Chapman: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that 1,200 families in my constituency will benefit from this boost to their income. However, many are still to apply. Will my right hon. Friend join me in

    1271
    encouraging those people who have not yet applied to do so as quickly as possible, because that will mark their entitlement date for the credit?
    Mr. Brown: We shall continue our campaign to advertise the benefits of the working families tax credit, which reduces the marginal tax rate for thousands of families in Britain and eliminates the poverty trap for many of them. Under the previous Government, there was sometimes a marginal tax rate of more than 100 per cent. for some of the lowest paid families in Britain. Working families throughout Britain will be sad to know that the Leader of the Opposition says that this is a tangible difference between Labour and Conservatives, and that a former Opposition social security spokesman says:
    "We would cut the working families tax credit".—[Official Report, 19 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 951.]
    I again appeal to the Opposition: will they change their approach to the working families tax credit and to the minimum wage which underpins it?
    Ms Perham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, by contrast with the more than 1.5 million people in London who were unemployed at least once between 1992 and 1997, nearly 125,000 families in London will receive extra help from the working families tax credit? Since 1997, unemployment has fallen by 31 per cent. in my constituency of Ilford, North. The working families tax credit and the measures that my right hon. Friend announced on Tuesday, including the enhanced new deal for lone parents, will be welcomed in my constituency, especially by those working families who need to get off benefit and make work pay.
    Mr. Brown: I should have thought that all parties in the House would want to support measures that, first, give a guaranteed minimum family income of £200 a week; secondly, are backed up by a minimum wage which is available to 2 million workers; thirdly, at the same time give additional help for child care to millions of working parents in Britain now eligible for it; and fourthly, raise child benefit by 30 per cent., something that, unfortunately, the Conservative Government were unable to do—they froze it for two years. Again, the Conservative party must answer this question: will they help working families in Britain or hurt them by abolishing the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and child benefit tax increases?
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the working families tax credit give help to families rearing their families at home? If there is a preference for institutionalised child care, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why?
    Mr. Brown: The working families tax credit is a help for people bringing up children at home. If, for example, a mother wants to be off work with a child, whether for months or years, the household's income is protected by the working families tax credit. The Conservatives fail to understand that this is a benefit that helps lone parents get to work, and helps working families make decisions and gives them choices. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman, who has a reputation for being a bit more
    1272
    compassionate than today's Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, started to support the working families tax credit instead of opposing it.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Is the Chancellor aware that the Federation of Small Businesses has described the working families tax credit as yet another administrative burden on small business owners, and that the Institute of Directors has protested that it is not the job of business to run the welfare system for the Government? Why have the Government designed the welfare tax credit system in a bureaucratic way that creates such a burden for British business?
    Mr. Brown: The working families tax credit rewards work and is a good measure for business. It is about time that Conservative Members recognised that they left millions of people in poverty in Britain. They now say that they would do absolutely nothing about it. They would abolish the measures that we have taken, even those supported by right and left in the United States and elsewhere. It is about time that the Conservative party woke up.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Without blaming the Conservative party, will the Chancellor say what the cost of the working families tax credit is to business?
    Mr. Brown: The cost of the working families tax credit depends on the business and the numbers, but it is a general benefit to business. Businesses can now tell their employees the benefits for work and for childcare. It is about time that the Conservative party saw the benefits not only to families but to business.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I hardly dare hope that we get a straight answer to a straight question. Will the Chancellor confirm that the cost to business of the working families tax credit is about £100 million a year? Does he agree with Chantrey Vellacott that that is just a part of the £5.2 billion a year of extra cost on business? What will he say to Mr. Nigel Fielding, who says in today's Daily Mail:
    "I don't mind doing civil servants' work for them if I'm paid for my time and effort. But no such luck"?
    Mr. Brown: The answer is no. The working families tax credit is a benefit to business. I do not think that the Conservative party understands that if wages are higher, if there is a reward to work as a result of the credit and if child care is available for mothers and for companies where those mothers work, that will benefit employment and industry. I repeat: a measure that can be supported by Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman, but is too extreme for the Conservative party, says something about that party.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it true that someone who has four jobs does not qualify for the working families tax credit? If it is, there lies the answer to why the shadow Chancellor will not support it—he has four jobs.
    Mr. Brown: I do not know why the shadow Chancellor does not have time to do the research for Question Time and for other matters, but I will leave that to further debates in the House.

    Euro
    Mr. John Bercow: What assessment he has made of the effect on his policy of Bank of England independence of entry to the eurozone. [96991]
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: What assessment he has made of the impact of his policy of independence of the Bank of England. [96996]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The new monetary policy framework is already yielding significant benefits: inflation is low and close to target. The Government's reforms have helped to create a sound and credible platform of economic stability.
    As the Chancellor has repeatedly stated, a decision to join economic and monetary union would be taken only if the economic benefits to the United Kingdom from joining were clear and unambiguous.
    Mr. Bercow: I warmly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment.
    Given that the European interest rate is set by the European Central Bank, whose governing council comprises three Germans, two Dutchmen, two Finns, two Frenchmen, two Italians, two Spaniards, a Belgian, an Irishman, a Luxemburger and a Portuguese, and that Governments are prohibited from seeking to influence that rate, why does not the Chief Secretary have the guts to admit that, within the euro, the Bank of England would be merely an administrative jobsworth and that crucial decisions affecting this country would henceforward be taken by people whom we do not elect, whom we cannot remove and whom it would be illegal to seek to persuade of our view?
    Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and, indeed, for trailing me to Treasury questions from Education and Employment questions, where we had so many enjoyable exchanges.
    The House will have got the hon. Gentleman's message that he is opposed to the euro in every shape and form. What is equally clear is that there are two routes to stability. Of course, were we to join the euro, the Bank of England would have to be brought into conformity with the treaties, but there are two routes to stability: the independent Bank of England that we have established, or a European Central Bank arrangement. There is no route to stability on offer from the Conservative party, under which we would be back to boom and bust.
    Mr. Khabra: I thank the Chancellor and welcome the pre-Budget report that he announced to the House the day before yesterday. As a result of his economic competence, we have a sound and credible economic policy, economic stability and steady growth; during the 1980s, the Conservatives had a policy of bust and boom. Interest rates have peaked at 7.5 per cent., half the peak interest rate in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shadow Chancellor is as incompetent today as his party was in government?
    Mr. Smith: Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As a result of the policies for stability to which he draws attention, this country has 700,000 more people
    1274
    in work now than when the lot opposite left office. Moreover, whereas the previous Government left us a deficit in the public finances of £28 billion and doubled the country's indebtedness, we have balanced the public finances while improving public services and helping pensioners and hard-working families. My hon. Friend is right: any return to the Conservative party's policies would be a return to the deprivation, division, unemployment and instability that disfigured this country in the past.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Would the Chief Secretary admit that achieving the economic tests that the Chancellor has set for entry into the euro will require careful management—they will not suddenly be achieved by magic? Is he aware of the criticism that the Chancellor's statements do not do enough to show how the fiscal balance could be managed so as to take pressure off interest rates and allow the Monetary Policy Committee to think in terms of setting interest rates that converge with the much lower interest rates on the continent, enabling us to have at least the prospect of joining the euro in the near future?
    Mr. Smith: Fiscal and monetary policy sticks to the sensible rules that we have laid down to maintain stability and steady growth. I welcome a question from a Conservative Member who takes a more balanced view on these issues. Of course, the tests will have to be carefully measured. We have said what those tests are, and as we have said all along, we shall make that assessment early in the next Parliament.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Does it not seem that the differences within the Monetary Policy Committee are between the committee's external and internal members on interest rates? Might not the external members have a better understanding of the level of interest rates required, because they come from the competitive sector of our economy and therefore have a better understanding of that sector, which my right hon. Friend has done so much to stimulate?
    Mr. Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend. One of the strong advantages of the Monetary Policy Committee is that a combination of voices with different experience makes that important judgment. Ultimately, however, we judge the Bank of England's operational independence and the Monetary Policy Committee's decisions on what they deliver. What they have delivered is low and stable inflation, which has hit the target that they have been set.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Are we closer to, or further from, meeting the euro convergence conditions than when the policy was first announced?
    Mr. Smith: As I said, we shall make the assessment early in the next Parliament. We are not giving a running commentary on this. The British economy is, beyond doubt, immeasurably stronger as a result of the measures that we have put in place for fiscal stability, investment and helping people into jobs.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: One of the Government's earliest commitments was to a stable and

    1275
    competitive exchange rate. Does the Minister think that we currently have a competitive exchange rate? If not, what is the role of the Bank of England in securing one?
    Mr. Smith: The role of the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee is clear: it is to hit the inflation target. It is by sustaining low inflation that we make the best contribution to economic success and stability for the future—including the effects on the exchange rate.

    Directors' Salaries
    Mr. David Winnick: What further discussions he has had with employers over income increases to heads of companies. [96992]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): At the recent Confederation of British Industry conference, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor warned of the danger that unacceptably high pay rises would lead to higher interest rates. In the case of company executives, it is the responsibility of shareholders and remuneration committees to ensure that pay is justified by performance.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not a fact that many senior directors and executives—many of whom are already on large salaries—have recently given themselves very large pay increases, share options, bonuses and the rest that are very different from the level of salary increases given to the large majority of their employees? In view of that fact, and recognising what my hon. Friend said about the Chancellor's warning, has not the time come for Government action on the matter?
    Mr. Timms: There is evidence of pay running at a high level for some senior positions in some of our firms, and responsibility in pay rises is of the greatest importance. Although pay responsibility is important in the public sector, it is just as important in the private sector. Such responsibility is important on the shop floor, but it is just as important in the boardroom. Responsible pay settlements are essential to achieve the high and stable growth and employment levels to which all of our economic policies are directed.
    Mr. James Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is not only company heads who are paying the top tax rate, but hundreds of thousands of public sector workers are also paying at 40 per cent? Does he agree that 26,000 NHS workers, 9,000 policemen and 28,000 teachers pay at 40 per cent? What are the Government doing, not to have a go at those workers as fat cats, but to relieve their tax burden?
    Mr. Timms: We have maintained all our commitments on tax rates. Now, however, the key issue is that, for the first time that most of us can remember, we have a real prospect of full employment in Britain. Most people thought that full employment was only for the history books, but the success of our policies in the past two and a half years has led to a new stability, so that full employment is now a realistic prospect. We have to be
    1276
    vigilant against anything that puts that prize at risk—which means guarding against, among other things, irresponsible pay rises.
    Mr. Derek Twigg: Based on August figures, wage increases are running at 4.9 per cent. Is that level of earnings growth posing a threat to inflation?
    Mr. Timms: The August figures are up 0.3 per cent. on the figure for three months earlier, but the figures are erratic. In the longer term, the figures are still relatively low. The last peak in earnings growth, in 1990—when unemployment was much greater, at 1.6 million—was 10 per cent. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right to say that there is no room for complacency: everyone needs to be responsible on pay.

    Poverty Alleviation
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: What plans he has to include measures relating to the alleviation of poverty in his pre-Budget statement. [96993]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): In the pre-Budget report, I set out the long-term ambition for the next decade to halve child poverty as a step on the way to abolishing it within a generation. Building on measures in the last two Budgets that will lift 800,000 children out of poverty, I also announced that we shall consult on a new children's fund to provide project grants for community action to tackle all aspects of child poverty.
    The pre-Budget report also announced measures to tackle unemployment and pensioner poverty. The winter allowance for every pensioner household will be £100 for the rest of this Parliament; there will be free television licences for pensioners who are over 75; and because our intention is to tackle pensioner poverty, we shall uprate the minimum income guarantee for pensioners in line with earnings for the rest of this Parliament. Consequently, by April 2000, the oldest pensioners will be £10.35 per week better off than when we came to power, and the pensioner couple will be £15.90 better off.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I am very grateful to the Chancellor for that answer. However, has he had a chance yet to consider the results published in the British household below-average income study, which examined work that had been done, between 1991 and 1997, by the British household panel study? Does he agree that the panel's study showed that—for that entire seven-year period—9 per cent. of the sample of households studied stayed below 30 per cent. of income distribution? With a potential Department of Social Security underspend of £7 billion, and a current balance of £12 billion in the national insurance fund, does the Minister really believe that a 1.1 per cent. uprating of long-term social security benefits is adequate for families who really cannot find work?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman—who is Chairman of the Social Security Committee—is an expert on many of those matters, but he is painting an incomplete picture.

    1277
    First, benefits for the disabled are rising by £1 billion. Secondly, benefits for children are rising by £6 billion annually by the end of the Parliament. Thirdly, we have just announced measures ensuring that benefits for pensioners are rising by £3 billion annually. It is, therefore, simply not correct to state that benefits for those groups who are most in poverty are rising only by the rate of inflation: we are taking additional measures for every group. It is about time that the Liberal party, which in its general election manifesto promised far less—indeed, a fraction—of what we have done, started to support us.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the excellence of his pre-Budget statement, in all the respects that we are discussing. In particular, I welcome his announcement of an important initiative enabling gifts of quoted shares and securities to be made to charitable bodies. During the consultation in which the regulations and legislation involved will be decided, will he make it clear to his colleagues—and, of course, to Inland Revenue officials—that they should bring to the negotiations the positive and flexible spirit that was embodied in his important pre-Budget statement?
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend. He is, in fact, saying that the House should unite in tackling child poverty. The children's fund that we have announced will allow voluntary, community and charitable groups to be involved in innovative projects tackling all its aspects. As part of that, we are changing the charity tax laws to make it easier for people—through either payroll giving or direct giving—to donate more to charities, voluntary organisations and other bodies. I would have expected support for those measures throughout the House, but is it not typical of the Conservatives that they cannot support action against child poverty?
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: How many new pensioner couples will be hit by the abolition of the married couples allowance by the end of this Parliament? Did the Chancellor fail to tell the Prime Minister about that yesterday, or did he simply forget? Why did he not mention it in his pre-Budget statement?
    Mr. Brown: It is this Government who, for pensioners—
    Mr. James Gray: Answer the question.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman asks me to answer the question, and then does not give me a chance to do so. Is that not typical of the Conservatives? They have learned nothing in two and a half years of opposition. Do they not understand that they lost the election because they never listen to the country?
    First, we have taken more pensioners out of tax. Secondly, we have reduced the savings tax rate to 10p: I would expect the Conservative party to support that. Thirdly, we have reduced the basic rate of income tax from 23p to 22p, in order to help all pensioners. Finally—
    1278
    [Interruption.] I will tell Conservative Members this, if they will listen. Finally, all pensioners who are currently on the married couples allowance will retain it.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when he took office, there were 4.4 million children in poverty in Britain? His promise to take 800,000 children out of poverty will still meet only a fifth of the huge challenge that we were elected to meet. He has already committed £1,080 each to the poorest families, but can he assure me that his change to children's tax credit will ensure that women—the main carers for children—will have the necessary resources in their purses, so that the money can benefit children directly?
    Mr. Brown: That is exactly the proposal that we are presenting for consultation. I hope that many people will become involved in the pre-Budget discussions about how we can make progress in providing benefits for all children.
    Our proposals for tackling poverty have four separate strands. First, there are the increased benefits that will help families: child benefit, the working families tax credit, the 10p starting rate of income tax and changes in national insurance will all benefit the poorest working families. Secondly, our proposals include the provision of more resources for nursery and pre-school education, and for school education. Thirdly, there is the sure start programme, which will provide about £1,000 per child in the poorest parts of the country in order to create new opportunities in health care and education. Fourthly, we are expanding our programme relating to the innovative children's fund. I believe that that will involve a partnership between Government, communities and voluntary organisations, and a national crusade to tackle and eliminate child poverty.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Chancellor will understand that the next comprehensive spending review will be crucial for those interested in tackling poverty. Will he clarify a question that I asked when he gave his pre-Budget statement? Does the fact that the new review has been brought forward a year mean that the current 2001–02 spending plans may be changed, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) hopes, or is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury right to say that those plans are set in stone?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question again. We have not changed our position on the comprehensive spending review. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it has been brought forward. It will be at the time that we said and will be happening over the next few months. The Liberals must wake up to the situation in this country. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot keep saying that they are going to be tough on public spending and yet demand more money at every turn. Let me remind the House what a Liberal spokesman said last week:
    "There are a lot of things our party wants to promise, but we have to be realistic about what we can deliver if we want to be seen as fit for government. For example, it would be great to abolish television licence fees for pensioners, but it would cost hundreds of millions and voters would not like it."
    Is it not about time that the Liberals supported the good things that we are doing?

    Prosperity
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: What steps he is taking to ensure that all sections of society share in increasing economic prosperity. [96994]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Government is committed to a fair and inclusive society in which everyone can contribute to and benefit from economic prosperity. The Chancellor set out the Government's strategy in the pre-Budget report, published on Tuesday. We want to create employment opportunity for everyone of working age, ensure that children have the best possible start in life and deliver a better deal for pensioners.
    Mr. Leslie: Have not 18 years of Conservative failure made pensioners some of the poorest in society? Is my hon. Friend aware that pensioners' poverty takes its toll particularly in the colder winter months, and has done for far too long? Will she take this opportunity to make it crystal clear that the welcome new £100 winter allowance is not a computer error, a mistake or even a one-off, but a bonus delivered only by a Labour Government?
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Of course, there is no computer error on the £100 winter allowance. We are delighted to be able to say that it will go to more than 7 million eligible pensioner households this year and—as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on Tuesday—every year hereafter. Under this Government, pensioner households are on average £300 a year better off. In addition to the free television licence, from which more than 3 million pensioner households will benefit, another 1.5 million pensioner households will benefit from the extension of the 10p rate to savings income, which was also announced on Tuesday.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. Why does the Government persist in their nasty and mean-spirited attack on pensioners who happen to have saved all their lives? Those who have a few hundred pounds of investment income can no longer reclaim the tax on their dividends. Is she proud to be punishing savers in that way?
    Miss Johnson: We are helping pensioner households across the board. We are also helping those who are paying tax. Pensioners were already paying less tax under this Labour Government than ever before, even without Tuesday's announcement on the lop savings rate, which will be of particular help to many pensioner households. The hon. Gentleman seems to fail to recognise that two thirds of pensioner households pay no tax.
    Ms Sally Keeble: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the work of the Northamptonshire Association of Asian, African and Caribbean Businesses and welcome the many measures in the pre-Budget statement that promote enterprise and encourage people to set up small businesses? Will she
    1280
    ensure that steps are taken to encourage organisations that support businesses in ethnic minority communities so that they too can benefit from economic prosperity?
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and her detailed knowledge of the work being done in her constituency to support enterprise. The Government supports such work throughout the country. We want to achieve our economic ambitions for the next decade. They include closing the productivity gap and ensuring that enterprise is open to all. As part of that, we are providing a new £30 million package to promote enterprise in disadvantaged communities, providing better access to finance, better advice and mentoring and demonstrating that our commitment is borne out by practical steps.
    Mr. Francis Maude: I welcome the Economic Secretary to her new post and wish her well in it. I remind her that before the Government share out economic prosperity, they must ensure that it continues to increase. Does she agree that
    "Productivity is a fundamental yardstick of economic performance…poor productivity condemns a nation to be held back"?
    That is what the Chancellor said in his pre-Budget statement document last year. Was she surprised to hear him admit on Tuesday that, since he became Chancellor, productivity growth has fallen by two thirds? Does she call that making Britain more competitive?
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my new post. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor certainly did not make that admission. We are taking steps to address exactly the issues that the right hon. Gentleman is raising. The two worst recessions since 1945 occurred when the Conservatives were in government. They doubled the national debt and presided over interest rates of 15 per cent. In addition, there were 22 Tory tax rises. None of that did very much for productivity, growth or enterprise.
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady may not have had a chance to read it, but the admission is in a document published by the Chancellor on Tuesday. It shows productivity and growth falling—she should take a look at it.
    If the Government honestly want to increase prosperity, why did they raise tax by £40 billion—by £30 billion on business alone—and give Britain the fastest rising tax burden in Europe? Does the hon. Lady remember when she was a candidate in the general election the Prime Minister saying that Labour
    "had no plans to increase tax at all"?
    Why are the Government still piling on regulations costing business £5 billion a year? What does the hon. Lady have to say to the president of north-east chambers of commerce, in the Prime Minister's own area, which said that
    "bureaucracy…is stifling business competitiveness"?
    Is that not why the president of the Confederation of British Industry said that the sums that the Government
    "give back are trivial by comparison"?

    1281
    Did not the Chancellor inherit the fastest growing economy in Europe and are they not squandering that inheritance?
    Miss Johnson: We inherited a deficit of £28 billion in public finances. We inherited a boom and bust economy with no possibility for businesses or individuals to plan ahead because of its instability. We have turned that around; we now have stability. The right hon. Gentleman will not even tell us whether he supports one of the key measures to ensure that we have that stability in the British economy—the independence of the Bank of England.

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. Andrew Miller: What estimate he has made of the number of families in the north-west region who will be eligible for working families tax credit. [96995]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): It is estimated that 250,000 families could receive the working families tax credit in the Government north-west administrative region.
    Mr. Miller: Contrary to the rant of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), something must be right because, since this Government have been in power, unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 34 per cent. It is important that we bring together all agencies that can help promote the working families tax credit and make it work. I commend to my hon. Friend an exercise that I conducted in co-operation with the private sector—Warner cinemas and THI Developments especially—local authorities, the Benefits Agency, and so on, to help to promote the creation of jobs under the new deal and, indeed, outside it. Perhaps similar exercises in co-operation may help to create more jobs.
    Dawn Primarolo: I agree with my hon. Friend that co-ordination is necessary to ensure that people understand that the working families tax credit tackles the traps of unemployment and poverty, and, most importantly, helps parents with children who want to work with their child care expenses. The shadow Chancellor must explain to, for instance, the young woman whom I met last week, who will be £109 a week better off as a result of the working families tax credit—1.5 million families will benefit—why he would take that money away from her and put up her taxes.
    Mr. Michael Jack: I hope that the Minister agrees that one way of helping those on the working families tax credit in the north-west is to ensure a strong export performance in industries such as aerospace in my constituency? To that end, I seek her assurance that the
    1282
    Treasury has no plans to change the present way in which it supports and funds the operation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department—
    Madam Speaker: Order. That does not relate to the question on the Order Paper. The right hon. Member is a long-standing member of the House, and should not try to do things like that.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not the working families tax credit, together with the national minimum wage, a tremendous help in areas such as Burnley, in the north-west, where we have traditionally suffered low pay and deprivation? Is not it important help not only to the families affected but to the entire economy in such areas?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right to draw together the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit as underpinning employment. They are good for both the employee, whose wages make work worthwhile, and employers, in ensuring retention and recruitment of the work force, and especially assisting them, through the provision of child care tax credits, to retain the skills of women who would otherwise be forced out of the labour market for a long period when they have young children.

    Climate Change Levy
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: What assessment his Department has made of the impact on chemical industries of the proposed climate change levy. [96999]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): We have studied the impact very carefully. Together with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for the Environment, I recently met representatives of all the energy-intensive industries including the Chemical Industries Association Ltd. Last week, I had a useful discussion with members of the all-party parliamentary chemical industry group.
    The chemical industry will have the opportunity to benefit from the 80 per cent. discount for energy-intensive sectors that sign energy-efficiency agreements with the Government, and from exemptions for electricity for good quality combined heat and power plant, which is widely used in the chemical sector.
    Mrs. Winterton: I welcome the fact that the climate change levy will not be as punitive, as announced in Tuesday's statement, although it should be noted that there will be an annual increase of £1 billion a year, starting next year. What other measures do Treasury Ministers envisage taking to assist the competitiveness of the chemical industry as the UK's top manufacturing export earner?
    Mr. Timms: All the £1 billion will be refunded through the reduction in employer national insurance contributions.
    I do not know whether any of the hon. Lady's constituents work for ICI Chlor-Chemicals—I suspect that they may.

    1283
    Today, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) has been talking to the chief executive there who said that he was encouraged by the way in which the Government have responded to his company's concerns about competitiveness. He said that the Government had clearly listened and made a significant and intelligent response. Those views will be widely shared by people in the chemicals industry and hon. Members who represent constituencies with substantial employment in chemicals, like that of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). The two aims for the climate change levy are to maximise environmental benefit and not to pose a threat to the competitiveness of UK firms. We have made progress on both this week with the announcements of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer: there will be substantially greater environmental benefits, which have been welcomed by environmental organisations, and we have taken steps to protect competitiveness in the chemical sector and other industries.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: I welcome the exemption of renewables from the climate change levy announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget statement. What appraisal has my hon. Friend made of the effect on growth and competitiveness of the United Kingdom renewables industry that the exemption will produce?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The renewable energy industry is important and the UK has considerable strength there already. The combined heat and power industry is also important and we have some leading technologies in that area, too. Both industries will benefit from the exemptions that my right hon. Friend announced this week, so that is good for British business and technology.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister confirm that despite the Government's climb-down on the energy tax on Tuesday, major sectors of industry will continue to pay in net amounts of tens of millions of pounds which their overseas competitors will be exempt from? Has he seen that, as well as the chemical industry, the Steel Association said yesterday that the tax
    "will still result in more steel being produced overseas, often by producers using less environmentally friendly plant than those in the United Kingdom"?
    According to that association, the tax is bad for industry, jobs and the global environment. Will Ministers stop mouthing slogans about competitiveness, fairness and enterprise, and start listening to those who work in industry and can deliver all the necessary reductions in these damaging gases, and so meet our international obligations without exporting British jobs, as the energy tax will do?
    Mr. Timms: No, the energy tax will certainly not do that. First, there is no climb-down because the new package will have substantially greater environmental benefits than the package that was outlined earlier in the year. We said in the Budget that the levy would save 1.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions a year by 2010. Under the new proposals that figure will rise to at least 2 million tonnes, and the negotiated agreements could easily provide the same amount again. The steel industry
    1284
    is a big winner from this week's announcements. It will benefit from the 80 per cent. discount for sectors that reach energy efficient agreements with the Government. There is one being dealt with in the steel sector. It will also benefit from the exemptions for feedstocks—fuel used as feedstock.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is not the climate change levy to be welcomed, saving 2 million tonnes of carbon each year? Has my hon. Friend heard anything from the other side of the House that would meet these commitments to the environment and be just as warmly welcomed by environmental groups as my hon. Friend's proposal is today?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The climate change levy is a big winner for Britain in terms of the environment and our industry. We have always said that protecting the environment goes hand in hand with building the economy. It must be good to tackle pollution—to work to reduce emissions. Surely even Conservative Members support that aim. We are delivering it.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: What estimate he has made of the net financial gain to Government Departments as a result of the introduction of the climate change levy. [97000]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): Education, health and other public services will gain, along with the majority of firms, from a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions that will exceed their payments under the climate change levy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his statement on Tuesday, however, that the net gain to public services will be wholly offset by the additional support he has announced for energy efficiency measures in the private sector. There will therefore be no net financial gain to the public finances from the introduction of the levy.
    Mr. Atkinson: The people who will lose, of course, are the unemployed in the north-east of England, because it is estimated that foreign inward investors will be put off by that billion pound energy tax. What assessment has the Financial Secretary made of the damage that will be caused to inward investment by the imposition of that new tax?
    Mr. Timms: We have protected the competitiveness of UK firms and we have made big progress with the announcements that have been made this week. We want to provide additional incentives at the margin in every sector to reduce emissions, because everybody has a role to play in meeting our legally binding targets, which also have to be met by other countries in the same way. That is the right thing to do, because we all want to cut down on pollution and that is the effect that the levy will have.
    Mr. David Kidney: With last year's pre-Budget report, Lord Marshall's report, the Customs and Excise consultation and the wide consultation meetings held by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, does he agree that vast consultation has taken place about the design of the levy before it was introduced? My right

    1285
    hon. Friend the Chancellor promised when he was appointed that our financial affairs would be managed with openness, good practice and transparency, and does my hon. Friend agree that the levy is a good example of his promise being kept?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right and the process that we have followed is a model for how such things should be done. We had Lord Marshall's report, the initial announcements in March, the following consultation, and the announcements this week. Of course, the levy itself will only be introduced a year from next April. That is in contrast to the imposition of VAT on fuel under the previous Government.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: What is the gain to this country of closing large sectors of the horticultural industry and flying in cut flowers on jumbo jets that do not pay duty on fuel?
    Mr. Timms: The horticultural industry will also gain from what has been announced this week. It is a big user of combined heat and power plants and it will therefore benefit substantially from what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced.

    International Monetary Fund
    Barbara Follett: What representations he has made concerning the composition of the board of the IMF. [97002]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Government have not made any representations concerning the composition of the board of the IMF.
    Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome her to her new post. Is she aware that in September the IMF replaced its much maligned enhanced structural adjustment facility, which one non-governmental organisation described as treatment by asphyxiation, with its new poverty reduction and growth programme? Will she and her ministerial colleagues do
    1286
    all that they can to ensure that that is not only a name change, but that poverty reduction is central in future IMF interventions in developing countries?
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work in that area as a member of the Select Committee on International Development. I know how seriously she takes those issues and that she will appreciate how seriously my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury team take them, too. The poverty reduction and growth facility replacement programmes for the IMF enhanced structural adjustment facility will bring about a big improvement in the work that can be done and will ensure that the IMF and the World Bank work together more closely. It will also emphasise country ownership and focus much more strongly on poverty, with the aim of achieving poverty eradication goals that are set in the international development targets. I know that that will be most welcome.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the Economic Secretary try to get the Chancellor to explain how it came about that, within hours of his election as chairman of its key committee, the IMF announced that it would after all not be selling any of its gold through the market?
    Does the Chancellor remember that whenever I suggested to him earlier in the year that it was not a good way of helping poor countries for the IMF to sell its gold through the market, he got rather cross with me and denounced me for not being genuinely interested in helping them? What was it that led him eventually to conclude that I had been right and that he had been wrong?
    Miss Johnson: I do not know what led the hon. Gentleman to come to that remarkable conclusion. I am disappointed, in that he ought to be congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the key role that he will be playing in those arenas as a result of taking over the committee. He ought also to be complimenting the Government on the relationship between the sale of gold and our ability to deal with poverty-stricken countries and the highly indebted poor countries issue. We have made massive progress, and the gold sales have contributed to that. Congratulations are due when real achievements are made by the Government in key areas.

Points of Order
12.31 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, at column 1122 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said that Britain must choose between taking France to court for its illegal ban on British beef and trying to persuade France to lift it. As the Government's attempts at persuasion have now collapsed in utter failure, and as, even in the last hour, British officials have been summoned to Brussels—no doubt to prepare for yet more unjustified concessions—can you tell the House whether the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has requested permission to make a statement about this devastating blow to his whole strategy?
Madam Speaker: I have had no request from the Minister to make a statement today.
Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you will have noticed early-day motion 1007, condemning the Chancellor for the serious error that he made when addressing the House on Tuesday. Have you had any request from the Chancellor to make a personal statement so that he can correct what is a serious, but no doubt inadvertent, error?
Madam Speaker: I have seen the early-day motion to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I have not been told by the Chancellor that he is seeking to make a statement.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It was widely trailed on the wireless this morning that the Home Secretary would today be making clear his intentions with respect to legislation on the future of hunting. Have you had any notice from the Home Secretary that he is seeking to make a statement? If you have not, is it within your competence to detail the runner on the Treasury Bench to fetch the Home Secretary, since we have so much time between now and seven o'clock?
Madam Speaker: I am afraid that I do not have the authority to order a Minister to come here, and I am not aware that any such statement is being made.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a defender of the rights of all Members of this House, you will recall that there was a vote in November 1997 in which 411 Members of this House expressed the opinion that foxhunting is animal abuse and should be banned. Can we have an assurance that, in the next Session of Parliament, you will ensure that there is a full debate, so that all hon. Members can express that view again?
Madam Speaker: We are now getting into bogus points of order, and there will be no more.

Business of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting,

1. the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received; and

2. if the House has completed its consideration of any Messages received from the Lords and the Lords have adjourned their sitting, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.—[Mr. Allen.]

12.34 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: The motion is important because it sets out the relationship between another place and this House on a crucial but rather sad day, which may be the last of the Session—that remains to be seen. The motion refers to "Messages from the Lords" and to the fact that you, Madam Speaker, may adjourn the House. Before you can make that decision, you must consider the possibility that other matters may intervene. To follow on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) a moment ago, you may be approached before the House adjourns by Ministers who want to make a statement. Beef on the bone and beef imports to France are subjects about which a Minister might want to make a statement and clarify the Government's position.
Mr. James Gray: Does my right hon. Friend agree that foxhunting might also merit a statement at this point in the week? Does he agree that the Home Secretary might have cried off until now because such a statement would prove controversial for one side or the other?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. Madam Speaker may wish to postpone the Adjournment of the House, which is the subject of the motion, to give the Home Secretary time to prepare a statement on foxhunting. The statement has been widely trailed but, so far, we have had no opportunity to hear it. Therefore, it would be appropriate to postpone the Adjournment of the House to give the Home Secretary time to clarify the Government's position.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Madam Speaker might receive a request from the Chancellor to deal with the disgraceful error to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) referred, or a request from the Prime Minister to apologise for his appalling abuse of Question Time yesterday, when he behaved like a bad vaudeville ham actor?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend puts those points so much better than I could. I propose to deal with that subject later, strictly in the context of the Adjournment of the House, which is the subject of the motion.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: After my right hon. Friend has fully dealt with the good interventions of my hon. Friends, will he return to the possibility of a statement, before the Adjournment of the House, on the French attitude to beef? Does he agree that the House may also wish to hear a statement about the

1289
Government's view on the German attitude to beef, and the likelihood that, after the French have agreed to accept British beef, the Germans will continue to hold out? Ministers should make a statement on the steps that they are taking about Germany.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. It is not too late for the House to deal with those matters. Today is a sitting day. The House must make a judgment, in the context of the motion, on whether it is appropriate to adjourn earlier or later, given the sort of developments that my right hon. Friend mentioned.
Hon. Members might believe that it is appropriate to consider other matters today. I have a few modest suggestions.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown rose—
Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
Mr. Forth: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when considering the motion, Madam Speaker may wish to take into account the written question from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster):
"To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans in respect of hunting with dogs."
Would it not be a disgrace and an abuse of the House if we obtained a written answer tomorrow, after the House had prorogued? It is such a controversial matter that Madam Speaker might have expected a message from the Home Secretary to say that he would make a personal statement before the House prorogues today.
Mr. Forth: Those are the judgments that the House and Madam Speaker will have to make today. I cannot conceive that, with Madam Speaker's guidance, we could make the tragic mistake of adjourning unnecessarily early, and thus deny an opportunity for such statements to be made. It would surely be a tragic mistake if, at this stage of the Session, we were to adjourn without having given Ministers a proper opportunity to come to the House to clarify these matters and one or two others that I want to refer to. What would people think of us then? The House of Commons has all the opportunities in the world today—and perhaps tomorrow; who knows?—to give these matters proper consideration and to allow the Government to clarify their position, to the benefit of everybody, including the House. If we were to deny the Government and the House those opportunities, we would not be readily forgiven.
That is a serious matter, and one to which we must give consideration, but I want to return for a moment to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). At Scottish questions the other day, I asked a question—which I thought was rather a good one, if I may say so—about a Minister's judgment on what would be more damaging to health: the consumption of beef on the bone
1290
or the consumption of beef produced from a food chain originating with human sewage. I thought that that was a perfectly reasonable question.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are scripts being given out in the House? Might it be possible for all Members of the House to have them?
Madam Speaker: If papers are being passed around the House, that is not a matter for me.
Mr. Forth: I do not operate from scripts, as you well know, Madam Speaker. The only script that I have is a few handwritten notes to guide me and to ensure that I stay in order in terms of the motion before us.
As the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has raised the point, it has been drawn to my attention that a written question on foxhunting, tabled by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) to the Home Secretary, which has just been handed to me, is being answered today. The Home Secretary says:
"I am announcing today how the Government wish to proceed on this issue."
That is exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West was making. The Home Secretary normally prides himself on openness and, if I remember rightly, he is responsible for the Freedom of Information Bill, but the very man who will introduce that Bill to the House is trying to sneak out a grubby little statement in a written answer. He is not here today, although he has every opportunity to be so. If ever there were a good example of the need for the House to give him an opportunity to clarify the position, surely this is it.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a sad day? His remarks and what is going on in the other place make it clear that the Government are savaging one Chamber and completely ignoring the other.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I wanted to come on to today's proceedings in the other place, which have direct relevance to the relationship between the other place and the House—do they not? In the context of what the House did yesterday—to the House of Lords Bill in particular—and their Lordships' deliberations on that Bill today, we have to make our own judgment about
"any Messages from the Lords",
to which the motion refers, and whether to adjourn the House. We must give some thought to the possibilities that exist of their Lordships making further amendments to the Bill. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. May I have one of the papers that are being passed around the Chamber?
Mr. Forth: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend think that the House ought to be suspended while the Labour party hands out its own scripts?
Mr. Forth: It seems—
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that it would be

1291
in order for a Home Office Minister—whether the Home Secretary or not—to apply to you to make a statement if he chose to do so?
Madam Speaker: If any Minister wishes to make a statement, he simply lets me know. In this case, the statement is being made by means of a written answer, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, according to our procedures, that is perfectly in order.
Mr. Forth: Of course that is in order, as you, Madam Speaker, have just ruled. However, the House will be very conscious of the fact that, by using a written answer to reply to a question that Labour Members think is important and by not asking your permission to make a statement to the House, the Home Secretary has denied the House the opportunity to question him on what lies behind his answer. I am afraid that that is all too typical of the attitude that Ministers, including the Home Secretary, have repeatedly shown. I presume that the Home Secretary has something to hide, and I suspect that he has as much to hide from his own colleagues as from Conservative Members because he has not asked you for permission to make a statement and to be questioned by the House.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I have just had the opportunity to look at the Home Secretary's answer, and there may be another reason why, even now, he might feel embarrassed enough to want to come to the House to make a statement. He refers to the setting up of an inquiry into the consequences of banning hunting, whereas an honest approach would be to set up an inquiry and a royal commission into fox control generally. Will my right hon. Friend speculate as to why the Home Secretary is setting up a much more limited inquiry?
Madam Speaker: Order. I will not allow the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to speculate on that. As the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) knows, the right hon. Member is doing very well simply by making passing references to subjects, but I cannot allow him to discuss the details.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the new Members of the House, will you offer us your guidance as to when it is appropriate for a Minister to answer a question on a matter of considerable public interest via a written answer as opposed to making a statement in the House?
Madam Speaker: Ministers' choices are not a matter for me.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I right in thinking that it would be almost unprecedented for a Minister to make a statement to the House about the mechanism whereby an agreed policy was delivered?
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Lady is correct. I caution the House that we must not get into such details on
1292
this motion. The right hon. Gentleman who had the Floor was conducting himself quite properly, but I hope that he will not be led down the path by some of his colleagues.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Government approach the House authorities about an issue on which a Minister had said that the authorities would not be approached until a particular inquiry had been completed, will the House authorities say that they will not talk to the Minister because he had said that he would not approach them earlier? The detail of the Home Secretary's answer says specifically that the House authorities will be consulted, but, in the next paragraph, it states that the inquiry will take place first. What responsibility do the House authorities have for carrying out the Minister's words?
Madam Speaker: That is totally hypothetical at this stage. I would like the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to continue.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it not be in order, before the House adjourns, for the Prime Minister, recognising the inadequacy of one of his answers yesterday, to come before us to provide further and better particulars of his view and that of the Government on the matter in question?
Madam Speaker: Any Minister, including the Prime Minister, can come before the House when they have something to say.
Mr. Forth: I was considering the possibility of another place making further amendments to the House of Lords Bill. I was doing that in the context of yesterday's debate and considering whether we would benefit from a further amendment that would establish a timetable for stage 2 of the reforms. One of the things to emerge clearly from yesterday's debate was the widespread unease and dissatisfaction in the House about the fact that we are being asked to endorse an important constitutional change with no sign or commitment from the Government about the timetable for a further stage of that reform. That is a good reason for the House to be careful about adjourning prematurely, because we might want to give very full consideration to further changes that the other place might want to make to the House of Lords Bill.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government say that the steps that they have taken so far for the House of Lords are merely interim measures.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have already cautioned the House, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening. Members must not go into the details of legislation. There is a motion on the Order Paper which, at the moment, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is debating quite correctly.
Mr. Forth: I believe that another possibility exists. Either an emergency Bill could be tabled in another place, or a statement could be made by a Minister—I accept that, as yet, none has been requested—on the matter of probity, openness and reliability of information given in the House of Commons.

1293
One of the weaknesses evident in the House over the past few months has become even more critical recently. That is the ability of hon. Members—especially Labour Members—to make statements in the House that are demonstrably and patently unverifiable. I think that I am correct in saying that it would be possible for the House of Lords to introduce an emergency Bill even at this late stage in the Session—although some other mechanism may exist—that would allow us to give the National Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee, for example, a role in ensuring the immediate correction of misleading and false information purveyed or peddled in this House. I feel that, given what has happened recently, the House is coming to the view that a proper mechanism to ensure that should exist.
I do not want to test your patience any further, Madam Speaker, and I know that this is a matter largely for your judgment. My intention was to give you an idea of why I believe that it is of the utmost importance that the House must not adjourn at this stage. Today is a parliamentary day, and proper opportunity must be given for matters to be considered for the benefit of all our constituents.
12.51 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the motion is agreed to, the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) will not be able to introduce his Adjournment debate. Leaving party politics aside, I believe that an extra reason not to agree with the motion is that the names of hon. Members come to the top of the Adjournment debates lottery only infrequently. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say a few words about buses in north Derbyshire if he chooses to explain why he supports the motion, or otherwise.
The matter that I raised in my further point of order, Madam Speaker, which you dealt with well—
Madam Speaker: Very well.
Hon. Members: Extremely well.
Mr. Bottomley: I have reflected on your judgment, and a slight ambiguity remains. You confirmed that there is an opportunity for the Home Secretary or another Home Office Minister to come to the House and ask to make a statement. I shall read the two relevant sentences from the written answer. The answer states:
"We shall consult the House authorities, as appropriate, on how this can best be taken forward.
The Government has decided that there should first be an inquiry."
There is a paragraph break between those two sentences, but a normal understanding of their meaning would be that the Government is committing them to delay consulting the House authorities until an inquiry has reported in the spring.
The first question that arises has to do with who the "House authorities" are. We have tiptoed around that problem on previous occasions when the House authorities instructed counsel to go to the High Court or to the Appeal Court. I shall take the phrase "House authorities" to mean a mixture of Murdo Maclean, the private secretary to the Government Chief Whip, and the Clerk's Office. That would probably give us the best group. Should Mr. Maclean or the Clerk's Office respond to the Government if, before
1294
spring, the Government ask for advice about how to execute a procedural move—what opponents might see as a wangle, and supporters as assistance—with regard to the Bill that failed in this House a year ago?
I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will be able to give guidance to the House authorities as to whether they should say to the Government, "If you want to talk to us before the inquiry has reported, there must be a further parliamentary answer, so that the House will know the basis on which we are proceeding."
There are other reasons for prolonging the debate until Ministers are able to come to the House. According to an argument that I shall not pursue at length, the subject to fill the gap between questions on a prorogation day and the expectation of a royal commission should be that of the last early-day motion on the Order Paper. I do not need to remind the House that early-day motion 1011 is about the conduct of the Prime Minister.
Unusually, there have been four early-day motions on that subject in this Session. The Prime Minister has chosen to respond to none of them, and neither has any response from him, either through the House authorities or the usual channels, been available for debate. I shall not go into detail, but early-day motion 1011 has been tabled as a consequence of answers that he gave at Prime Minister's questions yesterday, which he must have believed to be true.
I raise this matter now because it has not been picked up by the media. When I asked the BBC whether its correspondents had checked that the Prime Minister had got his facts right—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of Parliament, but he is straying from the motion before us. I have been very tolerant, but I think that he knows that he must get back to the motion.
Mr. Bottomley: Your guidance, Madam Speaker, is that I should not further illustrate why the Prime Minister should not respond to the early-day motion.
Madam Speaker: Order. I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the motion before us.
Mr. Bottomley: Which is that this House shall adjourn.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Shall not adjourn.
Mr. Bottomley: If we agree the motion quickly, there will be no further discussion in the House until notice of the Royal Commission is received. I think that I have got that right; I am grateful to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for his intervention. If, during that period of silence, a Minister asked whether he could make a statement on the written answer on foxhunting, on the early-day motion on the Prime Minister's conduct or on early-day motion 1007 on the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could the House then resume? That is a question to which the House does not know the answer, but no doubt you will be able to tell us, Madam Speaker.
I believe that the arguments for using this time to hold the Government to account are good reasons why the debate on the motion to adjourn should continue.

1295
Of course, the Prime Minister could at this moment be on a plane on his way to South Africa, where he no doubt has international duties, and the Chancellor may have decided to leave because he would not give straight answers at Question Time.
I hope that, in the next Session of Parliament, if not in this one, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will respond to the early-day motions on their conduct. If they think that criticism does not matter, they do not understand the role of a free Parliament in a free country.
12.57 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: Last night, we discussed the proposals in another place that will fundamentally change the country's constitutional balance. I believe it important that, before we adjourn, there should be an opportunity for the Government to produce the regulations that they have so far failed to produce with regard to those Members of another place who, from today, will no longer have a right to attend the House of peers.
In our democracy, everybody who is a British citizen and fulfils certain requirements is entitled to a vote at elections. That is enshrined in our democracy, and is the critical part of our democratic process. As a result of the legislation on the arrangements for another place that will—today, I assume—be reaching the end of its passage through this House, there will be, if my mathematics is correct, just over 500 individuals who, until today, have been—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am listening very carefully to what hon. Members are saying, but they are now straying far from the motion that is before us. I ask them to look at it; I know full well what we are doing at this particular time.
Mr. Burns: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker, and do not wish to test your patience. However, I am worried that we may adjourn before the legislation that we have sent to the other place has been tidied up so that individuals are not disenfranchised.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may make passing references, but he is getting into matters of great detail. Quite frankly, he should bring his remarks to a close rather than go into details discussed during the passage of the legislation.
Mr. Burns: Madam Speaker, I am again grateful and shall again seek not to try your patience. I remain bothered that, before we adjourn, the other place has time to discuss the Bill again and to make further amendments that would remove an injustice. A number of people from the other place happen to live in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The Bill, if unamended, will mean that former members of the other place will be disenfranchised at the by-election there on 25 November. Before we adjourn, the House should allow the other place to amend the legislation, because the Government have singularly failed to produce regulations to enfranchise the disenfranchised.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Alternatively, the House should not adjourn until the business in the other
1296
place has been resolved. The Government could then introduce, if they wished to do so, the order necessary to rectify the problem. That must be done, because failure to do so would put us in danger of breaching the human rights convention and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. It is extraordinary that we should be asked to adjourn and to prorogue before next week's state opening when a group of individuals will be disenfranchised at an election in just two weeks' time. Those people are being stripped of their democratic right to cast a vote for a representative in this House, even after the Bill deprives them of their role in the legislative process.
Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): Clause 4(3) of the House of Lords Bill, as amended, does not confer a right to vote on peers removed from the House of Lords by the Bill. Instead, it allows the Secretary of State to make an order to allow peers to vote. No such order has been made, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will shortly ask when such an order will be laid before us.
Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. It seems inconceivable that the Government has not produced that order. It has always been likely that the House of Lords Bill would be on the statute book by the time that we prorogued. The Government has had plenty of time to prepare regulations and place them before the House. For whatever reason, they have not done so, and they seem relaxed about disenfranchising individuals. The other place should amend the Bill to do the job that the Government have failed to do.
Mr. Fraser: The Government argues that it is not possible to update the electoral register. In fact, the Lords are already on it.
Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is not uncommon, if the Government finds an argument difficult, for them to give it a gloss that has little relation to reality. In fact, the other place could easily amend the Bill. The electoral register came into force in February. Members of the other place were given a vote for the European elections, and they can vote in local elections. That proves that there is no problem with the register. The Lords are already on the register, though far from voting at a general election. The other place could amend the legislation today and send it back to us. Then, if we had not adjourned, we would be able to endorse what it had done, so that peers who will no longer be in another place after today could vote in the by-election.
Mr. Bercow: I am following the impeccable logic of my hon. Friend's thesis and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), but may I suggest another altogether more prosaic reason why the House should not adjourn yet? The other place will not meet and consider any messages that it might wish to send to us about last night's proceedings for about two and a half hours. In the light of the extraordinary ill grace with which the Government have treated the other place in recent times, is it not a matter of elementary courtesy that we should be here to deliberate upon, and

1297
respond to, any messages, rather than obliging noble members of the other place to wait at least six days to hear of our consideration and our response?
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows, as does every other Opposition Member, that sadly, over the past two and a half years, we have experienced a Government who have utter contempt for this Chamber. The Government would be more than happy if we adjourned immediately; we are considered a nuisance and an irritant, because we ask awkward questions and highlight the discrepancies and contradictions in what is, I gather, now known as "The Blair Project". The Government are so arrogant that they are not the slightest bit interested in anyone else's point of view.
Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten me? I fail to see the logic of his position and that of his hon. Friends. My understanding of the motion on the Order Paper—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hold it up; that is his script."] It is not a script, it is the Order Paper. My understanding of the motion before us is that Madam Speaker
"shall not adjourn the House"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray, he can read."] Opposition Members seem to have confused adjournment with suspension.
Mr. Burns: I notice that, probably out of embarrassment caused by that inadequate intervention, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), is moving along the Bench away from the hon. Gentleman. Clearly she briefed him but he did not fully understand—now, obviously, she feels that, out of loyalty, to save his face, she must return and sit in front of him.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the motion says that we "shall not adjourn". If I did not understand that, Madam Speaker, you would not have allowed me to continue to contribute to the debate. I shall spell it out for the hon. Gentleman. I am arguing that it is right that the House should not adjourn until another place has had the opportunity to amend the legislation that we sent back to it last night. Then, the members of the other place who are to leave it for good when we prorogue would be able to vote in the Kensington and Chelsea by-election. So far, the Government have failed to place the regulations before the two Houses.
Mr. Gardiner: So precisely what is the disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and the motion on the Order Paper? The motion says that the House should not adjourn, the implication being that it should suspend and therefore could be recalled at any time, should that become necessary.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) to wander around the Chamber, chatting to his friends and walking in front of those who are trying to address the Chair?
Madam Speaker: Members very often move around this House, but it is better not to move in front of the person who is being addressed.
Mr. Keith Bradley rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following earlier points of order about the Home Secretary's written answer this morning, I notice that it says:
"The inquiry will be chaired by the noble Lords,"—
in the plural—
"Lord Burns."
That may be the result of the extreme haste with which the written answer was rushed out, but it occurs to me that, given that the other place is still considering the House of Lords Bill and the statement goes on to say that the other members of the inquiry will be announced later, even at this late stage, the Government might decide to retain in office some noble Lords so that they might be members of the inquiry, and that is another reason why you might feel that the Home Secretary should make a statement, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was aware of our new procedures whereby it is possible to raise a point of order during a Division, but it must relate to the Division. Had he given me some indication of his point of order, I could have saved him from making it.
Mr. Joe Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The annunciator screen shows only the word "Closure", not "Division", and some hon. Members are not aware that a Division is in progress.
Madam Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The screen does say "Closure" and that could be misleading. It should say "Closure motion. Division". I shall see that that is rectified for the next Session. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As there was confusion over what the monitors said around the House, should we not declare the Division null and void and have a second Division, so that all Members can vote?
Madam Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that procedure. The Division stands.
The House having divided: Ayes 258, Noes 72.

Division No. 322]

[1.10 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Bennett, Andrew F

Alexander, Douglas

Benton, Joe

Allan, Richard

Berry, Roger

Allen, Graham

Best, Harold

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Betts, Clive

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Blizzard, Bob

Ashton, Joe

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Atkins, Charlotte

Bradshaw, Ben

Ballard, Jackie

Breed, Colin

Barnes, Harry

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Bayley, Hugh

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Beard, Nigel

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Browne, Desmond

1299

Burden, Richard

Hesford, Stephen

Burgon, Colin

Hill, Keith

Butler, Mrs Christine

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hood, Jimmy

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Hope, Phil

Caplin, Ivor

Hopkins, Kelvin

Casale, Roger

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Caton, Martin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Howells, Dr Kim

Clapham, Michael

Hoyle, Lindsay

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hutton, John

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Clelland, David

Illsley, Eric

Clwyd, Ann

Jamieson, David

Coaker, Vernon

Jenkins, Brian

Coffey, Ms Ann

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Coleman, Iain

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Connarty, Michael

Corbett, Robin

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Corston, Jean

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cotter, Brian

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Cranston, Ross

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Kemp, Fraser

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Cummings, John

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Darvill, Keith

Khabra, Piara S

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kirkwood, Archy

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Lady man, Dr Stephen

Dawson, Hilton

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Dean, Mrs Janet

Laxton, Bob

Denham, John

Lepper, David

Dobbin, Jim

Leslie, Christopher

Donohoe, Brian H

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Doran, Frank

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Dowd, Jim

Livingstone, Ken

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Efford, Clive

Lock, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McAvoy, Thomas

Flint, Caroline

McCabe, Steve

Flynn, Paul

McDonagh, Siobhain

Follett, Barbara

Macdonald, Calum

Foster, Don (Bath)

McDonnell, John

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

McIsaac, Shona

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Fyfe, Maria

McNamara, Kevin

Gardiner, Barry

McNulty, Tony

Gerrard, Neil

MacShane, Denis

Gibson, Dr Ian

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McWalter, Tony

Godman, Dr Norman A

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Goggins, Paul

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Maxton, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Merron, Gillian

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Grocott, Bruce

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Grogan, John

Miller, Andrew

Hain, Peter

Mitchell, Austin

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Moffatt, Laura

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Moran, Ms Margaret

Healey, John

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Mountford, Kali

Hepburn, Stephen

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Heppell, John

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

1300

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

O'Hara, Eddie

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Olner, Bill

Soley, Clive

Öpik, Lembit

Southworth, Ms Helen

Organ, Mrs Diana

Spellar, John

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Palmer, Dr Nick

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Pearson, Ian

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Pendry, Tom

Stinchcombe, Paul

Perham, Ms Linda

Stoate, Dr Howard

Pickthall, Colin

Stringer, Graham

Plaskitt, James

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pond, Chris

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pope, Greg

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Primarolo, Dawn

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Prosser, Gwyn

Temple-Morris, Peter

Purchase, Ken

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Todd, Mark

Quinn, Lawrie

Touhig, Don

Rammell, Bill

Trickett, Jon

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rooker, Jeff

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Rowlands, Ted

Vis, Dr Rudi

Roy, Frank

Ward, Ms Claire

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Watts, David

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

White, Brian

Ryan, Ms Joan

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Salter, Martin

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Savidge, Malcolm

Winnick, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Shaw, Jonathan

Wise, Audrey

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wood, Mike

Shipley, Ms Debra

Woolas, Phil

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wyatt, Derek

Singh, Marsha

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mrs. Anne McGuire and

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

NOES

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hawkins, Nick

Bercow, John

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Horam, John

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Brazier, Julian

Jenkin, Bernard

Burns, Simon

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Lansley, Andrew

Clappison, James

Leigh, Edward

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Letwin, Oliver

Collins, Tim

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Lidington, David

Cran, James

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Loughton, Tim

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Duncan, Alan

McLoughlin, Patrick

Duncan Smith, Iain

Malins, Humfrey

Evans, Nigel

Maples, John

Faber, David

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Fabricant, Michael

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Fallon, Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Nicholls, Patrick

Fraser, Christopher

Norman, Archie

Gale, Roger

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Gill, Christopher

Page, Richard

Gray, James

Paterson, Owen

Green, Damian

Prior, David

Greenway, John

Randall, John

Grieve, Dominic

Robathan, Andrew

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Robertson, Laurence

Hammond, Philip

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

1301

Ruffley, David

Wells, Bowen

St Aubyn, Nick

Wilkinson, John

Soames, Nicholas

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Yeo, Tim

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Syms, Robert

Tredinnick, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Trend, Michael

Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

Tyrie, Andrew

Mr. Keith Simpson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly,
That, at this day's sitting,

1. the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received; and

2. if the House has completed its consideration of any Messages received from the Lords and the Lords have adjourned their sitting, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 74.

Division No. 323]

[1.25 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Coleman, Iain

Alexander, Douglas

Connarty, Michael

Allan, Richard

Corbett, Robin

Allen, Graham

Corston, Jean

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Cotter, Brian

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Cousins, Jim

Ashton, Joe

Cranston, Ross

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Atkins, Charlotte

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Ballard, Jackie

Cummings, John

Barnes, Harry

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Bayley, Hugh

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Beard, Nigel

Darvill, Keith

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bennett, Andrew F

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Benton, Joe

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Berry, Roger

Dawson, Hilton

Best, Harold

Dean, Mrs Janet

Betts, Clive

Denham, John

Blears, Ms Hazel

Dobbin, Jim

Blizzard, Bob

Donohoe, Brian H

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Doran, Frank

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Dowd, Jim

Bradshaw, Ben

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Breed, Colin

Effort, Clive

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Flint, Caroline

Browne, Desmond

Flynn, Paul

Burden, Richard

Follett, Barbara

Burgon, Colin

Foster, Don (Bath)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Fyfe, Maria

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gardiner, Barry

Campbell-Savours, Dale

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Caplin, Ivor

Gerrard, Neil

Casale, Roger

Gibson, Dr Ian

Caton, Martin

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Clapham, Michael

Goggins, Paul

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clelland, David

Grocott, Bruce

Coaker, Vernon

Grogan, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hain, Peter

1302

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mitchell, Austin

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Moffatt, Laura

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Healey, John

Moran, Ms Margaret

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hepburn, Stephen

Mountford, Kali

Heppell, John

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hesford, Stephen

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hill, Keith

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hinchliffe, David

O'Hara, Eddie

Hood, Jimmy

Olner, Bill

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Öpik, Lembit

Hope, Phil

Organ, Mrs Diana

Hopkins, Kelvin

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Pearson, Ian

Howells, Dr Kim

Pendry, Tom

Hoyle, Lindsay

Perham, Ms Linda

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Pickthall, Colin

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Plaskitt, James

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Pond, Chris

Humble, Mrs Joan

Pope, Greg

Hutton, John

Powell, Sir Raymond

Iddon, Dr Brian

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Illsley, Eric

Primarolo, Dawn

Jamieson, David

Prosser, Gwyn

Jenkins, Brian

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Quinn, Lawrie

Rammell, Bill

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Rapson, Syd

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kemp, Fraser

Rowlands, Ted

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Roy, Frank

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Khabra, Piara S

Ryan, Ms Joan

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Salter, Martin

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Savidge, Malcolm

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Sedgemore, Brian

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Shaw, Jonathan

Laxton, Bob

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Lepper, David

Shipley, Ms Debra

Leslie, Christopher

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Singh, Marsha

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Skinner, Dennis

Livingstone, Ken

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Lock, David

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McAvoy, Thomas

McCabe, Steve

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Snape, Peter

Macdonald, Calum

Soley, Clive

McDonnell, John

Southworth, Ms Helen

McIsaac, Shona

Spellar, John

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

McNamara, Kevin

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

McNulty, Tony

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

MacShane, Denis

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mactaggart, Fiona

Stoate, Dr Howard

McWalter, Tony

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Stringer, Graham

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Maxton, John

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Merron, Gillian

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Miller, Andrew

Todd, Mark

1303

Touhig, Don

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Trickett, Jon

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Wills, Michael

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Winnick, David

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Wise, Audrey

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Wood, Mike

Tynan, Bill

Woolas, Phil

Vis, Dr Rudi

Wyatt, Derek

Wand, Ms Claire

Watts, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

White, Brian

Mrs. Anne McGuire and

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

NOES

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Leigh, Edward

Baldry, Tony

Letwin, Oliver

Bercow, John

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Lidington, David

Brazier, Julian

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Burns, Simon

Loughton, Tim

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Clappison, James

Malins, Humfrey

Collins, Tim

Maples, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Cran, James

Moss, Malcolm

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Nicholls, Patrick

Norman, Archie

Duncan, Alan

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Page, Richard

Evans, Nigel

Paterson, Owen

Faber, David

Prior, David

Fabricant, Michael

Randall, John

Fallon, Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Robertson, Laurence

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Fox, Dr Liam

Ruffley, David

Fraser, Christopher

St Aubyn, Nick

Gale, Roger

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gill, Christopher

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gray, James

Syms, Robert

Green, Damian

Tredinnick, David

Greenway, John

Trend, Michael

Grieve, Dominic

Tyrie, Andrew

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Wells, Bowen

Hammond, Philip

Wilkinson, John

Hawkins, Nick

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Woodward, Shaun

Horam, John

Yeo, Tim

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Jenkin, Bernard

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Tellers for the Noes:

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

Lansley, Andrew

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting,

1. the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received; and

2. if the House has completed its consideration of any Messages received from the Lords and the Lords have adjourned their sitting, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.

Mr. Fraser: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you issued the writ for the Kensington and Chelsea by-election, would it be possible for you to speak to the appropriate authorities, so that peers who are on the electoral register and who, from tomorrow, will be legally entitled to vote will be able to exercise that right? In
1304
another place, Lady Jay promised that the enfranchisement of those peers would immediately follow the passage of the House of Lords Bill.
Madam Speaker: I had responsibility for issuing the writ for the by-election, and I did so; but I have no responsibility for the electorate in the area.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I understand that, because we voted for the motion, we can now be summoned back at any time by the Leader of the House, whereas, if we had not voted for it, we would have had to wait until 7 pm. Am I right in thinking that we can be summoned back before 7 pm for any reason, not just because messages may have arrived from the other place—for instance, because of the screaming headlines in all today's papers about the crisis in the beef industry? The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might want to make a statement about that.
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had read the motion, he would know that only a message from the Lords can bring us back.
Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that, during the first of the two Divisions that have just taken place, I sought to raise a matter arising from the written answer that the Home Secretary gave this morning, and you advised me that it would not be appropriate for me to make a point of order at that stage because a point of order during a Division could relate only to that Division.
May I now return to the written answer? According to the Home Secretary, the inquiry that he has announced
"will be chaired by the noble Lords,"—
plural—
"Lord Burns."
We all know that Lord Burns was the super-mandarin when he was permanent secretary to the Treasury, but I do not think that even he would describe himself in the plural.
The written answer continues:
"The names of the other members of the inquiry will be announced as soon as possible."
Is it not possible, even at this late stage, that a Minister might make an announcement that, on reflection, he thought it important to recognise the historic service to this country given by many noble Lords who, even if they were not among the 92 retaining their seats, might—given their experience of country sports—be appropriate members of the inquiry? In those circumstances, might there not be a message from their lordships amending the House of Lords Bill to enable them to serve?
Madam Speaker: That is highly unlikely. As I said earlier, we are waiting only for Lords messages. I anticipate that the Lords will be dealing with the House of Lords Bill at 3 o'clock this afternoon. We must await the message that will come from the Lords at that time.
Pursuant to the Order of the House this day, the sitting is suspended. Before the sitting resumes, I shall see that the Division Bells are sounded so that all Members are made aware of it.
1.41 pm
Sitting suspended.
5.5 pm
On resuming—
Message to attend the Lords Commisioners:
The House went; and, having returned:

Royal Assent
5.36 pm
Madam Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Food Standards Act 1999

Greater London Authority Act 1999

Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999

Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999

Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

House of Lords Act 1999

Prorogation

  Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
  Madam Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, one of the Lord Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command. For greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy and also directed that the terms of the speech be printed in the Journal of the House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
  The Gracious Speech was as follows:

  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the State Visits of His Excellency the President of Germany last December, of His Excellency the President of Hungary last June and of His Excellency the President of the People's Republic of China in October.
  We recall with pleasure our State Visit to Korea in April.
  We were delighted to pay State Visits to Ghana, and South Africa, over the last four days, and to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
  My Government have taken action to build a platform of economic stability and steady growth, based on clear long-term objectives for monetary and fiscal policy, with openness and transparency in policy making.
  My Government's goal is high and stable levels of growth and employment. The new system of monetary policy-making ensures that interest rate decisions are taken in the best long-term interests of the economy. As a result, the UK now has a sound and credible platform of stability. Inflation is historically low and expected to remain close to target. And long-term interest rates are also at historically low levels. Employment is up by over half a million since the election, with more people in work in Britain today than ever before.
  To ensure high levels of employment, my Government are extending the new deal, to help more young people and the long-term unemployed. And my Government are tackling the poverty and unemployment traps. To make work pay and encourage job creation, they have introduced the national minimum wage and the new 10p starting rate of tax, cut the basic rate of income tax from next April, and reformed national insurance. And the Working Families Tax Credit, introduced in October, is helping to make work pay for low-paid working families.
  My Government are continually looking at ways to improve productivity, including in the public sector. They have set tough targets for outputs from every department in Public Service Agreements.
  My Government's legislation to raise standards for all children is now coming into effect. There has been a widespread reduction in the number of children in infant classes of over 30 and there is extensive support for the literacy and numeracy strategies. My Government published the Teachers Green Paper—the most radical reform of the teaching profession in a generation—and has since announced progress towards a new pay structure for teachers.
  Parliament has passed for the first time legislation for the creation of a Disability Rights Commission, which will help create a positive climate for people with disabilities in their lives and work.
  My Government have put in place the framework for a modern National Health Service. An Act has been passed to replace the NHS internal market with decentralised arrangements based on partnership, quality and efficiency. Waiting lists have been reduced by 200,000 since their high point in April 1998, and by 69,000 since March 1997.
  An Act has been passed to establish a Food Standards Agency to protect public health and the interests of consumers in relation to food.
  Legislation has been enacted to support minimum standards at work, to promote partnership and to make it easier for people to combine family responsibilities and employment.
  An Act has been passed which takes forward my Government's programme of welfare reform, promoting work for those who are able to work and security for those who cannot.
  My Government has begun the modernisation of local government. Legislation has been enacted to secure the delivery of high quality local services on a sound financial basis.
  My Government have begun the process of restoring democratic, city-wide government in London. Legislation was enacted to establish the Greater London Authority, providing London with a new form of strategic governance.
  An Act has been passed which will enable the implementation of the EU Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, which will maintain a coherent pollution control regime for the United Kingdom.
  Legislation has been enacted to provide a fair basis for water charging in England and Wales.
  An Act has been passed to modernise and strengthen immigration control. It will speed up the system of immigration and asylum appeals. This Act is essential to the delivery of a fairer, faster and firmer immigration and asylum system to which my Government is committed.
  An Act has been passed which creates a new sentencing disposal for first-time defendants pleading guilty in the youth court and introduces new measures to help vulnerable witnesses to give their best evidence in criminal trials.
  Legislation has been enacted to establish a Community Legal Service and a Criminal Defence Service. They will replace existing legal aid arrangements and enable resources to be better targeted. The Act also extends the use of conditional fees, removes unnecessary restrictions on the provision of legal services and makes reforms to magistrates' courts and the appeals system. This will increase access to justice. Other law reform measures have been enacted.
  As a first step in a process of reform, legislation has been enacted to remove the automatic right of hereditary peers to membership of the House of Lords.
  The people of Scotland and Wales voted to have their own Parliament and National Assembly and it was my pleasure with The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales to open the National Assembly of Wales on 26th May and to open the Scottish Parliament on 1st July.
  In Northern Ireland, my Government have continued to work to secure the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. They have, in co-operation with the Irish Government, established a review to overcome difficulties in its implementation. They have welcomed the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing.

  Members of the House of Commons
  I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.

  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  Over the last year, my Government have played a leading role in the European Union. They have continued to strengthen bilateral relations with our partners. My Government have welcomed the entry into force of new treaty provisions, which strengthen the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy and have welcomed the appointment of the first High Representative. In cooperation with other Member States, they ensured a successful outcome to the Agenda 2000 negotiations that maintained the United Kingdom's budget abatement.
  My Government have played a key role in preparing the European Union for the historic challenge of enlargement. They have also helped the applicant countries prepare for membership.
  My Government welcomed the launch of the euro on 1 January. They have published an outline National Changeover Plan, which could be implemented should Britain decide to join. They have welcomed the appointment of a new European Commission, committed to reform.
  My Government have maintained strong and modern defence for Britain based on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. They played a leading role in the decisions taken at NATO's 50th Anniversary summit in Washington to modernise further and prepare the Alliance for the challenges and opportunities it will face in the new century.
  My Government launched an historic initiative at the Franco-British St. Malo Summit. This will make the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy more effective and will revitalise the Atlantic Alliance.
  My Government launched an initiative at the British-Italian London Summit to improve the effectiveness of European defence forces. My Government have continued successfully to restructure the Armed Forces to meet the demands of the modern world.
  My Government reaffirmed its commitment to support the United Nations by signing a Memorandum of Understanding declaring United Kingdom forces potentially available for United Nations' peacekeeping Operations and by announcing its intention to make an increased contribution to UN police operations.
  My Government made a substantial and vital contribution to the success of the international community's diplomatic, political and military efforts to
  halt and reverse ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Following the end of the conflict, my Government have played an important role in reconstructing Kosovo and preparing it for free and fair elections.
  My Government's political, military and financial commitment to Bosnia and Herzegovina has continued to help build peace there.
  My Government has supported the democratic transition in Indonesia and has played a leading role, including a military contribution, in the UN process to help bring self-determination to the people of East Timor.
  Following the abolition of the death penalty under United Kingdom law, my Government signed and ratified the 6th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
  My Government have published a white paper proposing a new partnership with our Overseas Territories and offering British citizenship to their people.
  My Government have negotiated new arrangements which re-establish links between the Falkland Islands and Argentina.
  After extensive diplomatic effort by my Government, the Government of Libya finally agreed to hand over the two suspects in the Lockerbie bombing case. We are pleased that my Government subsequently reached an agreement on the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Libya.
  My Government supported and welcomed the transition to democratic civilian government in Nigeria.
  My Government have played a leading role in securing international agreement to reduce further the debt burden of very poor countries. My Government have put into place a strategy to increase the proportion of the United Kingdom's bilateral development assistance going to low income countries and to increase the focus of the multilateral agencies on the reduction of poverty. An Act has been passed to convert the Commonwealth Development Corporation to a public-private partnership enabling it to make a larger contribution to development by channelling increased private sector investment into the poorest countries.

  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.
  A Commission was also read for proroguing this present Parliament, and the Lord Chancellor said:
  "My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday the seventeenth day of this instant November, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday the seventeenth day of this instant November."
  End of the Second Session (opened on 24 November 1998) of the Fifty-Second Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Forty-Eighth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.