Commons Sitting of 19 June 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second Time on Wednesday 26 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Residential Care
    Mr. Mark Prisk: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the funding of residential care in Wales. [59906]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I discuss the national health service and other health issues on a regular basis with the First Minister, and I spoke on this issue earlier today with the Minister for Health and Social Services of the Welsh Assembly.
    Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply. Last night, however, BBC Wales revealed that up to 10 residential care homes in Wales are now closing every week. Can the Secretary of State confirm that figure? Given the obvious distress that that causes to vulnerable pensioners, who does he think is to blame?
    Mr. Murphy: I saw the BBC programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and it is a cause of great regret that beds are being lost in the care sector in Wales. First, however, some £17 million extra has gone into the care home sector in Wales. Secondly—he and his party should reflect on this point—hundreds of million of pounds will go into the national health service and other related areas in Wales as a result of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. Thirdly, only weeks ago I issued and signed a regulatory order to ensure that local authorities can transfer more funds into the care home sector. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that the Minister in the Welsh Assembly has set up a care home strategy that brings together all the relevant partners in Wales in this area of activity. I hope—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me—that that will mean
    260
    that more and more people will be cared for in their own homes, as well as in care homes. I believe that that partnership in Wales is working.
    Adam Price: The Secretary of State mentions £17 million, but he will know that Carmarthenshire county council alone faces a bill of £20 million to reach the new standards demanded by the Care Standards Act 2000. As a result of that shortfall, local authorities throughout Wales are having to privatise their homes. Can he not understand the distress that elderly residents and their families feel at the prospect of being placed at the mercy of a private sector that is in crisis?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman, too, knows that not only has £17 million extra already gone into that sector in Wales but, through the Chancellor's Budget some weeks ago, an awful lot more money will go into the health and social services sector in Wales. He referred to regulations, and he will also be aware that as a result of the close working relationship and partnership in Wales between the care home sector, the local authorities and the National Assembly, there is a transitional system and arrangement to deal with those issues. I am not underestimating the problem—far from it—but the National Assembly, local authorities and the independent care sector in Wales are working together to achieve a solution to this problem, simply because more and more people are living longer—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy.
    Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend will know that the Nantgwyn respite care home in my constituency, which was to have been closed by the Plaid Cymru council, will, after protests from us, remain open. Not only will it remain open but a new facility will be built in my constituency for children with acute disabilities. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that it has state-of-the-art equipment, and that we continue to welcome the opportunities that respite care homes give to children and their families.
    Mr. Murphy: I understand that there are plans to repair and refurbish the building to which my hon. Friend refers. I also emphasise, however, that it is ultimately a matter for local authorities in Wales to decide how to deal with their social services. I take my hon. Friend's point about her local authority.
    Mr. Roger Williams: The National Assembly has made clear its intention to provide free long-term personal care for the elderly. I know that the Secretary of State is firmly committed to devolution. Will he make use of his position in the Cabinet to make sure that parliamentary time is found for the legislation that will be necessary for the National Assembly for Wales to deliver that long-term care?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is aware that these matters were debated in the National Assembly some weeks ago. However, in addition to the point that he has just made, the Assembly is considering more than 100 recommendations on how to deal with the strategy for older people in Wales, and at least a dozen of the

    261
    recommendations relate to matters that are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. I will, of course, look very carefully at the Minister's letter and will respond to it in due course. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the Government's position.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State talks about millions of pounds, but many elderly people in Wales face misery. I recently visited Plas y Dre, a local authority care home in Llandudno that is now facing closure, and met many of the residents. They are in their 90s and are anxious about the prospect of their home being closed, being parted from their friends and being cast away to other places all over the town. Is the Secretary of State now saying that there is no local authority or private care home that has to close because of the want of money?
    Mr. Murphy: I did not say that. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not simply a question of money. It is an extremely important issue. I am sure that he will support the Government on measures such as the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which will ensure that we can reform the health service, but he did not support the Budget this year, which put literally hundreds of millions of pounds back into the health service and social services in Wales. That is what ultimately matters, and I would like to hear a commitment from him that the Conservative party would give as much money to health and social services in Wales as the Government are giving.
    Mr. Evans: What I will not do is to promise at a general election that things can only get better, only for them to get decidedly worse for people throughout Wales.
    The Secretary of State is hopelessly complacent. We have already heard that the BBC programme "Week In Week Out" has stated that 10 care homes a week are closing in Wales. Headlines in the Daily Post, which is fighting a valiant campaign, refer to "A cruel slap in the face for our OAPs", and a headline in The Western Mail a couple of months ago said, "Care homes head for meltdown". A Cardiff GP, Andrew Dearden, who is chairman of the British Medical Association's committee on community care says:
    "Community services for the elderly are falling apart. They are abysmal and getting worse."
    Care home operators are fed up with increased Government regulations and inadequate funding. Will the Secretary of State now stop the spin and meet local government officials and councillors as a matter of urgency, to ensure that the shabby treatment of the elderly is stopped and they get the first-class services that they need?
    Mr. Murphy: It seems to me that the only one to have spun is the hon. Gentleman. He understands that in dealing with such hugely important issues, simply to talk as he does is of no help. At the end of the day, homes need more money—that is now happening—and they need proper regulations. Is he suggesting that he disagrees with proper regulations and standards for care homes in Wales? Of course we have to have them. Indeed, when the standards were agreed in Wales, they were agreed both with the Assembly and with the independent care home sector. Together they agreed on the standards, and those
    262
    standards have to be in place. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that because more and more people are living longer and have to be accommodated, we have to look at the issue sensibly and carefully, which includes dealing with the elderly who wish to stay at home—and that is what the Assembly and the Government will do.
    Mr. Evans: If the Secretary of State and his Government introduce new regulations, they should ensure that there is proper and adequate funding for them.
    Another example is the Chancellor's announcement that national insurance contributions will go up next year by 1 per cent. I have received replies from local authorities throughout Wales, and the increase will add another £460,000 a year to costs in Blaenau Gwent; in Flintshire the figure will be £500,000, in Denbighshire it will be £500,000, and Carmarthenshire will have to find an extra £1 million because of the increase in national insurance contributions. Will the Secretary of State now have urgent talks with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that in the block grant next year, sufficient funding will come forward to ensure that local authorities do not need to close their homes?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course I shall discuss those issues with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We are in that process at the moment. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman needs to tell the House whether he agrees with the amount that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the National Assembly for Wales to increase by hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds the funding for the health service and other services in Wales. What the hon. Gentleman does not understand is that in Wales, there is a partnership between the independent homes care sector, local authorities and the National Assembly to ensure that we treat our old people properly.

    Non-departmental Public Bodies
    Llew Smith: If he will make a statement on the number of NDPBs in Wales (a) in 1999 and (b) in 2002. [59907]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): In 1999 there were 38 Assembly-sponsored public bodies. This followed the merger of the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales with the Welsh Development Agency, and the abolition of Tai Cymru. At the end of May 2002 there were 36 such bodies.
    Llew Smith rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is still far too much noise in the House.
    Llew Smith: Does the Minister remember the commitment given to the people of Wales that if they voted yes to a Welsh Assembly, the Assembly would make a bonfire of the quangos? Bearing in mind the figures that he just announced, does he accept that there has been no bonfire? Instead, it has been very much a damp squib. When he next meets the First Secretary of the Assembly, will he request that he apologise on its behalf for that publicity stunt, and for its failure to make

    263
    a bonfire of the quangos? Will he suggest that the Assembly's time would be better spent making a bonfire of the quangos, instead of being involved in the publicity stunt of telling the Welsh Rugby Union how it should do its job?
    Mr. Murphy: I have no intention of making any such comment on the Welsh Rugby Union. However, I reassure my hon. Friend that his robust views will be reported in full to the First Minister. What has happened is that those bodies are now much more locally accountable in Wales than they ever were, and appointments to them are much more open and transparent than they ever were under the previous Administration. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees with that.
    Mr. James Gray: In the Minister's substantive answer a moment ago he appeared to mention the abolition of Plaid Cymru. Was that wishful thinking?
    Mr. Murphy: I was referring to the abolition of Tai Cymru.

    Manufacturing
    Paul Flynn: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues about measures to assist manufacturing industry in Wales. [59908]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular discussions with my ministerial colleagues on a range of issues, including manufacturing, which has of course experienced difficulties this year. However, I am pleased to note that the fall in unemployment in Wales is one of the fastest of any region or country in the United Kingdom, and Wales now has lower unemployment than Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Canada and the United States.
    Paul Flynn: My right hon. Friend will agree that part of that success story has been the brilliant record of local entrepreneurs, particularly in the high-tech sector and especially in the city of Newport. Does he realise that one very successful high-tech company—although still in its embryo stage, it will certainly sell its unique product throughout the world—is in some difficulty because it is outside the objective 1 areas? Alcan had a similar problem in Newport, and is it not true that the present objective 1 map distorts priorities, to the detriment of places such as Newport?
    Mr. Murphy: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but he knows that Newport now has an urban regeneration corporation, which is the work of the Welsh Development Agency and the local authority. There will be opportunities to help firms such as Alcan because of the money—some £20 million—that the corporation will be able to generate. I also think that the new city of Newport is a great place for companies to invest in, and I wish it well.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: After the right hon. Gentleman's Freudian slip in which he said that he had abolished Plaid Cymru, although we are unabolished at the present time, will he ensure that the £170 million public expenditure cover is allowed for in
    264
    this year's comprehensive spending review, and that the £100 million that should come to Wales does come there, so that we can draw down as much as possible under objective 1—or will he be complacent, as he was last year?
    Mr. Murphy: I did not make any Freudian slip about Plaid Cymru—but the hon. Gentleman should be careful over the next 11 months, because we might well see, if not the abolition, the demise of his party.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's question, I have said that I am in discussion with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary regarding the spending review, and he cannot expect me to comment on the detail of those discussions at the moment. The Government and the Assembly are not complacent about objective 1. We regard it as vital in regenerating two thirds of the land mass of Wales. We believe that it is working well, and that after seven years Wales will be a much better place because of it.
    Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proposed closure of Federal Mogul in my constituency, which would lead to the loss of 75 jobs, mainly in manufacturing? Although the economy in Cardiff is buoyant, as my right hon. Friend said, it will be difficult to replace those jobs because of the loss of employment in manufacturing. Will he do all that he can to assist manufacturing in the area?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course I will. I am well aware of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. She knows that we have to manage a changing economy in Wales and that there are unfortunate cases of firms having to close down and move away. She will also be aware that there are now 3,000 more people in work in Wales than there were this time last year, so the overall picture is good. Of course that does not help her constituents, and she can rest assured that I will raise the matter with the Economic Development Minister in the Assembly and the First Minister—although she might get there first.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the independent report in the Financial Times yesterday that shows increased productivity in manufacturing? Is not that recognition that the sector is moving forward?
    Mr. Murphy: Of course I welcome that. We are now seeing an increase in manufacturing activity in Wales, including in my hon. Friend's constituency, where unemployment has come down by nearly 44 per cent. since 1997.

    Bovine TB
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: What recent discussions he has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on badger movements across the Welsh border. [59909]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): The Secretary of State and I have regular and wide-ranging discussions with ministerial colleagues in DEFRA and the National Assembly for Wales. Our officials also maintain contact

    265
    with officials in DEFRA and the National Assembly concerning the issue on which the hon. Gentleman has tabled his question.
    Mr. Wiggin: Today Members of the European Parliament are investigating foot and mouth and its handling in Wales. Wales now faces a similar crisis with the bovine tuberculosis microbacterium. Does the Minister agree that it is a disgrace and a display of contempt for the rural community that the Labour Administration have appointed Mike German, a Liberal Democrat, to handle their rural affairs brief?
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman had trouble keeping a straight face when he was asking that question—whereas the Government take the problem of bovine TB in Wales very seriously. In partnership with our colleagues in the Assembly, we are making available extra resources and extra staff to tackle the problem. As for the appointment of Mr. Mike German to his position in the National Assembly, that is a matter for the First Minister, not for me.

    Drug Abuse
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: What recent discussions he has had with Assembly Secretaries concerning drug abuse in Wales. [59910]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I discuss a range of issues with Assembly Ministers, including drug abuse.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister, along with other south Wales MPs, will recently have got a letter from South Wales police saying that heroin and crack cocaine in south Wales have never been as available or as cheap as they are at present, that there are 7,700 problematic heroin and crack cocaine users, and that a conservative estimate is that in 2000, more than 270 people died of drug abuse in south Wales alone. Is that evidence of a drug policy that is working, or one that is failing? Will the Minister note that in Holland, which has a population of 17 million, just 61 people died in the equivalent period? Does he agree that that is testimony not only to the evil of drug pushers but to the cowardice of British politicians from various parties, who prefer to have drugs policies that sound tough rather than ones that work?
    Mr. Touhig: I recall that during a debate in Westminster Hall on 22 May, my hon. Friend made a similar point when he said that we should be treating heroin users as a drug problem, not a criminal problem. I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said, in response to the Home Affairs Committee report on our national drugs strategy, that he wants an appropriate extension of the prescription of heroin, but there are no plans for injecting rooms. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will respond to that report before the summer.
    I share my hon. Friend's concern about the explosion in the use of crack and heroin in the Welsh valleys. The crime reduction director for Wales, David A'Herne, recently met Welsh MPs and warned of the severe dangers and problems that that will cause. It is important that all
    266
    the agencies of the Government here, and of the Assembly and agencies in Wales, work together with the police to tackle the problem. I do not believe, however, that letting up in any way on our drive to crack down on drug pushers and those who sell drugs sends the right message. We should not send young people the message that we condone their using drugs—that is quite the wrong line to take. The Government must stick to the policy that they have already enunciated.
    Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister accept that it is becoming perfectly obvious that simply attacking the drug pushers does nothing to reduce drug usage in a demand-led industry? Many Liberal Democrats and members of other parties believe that it is now time we tried an alternative approach of prescription to recorded addicts, which would undermine the drug pushers and improve the prospects of treatment. Is the hon. Gentleman willing to speak to the Home Secretary about setting up some sort of experiment to test such a policy where it matters most—in the communities that are suffering the most?
    Mr. Touhig: As I said in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), the Home Secretary has made it absolutely clear that where appropriate he would consider the extension of prescribing heroin, but that is a matter that will be considered when he responds to the Home Affairs Committee's report. We have to wait for that.
    The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) mentioned drug pushers; drug pushers are parasites on our society who exploit our young people and change them from the sort of children we knew into the sort of children we do not want to know, and it is important that we take a tough line against them. At the end of the day we need a co-ordinated approach, or we will end up with a society that most of us do not want to live in.

    Sports Funding
    Simon Hughes: What discussions he has had since June 2001 with the National Assembly and others about national lottery funding for sport in Wales. [59911]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet colleagues regularly to discuss a range of issues, including lottery funding for sports.
    Simon Hughes: Do Ministers accept that there is a direct link between the amount of provision for sport and other constructive activity for young people in Wales, and the ability to distract them from crime and other destructive activity? Given that at this very moment the Welsh team is preparing for the Commonwealth games, and presumably the Welsh football team is preparing for the World cup finals in four years' time, can Ministers assure us that throughout the whole of Wales—we on the Liberal Democrat Benches all speak as the beneficiaries

    267
    of sporting provision in Wales—young people can have access to sport in increased measure and at all ages from now on, and for the next four years?
    Mr. Touhig: Yes, indeed. The Government are committed to using funds through the lottery to enhance the sporting abilities of our young people and to provide opportunities, especially in deprived areas of the United Kingdom, and in Wales in particular. The hon. Gentleman and the Government are on the same wavelength in that respect.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Chris Bryant: If he will make a statement about the recent effect in Wales of Government measures to create job opportunities for unemployed people. [59912]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The Government's long-term ambition is that by the end of the decade there will be a higher proportion of people in work than ever before. The Government have seen success both in reducing unemployment to nearly its lowest for 20 years, and in increasing employment, with 1.5 million more people in work than in spring 1997. I am pleased to tell the House that the latest figures for Wales, published last Friday, showed an increase of 3,000 in the total number of people in work in Wales compared to a year before.
    Mr. Bryant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be especially delighted to know that since 1997 unemployment in the Rhondda has fallen by more than 50 per cent. However, there are still many problems facing local industry, which complains that it is difficult to understand the process whereby it can get assistance from the Welsh Development Agency, and is worried that young people do not emerge from school with the entrepreneurial skills that are needed. Will he talk to his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly to ensure that we improve our record on those matters?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, of course I will. My hon. Friend is right to stress that his constituency has benefited—perhaps more than any other in Wales—from the changes, and that he has a committed work force in the Rhondda. I look forward to being with him in the Pop factory in Porth on Friday, where we will celebrate the industrial heritage of the Rhondda and a great future for his valleys.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms Claire Ward: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Ms Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that globalisation can bring real benefits to all of us, but that it must not be allowed to do so at the expense of the poorest in this world? Today there are thousands of people demanding that the Government use their influence to change the World Trade Organisation and the trade rules to ensure that developing countries benefit and are not exploited. Will my right hon. Friend listen to those representations today, and will he lead the debate for change when he attends the Heads of Government meeting?
    The Prime Minister: I met representatives from my constituency and others today in Downing street over that very issue. The Trade Justice movement will get a great deal of support for its basic principles from the Government and, I hope, all Members of the House. It is important to point out that over the past few years we have increased the aid budget by 45 per cent. in real terms, and we have been leading the cause of writing off the debt of the poorest countries. We have also been making sure that we focus the aid that we do give on poverty reduction. The people of this country can be very proud of the commitment that they have given to some of the poorest people in the world. We need to make sure that as well as giving aid and writing off debt, we are giving access to our markets so that those countries can compete properly and fairly.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I take this opportunity to extend my condolences and those of my party to the families of the victims of the terrible suicide bomb in Jerusalem yesterday?
    Two years ago the Prime Minister said that it was time to give police the powers
    "to impose curfews on children and time to use them".
    Can he tell us how many curfew orders have been issued since then?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the exact number of curfew orders, but I can say that curfews in respect of offenders have been used in thousands of cases.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Perhaps the Prime Minister ought to check his figures. The answer is that not one single child curfew order has been issued in the past three years, despite the Prime Minister's speech. He also introduced child safety orders for the under-10s, apparently to stop them drifting into crime. That was four years ago, and only 12 such orders have been issued since. He promised that there would be 5,000 antisocial behaviour orders every year, and there has been a total of only 500. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many more crimes there are each day than there were a year ago?
    The Prime Minister: We do not yet have the full recorded crime statistics, but they will show a rise in recorded crime in the past year. However, on the same

    269
    day, we will also have the British crime survey. Perhaps we should wait for the results of both those surveys. In any event, crime will be down from where it was five years ago when we came to office.
    I return to some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made on curfew orders. There have been about 1,500 juvenile curfew orders, about 14,500 adult curfew orders, 6,500 drug treatment testing orders and 12,500 reparation orders, particularly for young people, so it simply is not the case that none of those orders is being used. The critical point is that we are taking measures, particularly to deal with street crime. Overall crime has fallen in the past five years. That stands in stark contrast to the Conservative Government who, when they were in office, doubled the rate of crime.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I know that the Prime Minister does not like to answer the question, but the question was about child curfew orders. Two years ago he said that he would issue them, but not one child curfew order has been issued. Crimes are up by 850 a day in the past 12 months. Overall crime is now rising for the first time in a decade, burglaries are up for the first time in eight years, and violent and street crime is rocketing. It is no good the Prime Minister sending his chairman and his Home Secretary out to attack the press merely because their spin is backfiring. Does he understand that what the people require is action, not words?
    The Prime Minister: I agree. However, let us get the facts straight. Overall, police numbers are now at their highest level ever. They were falling in the last years of the past Government. Since we came to office, burglary is down by 35 per cent., and vehicle crime by 24 per cent. We have halved the time that it takes to get persistent juvenile offenders to court. We have increased dramatically the cuts in court delays, which have caused so much distress. A huge amount of work is being done in the White Paper on criminal justice and on juvenile crime.
    Surely the comparison is this: in the past five years, crime overall has fallen under this Government. There is much more to be done, and we are doing it. Crime under the previous Conservative Government doubled. We have increased the numbers of police officers. It is only as a result of the additional investment that we are putting into the criminal justice system that we will get further results in future.
    If it is the case that we need more police and we need more investment in our criminal justice system, we have committed ourselves to make that investment. Will the right hon. Gentleman reverse the Conservative party's position and support that investment?
    Mr. David Borrow: Tesco will soon be opening a £20 million store in Leyland in my constituency, and it is using the new deal partnership to guarantee jobs for the long-term unemployed in the area. I have recently met some of the 80 trainees who have finished a 13-week course that was run by Runshaw college and Age Concern. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating them on completing their course and
    270
    wish them luck in their new jobs? Can he assure me that similar schemes will be available for those of our citizens who find it difficult to get back into work in future?
    The Prime Minister: In my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere, the new deal has had a huge impact in cutting unemployment. In the long term, youth unemployment has declined by about 75 per cent. in the past few years. We have put about 650,000 people through the new deal. Literally hundreds of thousands of people who were without hope and any chance of a decent prospect in life finally have job prospects and a potential career to go to. I remind the House that when we introduced the new deal, it was opposed every inch of the way by the Conservative party. We will continue with the new deal because it is right for the country and right for the people who are benefiting from it.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given that the Prime Minister is meeting the President of France later today, will he be raising with him the continuing illegal ban on British beef importation? Has he yet been able to ascertain whether the incoming French Administration intend to end this illegal ban?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course I will raise the issue with the President. We are also raising it at a government level. There is a new Government in place, and we very much hope that they will come into line with their legal obligations.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister confirm also that British beef is produced to the most stringent health, safety and quality standards, which match those of the rest of the world? Given that the illegal ban remains unacceptable, will he launch a fresh promotional campaign for British beef? Will he also seek compensation from the French authorities for the damage that has been done to our farmers in the interim?
    The Prime Minister: First, we must ensure that if the French Government will not change their position, the European Commission will take the necessary infringement action, because the ban on British beef is wholly illegal.
    The incidence of BSE in this country is falling, and has fallen dramatically. The incidence in France has been rising. There is no reason, in science, common sense or law, for the ban to remain. We will continue to do everything that we can. Through the red tractor campaign, we are doing our best to promote British beef—it is among the safest and the finest quality in the world—and British produce generally.
    Ann McKechin: Given the huge response to the trade justice lobby today, will the Prime Minister assure the House that this Government will work for reform of the EU common agricultural policy to end the tariffs and subsidies that are throwing millions of people into continued poverty?
    The Prime Minister: We will press for that reform. I hope that the European Union realises not merely that it is the right thing to do, but that reform of the common agricultural policy is inevitable, given that enlargement is

    271
    going to happen. We must argue the case for free trade and access to markets not only in the European Union, but in the world trade round, the G8 and elsewhere, because it is the right thing to do. What many of the poorest countries need is not simply more aid, but access to our markets. If they were given the chance to sell into our markets, many of the people who are living in poverty today would not be living in that poverty.
    Mr. John Baron: Why did the Prime Minister endorse the takeover of Express Newspapers by the pornography king Richard Desmond and, indeed, accept a large donation from him? Was it because all other interested parties were committed to keeping the pound and he was simply lying back and thinking of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that that is what passes for forensic questioning by the Conservative party nowadays. The takeover bid was handled entirely in accordance with the proper rules, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the World cup has helped to highlight UNICEF's call for a global movement for children to combat extreme poverty, provide universal primary education and combat the devastating effects of HIV and AIDS? Will he work with the leaders of the affluent countries to adopt those aims as part of a strategy to achieve global social justice?
    The Prime Minister: We will certainly push for the global targets on poverty to be met. They will be met by a combination of action from the developed world and—this is what is particularly important—from the developing world itself. That is why the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which will be discussed at the G8 next week, is so important. It will set down clear benchmarks not only for aid on issues such as health and education, but for action on issues such as governance and the proper commercial and legal systems from African countries, so that the money that we put into such programmes is properly used for the benefit of the people.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Last year, the Prime Minister told the House that the tax on pension funds that his Chancellor imposed was justified because
    "of the buoyancy of the stock market".—[Official Report, 7 March 2001; Vol. 364. c. 285.]
    Does he now regret that statement?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I know that the Chancellor has his best interests at heart, so when he whispers in the Prime Minister's ear, it is only for his own personal good. The fact is that the stock market has fallen by £300 billion in the space of one year, so will the Prime Minister please tell the House how much longer—I would not listen to
    272
    the Chancellor much longer; he will only get him into more trouble—a man of his age will now have to work to receive a decent pension?
    The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend was saying was that the stock market rose £520 million before the recent fall, but the fall to which the right hon. Gentleman refers still leaves the stock market in a net balance up of £250 billion. If he disputes that, perhaps he will say so.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It really is difficult for the Prime Minister; he really should not listen to his neighbour, because he genuinely does not have his best interests at heart. I asked him a specific question: how much longer? This may come as a bit of a blow to the Chancellor, but a man of the Prime Minister's age will now have to work four years longer than planned. That is because the pensions industry is in crisis. Does he accept that, as a direct result of the imposition of his pensions tax, millions of people's retirement plans are now in ruins?
    The Prime Minister: I may be working for four years, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will have to work for about 40 years before he has any chance of crossing the Floor. As for pension funds, it is absurd to say that the Chancellor is responsible for the fall in the stock market. Yes, the stock market has fallen, but it is still massively up on where it was five years ago. As for the issue of pensions, we are putting £6 billion more into pensions every year. We have got the pension credit coming up, the stakeholder pension and the new measures on the state second pension. What pensioners in this country remember is the last Conservative Government and the mis-selling of pensions scandal, about which they did absolutely nothing. Whether it is my longevity or his that is the issue, I do not think that a Conservative Government is the answer.
    Hon. Members: More.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Tony Cunningham: May I tell the Prime Minister that we have a brand new police station in Workington, which was officially opened last week? Superintendent Steve Turnbull is delighted with the new facilities, but he has asked me to raise with the Prime Minister the particular issue of special constables. Will my right hon. Friend look seriously at an initiative in west Cumbria to pay special constables to patrol Workington town centre? If that pilot scheme is successful it could well be used in other parts of Cumbria and the rest of the country.
    The Prime Minister: I offer my best wishes to Mr. Turnbull in his new station. The way we attract more people to become special constables is a real issue. The Home Office is looking at paying them an allowance, but obviously that has to be looked at together with other priorities. However, the existence of the new station, plus the neighbourhood warden scheme, will make a great difference to crime in my hon. Friend's community. I hope very much even at this late stage that the House

    273
    will unite behind the proposals for community safety officers to work alongside the record numbers of police to give our communities the chance of a safer future.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Could I ask the Prime Minister to muscle in on another area of policy? Presumably this country gives international aid to assist development, ease suffering and stop people dying. Would it not he immoral to use that as a weapon to dragoon developing countries into changing their asylum policies, particularly as two thirds of the refugee problem lies within those countries? Would it not be doubly immoral, not to say pathetic and embarrassing, to go to the Seville summit and ask other European countries to follow that course of action?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree at all. It is not a question of dragooning people but of saying that if we are worried, as we are, about the number of people coming here as illegal immigrants—I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that they are often subject to illegal people-trafficking conducted by organised criminals, some of their lives are at risk and large sums of money are taken off them—there is nothing wrong whatever in us and other European countries working with countries with which we have a substantial relationship, whether in aid, trade or any other matter, and saying to them, "Let's sit down and work out a proper system of co-operation so that people who come into this country do so in the right way." That is a perfectly sensible and laudable objective, which is no doubt why the Scottish National party disagrees with it.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Did my right hon. Friend notice that when Senegal got through to the quarter finals of the World cup a national public holiday was declared? Does he agree that countries like Senegal, the USA, South Korea and the Republic of Ireland have made this the most wonderful World cup that we can remember since 1966? In the event of England beating Brazil on Friday, we stand a very good chance of going through to the World cup final, which would be a national event of great significance. Under those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend consider declaring a public holiday in the United Kingdom on Monday 1 July so that we can all enjoy the experience or, as it were, get over our disappointment?
    That is worth thinking about because, after all, this country is at the bottom of the European league for public holidays. I have tabled an early-day motion, which is supported by five Scottish Members of Parliament as it applies to the whole country. If we get into the World cup final the Prime Minister must go to Japan. If he does so, will he take me?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his very interesting submission which I shall consider carefully. Shall we first get over the hurdle of beating Brazil on Friday?
    Chris Grayling: The Prime Minister promised Britain a transport system fit for the 21st century. Can he explain why, on the rather paltry list of road and rail projects approved since the general election, according to the Department for Transport 25 per cent. have been in his own constituency? More important,
    274
    if the Government cannot be trusted on transport matters, does not that underline the importance of having a robust and fair-minded Select Committee to scrutinise what they are doing?
    The Prime Minister: The best answer to the transport problems is the programme of investment over the next 10 years. Of course, that programme of investment is supported by Members on this side of the House and has been opposed by the Conservative party. Whatever the answers to the problems of our transport system, they are not the answers of the Conservative party, which are, first, to cut back on investment in our transport system and, secondly, to ensure that the botched privatisation that gave rise to Railtrack remains in place. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like to be reminded that that is their policy, but it is.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the plea by President Mandela that the Lockerbie prisoner be transferred to a Muslim country being considered?
    The Prime Minister: The agreement that we made was that he would come to a Scottish prison—in fact, that anyone who was convicted would come to a Scottish prison. I have to say that I see no reason to change that decision.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that while the Conservative Front-Bench team and the vast majority of its Back Benchers are wholly united in their attitude to the European currency, there is growing concern that the Government appear to be disunited, confused and unable to make up their mind? Can he try to resolve the issue by saying clearly and specifically when the five economic tests will be carried out and, if the result is affirmative, how soon thereafter the referendum will take place? If he gives a straight answer to that question he will deal with the issue, but if he again does not, that will simply add to the confusion. The Government cannot make up their mind what to do.
    The Prime Minister: First, it is and always has been the case that we will carry out the assessment within the first two years of this Parliament. Secondly, the Conservative party may be a little more united today than it was a few years ago, but that is only because it has driven out anyone of any sense on the Conservative Benches. The vast majority of people believe that a sensible position on the single currency is that if the economic tests are passed and it is in this country's economic interests to join, we should. It would be disastrous for this country if we adopted the hon. Gentleman's true position—he is right that he probably does speak for many people in the Conservative party—and withdrew from the European Union. Our position is that we should remain in Europe and get the best out of Europe for Britain, because Britain's role is as a key player in Europe, not on the sidelines of Europe.
    Phil Sawford: In the course of the recent intensive truancy campaign, 12,000 young people were stopped. Twenty-six per cent. of the secondary school children and 83 per cent. of the primary school children were with their parents, and half were

    275
    deemed to have no good reason to be away from school. In the light of that, and given the links between antisocial behaviour, crime and truancy, will my right hon. Friend encourage more local authorities to carry out such truancy sweeps, and will he impress on parents the importance of attendance at school?
    The Prime Minister: The truancy sweeps have been successful, and the link between truancy and antisocial behaviour and crime is clear. Two other steps are necessary, however. First, we must make it clear to parents that they can be liable to penalties if their children are truanting without good cause. Secondly, it is vital that children who are excluded from school should not be truanting, but should be in proper full-time education. As a result of the additional investment that we are putting into our school system, by the end of this year those who are permanently excluded will be in proper full-time education instead of having a couple of hours' education a week, which obviously leaves them free to roam the streets.
    Mr. Mark Francois: The people of Gibraltar have strong support across Britain, including in this House. Given the rumours that the Anglo-Spanish talks have faltered, can we expect a statement before the summer recess, ideally confirming that the Government have relented on this issue and that we in Britain will show the same trust and loyalty to the Gibraltarians that they have always shown to us?
    The Prime Minister: The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that there will be a statement when negotiations and discussions are concluded. The Brussels process, which began under the Conservative Government, is sensible and right and in the interests of Britain, Spain and the people of Gibraltar. However, we have always made it clear that there can be no change to Gibraltar's constitutional status without the consent of the people there. Getting more acceptable relations between Britain, Spain and Gibraltar is in everybody's interest.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: In view of the recent report of record profits by Jarvis, the company that maintains the rail track at Potters Bar, and by the rail division of Balfour Beatty despite reports that maintenance of the track is a shambles, does my right hon. Friend agree that the culture of complacency shown by the contractors is unlikely to be replaced by one of safety until and unless rail maintenance is brought back in-house to Railtrack?
    The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Transport met Mr. Armitage, the chief executive of Railtrack, and raised those issues with him last week. There is a clear understanding that the situation must improve; Lord Cullen made recommendations on the matter that will be implemented. Anybody—those in-house or contractors—must abide by minimum standards and rules, and there are penalties for those who fail to abide by them. Although it is understandable that such issues are being raised, it is important to say that, on the whole, rail safety has improved, not declined in the past few years. Collisions are down by some 12 per cent., derailments by 22 per cent. and SPADs—signals passed at danger—last year are the lowest recorded. That does
    276
    not mean that there is not a great deal more to do, but we need the facts about the recent tragedy before we pass judgment on the contractors as a whole.
    Norman Baker: In the light of the—[Interruption.] I am grateful for the support. In the light of the recent fiasco between the Prime Minister's Office and Black Rod, would the right hon. Gentleman describe Mr. Alastair Campbell's position as unassailable? Is there any truth in the rumour that Mr. Campbell has suggested that, when we win the World cup, the Prime Minister should be on hand with Mr. Beckham to hold the cup aloft?
    The Prime Minister: I wondered what the hon. Gentleman would ask. I realised that it would be something trivial that said far more about him than me. I have nothing to add to what I have already said on the subject.
    Ql1. [59946] Mr. Robert N. Wareing: President Bush has authorised American Special Services to dispose of the President of Iraq by any means, including assassination. Surely my right hon. Friend could not agree with that policy, could he?
    The Prime Minister: I am not responsible, believe it or not, for United States policy. I urge my hon. Friend not to rely completely on media speculation about it.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: It is now impossible to get a national health service dentist in Market Harborough. What are the Government doing about that?
    The Prime Minister: It is correct that it is difficult to get a national health service dentist in some areas of the country. However, the sheer brass neck of any Conservative Member who raises that issue is extraordinary. The changes that we have made mean that anyone who wishes to do so can contact NHS Direct or other NHS services and get the name of an NHS dentist whom they can visit. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has examples of constituents who are unable to do that, perhaps he will pass them to the health authority. I am sure that it will be able to do something about the matter.
    Mr. John Lyons: My right hon. Friend knows that schools throughout the UK will break up for the summer holidays in the next few weeks. Schoolteachers and pupils will welcome that. However, school cleaners and catering staff will not welcome it. They have no holiday pay for seven or eight weeks, and no right to unemployment benefit. Will my right hon. Friend do something about that?
    The Prime Minister: We know that there is a problem with support staff. Of course, the matter is devolved and must be negotiated on that basis. Discussions about it are

    277
    continuing, but it would be a mistake if we tried to deal with it nationally. I point out that, thanks to the working families tax credit and other measures, some of the lowest-paid support staff receive at least some proper protection and additional payments under the Government. However, when we pay tribute to teachers, it is important to remember that a lot of work is done by support staff, who do a magnificent job.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware that members of the American Congress have been taking evidence in this place relating to Gulf war syndrome. Will he give us an assurance that Parliament and our researchers will work even more closely with the Americans than they have in the past to
    278
    get to the root cause of the syndrome, bearing in mind that it could affect our citizens in the near future, particularly if there are further operations in that area?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the concern over this issue. It is correct that we are working with the Americans. I speak from memory, but I think that we are spending somewhere in the region of £7 million on our own research. The important point to stress is that we need to know what the scientific evidence really shows us, and it would not be right or proper to act on behalf of the Government until we have that evidence. This issue obviously arose years before we came into office, but we have made additional provision for research. We will do our best to get to the truth of the matter, and we will act on the scientific truth one way or another.

Prescriptions (Chronic Diseases)
3.31 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in relation to prescribing for those suffering from chronic diseases.
The Bill will review the prescription charges levied against the chronically ill, to make the system fairer and more equitable. It will also seek to raise awareness to increase the take-up of the current pre-paid certificates by the chronically ill, and—in the light of a review that recommended free prescriptions—to ensure that there is full take-up.
In 1968, the British Medical Association approved a list of medical conditions whose sufferers should be exempt from prescription charges. Some of the decisions on those conditions were based on medical knowledge current at the time. For instance, children with cystic fibrosis were not expected to live to see adulthood, so children were exempt but not adults. Today, more than 1,000 adults with cystic fibrosis are penalised by the state for living longer. In today's NHS, that is unfair.
Yesterday, I met Janine, a 21-year-old sufferer of cystic fibrosis. She has to work for seven to eight hours each day with her carers to be fit enough to walk up a flight a stairs and do the things that we all take for granted. She is a courageous person who spends her time as an advocate for other CF patients.
Desiree Eriksson Hills had a heart transplant 14 years ago after developing dilated cardiomyopathy at the age of just 17. But, for a transplant recipient, the operation is not the end of the story—quite the contrary. Desiree and others like her have to take drugs for the rest of their lives. It is not right that they have to pay prescription charges. As Desiree says,
"We cannot live without these drugs, so we are paying a tax on our very existence. That's just wrong."
Thirty-eight-year-old Lorraine Ellard is living with long-term asthma, which is so severe that it prevents her from working, shopping and even socialising. In spite of these factors and the disruption to her life, Lorraine has to pay for her asthma medication. She claims incapacity benefit of £369 per month, but faces a massive monthly prescription bill of £124. If Lorraine is short of cash, the drugs have to be forfeited, but without them she is liable to face a flare-up, with asthma symptoms that could lead to her being rushed into hospital, which represents an added and avoidable cost to the NHS. Without the drugs, Lorraine is placed in a perilous position, as asthma is a matter of life and death. Likewise, someone who suffers from multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, certain types of epilepsy, or even myalgic encephalopathy will have to pay for prescriptions for basic medicines. For someone living in the fourth richest nation in the world, in the 21st century, that is patently unfair and unjust.
According to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, as a result of the glaring anomalies in the current system, about 750,000 prescribed items are never dispensed because people cannot afford them. Pharmacists and GPs say that many patients ask which is the most important item on a prescription, because they can afford only one. It is argued that those with chronic conditions can limit such costs by buying season tickets,
280
but an initial outlay of £89 is too great for many on low incomes. Over the years, the cost of such season tickets can run into many hundreds of pounds. NACAB also discovered that 27 per cent. of those who could benefit from season tickets did not even know of their existence.
The National Asthma Campaign has described prescription charges as an
"unfair tax on people with asthma".
The Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust has also condemned such charges. Typically, it is the poorest in our society who have the worst medical conditions, yet the Government demand that they must pay. For example, students with chronic conditions are told that they should pay for their medical drugs out of their student loan. That is discrimination of the worst kind, and it is perpetuated by this Labour Government.
The Government have not researched the number of chronically ill patients who have to pay for prescriptions, and the Bill would require such a review to be conducted. The anticipated cost of prepaid prescriptions is some £43 million, and a further £40 million would be required to cover those who cannot afford such prescriptions and those who have not even heard of them. The total cost would therefore be £83 million, but that should be set against the billions of pounds that the Chancellor has raised through tax increases for the NHS. Such a sum is surely a small price to pay for justice for the chronically ill. Liberal Democrats say that the chronically ill are a priority and deserve support.
In 1992—10 years ago—Labour said in its manifesto that
"chronically sick patients will be a higher priority."
In 1994, Labour said:
"We will seek to provide free medication as part of ongoing treatment or long-term requirements."
It even cited the example of cystic fibrosis sufferers. In 1996, the then Leader of the Opposition—the current Prime Minister—said that Labour would tackle health inequalities because he believed in a
"universal health care system paid for by taxation that gives every citizen the best health care based upon need not ability to pay".
The then shadow Health Secretary said in 1996:
"I want to see greater fairness between patients; the crucial NHS principle of equity has vanished in recent years."
Labour's 1997 manifesto proclaimed:
"We will save the NHS…Labour commits itself anew to the historic principle that if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay."
Hear, hear. I cannot understand why, five years after the election of a Labour Government, nothing has changed for the chronically ill.
Even as recently as 1998, in anticipation of the comprehensive spending review, the then health Minister—he is now Secretary of State for Health—promised a review of the
"list of medical conditions exempt from prescription charges".—[Official Report, 5 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 350W.]
What was the outcome? A point-blank refusal to change this blatant unfairness. Recently, the Wanless report stated that
"the present system of exemption for prescription charges is not logical, nor rooted in the principles of the NHS".

281
Labour has reneged on 10 years of promises to the chronically ill, and has allowed this unfairness to continue for five years. Liberal Democrats are determined to make Labour face up to such injustice. The money is there in the form of the Chancellor's tax increases. Liberal Democrats believe in an NHS free at the point of delivery and based on need, rather than the ability to pay. We will speak up for the chronically ill because it is clear that both Conservative and Labour Governments have failed them.
Even last week, the Prime Minister said in relation to prescription charges that the Government were
"aware of the things that were said previously and we intend to honour them."—[Official Report, 12 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 864.]
The words "honour" and "new Labour" do not sit comfortably together, coming from a Prime Minister who has more spin than Spiderman. The Liberal Democrats will maintain this campaign for the chronically ill until we get justice for those patients.
No more promises, no more maybes and no more excuses. People like Janine, Desiree and Lorraine need help now.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Marsden, Dr. Richard Taylor, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. David Amess, Sandra Gidley, Mr. Simon Thomas, Mr. Paul Burstow, Rev. Martin Smyth, Dr. Jenny Tonge and John Barrett.

Prescriptions (Chronic Diseases)
  PRESCRIPTIONS (CHRONIC DISEASES)
  Mr. Paul Marsden accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in relation to prescribing for those suffering from chronic diseases: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 151].
Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  World Poverty
  Mr. Speaker: Before the debate commences, I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.41 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move,
  That this House shared the concerns of the Trade Justice Movement about the plight of the poorest people in the world, and congratulates them on bringing these matters to the attention of the public; notes with great concern the increasing levels of hunger and poverty in many developing nations; further notes that international development targets are not being met in Africa; recognises the depth of public concern on this issue; believes that increasing levels of international trade offer the greatest hope for the alleviation of hunger and poverty in history; further believes that the removal of trade barriers will promote economic growth, trade and investment in poor nations; supports the liberalisation of trade; is concerned that the Common Agricultural Policy is failing both British farmers and consumers, and harming farmers in poor countries; is also concerned at the rising levels of farm subsidies in America; and calls on the Government to use the forthcoming G8 Summit in Canada, the EU Heads of Government Meeting, and future World Trade Organisation meetings to further the liberalisation of international trade to promote the alleviation of poverty and combat hunger and starvation amongst the poorest people on earth.
  Before I begin my speech, I should like to welcome the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) to her new post as Under-Secretary of State for International Development. I very much look forward to debating international development issues with her. I enjoyed my debates with her predecessor, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary's knowledge of South Africa will be a great asset to her.
  Given that 10,000 people from every corner of the United Kingdom have come to lobby Parliament today, I am delighted that Her Majesty's official Opposition have chosen to debate an issue that clearly matters to British people. We congratulate the Trade Justice Movement on bringing the matter to the attention of the public. We may not agree with everything for which the movement calls, but we share its concern for the plight of the poorest people in the world. The movement recognises that trade can play an important part in reducing poverty and improving our quality of life. It can generate jobs and wealth.
  Conservatives believe that trade could be the greatest force for poverty reduction in history. There is no question but that the opening up of markets and increased trade from developing countries would dwarf any contribution that could be made from overseas aid. That is not idealism, but common sense.
  Tariff barriers cost poor countries £100 billion a year—twice as much as they receive in aid. We firmly believe that trade restrictions are the main barrier to development. There is a danger that seeking to impose controls on overseas investment in developing countries may make it less attractive for companies to invest, which would deprive people in the developing world of the jobs and trading opportunities that they desperately need.

  283
  Much progress has been made in reducing poverty over the past 50 years, but it has been patchy. A whole continent—Africa—is being left behind. It is the only region in the world that is completely off target when it comes to meeting the millennium development goals on health, education and poverty.
  That is why we have called for the debate today. Despite the onward spread of globalisation, the World Bank has found that many of the poorest countries are in danger of becoming marginal to the world economy. As it pointed out in a recent report, incomes in those countries have been falling, poverty has been rising, and those countries participate in trade less today than they did 20 years ago.
  This is our challenge: the Government and the whole international community must do more to allow countries currently excluded from international trade to reap the immense benefits that it offers.
  Much pressure has been placed on poor countries to open their markets and liberalise trade, but rich countries—including Britain—are reluctant to practise what they preach. Telling poor countries to end subsidies and open their markets is like sitting in a glasshouse throwing stones, and today we want to address such hypocrisy.
  We can alleviate world poverty by freeing up trade, and I want to set out how it can be done. First, it can be done by market access. If Africa were to increase its share of world exports by just 1 per cent., it would generate £70 billion—approximately five times what the continent receives in aid. Conservatives believe that free trade is the engine of poverty reduction. Several case studies show the beneficial effects of increased global trade. The number of rural poor in China declined from 250 million in 1978 to just 34 million in 1999. The level of absolute poverty in Vietnam has been halved in 10 years. India and Uganda have also enjoyed rapid poverty reduction as they have integrated into the world economy. Poverty in Uganda fell by 40 per cent. in the 1990s, and school enrolment doubled. More has been done to address poverty in the past 50 years than in the past 500, but there is much more to do.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Lady explain the Conservative position on the Tobin tax, which would raise trillions of pounds a year on international currency speculation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer blows hot and cold about the measure, and is in a cold phase at the moment. It would be nice to know where the Conservatives stood on the matter.
  Mrs. Spelman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not think that one measure will fix the problems of global poverty. The underlying problem that the measure seeks to address is currency instability, to which many factors contribute. That is the key point.
  How does globalisation work to reduce poverty? It increases inward investment and drives economic growth. It has meant that, for the first time, poor countries have been able to harness the potential of their abundant labour to break into global markets for manufactured goods and services. In fact, manufactured goods amounted to less than a quarter of developing countries' exports in 1980, but by 1998 they had soared to 80 per cent.
  Poor countries' comparative advantages can be realised when they are able to export freely without unnecessary hindrance. For many people—indeed, for an entire
  284
  continent—the picture seems less rosy. Many billions of people remain excluded from the process of globalisation, for which a number of factors are responsible, including conflict, sickness and poor government. However, many of them are excluded from trade by the prevailing trade systems. As Kofi Annan pointed out last year, poor countries are caught in a vicious circle—they need foreign investment but can offer little to attract it. In order to break out of that cycle, poor countries need to export and to open markets in which their goods can compete.
  Here is the authentic voice of business. The chairman of Unilever wrote in the Financial Times last week:
  "For all their talk of development, western nations in effect exclude many African exports from their markets."
  That is from the chairman of a company that has been in Africa for more than a century.
  Rich countries continue to impose barriers to trade on their poor neighbours. The most obvious are the punitive tariffs imposed on imported goods. Possibly the most well-known example is the recent decision by the United States to raise tariffs against steel imports, but the USA is not the only culprit. According to an Oxfam report published on 11 April this year, the European Union is more protectionist in respect of poor countries than are the United States, Japan or Canada. In fact, only New Zealand has fully opened its markets to products exported by least developed countries.
  The least developed countries lose an estimated £2.5 billion a year in potential export earnings as a result of high levels of tariff protection in Canada, the EU, the United States and Japan. Without tariffs and quotas, poor countries could generate an 11 per cent. increase in their exports.
  Hugh Bayley: Does the hon. Lady welcome the European Union's everything but arms initiative, which removes tariffs from everything but arms for the poorest countries? Does she think that that is at least a move in the right direction and will she explain why it did not happen while the Conservative party was in power?
  Mrs. Spelman: I will discuss in some detail what the European Union has done to help and where it could do more. When the Conservative party was in power that initiative had not been proposed, but there is no doubt that it represents progress and I shall say so.
  It is difficult to quantify the benefits that would accrue to developing countries if there were total import liberalisation. Some estimates have predicted gains of more than $3 billion each for India, China and Brazil and more than $14 billion for Latin America in total. The Government have pledged a number of times to reduce the import tariffs that face poor countries. Progress has been made. The initiative to which the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) referred made a start in providing that free access to poorer countries, but the EU still maintains some of its highest tariff peaks on a large number of imported goods. Canada is another example, as 30 per cent. of poor countries' exports to Canada face peak tariffs.
  On a slightly different note, another injustice is that typical exports from developing countries, such as agricultural and labour-intensive products, face far higher tariff barriers when they enter major northern markets than industrial products.

  285
  The Prime Minister announced in his speech to the Labour party conference that we would offer Africa access to our markets, to practise the free trade that we are so fond of preaching. Are we extending free access to Africa? Perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify how market access is to be extended to Africa. What are the tangible steps to better market access? Which countries do we want to help? What objectives have we set and how will we measure success?
  At the EU Heads of Government meeting—
  Tony Worthington: Does the hon. Lady agree that sugar should have been included under the everything but arms initiative?
  Mrs. Spelman: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, he has questioned me on a subject about which I know quite a lot as I worked for sugar beet growers for more than 15 years. I wish to give him an informed reply and not a simple yes or no. It is not a simple question. Perhaps he is not aware that, under the protocol signed by African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, many developing countries benefit from the same price as that received by farmers in this country. Automatically removing those preferential terms would create very real problems in the sugar industry of those countries. While I am sure that reform is needed in that area, we must be very careful that it does not hurt our farmers—we must find reforms that will work for them—or have damaging consequences for the most vulnerable farmers.
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Everyone is in favour of free and fair trade until it comes to specifics. The hon. Lady has worked in sugar and sugar beet, where there are quotas that privilege certain of the poorest countries. The sugar beet farmers of the United Kingdom and farmers in some of those countries ran a campaign to weaken the everything but arms initiative and access for sugar from the least developed countries, and they succeeded to a degree. The hon. Lady is telling us that we should open our markets to the poorest countries, but she wants a position for the sector in which she has worked that is not as good as the one that she proposes overall. The Government's position was that we should have opened the markets fully to the least developed countries. The compromise was reached because, with the help of many Tory Members, who lobbied—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State will wait her turn.
  Mrs. Spelman: It should be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that 50 per cent. of the UK market for sugar is supplied from developing countries, which is unique among the member states of the EU. The Government have a lot of work to do with other EU member states that do not have such an accepting compromise with the developing world and do not allow free trade both from and to such countries.
  Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Spelman: I want to proceed on this point. We have had an exchange on sugar, and I do not wish to be
  286
  accused of allowing the issue to dominate the debate. This is a short debate, a number of Members want to contribute, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be successful later in catching Mr. Speaker's eye.
  At the EU Heads of Government meeting in Seville later this week, the Prime Minister should promote the agenda of furthering free market access for poor countries. Could he make public the list of EU negotiating demands on the general agreement on trade in services, which have to be decided before the end of this month? Hon. Members have a real interest in that. Promoting genuinely free trade should also be high on the agenda in Canada later this month, when G8 countries meet. They have the greatest influence in changing trade rules. At the moment, the World Trade Organisation seems remarkably impotent at tackling human ingenuity in avoiding rules that are designed to free up trade. Reform is needed of the WTO so that it is even more effective. We could do more to tackle the scepticism among developing nations, however, as the WTO does not appear to serve them well.
  Here is a practical suggestion for the Secretary of State—could we not provide a panel of lawyers and advisers to help developing nations make the rules of the WTO work better for them?
  Roger Casale: The hon. Lady is making the case for free trade as a motor for development, on which we can agree. Does she repudiate the experience of the previous Conservative Government, however, in tying trade to aid? That left a situation in which developing countries, far from being free to trade, were forced to import goods and services, and, often, arms from this country, which they did not want and did not need.
  Mrs. Spelman: I am not here to repudiate and analyse history. The important thing is that we gave our support to the International Development Bill—now the International Development Act 2002—which untied aid. As part of that, we recognised the important focus of poverty reduction. I hope that, in everything I have said today, I have made it perfectly clear how committed the Conservative party is to reducing global poverty. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is left in no doubt about that.
  Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Simon Thomas rose—
  Mrs. Spelman: I will give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), if his contribution is on a wider point. I know that this is a short debate, Mr. Speaker.
  Simon Hughes: On the wider issue of trade barriers, will the hon. Lady first tell us for the record whether the Conservative party is in favour of majority voting in the WTO? Secondly, is it in favour of majority voting in the European Union? One of the reasons that subsidy and trade barriers in agriculture have continued is that the veto in the European Union has kept them in place.
  Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman may know that I spent a great deal of time working with different member states of the European Union on agricultural policy. I discovered that it is very difficult to make headway in

  287
  negotiations when member states lack the good will to work together for the best result internationally, for Europe as a trading bloc, and, as I hope that I have made clear today, for poorer nations. All too easily, national interest can be over-used. I have seen it used and abused. There are times, however, when the national interest is an issue and when Governments would be expected to argue for the national interest of their country. In the past, the trouble has been that it has been used injudiciously, not by our country specifically, but by a number of other countries that have strong vested agricultural interests. That has led to the use of the national interest to defend a country's position being brought into disrepute. I am therefore wary of making a sweeping generalisation about whether it should or should not be used.
  I want to move on to reform of the subsidies, which is a very important area. It is another matter that the Prime Minister should discuss in Seville later this week. Some of the worst distortions of trade are caused by the subsidy systems used by countries to bolster their domestic production. When it comes to subsidy, there is no way in which poor countries are able to compete with the power of wealthier nations.
  In dollar terms, agricultural subsidies in countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are more than two thirds of Africa's total GDP. They account for more than a quarter of farm output in the United States, rising to 40 per cent. in the European Union and to more than 60 per cent. in Japan.
  The Trade Justice Movement has provided us today with the example of rice growers in Haiti, who produce rice for local markets. However, as rich countries, notably the US, have subsidised their rice exports, Haiti has been flooded with cheap rice imports so that Haitian farmers are unable to find a market for their crops.
  I have worked in agriculture for most of my working life, and I deeply sympathise with the problems that our farmers—particularly dairy farmers—face. The irony is that the common agricultural policy is meant to provide a reasonable standard of living for farmers in the EU, but it does not even provide a living wage for our dairy farmers and directly affects the viability of farmers in the developing world.
  Recently, I went to India with Oxfam and Members may not be aware that India is the world's largest producer of milk. However, it cannot compete with subsidised milk surpluses from the EU that are exported to the growth market of the middle east. That is despite the fact that India is the second lowest cost producer in the world after New Zealand.
  At the last ministerial meeting of the WTO in Doha, countries agreed to launch a new trade round, including the liberalisation of agricultural subsidies. That was certainly progress, and I hope that it comes to fruition. Nevertheless, the decision came after much foot dragging by the EU, and the scepticism of poor countries results from rich countries' reluctance to keep their side of the bargain in the past.
  I am sure that the whole House abhors the decision by the US Congress to vote through an additional £100 million worth of subsidies for American farmers. Total US agricultural subsidies will then amount to £388 dollars per head, which represents a staggering 67 per cent. increase in farm subsidies. However, we should not kid ourselves that those sums get through to poor farmers.
  288
  Americans may be our staunchest allies in time of war but, on trade, that increase is a retrograde step for the principles of liberty that their nation espouses. The move will cause incalculable damage to the lives of farmers in the developing world as well as to the livelihoods of farmers in this country. I clearly recall the outrage that resulted from the US decision to impose tariffs on its steel imports, but have the Government expressed similar condemnation of the US Farm Bill? When the Prime Minister goes to Canada for the G8 summit, I hope that he will use his good relations with the US President to make plain the damage that the Bill will do.
  The US is not the only culprit. EU agricultural subsidies amount to $276 a head—to use the same currency—compared with $338 in the US. The last thing that we want is the equivalent of an arms race in farm subsidies. To prevent that, the CAP must be reformed. Some 1.6 million Africans live on less than $2 a day but every cow in the EU is subsidised to the tune of $2 a day.
  Roger Casale: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Spelman: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Government White Paper on globalisation pledged to push for significant reform of the CAP, but that has not happened. The CAP must be reformed in a way that will ensure a reasonable living for British farmers and reasonable opportunities for their counterparts in poorer nations. Farmers in Britain face huge problems and they are not well served by the CAP. Conservative Members would like the Government to make a far greater effort to reform the CAP. In their White Paper, they said that they would use every opportunity to work for change to the CAP. When the Prime Minister attends the EU summit later this week, will he try to persuade other EU leaders to agree to a timetable for CAP reform?
  There also needs to be reform of double standards. Rules that appear to benefit only the rich at the expense of the poor should not be tolerated. Those groups that accuse the developed world of double standards are right. I recognise that people may think that trade liberalisation is a one-way street for richer countries to get richer, but it does not have to be. I see it far more as a two-way street, with trade going both ways. The Government should tackle trade injustice with more vigour. We are calling on them to show leadership. If any poor nation behaved in the way that America recently did in passing its Farm Bill, it would have faced the wrath of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It is one rule for some and another rule for others.
  Later this month, the G8 will meet in Alberta, Canada. There has been much rhetoric about it being a development summit. The New Partnership for Africa's Development is high on its agenda. NEPAD is a partnership, and on our side that should mean free and fair market access. Partnership is a two-way process, however. In return for opening our markets, we can press for economic, political and social reform in those countries that want to trade with us. There is no doubt that corruption is one of the greatest impediments to development in such countries. One of the most important things that could be achieved in the summit would be a commitment from the G8 to address the imbalances in the trade system.

  289
  Some 10,000 people have come to lobby Parliament today on the issue of trade. There can be no doubt that increasing levels of global trade offer hope to millions of people living in poverty. The Secretary of State has strongly defended globalisation in the face of its critics, some of whom are on Labour's Back Benches. The Government's White Paper on globalisation is called "Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor", but billions of people are still marginalised by the process. The challenge now is to make globalisation work on a global scale.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State to speak, I must tell hon. Members that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  4.7 pm
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the lobby of Parliament by the Trade Justice Movement and increased recognition of trade as a key component to reducing global poverty; welcomes also efforts made to draw public attention to these important issues; recognises trade has an important role to play in helping countries achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); is aware that to achieve this a multilateral trading system is needed giving developing countries a fair deal; recognises that the Government is committed to working with developing country partners, and other bilateral donors and multilateral organisations to achieve this; believes that the development challenges faced in Africa require the international community, working together with African countries, to make additional efforts to secure progress towards the MDGs; welcomes the Government's commitment to turning the agreement reached at Doha in November last year into a meaningful 'Development Round' and to achieving real progress on market access and in areas of importance to developing countries; will continue to support efforts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and reduce trade-distorting subsidies; will support preferential access to developing countries through the Generalised System of Preferences aid to least developed countries through the Everything But Arms initiative; recognises developing countries themselves must undertake effective policy measures to integrate into the global trading system; supports these efforts and engagement in a broad range of activities to help countries participate more effectively in the multilateral trading system; and further welcomes the Government's commitment to doubling support for trade-related capacity building from £15 million in 1998–2001 to £30 million in 2001–04.".
  This is a happy day for me. It marks a real shift in the development movement in the United Kingdom and, indeed, in the position of Her Majesty's official Opposition. Different groups have come to understand that more equitable trade rules are essential to create the opportunity for the poorest countries to grow their economies and for the poor of the world to work their way out of poverty. It is important to have such a strong new consensus across the development movement in the UK and across the Floor of the House. That is a significant change and it enables us to try to use our influence on the world stage to bring about the policy for which we all jointly argue.
  My Department and I have been working to get the development lobby to take on the case for more equitable trade rules since the Department was established in 1997. Importantly, its powers were enlarged beyond being an organiser of the UK aid budget to include an analytical role
  290
  in trade, agricultural reform, fisheries, environmental agreements, debt, conflict, humanitarianism and so on. The objective was not just to run a good UK aid budget that was as large as possible, but to get the rules of the international system more equitable so that the planet could be run in a more equitable and sustainable way for all.
  I should like to pay tribute to the quality of officials in the Department. It is respected as one of the most high-quality development organisations in the world in both its delivery and its analytical capacity. It is staffed by highly motivated high-quality officials. My first permanent secretary, Sir John Vereker, is no longer with us, but he made an enormous contribution to establishing the new strengthened Department. The UK should be proud of the quality of the people who lead development work for us across the world.
  The new Department was established in 1997 with the remit to consider trade and development. Our first hurdle was posed by the Department of Trade and Industry. The official, now retired, who led on trade in that large Department was struck with apoplexy at the thought that the Department with responsibility for development dared to have views about trade. There was an enormous battle between the trade part of the DTI and my Department. Up to then, the DTI had been asked to promote only UK trade interests, and suddenly we were changing the grounds for discussion by saying that it was in the UK's interest to have an equitable set of international trade rules that allow the poorest countries to grow their economies.
  That change has taken place. There was a lot of joint work and a lot of research, and by the time we got to Doha, DTI representatives—Ministers and officials—were more progressive than trade representatives from most other OECD countries because they saw more equitable global rules as being in everybody's interests. Today we are celebrating a long journey, and the first part of it involved legitimising the DTI's concern with the global management of trade rather than the simple duty to promote UK trade interests, regardless of the interests of others.
  From there we moved forward to Seattle. Everyone will remember that almost every lobby and force, including the whole British NGO development movement, was opposed to a new trade round at Seattle. Many voices called for the WTO to be closed down. We had a debate in the House of Commons—I see the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) nodding—in which a few of us argued that the WTO is a useful organisation that gives us a chance to strengthen global trade rules and make them more equitable.
  The Clinton Administration, particularly President Clinton himself, the entire international trade union movement, led most strongly by the US but including Britain, the whole British development lobby and all the British environment NGOs were completely opposed to a new trade round. They believed that the WTO was a reactionary organisation that wanted to add to trade rules and conditions on labour and environmental standards, making it impossible for developing countries, which of course want to raise those standards, to meet the rules and have access to global markets. At that time, the trade spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition did not mention, in explaining the party's position, the interests of developing countries.

  291
  Let us remember where we have got to. Today, with the movement of Churches and development NGOs, there has been an important shift forward. The last time there was trade competition in the world and countries were erecting barriers against each other, as we see with steel and with the US Farm Bill, was in the 1930s, when there was depression in some parts of the world. Country after country imposed tariffs, which threw the entire world economy into the most terrible depression. That led to the second world war and to fascism and all that flowed from that.
  Following the second world war, we started off with the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I believe that the first trade round after the war was called the Torquay round, which is rather sweet. Not as many countries were members of GATT, and the negotiators were blocs of rich countries. There were rounds of trade talks to try to reduce the tariffs that remained from the 1930s. That was a worthy process, and it was better than what it took over from, but following the Uruguay round, the WTO was born. It is only five or six years old, and it really was an advance.
  The WTO is an organisation which countries join by choice, and which is based on rules that apply equally to all. It negotiates by consensus. I do not think that any hon. Member will agree with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that the WTO should make decisions by majority. These matters so deeply affect the interests of individual countries that we have to move forward by consensus. It is remarkable that, in negotiating multilateral agreements on the environment and trade at Doha and elsewhere, we manage to reach global consensus.
  In my view, and I think that this position is now more widely recognised, the shift to the WTO gave us a chance to get more equitable trade rules. Now, the majority of WTO members are developing countries, and if they come together in a trade round and work together, they will make gains. It is possible now to have a set of global rules that are fair and that give developing countries the chance to grow their economies.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Secretary of State comment on an article in the Financial Times this morning which reports that the WTO trade negotiations are faltering badly and there is not much optimism that an agreement will be reached?
  Clare Short: To be honest, I read the headline, not the whole article, but it appeared to suggest that because of the moves on steel and the US Farm Bill, there was a real danger that the Doha development agenda, which is an agenda for a trade round, would not be taken forward and we would not get a trade round, and that would grossly weaken the WTO. I agree that taking the WTO as an institution for granted would be a grave mistake. If the Doha agenda is not taken forward, the WTO will start to break up and lose its authority, which depends on consensus in the international system. We could easily end up with the rich countries making regional and bilateral trade agreements and the poorest countries being squeezed out of the rule making on international trade. If that danger were realised, it would be a terrible loss for the world and for developing countries.
  Mr. David Curry: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the reasons why it is
  292
  essential to maintain agreement by consensus in the WTO is that without it the disputes procedure, which arbitrates in extremely difficult cases and is widely respected, simply could not continue to operate?
  Clare Short: I agree. It gives one pause for thought to consider that whereas in national politics we have the conflictive style of politics that we all know and love, on crucial matters such as multilateral environment agreements and world trade agreements, all the world's countries are represented in a set of negotiations and manage to reach agreement by consensus. That is the only way to enforce such agreements—there is no world army that can make any country that gets out of line get back into line. Only through consensus and everyone understanding that it is in the world's interests that we all play by the rules and accept fair ways of decision making can we equitably manage the current phase of human history. I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
  There is no doubt that in the run-up to Seattle there was a general view among developing countries that they had achieved less by the Uruguay round than had been promised, and there was resistance to a new trade round as a result. That was understandable: many of the agreements made during the Uruguay round were more difficult to implement than countries had understood when they made them. The rules of world trade are now enormously complicated, and they are difficult for all countries to implement and individual Ministers to grasp and negotiate. The agenda is now extremely complex and extended in scope.
  The argument that we advanced prior to Seattle—I made a speech to this effect in early 1999 at the UN conference on trade and development—was that if world trade rules were unfair to developing countries, the only way to make them fairer was to have another trade round. My mother would have said that we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we said that we would not have another trade round because the rules were unfair. A lot of work went into building momentum so that developing countries, rather than feeling hurt and aggrieved by the consequences of the Uruguay round, would agree that another trade round was in their interests. The South African Government have played an important role in building an international coalition of developing countries. They started their efforts in the run-up to the Seattle conference and continued that work on the way to Doha.
  To help developing countries to advance their interests, my Department announced—in 1998, I think, during a prime ministerial speech at the WTO in Geneva—a big increase in UK funding on trade capacity building. That is not a large part of development aid spending, but it is important technical work that enables countries to consider economic strategies—to see in which sectors they have a comparative advantage that will enable them to expand their economy and take up trading opportunities, giving them the capacity to enter the international system and negotiate to advance those trade interests. We have done a great deal of work in that area. It helped many developing countries to build the confidence to advance their interests at Doha and demand the sort of development agenda that was agreed there.
  We also worked hard—this is an interesting story, which answers one of the questions from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—to build a legal advisory

  293
  centre in the WTO to provide advice from trade lawyers to the poorest countries free and to low income countries extremely cheaply—a law centre to enable low income countries to exercise their rights under the rules of the World Trade Organisation. When we tried to promote the proposal early on, we met massive resistance, first within our own Government, which we overcame in the ways that I described earlier. [Interruption.] It is all part of a process to get everyone to globalise their minds and look for a way of running the world that takes account of everybody's interests. It is a movement that is taking place in political analysis across the world, rather more rapidly in some places than in others.
  Then we encountered resistance in Brussels, where we were told that we could not give countries money so that they could get advice, which might mean that they would take action against an EC country under the WTO. I said, "We give legal aid to murderers." There was a ferocious battle. It was interesting to see the two mindsets on trade. Do we want a rules-based, fair system under which everyone can apply the rules and has rights? Trade lawyers cost a fortune. Anyone who thinks lawyers are expensive should look at the bills of trade lawyers. Poor countries would be unable to exercise their legal rights without some support.
  The resistance to setting up a legal advisory centre was an interesting example of the way in which people regard trade as their vested interest against someone else's vested interest, as opposed to our joint interest in growing the global economy and giving the poorest countries the chance to grow their economies, which is not against our interest. It is in our interest. If the poor of the world had the capacity to consume more, the people employed in industry and manufacturing in this country would have opportunities to produce and export, which would be beneficial to them and everyone else.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: As usual, the Secretary of State is being honest and open with the House. Will she tell us which countries caused the most trouble? [Interruption.]
  Clare Short: That would be very honest. The hon. Gentleman knows, as I do, that it is incredible that the world reaches agreement by consensus in the global negotiations that are more and more important to us. The "globaphobes" attack all those intergovernmental meetings and say that there is no proper democratic accountability, but the proper accountability is to each democratic Government's Parliament and civil society. We each send our representatives to global meetings to reach agreement and there are many difficulties on the way, but we frequently make progress. That is remarkable.
  We are at a turning point in history. I am not in favour of globalisation, and I am not against globalisation. Globalisation is history, and it is stupid of anyone to be for or against it. It parallels what the industrial revolution meant for Europe—an opportunity to spread technology, trade, economic growth and investment across the world. The question is how we are to manage it and who will benefit. Will everyone be included or are some countries to be marginalised? It is one of the leading tasks of politics to bring about a more just world and a more sustainable and stable world for future generations.
  294
  The first big, violent outing of the anti-globalisation protesters was Seattle, where they called on everyone to oppose trade and claimed that poor countries cannot afford to open their markets and do not want to be exploited by multinational capital. They said that the WTO is dominated by multinational capital trying to impose its rules on the poor of the world. That was the rhetoric. There were massive demonstrations, with many legitimate groups on the streets, as well as the groups that went around smashing up windows in Seattle.
  I believe that after Seattle, if one had gone down most high streets and spoken to decent, caring people, most of them would have said that the WTO is an evil organisation that is trying to exploit the poor of the world. It is a danger of these times if the anti-globalisers are seen to be the ones who care about the poor. They advocate policies that will harm and divide the world and harm the interests of developing countries. That is why our own dear development NGOs' move to calling for equitable trade, instead of opposition to developing countries opening their markets to trade or having the opportunities to attract foreign direct investment, is a very important change. It puts the UK in a strong position to advocate for a more just, equitable and sustainable world.
  I pay a tribute to the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats on trade and industry. He has written a pamphlet or small book on globalisation. At the time of the Seattle talks, he was speaking strongly—the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon was another, but there were not many others—in the spirit that I am putting before the House, which I think now has cross-party consensus. This is an important day and the unity in the country is important. The shift of development organisations is important.
  I shall say a word on behalf of Mike Moore, the retiring director general of the World Trade Organisation. One of the reasons for the Seattle talks going wrong was the delay in agreeing who should take over that post—whether it should be Mr. Supachai or Mike Moore. After a long delay, during which we should have been preparing for the Seattle talks, there was an agreement that they should divide the job, I think for three years each.
  The two men have worked well together. Mike Moore worked extremely hard to get us to Doha and to the Doha development agenda. In the past few days I read a savage attack on Mike Moore in a newspaper. It came from Kevin Watkins, of all people, from Oxfam, who is usually a reasonable person. He suggested that Mike Moore had no concern for developing countries. That is completely false, untrue and unfair. Mike Moore worked hard to enable the world to reach a consensus. I pay tribute to him and to the incoming Mr. Supachai. They have worked well together and they will take the world forward.
  I am optimistic because it is possible to take on complex issues when we do not have agreement in our own countries. It is necessary to arrive at global agreement if we are to take the world forward. In a relatively short period we can see a big shift in public opinion. If these moves can be made, we can take ourselves forward into an era of better management of the global economy.
  After Seattle, we were working with the World Bank to ensure that the bank took more interest in trade and the need for developing countries to make advances in trade access to improve their economic position. There was

  295
  slowness and reluctance, but since then the World Bank has undertaken more work and produced the statistics that are quoted about how trade opening and trade liberalisation would be much more beneficial to developing countries than increases in overseas development assistance, although we need that to create institutions in developing countries that will enable those countries to run their economies and public services properly, and then to take advantage of trading opportunities and the opportunity to move their economies forward.
  The considerable task that remains is to move the world forward into implementation of the agenda that was agreed at Doha. On the way to the world summit on sustainable development, which will take place at the end of August into the beginning of September at Johannesburg—that is 10 years on from the Rio UN conference on the environment—a preparatory meeting took place recently in Bali. It was the cause of great derision. Happily I did not go to Bali, so I do not have to be criticised. I have been there under my own steam, having paid for myself. The meeting went sour, but that did not mean that it was a disaster. It went sour largely because the G77, having seen the action on steel tariffs and the US Farm Bill, is ceasing to believe that the world meant what it said at Doha and then at Monterrey about finance for development.
  We have been building up a fantastic consensus throughout the world, from the millennium development goals to the UN millennium assembly. At Doha, there was a round of talks to make trade rules fairer. At Monterrey, finance was discussed, and what would be a sensible reform agenda for a proper balance between the public sector and the role of markets. There was a commitment to a reversal in the decline in development assistance that is available to the world.
  We want to go on to Johannesburg to integrate the environment in the analysis and to overcome hostility between OECD countries, environmentalists and developing countries. Instead of environmentalists saying, "We don't want development", we want them to say, "We want sustainable development, and we must guarantee development to the poor in a way that is sustainable for the world." That is the only way that we will keep the world united.
  Our commitment to implement what was agreed at Doha is absolutely crucial if we are to keep the sort of consensus that we have been building to drive forward progress towards a more just world. That will not be easy. As I am sure that hon. Members know, it was very difficult for France to agree to the commitments made at Doha on reduction of subsidies and reform in the agricultural sector. It held out until the end, and that was the most difficult part of the agreement. Changes have taken place in the US and some of our European Union colleagues have difficulties with holding to what was agreed at Doha.
  We now have a fantastic consensus in this country, but we need to appeal to all our parties in all our networks throughout the world and to all the NGOs and faith organisations that are mobilised so impressively here today. We need to ask them to reach out to their networks in Europe and especially in the United States. Through the Church networks in particular, they need to say to the United States, the biggest economy in the world, "Please don't think that you can run the world without multilateral
  296
  rules." To achieve a just and sustainable world, we need the US to work with other countries to give everyone the chance to grow their economies.
  There is a lot left to do, but this is a very important moment for the UK to have built the sort of agreement that we have got. It now suits our country very well for us to go out to bat on the world stage for more just rules for trade and in other areas, in order to make the world safer and more sustainable and decent.
  4.31 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the official Opposition for securing this debate. This is a very good day on which to have it; I am only sad that they could not negotiate the 7 o'clock slot, because many hon. Members are outside enjoying the Mexican wave and the trishaws that I was lucky enough to enjoy yesterday. They are out there meeting their constituents, so it would have been much better to have had the debate afterwards so that they could have participated.
  Today's lobby is one of the biggest ever; it is estimated that 10,000 people are out there in the sunshine. The Jubilee 2000 campaign was successful because it was a broad coalition that attracted all-party support. Likewise, I know that the Trade Justice Movement is a fantastic coalition of more than 40 non-governmental organisations that is attracting all-party support. The Liberal Democrats will certainly support the motion and also the Government amendment. Hon. Members can make of that what they like, but that is what we will do, as we do not want any division on these issues.
  I have received hundreds of postcards from my constituents and thousands more have flowed in to all MPs during the past few weeks. An all-party early-day motion on this subject has been tabled today and I hope that all hon. Members will sign it. We know that the European heads of state are meeting very soon this month, the G8 summit is at the end of June, the world summit on sustainable development will take place in Johannesburg in September and the world trade talks are continuing all the time. This is a vital time for developing countries.
  We all know that many factors affect developing countries. We have rehearsed them many times in the Chamber. They include civil war and conflict, the arms trade, lack of education, health care, AIDS, HIV, lack of clean water, environmental disasters—to which our greedy consumption in the west often contributes—a lack of decent Governments, and corruption. The list goes on. We distribute aid, but not nearly enough. The proportional increase in the aid given to developing countries is very welcome, but the amount is not yet nearly enough. To introduce a dissenting note, I am still very disappointed that the Conservatives seem to have abandoned the 0.7 per cent. of gross national product target on aid for developing countries. That is very sad and I hope that they review the matter in due course.
  Wherever I go in the developing world, I hear the same message: "Your aid is welcome, but if only you would let us have free and fair trade"—I emphasise the word "fair"—"we would develop more quickly."
  Throughout the 19th century, we exploited our colonies, using them for labour, raw materials and things that could make our lives better. The rich countries continue to exploit them through unfair trade agreements. The European Union and the USA in particular have a

  297
  duty to lift the developing world out of poverty. The connections between 11 September and poverty have often been rehearsed. It is no longer only right to help the poorest countries, but in our own interests too. It took an event like 11 September to teach us that lesson.
  A 1 per cent. increase in trade for African countries would generate £70 billion or five times what Africa receives in aid. Import tariffs cost developing countries £100 billion, which is twice as much as they receive in aid. What nonsense—we give with one hand and we take away with the other. Last July, in Zanzibar, prior to the World Trade Organisation meeting in Doha, developing countries called on the rich countries to abolish subsidies for their products and open their markets, but there has been little progress on that. The Uruguay round, which the Secretary of State mentioned, was good news at the time because it committed developing countries and rich countries to a reduction in tariffs and subsidies. With the general agreement on trade in services—GATS—it got the developing countries to open up their services to private companies.
  To a large extent the developing countries have done so. But did the rich countries keep their side of the bargain? Did they heck. One problem is that tariffs and subsidies remain, and GATS is still a subject of great contention. However, I do not agree that services such as supplying water must always be controlled by the public sector. I recently visited Ghana to look at its Government's proposal to privatise the water supply in Accra. The public sector there is certainly not delivering clean water to the people of the city. The situation is appalling, because 52 per cent.—a rather optimistic estimate—of the water supply is lost or goes to cowboys who sell it to the poor at extortionate prices. The argument that a multinational company may make water even more expensive for the poor does not wash, if that is the right word. I think that it could be cheaper under a privatised system.
  Clare Short: I have had a briefing on this. GATS is a bottom-up agreement—countries open up services as they wish, and there is no requirement to privatise education and health care. Privatisation is the only way to get the investment that those countries need in things like banking, tourism, telecommunications and services such as water under good regulatory arrangements. I agree that the campaign saying that there should not be a voluntary scheme to open up services in that way is misguided.
  Dr. Tonge: I thank the Secretary of State for her contribution. The key to privatising Accra's water supply is the regulatory service. I admit that I was worried about that, and the Ghanaians will need assistance in regulating services to provide water.
  The common agricultural policy is a bone of contention. It is another gross violation of international justice. The European Union spends $41 billion on agricultural subsidies. Rich farmers in rich countries continue to be subsidised and to flood developing countries with their produce, forcing their poor farmers out of business. I hope that we shall get some good news on that front in due course, because it is time that the common agricultural policy was looked at.
  298
  As the Secretary of State told us, the European Union introduced the everything but arms initiative to give at least 49 of the least developed countries tariff-free and quota-free access to our markets. However, it quickly became the everything but arms, rice, sugar and bananas initiative, thus re-erecting barriers to some of the main exports from developing countries. Before Conservative Members get too self-righteous and pleased with themselves about their newly discovered philanthropy, I remind hon. Members that it was lobbying by many Conservative Members on behalf of the sugar beet industry that led to sugar being excluded from the EU initiative. We shall not forget that, and it is worth remembering. They cannot preach free trade and call for trade liberalisation, as they are doing today, while lobbying to protect our own domestic interests.
  Why does that remind me of the United States? In May, the US, having acknowledged that poverty indirectly leads to terrorism, passed a Farm Bill that will increase subsidies to American farmers by 70 per cent. over the next 10 years. As I discovered on my recent visit to Ghana, northern Ghana used to produce lots of rice, which was eaten by people all over Ghana. Urban Ghanaians now eat American polished white rice, which is ludicrous. Their farmers have no markets at home or abroad and are in poverty. In 1998, 68 per cent. of Ghana's labour force was in agriculture. What are they to do in the short and medium term to fill that gap? It is a mad, mad situation.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Does my hon. Friend agree that protectionist elements in Europe give the American Administration an excuse for introducing their Farm Bill? This morning, I had a conversation with an American Congressman who was here in the House, and he said that the protectionism adopted by several European states through the CAP provides an alibi for the Farm Bill. That is a problem.
  Dr. Tonge: I agree. I do not exclude Europe from blame. Both the European Union and the US have to search their souls on this issue. If we mean what we say about opening up our markets and bringing developing countries into the real world to share in its prosperity, we have to give a little on our side. That cannot be done if we continually protect our own interests. I accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in so far as sugar beet farmers would have a tough time if their market fell, but could we not consider other things that they could grow? The biofuels industry represents one possibility.
  Mr. Peter Luff: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dr. Tonge: I shall not at the moment.
  We have alternatives that may not be available to developing countries, and we must do something about that.
  Mr. Curry: I hope that the hon. Lady tried to disabuse the American Congressman by pointing out that when the United States introduced its Freedom to Farm Bill, which liberalised the American system, the CAP was a great deal

  299
  more protectionist than it is now, and that the Farm Bill has been introduced at a time when the CAP is being liberalised rather more than many people think.
  Dr. Tonge: That point has already been made, and I want to move on. However, I emphasise that we must all recognise that something has to give if developing countries are to be relieved of their poverty.
  I shall not have time to deal with many other aspects of world trade and its effect on developing countries, such as joined-up government. This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) noted that there is no point in the Department for International Development having wonderful policies based on sustainable development when there are shenanigans such as those between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence. Barclays bank and British Aerospace on the air traffic control system for Tanzania. We must tackle that aspect of trade and ensure that all Departments tackle the core theme of sustainable development. We cannot relieve Tanzania of debt only to plunge it immediately in £28 million more debt by selling it an inappropriate system that will benefit our industry but not Tanzania.
  I shall not go into the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, because I confess that I do not understand the ramifications of the TRIPs agreement. The arguments about the problems have been well rehearsed. Many Liberal Democrats worry that the part privatisation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation has caused it to take its eye off the ball in the interests of attracting shareholders. Agriculture, especially agribusiness, in the poorest countries has consequently suffered.
  The activities of the multinational companies require a debate. Such companies probably constitute one of the greatest forces for good or evil in the world. Huge companies that wield massive power and also make much needed investment in developing countries to improve their trade are part of globalisation. However, we need to ensure that they behave decently and sensibly, and stick to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines wherever they operate.
  I want to speak about an important factor that the Secretary of State mentioned. Developing countries must be helped to participate more effectively in the World Trade Organisation and the WTO must commit itself with the rest of the world to the international development targets. I understand that only 30 of the poorest countries are members of the WTO. All developing countries face major difficulties representing themselves there. They do not have the capacity or expertise, and I welcome the initiatives by the Secretary of State and the Department to try to build such capacity in sub-Saharan Africa and its regional organisations. I hope that when the Minister sums up, she will tell us more about the enhanced integrated framework pilot schemes, which will operate in Cambodia and Madagascar, and how those countries can represent themselves better.
  In the north, we get increasingly richer by protecting our markets while forcing the poorest countries to open theirs to our trades and services, making them poorer. We have declared a war on terrorism when what we really want is a war on poverty.
  4.48 pm
  Hugh Bayley: I begin by congratulating—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  Hugh Bayley: I shall use my nine and a half minutes wisely, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I congratulate John Whitworth and his team of supporters from York who have joined the lobby today and whom I have had the benefit of meeting. I do not say that simply as a courtesy, although I am glad to see constituents coming all the way from York to Westminster. We all need—this includes Parliament and the Government—a grass-roots campaign that backs our actions. The Secretary of State made it clear that we have to argue our corner in international institutions such as the EU and the WTO. It is important to show that a fan club exists for development and the actions of the Secretary of State and other members of the Government.
  Until recently, trade policy was one of those dry-as-dust subjects that interested only a few underpaid development agency workers and a few extremely overpaid international lawyers who argued disputes at the World Trade Organisation. In recent years, however, it has become a battlefield. The Secretary of State is right to say that there has been a sea change since Seattle, which was quite literally a battlefield, but there is still conflict between pro and anti-globalisers. We must ensure that the world's poor are not crushed by those contending forces.
  Trade is not a panacea, but it is true that the countries with the smallest share of world trade—a share that is still declining—are those with the largest proportion of their population living in absolute poverty. Trade can lift people out of poverty, but it will succeed in doing so only if trade growth is supported and complemented by good pro-poor development policies.
  I want to emphasise three things to the House. First, trade creates wealth; it makes people richer. It increases production and, therefore, consumption; for most people living on the breadline, consumption is a measure of their disposable income and their standard of living. The World Bank showed, in its publication "Can Africa reclaim the 21st century?", that if Africa had the same proportion of world trade now that it had at the time of decolonisation in the 1960s, it would have an income of some $70 billion a year more. In other words, its income would be about 20 per cent. higher. One of the things that we need to achieve, therefore, is an increase in the volume of trade with the poorest countries.
  Secondly, trade does not necessarily result in a reduction of inequality, even in the regions where the volume of trade is increasing. The benefits of trade do not necessarily trickle down to the poor. That is why we need to change the terms of trade, as hon. Members have already mentioned. That requires policy change in developed countries such as ours—most notably a change in the common agricultural policy, in the case of Europe—and in developing countries.
  That also means that trade policy needs to be embedded in development policy, and needs to appear in the country strategies—for example, those being drawn up by our

  301
  Government and by the World Bank—for developing countries. Trade policy needs to be mainstreamed into development policy just as the environment, gender and other matters have been in recent years.
  Thirdly, I would like to remind the House that trade takes place not between countries but between companies. Trade policy must encourage investment in private companies and entrepreneurship, and must recognise the role of the private sector in international trade.
  Why has Africa lost some of its share of world trade in the decades since the 1960s? As hon. Members have stated, it is in part because the rich world—the developed countries—has been far from generous in its trade relations. We have been protectionist—above all, in relation to the commodities that the poorest people in the poorest countries have some possibility of exporting to us, particularly in agriculture.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Textiles, too.
  Hugh Bayley: Textiles and clothing, too, as my hon. Friend rightly says.
  Also, many sub-Saharan African countries have followed poor policies themselves, which helps to explain why their trade performance has been poorer than those of some other developing countries, such as those in east Asia. Our policies need to change, and their policies need to change. That is why I am so excited by the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which recognises that if we both change things, life will change for the poorest people in the poorest countries.
  One of the things that the developing countries in Africa got wrong in the past was setting fixed exchange rates that overvalued their currencies. When I visited Uganda in the early 1980s, the official exchange rate was 120 Ugandan shillings to the pound, but the real market exchange rate on the street was 600 or 650. What did that mean in practice? The Ugandan elite could import Scotch whisky for a quarter of its real cost, and Ugandan farmers had to export bananas or any other agricultural products at four times their real value. It is therefore not surprising that it was difficult for the poor to export from Uganda and other such countries.
  There were further problems with fixed interest rates. They were fixed by African Governments for the good reason that, in their view, setting a low interest rate made borrowing more affordable. However, borrowing is assisted only if a rate is set that encourages people to invest. Many African countries had an interest rate that was lower than the inflation rate. The resulting real-terms negative interest rates meant that no money was put into banks, or that it was put into banks in the developed world, rather than into African banks. Those economic policies need to change. Such failures reduced exports, squeezed out investment, and fuelled the growth of corruption as people tried to get round the policies enforced by their Governments.
  Hon. Members have spoken eloquently about the contradiction between what we in the west preach on free trade, and our practice of agricultural protectionism. If we are to make the Doha trade round a development round, we certainly need to reduce the level of subsidy for
  302
  European Union agricultural exports, and for domestic production. We need also to address the timetable for CAP reform. As I understand it, the Commission has agreed to complete the CAP negotiations by 2006, yet at Doha all WTO countries offered a commitment to complete the round by the end of 2004. If we are to make the necessary contribution to the Doha round in terms of CAP reform, we need to advance the CAP timetable.
  In many ways, it was the events of 11 September that brought the world together to agree a deal at Doha. Compromises were made on all sides. France agreed for the first time to negotiate on the elimination of farm subsidies; India backed off from outright opposition to negotiations on public procurement and investment; and the United States agreed to consider negotiating the anti-dumping rules that were used in recent weeks in relation to steel. Those compromises made the Doha round a development round, but to keep it that way, it is essential that the WTO sign up to the millennium development goals. Target 12 of those goals calls for
  "an open. rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system."
  That cannot happen unless the WTO makes that its policy. Targets 7 and 8 pledge to halt the increase in incidence of HIV/AIDS and malaria, but that will not happen unless the WTO agrees to change the current rules for patent protection for the pharmaceutical industry, under the trade-related intellectual property rights agreement.
  4.59 pm
  Tony Baldry: I want to make three brief points. First, considerable consensus exists in the UK on these matters, and we should build on it. Given that we all agree on the motion before us, it seems a little crazy that the rules of the House require us to divide on it. However, that is something for the usual channels to work out.
  Today, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry welcomed the Trade Justice Movement, and acknowledged that
  "international trade rules should work to the benefit of developing countries."
  Before she went to Doha, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
  "Halving protection in agriculture, industrial goods and services could boost developing country incomes by around $140 billion a year—three times the value of all aid budgets put together…We recognise that inequities remain in the international trade system and want to make sure that this round fully addresses the needs and concerns of developing countries…The next round"—
  that is, the Doha round—
  "provides an opportunity for further opening of agricultural markets and significant reductions in the level of trade-distorting agricultural subsidies. With a majority of the poor in developing countries living in rural areas, this would make a substantial contribution to the UK's commitment to eradicate poverty."
  Responding to a recent debate in Westminster Hall on fair trade, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said:
  "However, the subsidies given to farmers in the north—both in Europe and the United States—amount to more than the total combined gross domestic products of sub-Saharan Africa…Today, rich countries pay out $1 billion a day to their farmers in agricultural subsidies. Annually, the figure is more than four times all the development assistance that goes to poor nations."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 14 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 1121–22WH.]

  303
  I do not think that there is any dispute about what the issues are, and there is agreement across the House about some of the issues that need to be addressed. However, my second point is that painstaking work will have to be done. No big headline quick fixes can be done: painstaking work will have to be done to reform the CAP and during the Doha process.
  The European Commission is scheduled to produce proposals under the CAP mid-term review in late June or early July. I think that the latest date for that is 10 July. That will not be easy. Many hon. Members present represent agricultural constituencies. We know from discussions with others that it will be difficult to persuade colleagues from other EU states that have been bribing farmers for votes even longer than we have that there needs to be substantial CAP reform.
  I hope that, in the process of the CAP reform and World Trade Organisation negotiations, we will be able to do some work on the development box in the WTO agreement on agriculture. Little reference has been made to that this afternoon. I suspect that a lot of work at official level is still needed to determine whether a development box on agriculture in the WTO agreement would work to protect farmers in developing countries.
  When the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and for City of York (Hugh Bayley), and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and I were in Ghana and Nigeria recently we were struck by the fact that, in Ghana—a country that produces huge numbers of fantastic tomatoes—all the tomatoes in the supermarkets are tinned tomatoes from Italy. That is completely crazy. When one asks people whether there is not a tomato processing plant in Ghana, they say that there used to be one but that it fell into disrepair and that no one has been prepared to invest in it.
  We need to see whether more can be done within the WTO rules to protect countries like Ghana from the dumping of EU agricultural surplus. I am agnostic as to whether that should be done through a development box in the WTO agreement, but I hope that more work can be done on the matter by officials. When the Under-Secretary of State for International Development winds up the debate, I hope that she will tell us what the Government line is on the subject. It is important that we have some understanding of whether such a course of action could help and protect people.
  My third point is that we need to support reformers in developing countries. We hear a lot about the bad guys, and we hear incessantly about Mugabe. It is quite right that we should, but there are also some good guys. I make no apologies, in the remaining couple of minutes, for reading a piece that I saw when several of us were in Washington the week before last to lobby members of the US Senate and Congress to do more on international development.
  The piece appeared in the Washington Post, and it is worth sharing with the House. It stated:
  "Media coverage of the protests against globalisation has diverted attention from what may well be a more striking and historic development: the growing consensus between African countries and their Western partners on the importance of trade in overcoming global poverty."
  It is not simply a consensus in the United Kingdom, it is a consensus between us and our African partners. The article continued:
  304
  "From President Bush to the rock star Bono…to the leaders of the 54 African countries represented in the Organization of African Unity, there is now a broad agreement that no national or international strategy for addressing poverty can be successful unless it promotes expanded trade and investment.
  For too long, Africans and their partners in the West have looked to international aid as the answer to the poverty and economic challenges confronting developing countries…While well-intentioned, this over-emphasis on aid has actually handicapped Africa by promoting a dependency mentality and the impression that African countries could not compete in the global economy.
  By itself, aid cannot transform societies. Only trade can foster the sustained economic growth necessary for such a transformation…Africa does need development assistance, just as it needs debt relief from its crushing international debt burden. But aid and debt relief can only go so far…We Africans are no longer looking for handouts. Rather, we are asking for the opportunity to compete, to sell our goods in Western markets, to be considered for private investment funds, and to participate more fully in the global trading system. In short, we want to trade our way out of poverty".
  That was written by Mr. Museveni, the president of Uganda. I thought that it was a gripping article, worth sharing with colleagues. He also said:
  "we Africans must do more to put our own houses in order."
  We must remember that, for every Mugabe, there are reformers in Africa, whether they be in Uganda, Ghana or South Africa, whom we should support.
  Mr. Museveni has also been reported as saying:
  "The biggest request we are making of Western countries is to open their markets…Debt relief has saved us some money, but the real money will come from trade. Give us the opportunities, and we will compete."
  Today's lobby has been fantastic; it will ensure that international development and related issues stay high on the political agenda in this country and that everyone has the confidence to take them seriously. I think that the House and everyone of good will has come to a consensus on what needs to be done. We need to turn to the detailed, painstaking work that has to be done to reform the common agricultural policy and the Doha round. Much of that work will be complicated and very tetchy, as the earlier exchanges on sugar and other commodities have demonstrated. We must also give strength and support to reformers in Africa because, with their help, we can ensure that many countries can trade their way out of poverty.
  5.8 pm
  Glenda Jackson: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and Opposition Front Benchers for not being here for the beginning of the debate. I was with my constituents, on the other side of the River Thames, listening to the concerns that they expressed with great lucidity and cogency. It is a most wonderful rally or demonstration, whatever we want to call it. However, as I said to my constituents, I wondered why they were here, preaching to the converted, and not campaigning outside certain foreign embassies in the capital.
  It seems to have been a comparatively short time—certainly a decade—since the feeling in the country at large and in the Chamber has moved from the idea that we can transform poverty, eradicate disease, introduce education and actively assist countries to develop exclusively by increasing the amount of aid that we pour

  305
  into the begging bowl. The posters this afternoon were entirely different from those that would have been seen 10 years ago.
  Clare Short: Two years ago.
  Glenda Jackson: Indeed. Then, they would have been about aid, while today's are about fair trade—fair being the operative word.
  Without exception, my constituents paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chancellor for putting the eradication of poverty at the top of the world's agenda.
  There are still areas about which my constituents are very concerned. I was interested in my right hon. Friend's view of globalisation, with which I concur. One cannot be for or against it, but one must acknowledge that it is here and that it is not going to go away. The question is how it is best managed in the interests of the vast number of people in the world who seem to have absolutely nothing.
  Within the public perception of what the Government are doing on their own and in concert with European Governments and the wider world community, there is a view that we are not acting speedily enough or delivering enough results because we still talk about fair trade. Some believe that the best way to eradicate poverty is to keep people in a sort of village environment, where nothing to do with machinery or the crudities of the developed world will ever impinge on the tranquil and pastoral nature of their lives. I have visited some of the countries where there is a pastoral nature to people's lives. I have stood beside representatives of non-governmental organisations who, on hearing a group of people singing a traditional song, have lamented to me that it seems a shame that teaching their children to read will interfere with their culture. I am sorry, but I think that that view is crazy. To deny anyone the right to read is the antithesis of what today's demonstration outside was about and of what we have been cogently arguing for in this Chamber for a considerable time.
  We talk easily about the problems of the developing world, but it seems to me that the problems are essentially of the developed world. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, said, we have to begin to examine what we are prepared to give up. I will give a precise example of what I mean. One of my young constituents raised with me the privatisation of water in India and Ghana. I find it deeply offensive that someone should argue that the largest democratic society in the world—India—or any other independent nation state should be told by the developed world whether it may begin to privatise its utilities. Those concerns were not expressed to me when New Zealand privatised its water supply, or when Australia or any other country in the developed world did so.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) that we have to take this opportunity to make this a grass-roots, committed change on the ground.
  Clare Short: On non-governmental organisations, Blake's poems opposing the industrial revolution in the
  306
  United Kingdom are an equivalent. We still sing "Jerusalem", but it was written to oppose industrialisation and the wealth to which that led.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: It is a great hymn.
  Clare Short: It is an interesting parallel.
  Ghana has not privatised; it has asked a private company to manage under a regulated arrangement a more efficient system of delivery in urban areas. Christian Aid is campaigning against that democratic decision of the previous Government, supported by the Opposition, to deliver water to people who did not have it—it had to be brought to them by the bucket at great expense. That is a mistaken approach and we must resist it.
  Glenda Jackson: That is my final point. It is beholden on us all to make it abundantly clear to people out there, who work extremely hard for what they believe in—let us not diminish what they do—that many of their ideas will not produce the results that they desire. It is certainly not for us or any other democratic nation to attempt to impede the decisions that, in the two examples that I gave, will, we hope, deliver clean, affordable water to people who have none at the moment.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Michael Portillo: I find myself speaking in a House full of hon. Members who are experts in the subject, and I am anything but. My purpose today is mainly to congratulate those on the Conservative Front Bench for raising this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) made an elegant and splendid speech and I wish that we had many more people like her who were able to make such speeches.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on showing clearly that there is no reason why any party in the House should have a monopoly on compassion. She demonstrated that the Conservative party feels strongly the pressures and difficulties faced by developing countries. My hon. Friend also expressed very ably the reason why trade and globalisation are part of the answer to the question, and there appears to he consensus on that point.
  I also wish to congratulate the Secretary of State, because she has attacked as nonsense the position of those who argue against globalisation—an important stand. She took that stand at a time when to do so was not straightforward, and it was very influential, because of where she comes from on the political spectrum.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House argue that the liberalisation of trade will be effective in eliminating poverty and raising living standards all around the world. We have evidence of vast transfers of wealth from the rich world to the poorer world in the form of investment, equity and commercial loans. We also have evidence that such direct investment often helps to underpin struggling democracies or to topple dictators, and brings increased living standards in such simple things—to our eyes—as access to telephones for hundreds of millions of people. With all those proven benefits and what we have seen of the ways in which living standards have been transformed—especially in China and other countries of the Asia-Pacific region—it is extraordinary that we still have a vocal lobby against globalisation.

  307
  In this debate, I have been concerned that the amount of consensus in the House leads us to underestimate the extent to which an irrational argument is going on outside. The anti-globalisation point of view appeals to a surprisingly large number of people. In the examples of Seattle and Genoa, I was struck not so much by the demonstrations and violence on the streets but by the fact that an incoherent argument could strike a chord with such a broad spectrum of public opinion. That is true of public opinion in Britain and in much of Europe, and to a lesser extent in the United States.
  Today, we have a broad-based commentariat who are influential in creating public opinion. In this country, we have a large middle class, of which only a small minority is involved in the process of wealth creation. As a result, the anti-globalisation movement, and the echo that it has in public opinion, is a demonstration of a widespread lack of understanding—even a distrust—of enterprise, commerce and business.
  My second purpose in speaking in the debate is to propose to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they should go further than the step that they have taken today. There is an important battle to be fought to win the case for free trade, enterprise and wealth creation, because the amount of hostility to wealth creation generated by the anti-globalisation movement is merely symptomatic of a broader misunderstanding of wealth creation and a mistrust of the way in which companies perform.
  I do not claim that there are no examples of companies behaving badly, even disgracefully. Indeed, because what happens here and what happens in developing countries are linked in people's minds, business often does itself no favours. The frequent flurries that we have over executive pay are just one example that makes it difficult to explain to people on low incomes in our own country, let alone those in other countries, why the enterprise system is valid. Today, there has been another rumpus over executive pay at Vodafone. On each occasion, the problem is not that executive pay cannot be justified; it is that people are unwilling to be transparent about their policies on executive pay.
  The same is true of the development question. One of the reasons why anti-globalisation has struck a chord with a broad group of people is the sense of a growing lack of accountability in all sorts of areas. There is a feeling that more and more of our lives, and of the lives of people around the world, are being determined by people who, in the end, are not answerable to voters and are not accountable.
  Some of the fire has been directed at international institutions. For example, the International Monetary Fund is now in an extraordinarily strong position to impose policies that have very severe political consequences, such as changing Governments. Sometimes, those policies change Governments that are very bad—in my view—into better Governments. That is not a justification in itself, however, as an organisation that has that kind of power, and that makes decisions that have such consequences, needs to be transparent and accountable. I would like my hon. Friends to argue for that.
  Let us take the example of an organisation such as the World Bank. The criticism that has largely been made of the World Bank is not so much that it has gone around the world being high-handed but that it has been attracted to faddism—it has followed different initiatives of different non-governmental organisations.
  308
  While we are talking about accountability, let us include the NGOs in that discussion. I am pleased that those questions have been raised in several Labour Members' speeches. People who work for NGOs, for Oxfam or for Christian Aid now wield great influence, but they have a duty to account for their positions and their legitimacy in arguing cases that may simply be matters of personal political opinion or prejudice that have no democratic legitimacy. Indeed, the benefits that they bring to the people in developing countries whom they claim to represent may be questionable or not to their benefit at all.
  Clare Short rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I have only a couple of minutes left. I hope that the right hon. Lady will forgive me if I continue.
  In the same way as it was Richard Nixon who could go to China, I believe that parties of the right—the Conservative party is one, but there are other such parties in other countries—can do the most to persuade business of its obligations and responsibilities. The strongest case exists for arguing that free enterprise will be the greatest influence in reducing poverty, raising living standards and reducing inequalities. There are powerful examples of companies that, through their investment, have lifted and improved the living standards of people who were previously held in much worse conditions of employment by local mafias and groups of thugs. We know that this is a complicated matter, as developing countries do not wish us to impose labour standards on them that will be protectionism in disguise.
  That is another reason for transparency. My party and other right-of-centre parties should be working with enterprise and the private sector to persuade them to be very transparent, to adopt codes of practice, and to open them up to scrutiny, discussion and monitoring. That will demonstrate that enterprise is the solution to poverty in the world and not the cause.
  There is a very broad battle to be fought and won. In the end, it is not only a question of development. As long as a vast section of our commentariat—our middle classes—distrusts business, it will be difficult for our enterprise system to function successfully, as it should.
  5.24 pm
  Tony Worthington: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) for two reasons. First, although there is a lot of consensus in the House, we are all struggling to find our way forward. He approached the topic with a very welcome openness. I shall return to his second point on transparency and its importance in causing development.
  I want to return to the Secretary of State's opening remarks on rejoicing about today, the movements that have been made, and what those movements meant. We have moved from a development model in which a development Minister goes around the world opening her purse or his wallet and disbursing an ever-diminishing amount of money. Development policy must now be Government policy.
  The chairman of the Select Committee is present and he will remember what happened the first time members of the Select Committee visited the department of the

  309
  Trade Commissioner in Brussels. That was enormously important and would not have happened in the past. Why should members of the International Development Committee visit the commissioner? We were greeted with pleasure because the relevance of our visit was recognised. I am delighted to say that Pascal Lamy, the Trade Commissioner, will come to speak to us next week about development. That is an enormous step forward because, in the past, the commissioner's job was seen as building fortress Europe. The man responsible for the everything but arms initiative will come here to talk about how he can assist development.
  I congratulate the Opposition on choosing this theme. We should take an important step forward and work with the British people. Many of them have realised that appalling trade rules are in place and that such rules benefit the wealthiest companies and the wealthiest countries and poison the future of the poor.
  I return to the point about transparency, but wish to refer to an issue that has not been mentioned. It is not part of the Trade Justice Movement campaign, but it involves the most fundamental kind of trade justice. We should take action to stop corrupt rulers and elites robbing countries of their natural resources and condemning their people to poverty.
  Simple transparent changes in the accountancy rules and financial regulations for our companies—particularly those that work in extractive industries, such as oil, diamonds and gold—would make an enormous difference. We should require oil companies and others to publish what they pay to the Governments of the countries in which they work. That would curtail the looting that impoverishes developing countries. The campaign, "publish what you pay", has been launched by George Soros, Global Witness and some of our best companies and non-governmental organisations. It would simply require companies to say what they pay to countries in the developing world.
  Let me give a personal example. I have been going to Nigeria for about a dozen years, and I had been looking forward to going with the Select Committee to see for the first time Nigeria under a democratic Government. Previously, the country was run by deeply corrupt military dictatorships, and the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) will share my views on that. It was a deeply disillusioning experience to go there.
  Nigeria discovered oil and plunged into poverty. There is not the slightest doubt that it is a wealthy country that achieved deep poverty because it discovered oil and because Nigerians robbed their country of its resources. When I went there, it was clear that the gravy train continued. It was a democratic society, and it was clear that the politicians had learned their scripts about the forgiving of debt and returning the Abacha money. However, they could not answer a single question about how much money was going from the oil companies into the Nigerian Exchequer. The oil companies and the Government do not say.
  After three years of democratic Government, it should have been possible to point to the schools, the clinics and the services that were there because democracy was in place. However, not one politician or civil servant could point to the improvements that had occurred and that
  310
  would have resulted if 90 per cent. of the oil resources—or whatever the figure may be—had gone into the Nigerian economy.
  I do not question the credentials of President Obasanjo, but he is imprisoned by the system within which he has to work. We have probably all worked in circumstances that were mildly corrupt and in which the whistleblower was everyone's enemy. The whistleblower might even fear for his life. The fact that it has been relatively peaceful in Nigeria at a central Government level indicates that the gravy train continues. That will not change until we help by changing our rules. We need to say to BP, Shell, Exxon, Elf Aquitaine and other companies that work in those areas, "Publish what you pay." That would be an enormous step forward.
  I back the campaign by George Soros, Global Witness, Oxfam and many of our best companies. BP wants to declare what it pays, but Sonangol, the Angolan company, threatened it with losing future rights if it did. Companies must declare what they pay because then the people will know what resources are in their countries.
  Let us take Angola. We rejoice that Savimbi has gone. He was sustained by diamonds. The dos Santos Government in Angola were sustained by oil. But the people of Angola were sustained by nothing. In 2001, the UN had great difficulty raising the $200 million necessary to feed 1 million Angolans who were dependent on emergency food aid. In the same year, Global Witness calculated that more than $1 billion—about a third of state revenue—went missing in unaccountable loans and in paying for highly overpriced military goods, which came in particular from Russia.
  We can have no faith that Angolan politicians will put that right on their own. We have to help by ensuring that developed world companies are not part of the problem. About 90 per cent. of Angola's revenue comes from oil. Whereas in the developed world it would be routine for BP, Shell or any other company to publish what it was paying to the Government, that is not the case everywhere.
  Global Witness has done wonderful work around the world. I see colleagues in the Chamber who visited Cambodia, where we heard that the forest would be gone within about three years because the military was robbing the country of its forests. There are no resources there.
  Global Witness is doing great work in Sierra Leone and Liberia. The simple measure of requiring companies worldwide to say what they put into a developing country would give the people of those countries the power to hold their Governments to account. At the moment, they cannot, and I commend the work of Global Witness and the campaign, "publish what you pay". We all agree about aspirations, but we need concrete specifics on what we should do.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. David Curry: I shall concentrate on the agricultural aspects of trade because they have featured heavily in our debate.
  When people returned from Doha eight months ago after reaching what was an unexpected agreement, a great deal of optimism was in the air. After all, we had pulled it off. The French had had difficulties but they finally produced acceptable phraseology, although subsequently

  311
  it was slightly disputed, and the Commission said that we had agreed to achieve an accord on the modalities of common agricultural policy reform. Modality does not mean the framework but the detail—the nitty-gritty—of CAP reform, which is to be achieved by May 2003. It is important to realise that we are talking about trade-distorting subsidies. No one is talking about eliminating agricultural subsidies. The Government are talking about transferring subsidies to achieve other public good purposes, however they are defined, away from trade-distorting or production-related subsidies. It is important to be precise about that.
  We then had the body blow of what happened in the United States. There is no point in blaming President Bush; the initiative was started by Democrats in Congress. Republicans ran with it and the President did not want to argue against it. Given the characteristic honesty of the Secretary of State, I am surprised that the Government motion does not mention the American Farm Bill. After all, it has been the villain of the piece throughout this afternoon's discussions, and rightly so.
  It is envisaged that the Bill will give $190 billion over 10 years to 2 million American farmers. The interesting thing is how the Americans chose to defend it, because Ann Veneman, the Secretary for Agriculture, effectively said, "Over the past four years, we have piled additional appropriations into agriculture year after year. This is not a unique example of sin. We have been doing it all along and we have put in some $30 billion—you just didn't notice it." Now that the big numbers are there, we have suddenly noticed the context, which is the impact on the world trade round.
  It is true that the so-called American "cap" in the WTO is just over $19 billion, so the American expenditure falls below that. However the problem is that the Americans seem to be moving towards that almost as if it were a target, whereas other major regimes have made an effort to wind down some forms of support and change their purpose. The Europeans were dragged kicking and screaming into the Uruguay round, but in fact the greatest influence on reform of the CAP has been the restrictions that are in place, which still persist in the Uruguay round, and the demands of retailers and consumers.
  What is happening in America is horribly counterproductive. The measure represents a deficiency payment, so increases will go straight through into land prices, and it will provide production incentives, which will keep world prices low. The Bill will not have a long-term benefit for American farmers; I think that it may be of greater benefit to the competitive position of south American farmers. However, it will have a much wider consequence for the rest of the world because the low level of world prices is one reason for the amount of competition on the world markets. That is why it is so easy to export to developing countries and to shut them out of some marketplaces.
  The second wider consequence is that President Bush's action in signing the Bill was manna for every protectionist throughout the world, as we can see from the speed and alacrity with which some of the farm lobbies jumped on it. Their dexterity was amazing to behold. The politicians have piled in on top. The odds of reaching agreement on CAP reform and in the WTO round seem to be much longer, and one reason is that the pretext has
  312
  been broadcast from Washington. Its action seemed to be so much at odds with the philosophy so habitually espoused by the Americans.
  I venture to say that there is a real challenge for those of us who are strongly pro-American and who instinctively think of America as our partner to persuade that great country to re-engage in collective action in all sorts of spheres across the globe. We have seen the United States apparently refusing that collective action—in discussions on climate change, on the alleviation of poverty, on mechanisms for international justice, on steel and then on the Farm Bill. There is a serious concern that, when we all accept the need for collective action to combat terrorism, such action should spread more widely throughout what we call the international community.
  I said that the American action would promote protectionism, so step forward, right stage, Jacques Chirac, who has just been re-elected President of France with an enormous majority. I am sure that the Prime Minister will welcome the defeat of a Socialist Government who were so resistant to liberal economic reforms, but I hope that he has no great faith in President Chirac's conversion to the liberal economic model, which has yet to be espoused with great enthusiasm by any French politician brought up in the Napoleonic tradition.
  The real significance is that we are facing the mid-term review of the CAP. Commissioner Franz Fischler is due shortly to produce his proposals. Those who say that the CAP does not change and that it is still a desperate aberration have not noticed what has happened over the years. I have spent almost all my political life fighting for reform of the CAP, and I continue to do so, but it has shifted enormously. It is moving away from production-related subsidies and towards the espousal of rural development more widely, which makes a great deal of sense, and that is one of the purposes of Mr. Fischler's reform.
  The Europeans are retreating from production-led subsidies just as the Americans seem to have reverted to production-promoting subsidies. It is extremely important that Mr. Fischler wins his battle with the Council of Ministers, but it now looks like a harder battle to win. President Chirac was a farms Minister, and his main complaint about the CAP is probably that there is not enough of it. It will be a difficult argument to get consensus and build a majority in the Council of Ministers in favour of promoting liberalisation.
  Liberalisation is in our interests. Some hon. Members might enjoy eating Polo mints. The sugar-free Polo mints are made by Nestlé Rowntree at York; the fruit-flavoured Polos are made in eastern Europe, because thus they escape the sugar regime and the costs it imposes on business. If hon. Members look at some of the oils produced by Cargill, they will find that investment is now going to Turkey or Ukraine, even though European prices in the grain and oilseed sector are now much closer to world prices and have become manageable.
  We have to face the fact that it is entirely possible that in Germany Mr. Schröder will be defeated, if there is indeed a rightward swing taking place across Europe. Edmund Stoiber is promising to liberalise, despite the tradition of Bavarian-run agriculture in Germany, and I doubt that he would be dragged along on French coat tails, as has too often been the story of German policy. However, the Germans want enlargement, and they cannot

  313
  afford enlargement unless there is reform of the CAP and their contribution decreases. There will therefore be pressure on Mr. Stoiber to maintain some form of liberal agenda.
  All those factors come together. CAP reform has implications for enlargement, and those two factors combined play into Doha. The important thing for all of us is to maintain that movement for reform so that we are able to benefit developing countries, which stand to gain from trade. The victim concept of world trade is incorrect and misguided. Liberalisation, domestic and international, has benefited developing countries and has reduced poverty. A 2002 World Bank study called "Globalisation, Growth and Poverty" has shown that most effectively.
  We need to reassert the WTO agenda. The Prime Minister is dining with Mr. Chirac tonight, and he is shortly to visit north America to discuss the broader issues. It is important that we make the point that liberalisation works. Whether we prefer to describe the case for helping developing countries as philanthropic or self-interested, all of us have a self-interest in ensuring the promotion of liberalisation, so that the world can continue to grow richer through the spread of liberal political philosophy.
  5.42 pm
  John Barrett: As several hon. Members have said, it is good to see so many people on the streets outside Parliament today. People from all parts of the country have travelled to London to make their voices heard and to hear what we have to say. I hope that we do them justice and that contributions from both sides of the House continue to be positive and constructive.
  The issue we are debating has struck a chord with many people from all walks of life and with hon. Members on both sides of the House. As with the Jubilee 2000 campaign to which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) has referred, the number of people who have become involved in this issue, who have raised it with me during surgeries and who have written letters and sent postcards, is quite incredible. For thousands of people to come to London today, something is clearly wrong—so badly wrong that people feel a sense of outrage and injustice. People outside are not asking for a better deal for themselves. They are saying, "Give the poorest of the poor and the hungry and the starving of the world a fair deal—let them have a chance to help themselves, and end a trading system that kicks people when they are down."
  If life is about choices, the contrast between rich and poor has never been so stark. When shopping for food, we often have a choice of 20 different types of cheese, a wall of cereals, and teas and coffees from around the world; meanwhile others no less deserving than ourselves eat grass or sawdust, or starve to death. As if things were not bad enough for the poorest of the poor, the rules of international trade—those relating to the provision of the basics in life, such as food and water—seem to be designed to make them even worse off.
  If a Jaguar fighter bomber, a combat helicopter or submachine guns is required, the wheels of commerce with developing countries spin at great speed. We have only to look at the latest strategic export controls annual
  314
  report, which details arms deals approved by the Government in 2000, to see that poverty-stricken states such as Bangladesh, Malawi and Sudan are not kept out of the trade loop entirely.
  If finance and credit arrangements can be developed to fund some very dubious purchases, such as the £28 million air traffic control system for Tanzania, surely it is not beyond our capabilities to introduce fair trading rules for some of the most basic items that sustain life itself, but we have not done very well so far.
  We have developed a system that undermines the price of crops in developing countries so that farmers cannot sell on the world market, because wealthy nations of the world have subsidised crop prices to a point where their crops are effectively dumped on to the world market. We have a system that can leave the poor without drinking water, while tourists at expensive resorts nearby have their thirst quenched by a water system that has been priced out of the range of local people by a trade agreement which stops their Government providing socially desirable drinking water.
  We have a system under which farmers who for generations have used seeds to grow crops are told that the right to purchase that same seed is now owned by a multinational company which has purchased the patent, and that farmers must not only buy the seed from it, but must pay the new owner a royalty for using the seed. When we have such a system, we have a rotten system, and we had better do something about it, or the people outside will want to know why.
  What has outraged so many people outside Parliament today is that existing trade agreements and proposals around the corner are grinding the poorest of the poor into the dust, while improving the lot of the better off. The real tragedy is that it need not happen at all. The United Nations estimates that poor countries lose £1.3 billion a day because of unjust trade rules—14 times more than they receive in aid.
  Although there are moves to write off the debts of some of the poorest countries, and some progress is being made in that direction, the scale of the remaining problem is daunting. More than half of the heavily indebted poor countries are spending more on servicing debt than on primary education, and two thirds of the world's poorest countries are spending more on debt than on health care.
  In order to trade, those countries must have the shackles of debt removed at the earliest opportunity. In respect of countries to which loans have been provided, we should end the conditions that force them to open up their markets too quickly to the full strength of competition from industrialised countries, which can undermine local producers with subsidised goods or, in the case of farming, expose local farmers to competition from the relatively protected farmers of Europe and the United States. That can have a devastating effect.
  Hon. Members have mentioned examples from around the world, such as Ghana, where the market for rice collapsed while rice from the US was flooding in. In contrast, there are good examples as well. For instance, Mauritius adopted a positive trade regime which resulted in a wide range of products being exported, economic growth, a reduction in income inequality and an increase in life expectancy. A targeted trade policy with the right incentives can help exporters and produce a win-win result.

  315
  The World Bank estimates that the reform of the international trade rules for developing countries could lift 300 million people out of poverty. We must make a start. In Europe, we must reform the common agricultural policy to stop dumping and agree deadlines for doing that. Pressure should be maintained on all those who attend the ever-increasing number of summits, such as the world summit in South Africa later this year.
  There is no excuse for patenting any plant form that has been grown for generations, and changes must be made to stop that scandal. Markets must be opened up to developing countries and the practice of dumping agricultural products on world markets must be stopped. The EU has failed to provide access for all exports from the 49 poorest and least developed countries in the world, and that must change. Recently, as was mentioned earlier, the US Farm Bill increased subsidies to American farmers by 70 per cent. over 10 years, making it even harder for developing countries to compete or enter the US domestic market.
  Trade agreements should be developed to help the poor, to protect the environment and to be a force for positive change. If that development does not take place, we shall all suffer as we help to develop a world where the obese watch the poor starve to death on television. All that is being asked for is what is fair. We should settle for nothing else.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on recognising the importance of the issue by devoting the debate to it. I congratulate also the 10,000 people who have emphasised their concerns by coming to London and demonstrating on the streets of London. Somewhat unusually in an Opposition day debate, I congratulate the Secretary of State on a constructive and, in some ways, brave contribution, and one which I welcome.
  I was keen to participate in the debate because before I was elected to the House, when as my mother puts it, I had a proper job, I was for the best part of a decade involved in working on aid programmes in developing countries. I have always been concerned about these issues. I reached one conclusion overall as a result of those years of experience that was rather unfashionable at the time. That was that peoples in developing countries—I worked primarily in Africa, but also in Asia—can and will become prosperous in due course, as other countries have before them. by their own efforts and not as the result of aid provided for them by others. Aid has an important humanitarian role in dealing with famine and in supporting health and other infrastructure, but ultimately countries can and will develop through their own efforts.
  I had experience in developing countries and I was unable to identify an industrial project that could not be financed privately and that needed aid finance. Indeed, I undertook a study for the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. It was welcomed by that body, and it was so keen that it wanted to provide support for it. Such is the speed of bureaucracy that by the time it got round to it, every project that I had identified in countries that allowed free enterprise to operate had spontaneously been put into operation by local entrepreneurs, using local savings or employing outside investment.
  316
  These countries can develop themselves, but the speed and ease with which they do so will depend on the opportunities open to them, and above all the opportunities to trade with the already prosperous and developed countries.
  As the Oxfam report suggests, trade is far more important than aid in quantitative terms for the growth of developing countries. That is why the hypocrisy of the developed world, which pretends to be in favour of the development of less developed countries but reserves its most severe protectionist measures for the poorest countries and the poorest people in them, is so tragic. It is shameful to us as members of the European Union that the Oxfam report, in its double-standards index, singles out the EU as the worst hypocrite in that respect. Our tariffs and protectionist measures tend to focus on areas that are most important to the third world, such as agriculture, labour-intensive manufacturing and anti-dumping measures. They are focused on the products that are in the most competitive markets. There are about 145 EU anti-dumping measures against products from developing countries. There are a further 80 from the United States and 22 from Canada.
  I believe that such shameful hypocrisy is sustained by three fallacies. The first is the belief that trade is a zero sum game. It is thought that if someone does well, that is at the expense of someone doing badly. It so happens that a benign providence has ordained that both parties benefit from trade. We need to convince our colleagues, including our French colleagues, who are perhaps less familiar with this concept, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, that it is possible for both us and the developing world to benefit from opening our markets to them.
  The converse is that both sides suffer from protection. Protection is much the same as imposing an embargo on a country. I think that it was Winston Churchill who said that prohibiting access to imports is what we do to our enemies in times of war and to ourselves in times of peace. We must convince our colleagues in the EU that preventing our people having access to the products and services that those in developing countries can competitively provide us with is damaging to us as well as being cruelly damaging to them, and utterly indefensible morally.
  The second fallacy is the patronising belief that less developed countries cannot compete. That leads to a sort of new liberal imperialism, to a view that developed countries should be kept outside the global market, to be sustained by aid and hand-outs unless and until the rules can be changed to bias the system in their favour so that they can compete.
  That is often expressed in calls that contrast free trade with fair or just trade. That is an unwise mistake. For the developing countries, free trade in the sense of free access to our markets is what is fair and just and what they need. We must not offer an excuse to those who wish to delay the dismantling of protection by saying, "We cannot do that until we have fair trade, or just trade. Free trade is a wicked, dangerous liberal Anglo-Saxon invention."
  That approach is also dangerous in that it is used to justify the contrast between free trade and fair or just trade. It is used to justify the restrictions that are often upheld by the third fallacy that I wish to mention, which is almost the opposite of the second. It is the belief that

  317
  far from developing countries being unable to compete, they are able to compete with our industries unfairly because they are willing to accept subsistence or poverty wages, which are said to be an unfair means of competition that will have the effect of driving down pay in Europe to levels elsewhere.
  That argument is often used to justify anti-dumping restrictions on trade from countries where pay is extremely low, where employment conditions are inadequate or where environment standards are low. However, it is ultimately an absurd argument. It condemns people in developing countries who at least have minimal or dreadfully low rates of pay to have no pay, and no access to our markets until somehow, miraculously, they are in a position to receive higher pay.
  Pay reflects productivity. No one can charge more than the value of what he produces because he will price himself out of the market. Pay is low in developing countries because productivity is low. It is not because people are incompetent or inefficient. It is because they have not had time to accumulate the capital, both physical and intellectual, which works alongside the labour of developed countries and enables an individual to produce perhaps 10 times as much in value as those in developing countries.
  As developing countries are allowed access to our markets and build up and acquire capital—especially the intellectual capital of experience—they will increase their productivity and their pay will rise. The idea that they willingly accept low or subsistence wages and are prepared to continue doing so until they have driven us all out of business is nonsense and defies the experience of countries that have satisfactorily entered the world market, built up export markets and built up their own economies.
  We must fight these fallacies if we are to overcome the hypocrisy that unfortunately means that we impoverish the third world at the same time as diminishing our own well-being. We can convince the people of Europe, as of our own country, that it is in our interests as well as being our moral obligation to those in poor countries to open our markets to their goods, and that we shall benefit as they benefit. We can then do ourselves a good turn as well as fulfilling our obligation to the poor and needy of the world.
  6 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I should like to concur with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has just said in an excellent speech. As you have been in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think that you will have had the opportunity to go outside and see the huge number of people taking part in today's demonstration and lobby of Parliament. What is most impressive about the demonstration is that it shows how many people care deeply about world poverty. That is extremely important and very encouraging for us all. The Secretary of State said earlier in a sedentary intervention that the Conservative party had changed. She is quite wrong, as huge numbers of the people outside are Conservatives. Indeed, huge numbers of supporters of the NGOs have always been Conservatives, as I suggest she
  318
  knows full well. I do not know whether the majority are Conservatives, but there is certainly a great number of them. None the less, this is not partisan issue and there is general agreement throughout the House in all the speeches that have been made.
  Clare Short: I was not trying to speak in a sectarian spirit in raising the issue, but the record of the Conservative party in power is different from the welcome position that it has now adopted and to which the hon. Gentleman makes a big contribution. That is a very welcome change, but it is change none the less.
  Mr. Robathan: I shall not get into that argument in a 10-minute speech. I disagree with the Secretary of State on this issue, as on few others relating to development, although I disagree with her profoundly about many other matters. It is a pity that the Government have tabled an amendment to the motion, as it contains nothing that is offensive to them. I will be sorry if it forces us to a Division, because everybody who has spoken has generally agreed.
  The problem about speaking late in a debate, as I always tend to do, is that all the points that one had wanted to make have often been made already. I will not repeat them, but excellent points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about Italian tomatoes in Ghana, by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) about NGOs and how they sometimes wish to stifle changes in culture, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), who referred to the accountability of NGOs, which we should revisit as a House. My fellow member of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), spoke about the oil corruption that he saw in Nigeria, but which I did not see.
  I do not want to reiterate all the points that have been made, as it would bore the House, apart from anything else. I should like to stick with three issues. The first is the common agricultural policy, which was eloquently described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). The policy is changing, and that is all to the good. I should state that I have an interest, as I am a farmer. I probably should not be arguing for greater reform, therefore, but I do so, because I think that the way in which farming and export subsidies are given is absolutely outrageous. It is sometimes very difficult to look the developing world in the eye with regard to this issue, on which I think that the Government and the Opposition are at one. This dumping—some of what is happening is dumping—costs us almost half the European Union budget, at a cost of 41 billion euro, and works against the environment, the consumer, farmers, who are driven out of business, and the developing world.
  The second point, which was again raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, is about US farm subsidies, which are moving in entirely the wrong way, representing some $180 billion or $190 billion dollars over 10 years. In so far as one should support any foreign Government, I support the Government of George Bush, but I regret the decision. My right hon. Friend pointed out that it was a Democrat-led decision as much as anything else, but I think that we would all agree that it was a retrograde step.

  319
  Indeed, we can see the developed world getting richer. In my lifetime, it has become profoundly richer. We have bigger cars, we eat more and we have problems with obesity—problems that did not exist when I was born in 1951. We are all getting richer, and while that is happening, parts of the developing world, especially in Africa, are getting dramatically poorer. That is very disturbing and distressing. My third point is this: what are developing countries doing for themselves?
  I recently visited Sudan, and I visited the Congo last year. The sort of conflict that has taken place there destroys trade and deters inward investment. Besides killing people or making them starve, it exacerbates and causes poverty. From speaking about the Congo, one can move on to Zimbabwe, which has traditionally exported agricultural products, but is now starving. While it is starving, the kleptocracy of the military in Zimbabwe is looting the diamonds of the Congo. We are not responsible for that—those people are.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury mentioned tomatoes in Ghana—a country that is doing well and improving. I visited a tomato field there where four big pumps had previously been used to irrigate an area of about 45 hectares. At the time of my visit, however, only about eight hectares were being irrigated with one smaller pump. The reason was straightforward: nobody had bothered to invest in the pumps. There had been appalling management and a lack of investment—for all I know, there may also have been corruption—but it is no good blaming the developed world for that.
  I am afraid that such problems are due to lack of capacity. The Secretary of State talked about increasing capacity in developing countries and that is what we need to look at. I think that the plant was run by a co-operative, but it could just as easily have been a foreign-run company. We moved on from the unirrigated fields to the tomato processing plant, which had closed down two years before and was a derelict site. Again, that was not the fault of the developed world, but was purely a fact—so it appeared to us and so we were told—of inefficiency, maladministration and poor management.
  Oxfam raised the issue of rice in Ghana with me just before the visit, so while in Ghana I asked what had happened to the rice industry. The Ghanaians replied that the rice produced there was not very edible and that they preferred the imported rice. I do not know about that, but it appears to be the case. Again, we must not always blame the developed world.
  My real point about this issue—the Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear me say this, as we have been smiling at each other about it—concerns corruption. We have heard about Uganda and how poverty there fell by 40 per cent. in the 1990s. Why not Nigeria, the second country that the Committee visited this year, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie? I understand that in 1980, its GDP per capita was approximately US$1,200, but by 2000, it was down to not much more than $300. Yet that country has oil revenue of US$18 billion a year. Where is that money going? Why are two thirds of the population living on less than a dollar a day? I am afraid that it is very obvious where that money is going; it is being picked from the pockets of the poor by the kleptocracy that runs that country. As the hon. Member for Clydebank and
  320
  Milngavie—I hope that he is also a friend—said, it may call itself a democracy, but we need to see a lot more action there.
  Other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall end my speech with these final comments. Yes, we must make trade fair. That is absolutely essential. It must be equitable, but equity and fairness must extend and reach down to the very poorest in the developing world, because it is the poor who suffer most from poor governance. Let us ensure, of course, that our trade is fair, but let us also help the countries of Africa to develop good, open, fair and honest government. That is not easy, but it is absolutely essential.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. James Paice: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), I want to concentrate on food and agriculture issues, but I am in an unfortunate position, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has already dismissed part of my argument as an absurd fallacy. I hope that I can persuade him to retract at least slightly.
  As somebody who has spent most of his working life in or close to the world of agriculture and food production, whenever I visit any foreign country, but especially those in the developing world, I immediately consider that aspect of their world and their rural community. Like other hon. Members who have spoken from all parts of the House. I am often horrified to discover the amount of food that is being imported by a poor country that patently has the natural resources to produce that food itself. There are very few countries that could not meet most, if not all, of their basic requirements if the political and economic situation allowed them to do so. I do not think that many countries have such a natural disadvantage that they could not make a significant contribution.
  Clare Short: The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) mentioned the distortions of international trade and low prices. Commodity prices are still falling and falling, and that feeds into inefficiency. Allowing Africa to process its agricultural production, bring it into our markets and use its cheaper labour would create more efficiency. We are partly responsible for the gross inefficiencies because prices are so terrible.
  Mr. Paice: With respect, I am not quite sure of the point of the Secretary of State's intervention. I do not dissent from her argument, as I said that there are not many countries with natural disadvantages such as climate and soil that would prevent them from becoming largely self-sufficient. However, I shall come on to the many other reasons that may stop them.
  It is misguided to think that there may be simple solutions. All these countries face the dilemma of whether their priority should be to produce food for their own consumption and make sure that their own people have the necessary nutrition, or whether to earn money from exports, which go much wider than agriculture alone. That has been a dilemma for decades. Some of us are old enough to remember the abortive groundnut scheme which created a furore because it was aimed at exports rather than self-sufficiency.
  A few years ago, I visited Zambia with the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). We went to York farm, a large operation, developed by the

  321
  Commonwealth Development Corporation. It has since been sold, but it produced vegetables, primarily green beans, mangetout and so on, for export to supermarkets in this country. Many of its products were for the consumer who wanted to buy temperate vegetables all year round. Although it earned valuable income from exports, there was something almost obscene about the fact that the farm managers had to give all the workers a glass of glucose drink in the morning because they were so malnourished that they could not do a day's work without it. That is a sad indictment of the balance that we have managed to achieve in world trade.
  There is huge potential in Zambia and many adjoining sub-Saharan countries. Several hon. Members referred to Zimbabwe as a prime example of self-inflicted problems. Having once been a major producer of food, the country is now in dire straits. However, protection and protectionism are not the right way to proceed. There are a lot of siren voices and there is a superficial attraction in a protectionist attitude that allows a country's agriculture to develop free from cheap imports. That attraction, however, is short term and stifles initiative and progress. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said, it smacks of preventing any development or advancement for people. There is no long-term future in peasant agriculture, and increasing affluence will lead people away from it of their own volition.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), the previous junior Minister in the Department for International Development, said:
  "Africa loses 40 per cent. of the savings that it generates each year. That money flees the continent every year.—[Official Report. Westminster Hall, 10 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 19WH.]
  I submit that that is partly because many people do not have the confidence to leave their money in Africa as a result of the political instability, corruption, maladministration and sheer bad economic management that are at the root of many its problems.
  On agricultural policies, as other hon. Members have said, the CAP is a major part of the problem, but it has changed and is changing. However, that change needs to go much further, as it does in agricultural policies in other parts of the world. I wholly support the need to eliminate export subsidies, which do much damage to indigenous agriculture. There is no dispute among hon. Members about that. There is no justification for any tariff barrier imposed directly on food products and I strongly support eliminating production subsidies. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon rightly said, the Doha agreement refers to reductions in support that distorts trade, rather than reductions in all support. I share the concerns of many people about the hypocrisy of the United States in supporting the Cairns group in WTO talks for moving towards free trade on the one hand and on the other introducing the Farm Bill, which was rightly condemned by many hon. Members this evening.
  However, to pick up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, I have a major concern about fair trade, which should operate in two directions. There should be fair trade to developing countries and for our own businesses, which raises two distinct issues in food and farming.
  322
  The first is the safety of imported food products for human, plant and animal health. If we impose controls on our own producers, it is self-evident that the same controls should apply to any imported food. Those controls are provided, at least in theory, by Codex Alimentarius, the international plant protection convention, the Office of International Epizootics and the sanitary and phyto-sanitary agreement in the Uruguay round, but they should not be used as an excuse to adopt high levels of protection as a barrier against trade. In practice, there are grave doubts as to whether those controls are rigorously enforced.
  The second issue is production systems. Should we expect our own producers to compete with food produced using systems that are not allowed here? I am not referring, as my right hon. Friend did, to matters such as pay levels, on which we cannot pretend to compete, nor to climatic issues or other things that we cannot do anything about in this country. If we impose constraints—I am talking about agriculture, but this applies more widely—on animal welfare, it is not fair to expect our producers to compete with countries that do not have the same level of regulation. I used to advocate preventing those food products from coming in. I was wrong. The way forward—this is part of the reform of the CAP that I want—is translating production support, which is wrong, into direct support to compensate for the controls that we impose on our own producers and do not apply to the overseas producers who are entering our markets.
  It is no comfort to a battery hen to know that she will no longer have to stay in a battery cage in Britain if far more hens are kept in battery cages somewhere in the third world in far worse conditions. That is not in the interests of animal welfare nor of this country or the developing world. Our reforms should he directed at the public good and compensate for the controls that we impose on our own producers. That proposal was submitted to the WTO in 2000 and would have put payments in the green box, and thus outside the issue of production subsidies. I commend that strongly to Her Majesty's Government as part of the liberalising of trade that we support.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. John Lyons: Today has been unique, as people from all over the United Kingdom have come to the Commons to lobby Members. They are from various backgrounds and different age groups but every Member who has met them must have been struck by the number of young people who feel strongly about the issue.
  In the past, we have heard in debates in the House about young people's apathy and lack of involvement. Today, that argument was demolished, as those young people care deeply about this issue and want us to do something about it collectively. We must recognise that they do not want extensive speeches, articles and soundbites but progress and a proper response to their calls for action. In today's heat, the lobby was a breath of fresh air. People spoke with a passion that is sometimes missing in political debate. That was not a one-off just for today, but something for every day for a long time. We must try to ensure that we take on board the points that they are making.
  People have an almost absolute distrust of politicians in this respect. Those in today's lobby do not think that we will be serious about delivering on their objectives,

  323
  but that we will listen to them on the day and, once they have gone, completely forget about their campaign. We need to find a way of saying collectively, across the House, that that is not what we are about. We are all concerned not only to listen to the points that were made to us, but to take them on board and, hopefully, to end up with a political objective with which people will feel confident and comfortable. That is a major challenge to us all, irrespective of political background.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to listen to the Chancellor talk about globalisation, trade and poverty. As a Labour Member, of course I was going to be happy with what he said, but it was interesting that people of no political persuasion were delighted by the progress that is being made. However, they did not think that that was the end of the story—they wanted more progress. They wanted the Government to push even further and more strongly at every international level. The lobby is important and timely, given that the Seville European council and the G8 summit in Canada are coming up. Those conferences will be major platforms for the agenda of the people who lobbied us today. We need to find ways of ensuring that something concrete comes out of those conferences—not just a lot of talk, but developments that will enable people to say that, for a change, politicians have made genuine advances and improvements, or at least that they have an agenda that will build on the objectives of today's lobby.
  I find a common thread as I speak to people from various parts of the country, including my constituency. They call out for a new and different approach to replace the patched-up arrangements of the past—something more radical. They want an approach to food and farming that protects poor farmers. They want a reconsideration of plans to liberalise vital services such as water. That point was made strongly today. For third-world countries, water is an issue that can be dealt with very simply. I say that as an engineer. Desalination plants can be built in almost any European country and used to convert salt water into fresh drinking water for the third world. It is not a major problem, but we do not confront it and deal with it, and people will die as a result.
  We need to make progress on these issues as a House, not only as a Government, because broad support is required. We want to go to the conferences to argue for a position that will take matters forward, but we cannot avoid the fact that we need other countries—in Europe and in other parts of the world, such as Canada and America—to say and do the same thing, giving proper constructive support to our objectives. We do not want to be seen as having a different, broader agenda that will move forward faster—that would be a waste of time, because it will not move forward at all if we do not have a collective approach that takes people with us.
  It would also be a waste of time to have a debate about what went wrong in the past. We need to move on to talk about where we are now. People want us to continue to do what we are doing, but they want more of it—more aid and more practical support. The issue will not go away. The people who lobbied us today are nothing more than a representative group of the millions of people who feel the same. We feel that in our constituencies. I particularly salute the work of the Churches, which have played an outstanding role. Not long ago, a local church asked me to get involved in a sponsored day of famine. I said, "No problem: I can do that for 24 hours."
  324
  The wonderful thing was the number of schoolkids who were prepared to do the same because they felt so strongly about poverty and starvation.
  All across the country—age group and political background do not matter—millions of people want us to do something constructive. We need to do that across party lines by agreeing on the agenda and saying, "This is what we are after." It is not a matter of the UK acting alone, but of the UK leading the world and bringing in other countries to support our cause. If we do that, people will at last feel less distrust. They will be happier with politicians who are on board walking the walk and talking the talk, and will give us the proper recognition that is important to us.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Russell Brown: I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate. Like many hon. Members, I have been attending the lobby and listening to people. I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) said about that. Those people turned up from every corner of the country, and each and every one of them deserves thanks for what they have done. That said, no one from my constituency came. Whether that is because they trust me to act on their behalf or because they think I am a lost cause is up to them to determine.
  Two or three years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) came to my constituency, and we held an excellent meeting with local churches. It was attended not only by church members, but by young people from secondary schools, to whom this issue means a great deal. This afternoon, I spent a considerable time—perhaps more than they would have liked—talking to young students who wanted to do a question and answer session that they could take back to university with them. One of their questions was, "How much of an impact do you think all this will have?" As my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden said, everyone is saying the same thing, but—let's not kid ourselves—they are sceptical about how politicians respond. The students also wondered how much impact the lobby would have on the news. I had to say to them—and I hope I am wrong—that regrettably they will not get much coverage.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend referred to the young people who lobbied many hon. Members this afternoon. Does he agree that, at a time when we are told that the young are disillusioned with politics, it is extraordinarily cheering that they care so deeply that they come from every part of the kingdom to speak to us? Does he also agree that we must repay that fervour and commitment, otherwise we shall never be worthy of their support or their engagement in politics?
  Mr. Brown: I could not have put that better; I admire my hon. Friend's way with words. He is right that we need to repay that trust. Perhaps young people mistrust politicians rather than politics. However, they will not get news coverage. They tried to compare their actions today with the anti-globalisation demonstrations, but those got coverage because of the violence that occurred—anarchists were loose on the streets in different parts of the world—whereas today there was a structured and positive lobby, which bodes well.

  325
  Poverty and sustainable development must be the highest priority in the changes to world trade rules. We must carefully consider plans to liberalise vital services. On the simple matter—if I dare call it that—of water, the difference that it can make to some of the poorest countries is beyond belief. We must be careful about the way in which we manage that vital commodity.
  The Seville European Council this week and the G8 summit in Canada later this month present every nation with excellent opportunities to move the agenda forward. Our Government have promised to support fair trade rules, although, for some reason, others question our commitment to fair trade.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the 10 years since the Rio conference, the international community has not moved substantially? Does he accept that that is one of the reasons for the dissatisfaction among young people? Does he agree that it is important to take the opportunity at the next conference to do something constructive and positive?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. Our actions must be positive, constructive and tangible. We must take action that people can clearly perceive as making a difference.
  We want free and fair trade. We are committed to making globalisation work for the poorest countries. Hon. Members have said that rich nations' use of agricultural subsidies can harm the livelihoods of farmers in developing countries. Agricultural export subsidies must reduce rapidly, and dumping must end. As hon. Members know, at Doha, WTO members agreed to negotiate a new draft agreement on agriculture by March next year. The Government will work towards ensuring that it contains significant commitments.
  It is not right to insulate developing countries from global trade because that would undoubtedly limit their opportunities of achieving economic growth. Improved market access is a key component of ensuring that the agreement at Doha is a true development round. It is imperative that WTO members demonstrate a genuine commitment to opening markets that are important to developing countries, not least in agriculture. The EU already grants duty-free access to the least-developed countries under the everything but arms initiative.
  I am conscious of time and I simply want to end on the new global laws that may be needed to regulate the activities of international corporations. I believe that the Government support adopting a sensible combination of regulatory and voluntary approaches, which will harness the benefits of corporate social responsibility for all sections of society. We are leading efforts to legislate on this matter. For example, a recent amendment to pensions legislation requires trustees to disclose the extent to which they take ethical, social and environmental issues into account in their investment decisions. The OECD convention on bribery has also been incorporated into UK law.
  However, to avoid stifling innovation, caution must be exercised when imposing binding rules. The Government encourage companies to follow voluntary corporate social
  326
  responsibility strategies, which will allow them to respond flexibly to their circumstances and those of the country in which they invest. Such investment is needed.
  We all need to begin to deliver not only for young people but for everyone who has taken the time and made the effort to come here today. If we begin to deliver more substantially, people will realise that politicians can assist in tackling a major world issue.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: A rare event has taken place today—a debate that has been largely free of acrimony and a debate about ideas. I have been a Member of Parliament for more than 19 years, and I can say that views in both major parties have changed. I have no doubt that the way in which the Labour party has embraced the market constitutes a revolution, which I welcome. In 1983, some Conservative Members would have resented the fact that we were debating overseas aid, development and trade. I concede that changes have occurred on both sides.
  People outside the House will wonder why we are arguing about whether to have a vote. It will seem a little like debating the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. The usual channels display an amour propre on such occasions: it is our half-day debate and we have tabled a motion. We will, of course, support our motion. The Government's actions remain to be seen. Whatever happens, people will recognise that the debate has been remarkable.
  I was impressed by the way in which the Secretary of State abandoned her speech and spoke from the heart. It did not surprise me, but it impressed me and I liked some of the new phrases that she used. For example, she said that we should all globalise our minds and she spoke about the "globaphobes" who attack the consensus. She has provided some new ideas. She is right that we cannot be for or against globalisation; it is a fact of life and we must determine the way in which we manage it.
  I was grateful for the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and his deep knowledge of the subject. He spoke about the painstaking work of reforming the CAP and the Doha process, which will occupy us for at least two years. He also made a strong point when he said that we must support the reformers in the developing countries and that for every monster, there is someone who is trying to reform and bring a country into the international community.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) was right that no one has a monopoly on compassion and to stress the importance of the growing lack of accountability in some nongovernmental organisations. He also emphasised the need to promote accountability and transparency throughout development thinking.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) knows more than most of us about this subject. I was struck by his comments on the need to make it clear that liberalisation benefits developing countries as much as us.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) spoke about the hypocrisy of the developed world and the shameful attitude of our European Union in not accepting our responsibilities.

  327
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) drew on his personal experience in Sudan, a country that I feel strongly is one of the great forgotten conflicts and disasters of Africa. He also drew attention to the plight of the people of Zimbabwe who are starving while their own army loots diamonds elsewhere.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) spoke from great practical experience about the need to examine the issue of food safety, and to take on board the issues of animal welfare and of what is fair for British farmers as well as those in developing countries.
  I was struck by the common sense of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), who spoke of the breath of fresh air that today's debate represents, and of how hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have had to face up to the problem of distrust of politicians. The hon. Gentleman said that today's events must not be a one-day wonder, and that we must respect the wishes of the thousands of people from across the country who expect us to do our duty in the coming years, and to live up to the words that we have spoken.
  We have listened to some serious speeches in the House today, but we have also listened to and witnessed the mass lobby of Parliament that has taken place outside. The thousands of people who have come to London, including those from my own constituency and diocese of Salisbury, represent countless other citizens of all ages who mind very deeply about the state of the world and the plight of so many of its people.
  I share their anger that 800 million people do not have enough food to meet their basic nutritional needs. In a shrinking world of high technology and expanding opportunities, it is just not credible to ordinary people in the rich countries of the developed world that we cannot break the cycle of poverty, sickness and death from starvation that we witness every day. Most of us agree that we have a moral duty to seek ways of managing these humanitarian crises better. We may sometimes disagree on how to do that, although there has been precious little disagreement in this debate.
  Those who control the levers of economic and foreign policy—the Governments of the world and the international institutions—are staffed by professional advisers with laudable motives. But to the hungry world, it looks as if there are too many international arrangements, too many bodies with overlapping mandates, and too many duplicated responsibilities—not only in respect of food security but in the whole international apparatus for supporting human needs and development.
  That issue is underlined by the partners in the Trade Justice Movement. That remarkable coalition of organisations has organised today's lobby, and we must listen to it. All the organisations have grass-roots, everyday, personal experience of the poverty, sickness and death that are a reality for hundreds of millions of people. Those people are not prosperous, not educated, not secure and not safe. They are certainly not rich enough, nor relaxed enough, to watch the World cup on television and go to the pub to celebrate.
  We have listened to the messages of each of those 43 organisations—I think it is 43; the number has been going up in the last week or two—that make up the Trade Justice Movement. Last weekend, I visited every one of
  328
  their websites. It was a moving and enriching experience. Websites not only allow us to get the message direct, without the need for any press or media; they also reduce the spin. What we get is direct and unvarnished. The internet is a valuable and powerful tool, and we should harness that power, because power is what it is all about. The Trade Justice Movement is about empowering the worst-off in the world. The best-off must realise that it is in everyone's interest to move more quickly than we have done, to alleviate poverty and to combat hunger and starvation among the poorest and most vulnerable people on earth.
  Way back in 1996, under the Conservative Government, we agreed at the world food summit that it was intolerable that 800 million people did not have enough food to meet their basic needs. The world community concluded then that this was caused by poverty, conflict, and a lack of water, drains, roads and health care. We agreed to work to halve that number by 2015. It seems now that there is precious little prospect of achieving that goal. What has gone wrong?
  International trade has been the great driver of prosperity for 50 years, rising at double the rate of growth of the world economy. International investment is the force pushing forward global investment. Freer trade and foreign investment have enabled parts of south-east Asia to move from developing to developed status in a generation. Poor countries are generally more dependent on trade than rich countries; they receive eight times more each year from trade than they receive in aid. The UN conference on trade and development estimates that, by 2005, developing countries could earn $700 billion more each year from exports if tariff barriers were reduced.
  There is no simple way of promoting global economic development. We need to understand why investment flows to some developing countries and not to others. We must identify comparative advantage, create conditions for sustaining investment flows, and condemn corruption, as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) said. We must also build markets and support democratic political frameworks that lead to stability and prosperity.
  We agree with the Trade Justice Movement that current international trade rules hold back development in poor countries. Those countries cannot compete in the global market while the European Union and the United States subsidise our exports and impose tariffs on our imports. The market is distorted and reform is imperative.
  We hope, however, that the partners in the Trade Justice Movement will also listen to some of the gentle messages that we are offering them about accountability and openness. I believe that they are wrong to condemn the general agreement on trade in services. In many countries, water and sewerage infrastructure is sadly a low national spending priority. If private companies can provide or manage a service, where public infrastructure has collapsed or none exists, and if they are willing to invest—perhaps sharing the risk with the Export Credits Guarantee Department, which is currently having yet another review—then it is better that the GATS rules exist.
  I believe that the Trade Justice Movement should also be cautious in condemning the activities of international companies. It is demanding
  "new global rules to regulate and re-direct the activities of international business".

  329
  However, it has no idea who would write the rules or who would police them. The fact is that the multinational companies are already regulated by the national laws of every country in which they operate, and are subject to internationally agreed codes of practice. The evidence is that multinationals operate to a higher standard than most national businesses. They cannot afford to take chances or cut corners. Too much is at stake in their home country, from the Government and from their shareholders alike.
  We have had the world food summit of 1996, the Uruguay round, the Monterrey consensus and the Doha development agenda. Earlier, we even had the Torquay round. In Bali, we had the fourth preparatory committee for the world summit on sustainable development, which will take place in Johannesburg from 26 August to 4 September. Next weekend sees the EU Heads of Government summit in Spain. On 26 June, the G8 Summit will take place in Canada, where the member states will discuss the New Partnership for Africa's Development—NEPAD—focusing on conflict, trade, education, health, development assistance and debt, where G8 policies affect Africa.
  In this dizzy round of jet set wheeling and dealing, we ask the Government, on behalf of the most vulnerable in the world, and on behalf of all those the length and breadth of the UK who support the motives of the Trade Justice Movement, for action as well as words. We must remember daily so many people in Africa, especially in Zimbabwe and in Sudan, where my brave friend Archbishop Joseph Morona recently risked crossing the military front line in the Nuba mountains in the search for peace and food for his desperate people.
  We look forward to the response to this debate by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development. We know that she spent some years as a journalist in South Africa in the 1970s. She will have seen for herself real poverty and desperation in the eyes of children, just as I have in Mozambique, west Africa, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
  For goodness sake, the Department of Trade and Industry has eight Ministers. One of them should have been present at this debate, although I concede that they might not know as much about the subject as the Under-Secretary. On Sunday morning last, I listened to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry being interviewed. She was robust on the need for the EU to phase out export subsidies and to remove import tariffs from the poorest countries. She was firm in her call for African countries to dismantle the trade barriers that they erect between themselves. However, she was hesitant about the time scale, and admitted that the Doha talks would go on for two years. That is too long for millions of the 800 million starving people in the world, for many of whom two more years is a death sentence. Two years and counting: in June 2004, we will expect this Government to give us answers, not epitaphs.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): It is a privilege to reply to this debate, which has focused on a major issue of our time that is absolutely crucial to world justice and stability—a fact that is surely reflected in the
  330
  massive support for world trade reform from the voluntary sector and Church-based groups throughout the country. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the outset, such support from a mass movement—including large numbers of young people, as many hon. Friends have said—working with Government constitutes a real watershed.
  One in five of the world's population—some 1.2 billion people—live in abject poverty, and we recognise that current levels of sheer deprivation and inequality constitute one of the biggest challenges that we face. The Government have put the eradication of world poverty high on their list of priorities, and we recognise the key role that trade has to play in combating it. Indeed, we have not only recognised, but taken action on, several of the issues that hon. Members have raised, and I shall explain what we have done in due course. However, it will be virtually impossible to deal with all the points that were raised, and I shall of course write to those hon. Members whom I miss out.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the history of the thinking on trade and development. Our second White Paper on development makes two key policy commitments: to work with others to reduce poverty systematically, and to promote economic growth that is equitable and environmentally sustainable. This Government have steadily increased our overseas aid budget from the very low levels inherited from the previous Conservative Government, and we are committed to continue increasing it. This Government did not just talk about debt relief—we led the world on it.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Keeble: No, I have only a few minutes. In addition to debt relief, we have also provided opportunities for trade development for the poorest countries. This Government are also leading the world in seeking to change the rules, so that markets to developing countries will be opened up. In trade as in other areas, the paths of the poorest countries and the rest of the world have diverged in economic terms. For those countries that have seized the opportunity presented by increasingly open world markets to increase exports and attract inward investment, there has been real progress in reducing poverty. However, the poorest have become more marginalised, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) rightly pointed out. That is why reducing tariffs, reducing trade barriers between developing and developed countries, and reducing barriers between developing countries themselves, is so important.
  A fairer, rules-based system will ensure that developing countries have access to our markets, and that they are not consistently trapped at the low-value, impoverished end of a supply chain that culminates in some of the wealthiest consumer markets in the developed world. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and several other hon. Members raised that issue in relation to commodities, and it is one reason why the change in tariffs is so important. More processing must be introduced in developing countries. so that their produce can be moved higher up the value chain.
  This Government have led Europe in pushing for the CAP reform to which the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) referred. It was an argument that we had

  331
  to win, and we did so with some difficulty. I accept that progress might seem glacial, but it must be made through consensus, and the everything but arms agreement and Doha do indeed constitute progress. As the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, it is a question not simply of caring, but of taking action. We must care enough to work through the systems, change the rules and produce the improvements that developing countries and the world's poor so greatly need. This Government have consistently done just that by working with Europe, and with world opinion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for City of York highlighted the need to embed trade in development policy, and, like several other hon. Members, he underlined some of the issues relating to governance. We need to ensure that financial, justice and land tenure systems are in place to provide the framework for trade, and to help developing countries attract investment. Such systems will ensure that the benefits of trade are recycled into building up the economies of developing countries, and do not simply disappear into foreign bank accounts, or into the back pockets of the elite. That is why my Department does so much work with developing countries on issues of governance, including justice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) was right to pay tribute to the real change in the climate of public opinion here and abroad, and to the role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in achieving that change. She was also right to say that wisdom does not rest entirely on one side of the argument; sometimes, we need to listen a little more to developing countries, and lecture a little less.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) mentioned retaining profits for investment in developing countries, and generating new funds for investment. My Department is working on those issues. For example, the emerging Africa enterprise fund has produced investment funds for major infrastructure projects. Several hon. Members rightly highlighted the change in UK legislation to ensure that companies that bribe people can be prosecuted, even when such offences are committed abroad—a point that deals with some of the issues of governance raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) mentioned trade reform. The Government welcomed the lobby on trade reform, and we worked with the non-governmental organisations and countries involved. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire highlighted some of the problems associated with agriculture, and I have already dealt with commodities and the process involved, and with land ownership systems. Of course, we recognise that 70 per cent. of the world's poor live in rural areas, and that agricultural issues are therefore central to dealing with world poverty and other millennium development goals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) said that we must ensure that we do not just talk and then forget, and I can assure him that this Government certainly will not forget about the world's poor. We are working with the NGOs that are leading this
  332
  campaign, and we will continue to do so. We are working with the American Government, European Governments and—importantly—developing countries to secure the necessary changes. Developing countries need not just handouts today to feed the poor, but a hand up to ensure sustainable development that will produce lasting changes.
  The linkages between trade, development and poverty reduction are important to us all, but they are absolutely crucial to the poorest countries—a point recognised by the trade lobby and by the Government. There are three key factors to achieving our goals.
  The first factor is a clear commitment across Government to the eradication of world poverty. The whole Government have signed up to that.
  The second factor is a clear commitment across the international community to make sure that developing countries are able to participate in world trade. As so many have recognised, we have a long way to go with that, but this country is leading the world. The third factor is massive public support.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you explain how it is possible under our rules for a vote to be taken against a motion of which virtually everyone who spoke in the debate approved?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is not a matter on which the Chair can rule. I would say only that the longer one stays here, the more it appears that anything is possible.
  The House having divided: Ayes 180, Noes 319.

  Division No. 276]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Cameron, David

  Amess, David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  (NE Fife)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Bacon, Richard

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Baker, Norman

  Chidgey, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Chope, Christopher

  Barker, Gregory

  Clappison, James

  Baron, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Barrett, John

  Collins, Tim

  Beggs, Roy

  Conway, Derek

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bercow, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Brady, Graham

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brake, Tom

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Breed, Colin

  Doughty, Sue

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Burnett, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Fallon, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Butterfill, John

  Flook, Adrian

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  333

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Ottaway, Richard

  Francois, Mark

  Paice, James

  Gale, Roger

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gibb, Nick

  Prisk, Mark

  Gidley, Sandra

  Pugh, Dr John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Randall, John

  Gray, James

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Grayling, Chris

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Rendel, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Ruffley, David

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Harvey, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hayes, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Heald, Oliver

  Simmonds, Mark

  Heath, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hermon, Lady

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hoban, Mark

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Horam, John

  Spink, Bob

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Swayne, Desmond

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Swire, Hugo

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Syms, Robert

  Keetch, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lamb, Norman

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Laws, David

  Trend, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lidington, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Webb, Steve

  Loughton, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Luff, Peter

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Willetts, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Willis, Phil

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Goldfield)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Moore, Michael

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Norman, Archie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Oaten, Mark

  Mr. Laurence Robertson

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  and

  Öpik, Lembit

  Mr. David Wilshire.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Austin, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Ainger, Nick

  Baird, Vera

  Alexander, Douglas

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Bayley, Hugh

  (Swansea E)

  Beard, Nigel

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Benn, Hilary

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bennett, Andrew

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Benton, Joe

  334

  Best, Harold

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Betts, Clive

  Farrelly, Paul

  Blackman, Liz

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Follett, Barbara

  Brennan Kevin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foulkes, George

  Browne, Desmond

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Bryant, Chris

  Gapes, Mike

  Burgon, Colin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burnham, Andy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cairns, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Goggins, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Challen, Colin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clelland, David

  Havard, Dai

  Clwyd, Ann

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heyes, David

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hill, Keith

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hodge, Margaret

  Corston, Jean

  Hope, Phil

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cox Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  (Copeland)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Doran, Frank

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Dowd Jim

  Joyce, Eric

  Drew, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kidney, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Efford, Clive

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Laxton, Bob

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Lepper, David

  335

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Levitt, Tom

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Robertson, John

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Linton, Martin

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rooney, Terry

  Love, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie

  Lucas, Ian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Luke, Iain

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lyons, John

  Salmond, Alex

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salter, Martin

  McCabe, Stephen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCafferty, Chris

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sheridan, Jim

  McDonnell, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  MacDougall, John

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McFall, John

  Simon, Siôn

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McKechin, Ann

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Mallaber, Judy

  Southworth, Helen

  Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Squire, Rachel

  Mann, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Marshall–Andrews, Robert

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stringer, Graham

  Merron, Gillian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Tami, Mark

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mole, Chris

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Morgan, Julie

  Timms, Stephen

  Morley, Elliot

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mountford, Kali

  Todd, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Tynan, Bill

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Olner, Bill

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Organ, Diana

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Owen, Albert

  Watts, David

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Weir, Michael

  Pearson, Ian

  White, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pike, Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Plaskitt, James

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Pond, Chris

  (Swansea W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wills, Michael

  Price, Adam

  Winnick, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wishart, Pete

  Purchase, Ken

  Wood, Mike

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rammell, Bill

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  336

  Woolas, Phil

  Wyatt, Derek

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Joan Ryan and

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Mr. John Heppell.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the lobby of Parliament by the Trade Justice Movement and increased recognition of trade as a key component to reducing global poverty; welcomes also efforts made to draw public attention to these important issues; recognises trade has an important role to play in helping countries achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); is aware that to achieve this a multilateral trading system is needed giving developing countries a fair deal; recognises that the Government is committed to working with developing country partners, and other bilateral donors and multilateral organisations to achieve this; believes that the development challenges faced in Africa require the international community, working together with African countries, to make additional efforts to secure progress towards the MDGs; welcomes the Government's commitment to turning the agreement reached at Doha in November last year into a meaningful 'Development Round' and to achieving real progress on market access and in areas of importance to developing countries; will continue to support efforts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and reduce trade-distorting subsidies; will support preferential access to developing countries through the Generalised System of Preferences aid to least developed countries through the Everything But Arms initiative; recognises developing countries themselves must undertake effective policy measures to integrate into the global trading system; supports these efforts and engagement in a broad range of activities to help countries participate more effectively in the multilateral trading system; and further welcomes the Government's commitment to doubling support for trade-related capacity building from £15 million in 1998–2001 to £30 million in 2001£04.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    BROAD ECONOMIC GUIDELINES
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No 8389/02, Commission Recommendation for the 2002 Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies of the Member States and the Community; and supports the Government's welcome for the publication of the Commission's Recommendation for the Guidelines, as giving operational content to the conclusions of the Lisbon and Stockholm summits, reflecting the importance of structural reform in tackling successfully the challenges of globalisation and competitiveness, and promoting employment and social inclusion; also takes note of European Union Documents Nos SN 1107/02, 1108/02, 1109/02, 1111/02, 1112/02, 1113/02, 1319/1/02 REV1, 1320/1/02 REV1, 1321/02, 1322/02, 1323/02, 1324/1/02 REV1, 1325/1/02 REV1, 1361/02, 1382/1/02 REV1, 1383/1/02 REV1 and 2002/C 51/06, Council Opinions and

    337
    Statements on the 2001 Stability and Convergence Programmes; and welcomes these Opinions and Statements as promoting the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.—(Fraser Kemp.]
    Question agreed to.

  House of Lords Reform (Joint Committee)
  7.14 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
  That the Lords Message [10th June] relating to House of Lords Reform be now considered.
  That this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution.
  That a Select Committee of twelve Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform

  (1) to consider issues relating to House of Lords reform, including the composition and powers of the Second Chamber and its role and authority within the context of Parliament as a whole, having regard in particular to the impact which any proposed changes would have on the existing pre-eminence of the House of Commons, such consideration to include the implications of a House composed of more than one 'category' of member and the experience and expertise which the House of Lords in its present form brings to its function as the revising Chamber; and

  (2) having regard to paragraph (1) above, to report on options for the composition and powers of the House of Lords and to define and present to both Houses options for composition, including a fully nominated and fully elected House, and intermediate options; and to consider and report on—

  (a) any changes to the relationship between the two Houses which may be necessary to ensure the proper functioning of Parliament as a whole in the context of a reformed Second Chamber, and in particular, any new procedures for resolving conflict between the two Houses; and

  (b) the most appropriate and effective legal and constitutional means to give effect to any new Parliamentary settlement;

  and in all the foregoing considerations, to have regard to—

  (i) the Report of the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform (Cm.4534):

  (ii) the White Paper The House of Lords—Completing the Reform (Cm.5291), and the responses received thereto;

  (iii) debates and votes in both Houses of Parliament on House of Lords reform; and

  (iv) the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Report The Second Chamber: Continuing the Reform, including its consultation of the House of Commons, and any other relevant select committee reports.

  That the Committee shall have power—

  (i) to send for persons, papers and records:

  (ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

  (iii) to report from time to time;

  (iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

  (v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

  That Janet Anderson, Mr. James Arbuthnot, Mr. Chris Bryant, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Dr. Jack Cunningham. Mr. William Hague, Mr. Stephen McCabe, Joyce Quin. Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Paul Stinchcombe and Mr. Paul Tyler be members of the Committee.
  This motion fulfils the commitment that I gave the House before the recess that we would establish a Joint Committee to take forward the next step in reform of the House of Lords and that we would put its proposals to a free vote in both Houses of Parliament. That commitment was broadly welcomed in this Chamber and in the wider media beyond Westminster, where a broad welcome these days is unusual. It puts Parliament itself in the driving seat on how we approach reform of Parliament's second Chamber.

  339
  Tonight's debate is on the narrow point of how we set up the Joint Committee. I am painfully aware that progress on reform of the House of Lords can be measured in centuries, but even in the context of House of Lords reform, three hours should be sufficient time in which to set up a Committee. I have no doubt that some Members will wish to use the debate to rehearse some of the wider questions on the future composition of the House of Lords, and I make no objection to that. Practice makes perfect, and the future debate, on a free vote, will be all the better the more that Members try out their arguments on us tonight. I simply remind Members that the debate to decide what we do with the House of Lords will be taken after we receive the report of the Joint Committee and not before we even appoint it.
  The House is fortunate that Members of great standing on both sides of the House have been willing to serve on the Joint Committee and to prepare its report.
  Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I will happily give way to any distinguished Member.
  Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. The Joint Committee of 24 people will consist of 12 members of the Government, seven Members from the Conservative party, three Liberal Democrat Members and two Cross Benchers of the House of Lords. The Cross Benchers represent no particular constituency and have no democratic mandate; the minority parties represent some 1.5 million people, yet we have no place on the Committee considering this vital constitutional reform. How can that be fair?
  Mr. Cook: May I gently correct the hon. Gentleman on one point? There are no members of the Government on the Committee, although it is perfectly true that there are 12 members of the Labour party. On the arithmetic, of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He and his party have been through this matter with me on a number of occasions and, as he knows, I do not have a closed mind. However, it remains the fact that 95 per cent. of the membership of this House belong to parties that are represented among the 12 members whom we are appointing from the House of Commons. As the minority parties represent, in total, 5 per cent. of the membership of the House of Commons, a pro rata division would entitle them to membership of a Committee of 20, not of 12. Traditionally, the minority parties were always dealt with using the same arithmetic and on the same basis as the Liberal Democrat party. The Liberal Democrats have one place on the Committee; it is up to the minority parties, if they so wish, to try to press the Liberal Democrats to give them that place.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: For someone who is making a reputation for himself as a defender of the interests of all parts of the House of Commons, does the Leader of the House not appreciate that, given that arithmetical logic, there will be no minority party representative on any Joint Committee that is set up in this Parliament? If 5 per cent. of the House of Commons with a democratic mandate are represented by the minority parties, should not there be at least one member
  340
  on a Committee of 24 to consider a matter of such vital interest? Can the right hon. Gentleman not find it within himself to agree and do something about it?
  Mr. Cook: I am not responsible for the 24 members of the Committee. I am responsible, and my motion is responsible, for the 12 members from the House of Commons, and 5 per cent. of 12 does not really add up to a place. However, I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point. Indeed, it is precisely so that we can get the broadest possible coverage across the House that the Committee is so large, with 24 members. Over the totality of a Parliament, I think that it would be entirely reasonable for minority parties to look for representation on a Joint Committee, but they cannot, on the basis of the arithmetic, demand a place on any one Joint Committee when that Committee has only 12 members.
  I should like to make progress. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is right that it is my role to defend all interests in the House, and I have defended the place of 95 per cent. of the membership of the House of Commons who are represented on the Committee. From the Opposition Benches, we have the nomination of a former Conservative Leader and a former candidate for Conservative Leader. I am gratified that the Liberal Democrats regard the Joint Committee as so important that they have proposed my shadow to the Committee. On the Labour side, our nominations are headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has the double distinction of having been a Cabinet Minister in this Government and of being one of only half a dozen serving Members who served as Ministers in the Callaghan Government.
  The Labour members also include a number of those who have followed our debates on the House of Lords closely over the past year, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), who has come close to being the shop steward for those who favour reform. I am pleased that the list includes my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who was my number two on foreign affairs for a number of years in opposition and in government. The House can have full confidence that that distinguished membership will discharge the duty that we are placing on it with care and commitment.
  Before I turn to the task that we are asking of Committee members, I will deal with the issues raised in the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), which would impose a timetable on the proceedings of the Joint Committee. At the time of my statement to the House last month, I said in response to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that it would be wrong for us to predetermine a specified date by which the Committee had to respond. It is for the eminent members of that Committee to determine the speed at which they can make progress on the remit. For that reason, the motion does not impose an external limit on their proceedings.
  Moreover, even if it were thought acceptable in principle to impose a deadline, the timetable set out in the amendment would be tough—it would require a report by 17 July, which might not be realistic given that the Joint Committee will not even meet until July. Having said that, the Government would welcome the Committee tackling its task with expedition. Members of the Public Administration Committee, nearly all of whom have

  341
  signed the amendment, provided a sterling example of such expedition. They commenced their study of the Government's proposals in mid-November and published a report in mid-February. They demonstrated that it is not necessary for a Committee, to borrow the phrase of Harold Wilson, to take minutes and to last years, even on this topic.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I almost entirely follow the reasoning of the Leader of the House, but will he say whether there is any length of time that might expire during the deliberations of the Committee that he might eventually regard as unacceptable? Would he be prepared to keep an eye on its deliberations and perhaps come back to the House at some point if he feels that it is dragging on for too long?
  Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will keep both eyes firmly on the Committee's proceedings. I have no doubt that if hon. Members felt that the process was continuing for an unreasonable period of time, they would bring the matter before the House even if I did not.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Cook: I seem to be inundated with demands to intervene. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase.
  Tony Wright: The Public Administration Committee decided to take evidence only in December and it reported in February, so it was even quicker than my right hon. Friend suggested.
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the statements that he made to the House on 13 May, when he said that
  "the best thing that we can all do in the next two months is to ensure that we find a way forward that establishes a centre of gravity that can be supported in both Chambers."
  Later in the debate, he said
  "A vote before the summer recess is certainly possible if the Joint Committee gets down to work quickly, and presents us with the options in good time."—[Official Report, 13 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 525–28.]
  Surely the amendment tabled in my name and that of other members of the Public Administration Committee is merely trying to give effect to his own words.
  Mr. Cook: I very much apologise if I understated the expedition with which my hon. Friend's Committee tackled its task. I am glad that we got on the record the speed with which it is possible to reach a consensus.
  On whether a report could be produced by the end of the summer, I do not resile from anything that I said at that time. It certainly remains possible. However, my hon. Friend's deadline would make it mandatory, which is a different kettle of fish altogether. I am aware that a number of the hon. Members who will serve on the Joint Committee are present in the Chamber and I welcome the fact that they will understand from our proceedings the urgency with which hon. Members wish them to approach
  342
  the task. Indeed, it is for that reason that the motion gives the Committee the remit to sit during the recess, should it choose to do so.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Leader of the House accept that if the Joint Committee is to have any chance of carrying the House with it, which is necessary if we are to move forward, it is important that it is not operating under too many time constraints? Does he also accept that just as the Public Administration Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), thought it proper to take evidence, we hope that the Joint Committee will feel that it has the time to take evidence and to consider it.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman expresses the view that I have put to the Chamber—that it would not be right for us to impose an external deadline. However, we are entitled to invite members of the Joint Committee to have regard to the House's view that we should proceed with all expedition. The Committee will, of course, have the power to take evidence—that is provided for in the motion. Whether it does so and how much it wishes to call is a matter for the Committee.
  Mr. David Clelland: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the expedition with which the Public Administration Committee delivered its verdict may not necessarily be a virtue, given that some of us think that it came to the wrong conclusion?
  Mr. Cook: The report was never put to the House and my hon. Friend is right to point out that it would not necessarily have commanded the unanimity in the House that it commanded in the Committee. Having said that, I remind him that the first task of the Select Committee is not to recommend a preferred option but to put before the House the options on which the House can vote. Certainly, in the first stage, that will be a simpler task than that undertaken by the Select Committee.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend anticipated the point that I was about to make, but I will say it again. Had I been appointed to the Joint Committee—[Interruption. I would have been prepared to sit throughout August and September. Does he expect this important Committee, full of distinguished Members of Parliament, to sit during the summer so that we can have the options as soon as we come back?
  Mr. Cook: We did not require a signed undertaking from those named in the motion that they would sit during August, but we have provided them with the option that they can meet during the recess. I anticipate that they will want to have a break and a holiday. Indeed, I am sure that their deliberations will gain from any holiday or time for reflection that they have. However, it is open to them to meet during the recess; they do not need to wait until the House returns.
  Kevin Brennan: My right hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way. Given his remarks, will he say whether he still stands by his statement on 13 May, in which he made two comments? The first was that he agreed that he could have had the options ready by about 7 pm that evening if he had been

  343
  charged with the task and locked in a room; and the second was that there was nothing new to say about the composition options for the House of Lords.
  Mr. Cook: I was not inviting the House to lock me in a room and throw away the key. Any one of us could probably write down what those options might be. I am not sure whether it is possible for 24 people to reach agreement with the same speed as I could achieve in an empty room. It is worth putting one matter on the record, however. The Joint Committee will, of course, have the immense advantage, in making good speed, that it is not starting with a blank sheet of paper. On the contrary, as the motion spells out, it is starting out with a small library of previous publications: the report of the Wakeham commission, the recent White Paper and the report of the Public Administration Committee.
  Brian White: The Leader of the House has just answered my question, which was whether he would ensure that the Committee did not reinvent the wheels of the evidence of that commission and the Public Administration Committee.
  Mr. Cook: I apologise if have already taken the lines of hon. Members, but I am glad that there is so much agreement among us. Honourable Members who have been appointed to the Committee will be aware of the need for a business-like approach. It is worth putting on the record that we will be able to legislate in the next Session only if we receive a final report by the turn of the year. The longer into spring that the Joint Committee deliberates, the more difficult it will be for us to produce a Bill in the next Session. I am sure that that will help concentrate the minds of the Joint Committee on the need to approach the task with care and deliberation, but also with expedition.
  I referred to previous reports on the question. It is worth reminding ourselves that there is a lot of common ground in all those reports.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Leader of the House said that if the Joint Committee does not reach agreement by the end of the year, we will not get legislation in the next Session. Is not that a huge sting in the tail and an opportunity for delay and prevarication by those on the Committee who would prefer not to have any legislation? Does not that argue strongly in favour of establishing a timetable?
  Mr. Cook: I said that the longer it takes to produce a report, the more difficult it will be to introduce a Bill. That is self-evident. We can all work that out for ourselves, so it will not come as a blindingly new piece of information to anyone who has contemplated the matter. I am not in favour of an external limit. We propose to trust the 24 members of the Committee, from this House and the other place, to apply themselves with expedition and commitment. As I said earlier, members of the Committee are very distinguished, and I have full confidence that they will wish to apply themselves diligently and, having heard these exchanges, with expedition.
  The three reports that I cited contain much common ground. They have established a broad consensus on most aspects of the future of the second Chamber, with which
  344
  the great majority of Members of this Chamber would agree. First, there is broad agreement on the role of the second Chamber. It should be a deliberative assembly with the role of revising legislation and supporting the Commons in the scrutiny of the Executive. Secondly, it is common ground that the Commons should continue to be the pre-eminent Chamber. The test of legitimacy of the Government for Britain shall continue to be whether they can command a majority in the Commons. Thirdly, all three documents are agreed on the powers of the new second Chamber. It should have the power to delay legislation and to prompt second thoughts, but it should not have the power to frustrate the will of the majority in the Commons, nor to oppose the mandate of the elected Government.
  It is right that the Joint Committee should be invited by the motion to consider the powers of the second Chamber, but it would be surprising and contentious if it came up with an answer different from all its predecessors. Its first task will be to define the options for the composition of the new second Chamber, particularly the balance between elected and appointed Members. It will be difficult to make progress on other questions of reform of the second Chamber until the issue of composition is resolved. It is for that reason that the remit will not require the Joint Committee to present one comprehensive report, but to report from time to time. That will enable the Joint Committee to present an interim report on the options for composition in advance of its considered report on other aspects of reform. It would assist with the debate on reform if the Joint Committee could establish a consensus on composition, but it will not be required to do so by the terms of the remit. It is required to recommend the options on which both Houses can decide on a free vote. It is set out in the remit that these options should include a fully nominated House, a fully elected House and at least one intermediate option.
  Thereafter, there are a number of further issues on which there is no established consensus and on which the advice of the Joint Committee would be of value in the light of the decisions of both Houses on composition. For example, what will be the precise electoral system used for any elected element? How do we ensure that it is clear that those elected have no specific constituency role that would compete with the representative function of this Chamber? Should any such elections take place on the same day as the general election or any other established polling day?
  Most of those who expressed a view in the consultation period on the size of the new second Chamber were concerned that it would be too large. We would welcome the views of the Joint Committee on what might be the optimum size of a reformed second Chamber. We would be grateful if it could also explore the transitional arrangements that would take us to a reformed, smaller membership of the second Chamber.
  There have also been some new developments since the White Paper. For example, the recent White Paper on regional government has proposed elected assemblies in those regions of England that want them. It is open to the Joint Committee to revisit the regional dimension to a reformed second Chamber in the light of that development.
  Reform of the House of Lords has been long in gestation. It is more than 90 years since the preamble to the Parliament Act called for the House of Lords to be

  345
  placed on a more popular, representative basis. Those years include 18 years in which the Conservative party was in power and never once proposed a single elected peer. They also include a further four years when the Conservative party resisted every suggestion we made to break the block vote of the hereditary peers. However, I come to this debate as a member of a generous and fair-minded party. We are willing to overlook that dismal record of recalcitrance, and make common cause with the Conservatives in a Joint Committee to find the way forward. We invite them now to join us in the search for a broad parliamentary consensus for reform. I put this motion before the House, not as the basis for any delay, but in order that we can make the fastest possible progress to the broadest possible consensus. It is in that spirit that I hope that the Members nominated in the motion will accept their mandate and it is also in that spirit that I commend it to the House.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I happily pick up the challenge that the Leader of the House has laid down. The official Opposition welcome the motion, not least because it is something that we have urged on the Government for some time. Although I understand the courteous but firm reprimand that the Leader of the House has just offered us, I could reciprocate and say that I welcome the Government's late conversion to the idea of a Joint Committee as the way forward. It is sad that it has taken the Government so long to realise that, but I welcome their late conversion to something for which we have long argued.
  I also welcome the terms of reference, which are appropriate. They are appropriately broad, and at the same time they are appropriately focused. That is the right approach. I would differ from them only in one small but important regard—and this is a personal point, rather than on behalf of my party. I make my point as a self-confessed anorak and lifelong devotee of the House of Commons. I have devoted the past 19 years of my life to the House of Commons and, indeed, many of those present may feel that I have spent too much time here. The Leader of the House mentioned the pre-eminence of the House of Commons and said that most Members of this House accept that almost without argument. However, I regret to say that I believe that even that principle should now be considered. To the extent that the role of the Commons has been diminished—and I believe that it has been—and its primary role is now the provision of, and support for, the Government of the day, there is at least an argument for an enhanced role for a reformed upper House, with stronger powers to offset the diminution of the role of this House in the scrutiny of the Government. I put the point no more strongly than that, but I wished to add that footnote to the debate and leave it to the members of the Joint Committee whether they want to pursue that issue.
  In that respect and in others, it will be interesting to see whether the joint membership of the Committee will bring a different perspective to its considerations than the single-dimensional focus of Members of this House, who readily accept the idea that the House of Commons should be pre-eminent in all legislative matters.
  It is with some slight regret that I say that I cannot recommend to my colleagues that they should support the amendment tabled in the name of the Chairman and
  346
  members of the Public Administration Committee. As the Leader of the House said, we should at this stage be prepared to allow the Joint Committee to perform its task in the way it sees fit. An arbitrary time limit on its deliberations would therefore not be appropriate at this stage. However, we should also make it clear that the House will feel free to return to the issue if the Committee appears to be delaying unnecessarily or unduly in its deliberations. We are giving the Committee an important remit and responsibility and it is right to respect its freedom of action at this stage. As the Leader of the House has said, however, and as I would wish to endorse, it is not unreasonable, given the amount of work that has already been done, not least by Committees of the House, and the amount of deliberation in both Houses, to expect their work to proceed with proper expedition.
  On membership, I hope that the House will accept that the Members of the House and of another place that the official Opposition have put forward reflect the seriousness with which we take this Committee's work and deliberations. The Leader of the House has been kind enough to pay respect to those Opposition Members and I would like to reciprocate, as the Labour Members and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) are of sufficient seniority and seriousness—with a leavening of freshness, if I may say so, with regard to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant)—that we can expect proper weight to be given to the Committee's work.
  I was intrigued that the press contained speculation about who might be the Chairman of the Committee. Does the Leader of the House know something that the rest of us do not? I presume that the Committee is free to establish its own chairmanship. I have noticed that the name of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has been mentioned in this regard. I would imagine that his qualifications for being Chairman are many. I looked up his entry in "Who's Who", and, first, I saw that he has a PhD in chemistry, which, in a peculiar way, might suit him well to guiding the Committee in its deliberations. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman was shadow Leader of the House in a previous existence, which surely must give him the qualifications to add to the lustre of the Committee and its proceedings.
  Most intriguingly, however, the last recreation that the right hon. Member for Copeland lists in "Who's Who", after fell walking, fly fishing, gardening, classical and folk music and reading—which must keep him very busy, although not too busy, I hope, to spend a lot of time on the work of the Committee—is listening to other people's opinions. I shall leave the House and, more appropriately, the Committee to decide whether that is a qualification for chairmanship. It will, at least, give members of the Committee something to work on if the right hon. Gentleman should emerge as their choice for Chairman. I am sure, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to concede that there are other Members on the Committee with almost equal seniority and experience in parliamentary matters.
  Having said all that, I am sure that we all wish the Committee, its members and whoever becomes its Chairman well. We are placing a great responsibility on the members of the Committee. They will be in no doubt—and they will still be in no doubt, I suspect, by the end of the debate—about the seriousness of the task that faces them and the expectations that we lay on them. I hope that they will be able to discharge their

  347
  responsibilities fully but reasonably quickly. I hope that we will see the first products of their deliberations—it will be a multi-phase process, as has been laid down—in the very near future.
  The Leader of the House has given an interesting hint—if I may so describe it—about the possible constraints on the timing of the Committee's deliberations. I cannot and would not want to add to that. We should all listen carefully, however, to what the Leader of the House has said and consider what is in his mind.
  Having said that, I thoroughly commend the resolution to the House. As this is a free vote, being on a House of Commons matter, I hope that my hon. Friends will support the resolution. Sadly, however, I would recommend that, if it is put to the vote, they do not support the amendment that has been selected.
  7.44 pm
  Tony Wright: This is not a moment to explore the substance of the issues in relation to the House of Lords. It is the moment, however, to say a few words about process.
  I commend the final section of the report of the Public Administration Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, which is simply called, "Getting from here to there". Historically, getting from here to there has been the most difficult thing of all. There has been no difficulty in coming forward with schemes for House of Lords reform; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to Harold Wilson and the 1960s. The lesson of all that is that one can easily not achieve reform. The task and challenge for the House is whether we can devise a process that will get us to where we would like to be from where we are now, given the diversity of opinions.
  Without intending to seem churlish, I want to express a note of regret that it has not been thought possible to include a member from the Public Administration Committee on the Joint Committee. I can think of Members from all parties who were represented on the Committee who have developed a good deal of expertise in this area. That expertise would have been well put to the service of the House.
  I also want to offer the experience of the Public Administration Committee's deliberations to the Joint Committee. When we began our work, we felt a sense of urgency, as one of the paradoxes is that we were told from the beginning that reform of the second Chamber was very urgent. Hon. Members will remember that the Wakeham commission was told that it had to proceed with enormous urgency. Indeed, it was told that it had to report within a year—by the end of 1999—because reform of the second Chamber was so urgent. It has all gone funny since then.
  We must reclaim that spirit of urgency now. The Public Administration Committee felt an obligation to be urgent in our deliberations and to come to a conclusion that would be helpful to the House so that the process of reform could continue. We also felt an obligation not simply to repeat previous positions. There we were, representing the three major parties, all with different views. Some people wanted to abolish the second Chamber; some wanted a wholly elected second Chamber; some wanted a wholly appointed second Chamber; and some wanted a variety of intermediate positions. The
  348
  question was: would we simply repeat our previous views, or would we seek to reach a position that would enable the process of reform to continue? I say "process" deliberately, because, if one thinks that one is concluding the process of reform, one will not be successful. So much is changing in the wider landscape that all that one can hope for is to achieve a reasonably secure next phase of second Chamber reform.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the fact that we may be moving to an era of seriously devolved government inside England as well as in the wider United Kingdom. If that is the case, different kinds of options will become available in the longer term as to how we might compose a second Chamber, and there will he different reasons for doing so.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has just outlined how devolution might properly impact on what the second Chamber might do. Does he therefore have faith in the membership of the Committee, given that the Government in Northern Ireland are not represented on it, the Opposition in Wales are not represented on it, and the Opposition in Scotland are not represented on it? How can the Committee consider the impact of devolution in the nation states of the United Kingdom if there is no way for the minority parties in those constituent parts of the UK to feed in their views?
  Tony Wright: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that he wants to make. I do not believe that the Committee will avoid the obligation to think widely. I entered my note of regret, and he must enter his own.
  My point, however, is that, despite a wide spectrum of views, it was possible, nevertheless, to seek to ascertain in a reasonably serious way what Members of the House felt was their preferred direction of reform and to take that into account in framing our position. It was also possible, in seeking to reconcile such initially different positions, to produce a position that might provide a basis for the House to move forward to a next stage of second Chamber reform. If that is the spirit in which the Joint Committee engages with the work, we have a prospect of success.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the next stage of second Chamber reform and, earlier, he suggested that there would not be a finishing point. Is not one of the most important objectives to settle the status of the other place, so that it is not an issue for party political bickering and perhaps one in which parties move around—I hope that they will not—for party political advantage?
  Tony Wright: The hon. Gentleman runs two points together. There is no need to bicker about these things. It is perfectly possible to have sensible discussion while acknowledging that we may not have the final answer. That is a sensible way to approach the matter.
  We know very much what the key principles are, and we do not need to explore them now. We do not want a second Chamber that is a rival to or a replica of the first Chamber, but we want a Chamber that has enough legitimacy to be taken seriously and enough independence to secure expertise and a different kind of input. That led me and the Select Committee eventually to think that a mixture would be the right way to achieve our aims. The question is what sort of mixture should that be.

  349
  I offer the Joint Committee one piece of evidence only. It does not come from our report, but from evidence that was submitted in response to the Government's consultation document. Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth was not only a member of the Wakeham commission, but the official most centrally involved in making the proposed reforms of the 1960s work. In his response to the consultation, he says:
  "In the previous Lords reform attempt, in 1968–9, the reformers were unwilling to reconsider their plans in the light of criticisms, notably after the collapse of the Inter-Party talks, and again after the debates in the two Houses on the White Paper. In retrospect I think this was a mistake (although I must take a share of the blame)."
  I give credit to the Government on that point. They have understood the deluge of criticism that their proposals have received and that has enabled them to move forward or to give the House the opportunity to more forward in a slightly different direction.
  Sir Michael's second point is absolutely central. He says:
  "A second failure was not to recognise that it was essential to have the wholehearted support of government backbenchers in the Commons. Inter-Party consensus was thought to be the key to a constitutional reform of the kind intended while in fact what mattered was the support of the party in the Commons. Historically most constitutional reforms have been carried on a party vote…and then accepted by all".
  That is an important observation from someone who was engaged in the last abortive attempt to reform the second Chamber. The conclusion to be drawn is that we must know what the will of the House of Commons is. We must know the direction of advance that it would like to take place. Around that, the House of Lords will have a chance to respond, and we can construct reasonably durable proposals.
  It is significant that, when we took evidence on the views of Members of Parliament, we found that 75 per cent. of them across the parties wanted a composition that was 50 per cent. elected or more. We therefore have to be clear about that before we begin to do what we have to do on the other issues. That is why it is crucial to have an initial vote on composition as soon as possible. Unless we have that vote as soon as possible, it is unreasonable to expect the Joint Committee to carry out the second stage of reform. That would simply not be possible, because so much of the reform package hangs together. We must know what the key buildings blocks are before we can begin to erect the larger architecture.
  That is not a pedantic point, but one that is designed to get the process under way. I shall not explore the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about being able to do things by 7 o'clock in the evening, but the fact is that we know what the options are. We know that some favour the option of a wholly elected second Chamber, that others favour the option of a wholly appointed one and that there are several intermediate options. It is not difficult to bring to the House an initial menu of options for Members to vote on. I simply do not understand how the Joint Committee can begin to do its work seriously until the choice about the fundamental options has been resolved. I have not heard anyone explain to me how it will be possible to proceed without having done that.
  350
  Someone seeing our amendment and seeing the date on it rather unkindly pointed out that no year was attached to it. Some people have suggested that that is all part of the picture whereby we do not hear much about the issue again. When some people saw how the Joint Committee was being constructed, they were given encouragement in thinking that that we might not hear much more about the issue. I do not share that view. At one time I probably did, but I now believe that the Government want to make progress to bring the issue to a conclusion. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wants to do that, and he could not have made that point clearer.
  This is the moment when we have to stop talking about reforming the second Chamber and have to start doing it. A crucial part of doing it is making sure that we have a timetable under which some form of reform can take place.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). I accept precisely what he has said about process and timing. Although I cannot speak for all my colleagues because it will be a free vote, I think that they will be minded to support the amendment that he and his colleagues have tabled. We believe that we should make progress as fast as possible.
  Although I would be happy for the Joint Committee to meet in August or September—as long as it came to Cornwall—that should not be necessary. We should be able to complete the first phase of the process and come back with clear options to the House by the date that has been suggested.
  Before I come to the issue of process, I wish to refer briefly to some of the misapprehensions about the choices before the Joint Committee and that will eventually be before the House. The Lord Chancellor said in the other place:
  "It would be wrong and dangerous to put the pre-eminence of the House of Commons at risk by having this House wholly or substantially directly elected so that it could maintain that it had the same, or substantially similar, political legitimacy as the House of Commons."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 564.]
  That view is misguided—it ain't necessarily so. The link suggested between the proportion of Members elected and any challenge to this House is entirely wrongly thought through. In setting up the Joint Committee, we must clear out of the way some of the misunderstandings that have grown up.
  I pay tribute not just to the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase but to the Government. The consultation exercise was as thorough and as effective as that on any public issue that I can recall in my time in the House. In particular, the report on the consultation will be extremely helpful to the Joint Committee. We do not start from scratch; it is not a blank piece of paper. It does not even mean looking at the history books because we can look at the position here and now. Public opinion as well as Members' opinions have been reflected.
  The response makes it clear that 89 per cent. of the respondents thought that the other House should be at least 50 per cent. elected. There should be a degree of majority rule in that sense. That is extremely important

  351
  but, equally, it should not be seen as a challenge to this House or as a problem. It should be an opportunity that provides a new strength in Parliament's relationship with the Executive. That is why the type of election, to which the Leader of the House referred, and the cycle of elections are so important.
  Significantly, the second largest response rate on any of the issues in the consultation process was on the method of election. Some 56 per cent. said that the single transferable vote was their preferred method. A further 10 per cent. stated that they preferred an unspecified form of proportional representation. Those are big figures. Some 6 per cent. preferred an open-list system. That type of system was clearly in people's minds, as it was in the mind of the Select Committee. Incidentally, only 2 per cent. of respondents favoured the first-past-the-post system, and for good reasons.
  STV has huge advantages in the context of the second Chamber. I am not arguing that it is right for any other type of assembly or in any other election. It maximises voter choice and minimises the power of the parties because they do not prioritise who should be at the top of the list. The voter does that and the parties cannot pre-empt that choice. STV enables voters to cast their votes so that they can ensure that there is a truly representative second Chamber, especially in terms of area, gender and ethnic background. It is the best system that can be devised for that purpose for that assembly. Most important of all, STV encourages independence of mind in the Members who are elected.
  By contrast, the House of Commons Library established that were first past the post used at the same time as the 2001 election for this House, the Labour party would have had a majority of 60 per cent. in the other place on a 41 per cent. poll. I am surprised that the Conservative party is in favour of that outcome and hope that it will think again.
  The most important issue to consider is that first past the post would inevitably replicate the constituency representation that we have in this House. Those Members who represent Scottish and Welsh constituencies will be aware that duplication and overlap can be embarrassing. That is a problem not just when Members who are elected by different means come from different parties, but when they are elected from the same party. It is extremely important that the second Chamber of this Parliament does not replicate the constituency responsibilities of Members of this House. That is the inevitable result if first past the post is used.
  Mr. Forth: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to accept that the American experience demonstrates that it is possible that voters can take a sufficiently discriminating attitude to elections? One state in the United States can have one balance of representation in the House of Representatives, a different or mixed representation in the Senate, which has a different electoral cycle and different voters, and yet another in the governorships. Those are all elected on the first-past-the-post system. What he is saying is not necessarily true. The one template we have suggests that it need not be the case.
  Mr. Tyler: I understand that and I will look with interest at what evidence is put before the Committee. However, if we elect on the same day to both Houses on
  352
  the same system, we are likely to end up with the same results. That would challenge not just this House as a whole but each and every Member of the House because someone else at the other end of the building could claim the same mandate. That would be extremely dangerous and I hope that the Committee will look hard at the problem. The issue is important and is mentioned in all the documents that will come before the Committee.
  Kevin Brennan: While I may have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments, does he agree that although the issue is important, it is certainly not the first one that needs to be tackled? If his first contributions to the Committee reflect his obsession with a minutiae of the electoral system, the process will turn out to be as long as the trial of Warren Hastings and we will never get a result.
  Mr. Tyler: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am trying to remove a major misunderstanding. It is not just the number of people who are elected to the other House that could challenge the pre-eminence of this House. The challenge also comes from the way in which they are elected and the time when they are elected. Problems will arise if they are elected on the same day as the general election. Incidentally, I was first elected to the House in February 1974. There was another election in October, when I am afraid I was unelected. Is it being suggested that every time this House has an election the other House has to have an election too? Surely that does not make sense.
  I am in favour of an electoral cycle that is not directly related to the election to this House and the election of a Government. That is important. I would prefer the election to take place on the same day as the elections for the devolved Assemblies, every four years. In due course, we will no doubt have English regional elections every four years, too. We could elect one third of the other place every four years and also have a 12-year one-term election. However, it is for the Committee to consider that idea. The false analysis by the Lord Chancellor is dangerous and I hope that it will gather no currency.
  Both the timing of the election and the way in which Members are elected are important. However, we may decide that we want to hold back on the issue of indirect elections until the devolved regional assemblies are up and running. It would be absurd if Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London could elect indirectly to the second Chamber, but other parts of the country could not because regional devolution has not rolled out in England. If a number of Members of the second House are not going to be directly elected, we may need to reconsider indirect elections in due course by the devolved Assemblies, not from them. The principle of a dual mandate has become discredited in this country and there may be a good case for looking at that suggestion.
  As I intimated, I am sympathetic to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase and his colleagues on the Committee. There is a great deal of material on the subject and we should be able give the House clear options before the summer recess. I cannot anticipate what the Joint Committee will decide, but there will have to be options. I cannot believe that we need to wait for months to get those. Surely we can clear away some of the debris from previous considerations and produce the options.

  353
  This is a defining moment. I know that politicians and the media always say that, but if we get it right both ends of the building will do their job together more effectively. That is the challenge. It is not a challenge between the two Houses, but of the two Houses together, with complementary powers and responsibilities. The challenge that we face is not among ourselves, but with the Executive.
  If we can get that right, the Government, this House and the other House will have taken a great opportunity to demonstrate that in the 21st century we can develop and evolve a more effective pluralist parliamentary democracy. If the process gets bogged down, however, members of the Executive—not us—will go home laughing because we will have failed to create a genuinely effective scrutinising Parliament to ensure that they do their job properly.
  I hope that tonight and in the next few weeks we will complete the work that the Leader of the House put his hand to in 1997 in the discussions that led up to the agreement between our two parties on constitutional reform. We have a great opportunity. We can ensure that we not only guarantee better scrutiny of legislation and Executive action but, by so doing, improve the governance of this country.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I am very pleased to speak in this debate, and I am delighted that the Joint Committee is being set up. Many months ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister, among others, suggesting this approach. I also asked to be a member of the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Yes, although I did not ask that of the Prime Minister. As my name is among the suggested members on the Order Paper, it will come as no great shock to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to hear that if the matter is forced to a Division, I will be voting with him.
  I feel very strongly about this issue because, as I have said many times in the House, even way back in the 1980s, Britain has a remarkable history of reforming its constitution. We did so year after year, decade after decade, and in that way we managed to preserve our freedoms very well. Suddenly, at the beginning of the 20th century, we stopped, and that is tragic. Throughout the 20th century, there was no significant change to the constitution after the pre-first world war Liberal Government, until the special exception of the Single European Act, introduced by Margaret Thatcher. That was an enormous constitutional measure, but I do not think that she saw it as such at the time. The Conservatives have changed their view since then.
  While we were not reforming our constitution in the way that we had in previous centuries, we were writing constitutions for other countries, and some of them were incredibly successful. One of the points that I shall go on to make about process concerns one such successful constitution, that of West Germany after 1945.
  Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman said that there were no major constitutional changes after the last Liberal Government. I suppose those who saw the creation of Northern Ireland and the independence of Eire might take a different view, as might those who benefited from the
  354
  extension of universal suffrage to women in 1918 and 1928, and all the life peers along the Corridor, whose position was created in 1958.
  Mr. Soley: The example of women's suffrage is powerful, but frankly I think that the other changes are more decorative than real. The life peers changed the system, but they are an example of the problem that we got into, and particularly of the problem that the Labour party got into. The failure to reform was primarily a Conservative failure because the Conservatives were the party in government throughout most of the 20th century, but our failure was to promise to get rid of the hereditary peers but not to do it until a few years ago.
  The present Government took a big step forward by avoiding the trap that Michael Foot and others, with enormously good intentions, had fallen into by arguing all the time about the details of the change but not making the first, vital change of getting rid of the hereditary peers. By smashing up the shop, the Government have created a situation in which we must reform the second Chamber. I have never shared the anxieties of some of my colleagues that we will not go on to reform. We will have to go on reforming the second Chamber, whether under this Government or a future one, because it will not stay as it is for much longer, and most of us know that. Sooner or later, it would run into a crisis.
  The argument for reform is won. The problem is getting there. I say to the Leader of the House that I have every interest in seeing this done quickly. I do not want delays and I will not be working for them. If it is any help to my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, I am prepared to sit during the recess, although I exclude August, which would be vetoed by my children because they are anticipating a holiday. August is out but anything else is in.
  Having said that, I also want to get this right because it is no good saying that we must simply come back here with a set of options. Any one of those options could box us in on a particular reform. If we get that wrong, we will be sad and sorry that we rushed the process. I shall be pushing to get through the business effectively and efficiently, but I also want to return to this place with a number of options, any one of which, with any refinements that we wanted to make, would work.
  On a point that fits with what I was saying about the history of reform, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) said that reform cannot stop here, and I agree that it must go on. I do not want to lay out a blueprint for any one of the options or for a group of options. If I end up being a member of the Committee, as I hope, I ought to go in with an open mind to discuss the various proposals that are made.
  Turning back to the West German constitution, however, which we wrote so effectively, I point out that we inserted in that document representation of local government, the Lander. We did so with good reason—to prevent authoritarian Government arising again. For the past 15 years, I have argued in the Chamber and at Labour party conferences that the second Chamber ought to include representation of local government, and now also regional and devolved Government. Indeed, I would argue the case for considering European representation too. As my hon. Friend said, the changing constitutional situation

  355
  means that it will be even more difficult for us to stand still in future. The House needs to have methods by which we can continue to examine and evolve our constitution.
  Kevin Brennan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Soley: In a moment. I want first to finish this point, because it is linked to my earlier remarks.
  I sat on the Modernisation Committee in the last Parliament because I felt that the other thing that we had failed to reform in the 20th century was the procedures in this place. Consequently, in several ways, we allowed this place to become devalued and, at some stages, a laughing stock. We failed to get through any of the reforms that we wanted. There is an awful lot of devil in the detail in this matter, and one approaches what one thinks is the obvious question, but it turns out not to be.
  As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who was very helpful on this matter, will be aware, the Modernisation Committee in the last Parliament spent a lot of time, probably too much, trying to work out how we could deal with the ridiculous problem of voting, speaking and passing legislation in the early hours of the morning. After a number of those meetings, I came to the conclusion that we were asking ourselves the wrong question. We needed to ask ourselves how we could get some of this Chamber's business out of the Chamber. I then wrote a paper on what I called, rather inelegantly, the "Primary Committee", which the clerks, in their infinite wisdom and subtlety, finally called Westminster Hall. That is where the idea came from, as the hon. Gentleman will know, and it came about for reasons of time.
  When considering reform of the Lords, we must ask ourselves whether it is simply a revising Chamber. I have no doubt that it ought to be, in part, a revising Chamber, but I also believe strongly that part of its activities must focus on protecting and enhancing aspects of our constitution. That is why I highlight the importance of having representation of organisations such as local government. We cannot rush through such consideration, which is why I think that 17 July is nonsense, but that does not mean that we should drag our feet. I am sorry, I have moved on a bit since the point at which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) tried to intervene.
  Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend is making very thoughtful points, but does not he accept that many of the issues that he is raising have been covered in great detail by the Wakeham commission? A big difference in West Germany, whose constitution we helped to write, is that it was a Federal Republic, with a federal constitution that included a lower Chamber elected by proportional representation.
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is right on the latter point, but he ought to bear it in mind that some aspects of our actions, on devolution in Scotland and Wales, make this country federal. [Interruption.] I agree that it is not federal, and I did not say that it was, but it has federal aspects.
  Because we do not have a written constitution, the British have been very good at making things up as we go along. That is messy but it works quite well, which is
  356
  why I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase that we should not leave things there but continue to move forward. We should not do what we did in the 20th century—stand still and tell ourselves that we have a wonderful Parliament, the best in the world, while everybody else is overtaking in the fast lane.
  I acknowledge that a lot of the legwork has been done, although I am not such a fan of the Wakeham commission's report as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) seems to be. I am not knocking its work: some of it was good, although I am less keen on other parts. However, some of the other things that have been written and said do offer us a way forward. What I am trying to say is, yes, I want the work to be done as fast as possible, but I also want workable solutions that recognise the complexity of the issues.
  The unspoken argument—of which we as party politicians are all aware but do not talk about much—is that as much as we want Parliament to be a good Parliament that holds Governments to account and all the rest, we know that if we win an election on a party manifesto, we expect to be able to carry out that manifesto without the second Chamber constantly blocking us, which is what happened to Labour Governments throughout the 20th century. We had better come up with a system that recognises that; to do otherwise would be to put the parliamentary aspects wholly above the party aspects, whereas the reality that we have to take on board, whether we like it or not, is that no modern democracy works without political parties.
  We want it to be possible to govern effectively and we want the second Chamber—and, I might add, the first—to be able to hold the Government to account, but we also want the second Chamber to be able to protect and enhance aspects of the constitution. The aspect about which I feel strongly is local government, because—unlike some of my hon. Friends, although people outside certainly saw it—throughout the 1980s I watched Governments smash up local government, abolish local government, and impose the poll tax.
  I learned a lesson when I entertained a group of West Germans who were fascinated about docklands. Having heard how Michael Heseltine, then Secretary of State for the Environment, had overruled all the local authorities to build docklands, even though the local authorities were all saying no, they asked me how he had the power to do that, saying, "Under West Germany's constitution, he would not have been allowed to do that—yet you wrote our constitution for us." I did not say it at the time, but I thought of the magic saying that the British occasionally utter, "Don't do as we do, do as we tell you."
  The issues are complex. That is an argument not for delay, but for very clear and hard thinking. That thinking should focus on matters such as the role of the second Chamber—what it exists to do. I think that it should not only act as a revising Chamber, but serve to protect and enhance parts of the constitution. We might need to take a more radical approach from time to time if we are to avoid falling into the trap that claimed the Modernisation Committee when it spent several meetings considering how we could change the times that this House sat, not focusing on the central issue which was how to get some of the time-consuming business out of this Chamber and into what is now Westminster Hall.

  357
  I am very proud of Westminster Hall. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) thinks that we devalued Parliament in creating Westminster Hall, but I think that it has done wonderful things for Back Benchers. In the long term, it will enable us to enhance the role of this Chamber—but that will only happen when other parts of the constitution are reformed.
  I have spoken for longer than I intended. I do not want to lay down blueprints, but I ask hon. Members to recognise the importance of the steps that we are taking and to understand the need for an ongoing process of constitutional reform. We must not get stuck as we did in the 20th century. However much the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) thinks I underestimate some of the reforms that occurred then, historians looking back at the past four centuries would regard the 20th century as the one of least movement.
  8.24 pm
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for being called and pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley)— I almost said for Hammersmith. I shall not follow him down the corridor of his views on our changing constitution and what the role of the second Chamber should be. Instead, I shall concentrate on the terms of the motion, which is to do with setting up a Joint Committee.
  I recently joined the Select Committee on Public Administration. I wish that I could take credit for having been a member of the Committee when it published its original report, but I was not. On a personal note, I greatly regret that the Chairman of that Committee, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), is not to be a member of the Joint Committee, but I realise that not everybody can be.
  I support the amendment, but I hope that members of the Public Administration Committee will allow me to point out that I support it to make a consensus. I strongly believe that there should be a limited time scale for the deliberations of the Joint Committee, but I should have preferred a requirement that it report by the end of the current Session, or, for want of a better description, by the end of October. None the less, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we really should be able to get a decision on the composition of the second Chamber and the element of election to it, if that is to be the case, first and then we can sort out the other matters. I hope that the members of the Joint Committee will bear that in mind.
  I started the debate believing that a timetable was preferable. Having heard the Leader of the House, I believe that a timetable is essential. As he put it, it will be necessary for the Committee to report and this House—and, presumably, the other House—to make a decision if legislation is to be presented in the 2002—03 Session. I hope that that might encourage the Joint Committee to act faster rather than slower.
  I have one or two, perhaps over-simplified, observations to make. We are all modernists now—
  Mr. Forth: No we are not.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Well, almost all of us are, although I include myself in the minority.
  358
  I understand that from next Session the House is to sit in September as a matter of course. I think it would be an extraordinarily good thing to have a dry run by inviting the Joint Committee to sit in September.
  I apologise in advance for the fact that my next point is slightly party political in nature. The Government, rightly or wrongly, have adopted a procedure whereby before every Bill goes into Committee, its Committee stage is timetabled, as are remaining stages. I should have thought that that made more powerful the case for setting a timetable for the Joint Committee.
  There is also something injudicious in the fact that while we in the Commons can see the point of reaching conclusions sooner rather than later, I imagine that Members of the other place—on the principle that turkeys do not vote for an early Christmas—might think that they need to take a long time to determine all the options that they should present to the Commons and the Government.
  In trying to adopt an all-party approach, if that is possible, let me refer to the point made by the Scottish National party Members. I might be wrong, but looking at the 12 Members of the House of Commons who have been proposed as members of the Joint Committee, it seems to me that all the regions are covered, with the exception of Scotland. I am more concerned that there is not a Scottish MP on the Committee than that a particular party is not represented.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush would join me in reminding the House that, in population if not in size, London is considerably larger than Scotland. From a party political viewpoint, I feel strongly that the second party in London should have a representative on the Joint Committee, but I realise that its size makes it impossible to achieve the balance needed to satisfy all the interests.
  As the Leader of the House said, there is general consensus on the need for a second Chamber and on its having the sort of powers that the other place currently has. Essentially, the argument centres on composition and what degree of election or appointment there should be to that revised second Chamber.
  If it was the responsibility of the Joint Committee to draw up the blueprint for the second Chamber, it would need longer to deliberate. But as it is required to put options, whether there are two or a range—my experience is that there are as many views as there are Members of the House about exactly what the second Chamber should be—the Joint Committee can and should come to its conclusions sooner, rather than later. In short, we all know the arguments. We have rehearsed them for years, particularly over the past year or two. Now it is time to reach decisions.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: The terms of the motion are very narrow indeed—to agree or reject the membership and to consider an amendment concerning the timetable. I supported the establishment of the Joint Committee and the Government's decision to leave the matter to Parliament. I did so because the Government's track record on the issue is particularly poor.
  The Wakeham commission was a disaster. Anyone who read the responses to the Wakeham report realised that Wakeham got it completely wrong. We all know that the

  359
  Lord Chancellor was living on another planet when he presented his preferred options. He was not speaking for the parliamentary Labour party or the Labour party but for a very few Members of the House of Lords.
  We had the disaster of the people's peers, proposed by my own Government, to huge ridicule. The House of Lords Appointments Commission was ridiculed. The whole episode has been a disaster, so I welcome the decision by the Prime Minister to leave the matter to Parliament.
  We have picked over the issue endlessly, and I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and others by rehearsing the options. We know broadly what they are, but I enter a caveat. My heart sank when my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), I think, mentioned new developments: the regional dimension. Goodness me! We are still consulting on the regions. The regional Green Paper is out to consultation until August. The Government's proposals for the regions are opaque.
  It is a characteristic of the Government that on certain difficult issues—this is a difficult issue—there never comes a point where matters crystallise and we are asked to decide. There is always more consultation, more navel-gazing. It is depressing and debilitating. What people out there want, and what I want from my own Government, is clarity of vision and purpose.
  I attached my name to the amendment because it concerns me—less so now than before the debate started—that no time frame is mentioned in the motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase mentioned, when we tabled the amendment we made the mistake of not specifying the year. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), speaking for the Liberals, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush both told the House that they believe, as we believe, that it is possible to bring forward options by 17 July. We are not asking people to go back to the drawing board and produce a blueprint—
  Mr. Soley: With respect to my hon. Friend, I said that 17 July was a nonsense date.
  Mr. Prentice: Forgive me, I am confusing my hon. Friend with another hon. Member—I shall call him my hon. Friend on the Public Administration Committee—the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). He said, I think, that it should be possible to bring forward options at an early date.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I said that I went along with the consensus of the Committee in specifying the date of 17 July, but I personally would have preferred to submit a report by the end of the Session—say, by the end of October.
  Mr. Prentice: I have got it all seriously wrong. Clearly, I am speaking of what I want to happen. This is a kind of Vulcan mind meld. I do not know whether we are all Trekkies, but some of us are.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he would help
  360
  himself by talking about what he wants, rather than recapitulating what other hon. Members have been saying?
  Mr. Prentice: It should be possible to bring forward proposals by the end of July. I have no doubt about that. Anyone who reads the Public Administration Committee report would be convinced that it is possible to find a consensus where, perhaps, it was thought previously that none existed.
  That is the case in the report from the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase reminded the House that we started to take evidence in December and I think that we produced our report on 14 February. No doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong. The Select Committee encompassed a range of views, but we settled on a recommendation of 60 per cent. directly elected. We thought in our wisdom that that would find favour with the Government, although we state in the report:
  "Had we started with a clean slate…the majority preference on the Committee would have been for a wholly elected and much smaller second chamber",
  which is my preference.
  I have no problems with the membership of the Joint Committee. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that its members are all distinguished and of great standing. However, we need to consider how the members of Joint Committees are selected in future. I had not realised, until my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush told the House, that he had applied. I made a very public application last Thursday to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I thought that he was seriously considering it, but there we are.
  Finally, I return to the matter that I touched on earlier—the centre of gravity. I do not want people from the other end inventing their own centre of gravity. I want them to look at the evidence. The Conservative party's position is that 80 per cent. should be elected and 20 per cent. indirectly elected or nominated. The Liberal party's position is that 80 per cent. should be elected, and 20 per cent. nominated. The Public Administration Committee recommended that 60 per cent. should be elected.
  Perhaps I was expecting too much of the Joint Committee in hoping that it could meet during the summer. Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I believe that a realistic deadline for a final report would be the turn of the year, so that legislation can be introduced. I hope that the House will endorse that approach.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The only issue that I agree with so far is that we are discussing a key constitutional matter that needs to be settled. As the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said, reform of the House of Lords is essential because the present situation is untenable. The Government have interfered with processes in the other place and they now have to finish the job. That should be a matter for Members of this place rather than for the Government. The Government have failed miserably to take Back-Bench Labour Members with them, let alone the rest of the House.

  361
  Unless one is a member of one of the three largest parties in the House, the motion is entirely unacceptable. It contains no recognition of the minority parties in the House. The Leader of the House danced on the end of a pin to justify the motion in terms of logistics and statistics. He ignored the fact that there will be a Committee of 24, a number that would legitimately require a minority party member to be on it. He said that 12 members will be nominated by the House, and only the 12 will count. By that logic, no Joint Committee will ever have a minority party Member on it. We will never count in those terms. That is unacceptable for Members of minority parties, and I suggest that it should be unacceptable for anyone who takes the Chamber seriously and for the process of democracy.
  The Leader of the House has suggested that these Joint Committees should become a more obvious feature of our constitutional arrangements in the House, and that we should be doing more jointly with the other place. When we arrive at a reformed House of Lords that will contain at least a majority of elected Members, I expect that we will work much more closely with it. As a member of the Catering Committee, which is my highest standing in this place at present, I know that we cannot agree with the House of Lords about co-ordinating the opening and shutting of our catering facilities. There is much to do to improve relations between this place and the other place. Future Joint Committees have had a worrying precedent set this evening.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: There are already differences between this place and the other place, as there are between parties in this place. What special or unique bearing would a minority party bring to the debate? Surely the purpose of a Joint Committee is the recognition that there are differences within parties in this place, and that we are seeking consensus.
  Mr. Thomas: That was a disappointing intervention. It suggests that minority parties never bring anything to this place. If the hon Gentleman's logic is taken to a reasonable conclusion, representation does not count. Yet we represent 1.5 million voters. In opposing the motion, I am arguing that representation of the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom should be reflected in the Committee. I do not mind whether it is a member of my party, the Scottish National party, the two Unionist parties or the Social Democratic and Labour party. I want the House to recognise that there is a representational role in respect of the individual nations that form the United Kingdom that has not been reflected in the proposed Committee.
  It has been pointed out that there will no representative of a Scottish constituency on the Committee. I have a slightly more sophisticated argument than that because there will be a Welsh Member. I may not want him to be on the Committee, but at least he is there. I know that his views will be different from those that I would like to be explored. I shall explain why I take that view.
  There has been an underlying debate about the House of Lords interacting in some way with regional devolution in England and national devolution in Northern Ireland,
  362
  Wales and Scotland. That argument has been advanced by two senior Members who will be members of the Committee if the motion is agreed to: the hon. Members for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). That means that there is a crucial role for the minority parties in this place because we stand for election in only one country in the United Kingdom.
  We are minority parties not because of the votes that we receive but because we concentrate on only one area of the United Kingdom. I do not represent a minority party in Wales because my party is the official Opposition in the National Assembly for Wales. We got within a whisker of the Labour party's vote in the European elections.
  The SNP is not a minority party in Scotland because it is the official Opposition in the Scottish Parliament. The Ulster Unionists and the SDLP are not minority parties in Northern Ireland but parties of government that are essential to the process there.
  Ms Meg Munn: Surely the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. It is not the purpose of the Committee to produce a solution. It is a mechanism that will enable all Members of this place, from whatever party, to express their views on composition. The motion may be regrettable from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but his view will be able to be expressed as will mine or that of any Member who is not on the Committee.
  Mr. Thomas: I think that the hon. Lady has missed the point. I regret that the view that I have tried to get across has gone over her head. The clear message from the motion is that there is no place for any minority party on a Joint Committee. That is the message and the dangerous precedent that is being set. She may be right in terms of the Committee's report, as we will all have a chance to debate it. However, I shall say a little more in a moment about why I think that she is incorrect even on the narrow point that she made.
  The logic of the dangerous precedent that is being set is that of excluding the minority parties from constitutional debates, and we can see the same thing in another area. We were told recently that the Prime Minister will soon grace the Liaison Committee with his presence. The Committee, which I think has 34 members, will therefore cross-examine and question the Prime Minister about his work, but no member of any minority party will be present, as we have no Chairmen. We have never had a Select Committee Chairman in this place, so we have had no role on the Liaison Committee. Therefore, a Committee of 34 members, which should have at least one, if not about 1.6, minority party members, does not have any minority party representation. I ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) whether that is an acceptable situation. The Liaison Committee is being promulgated by the Government as a huge, modernising step forward—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can understand an allusion to that matter, but it is outside the terms of the motion that we are discussing. May I urge the hon. Gentleman back to the confines of the motion on the Order Paper?
  Mr. Thomas: I shall certainly return to the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was trying to deal with the

  363
  dangerous precedent that is being set. Until then, I had confined my remarks to the establishment of the Joint Committee. I shall not even touch on what the recommendations should be, as that is another matter that we will come to in future.
  Kevin Brennan: I understand why the hon. Gentleman and his party might feel left out of the process, because they are not represented, but is he really saying that his commonality of interest is so powerful that he would be happy to be represented by the Democratic Unionist party on the Committee that is dealing with such an important constitutional matter?
  Mr. Thomas: I am arguing for inclusion on the Committee and other Joint Committees—and, indeed, the Liaison Committee—of a member of a minority party. Once the principle is accepted that Joint Committees of more than 20 members should include a minority party member, I am sure that as more Joint Committees are established, the time for Plaid Cymru will come, just as for the Scottish National party and the SDLP. I am not concerned about which party takes the one place in question now, because I am arguing about the principle and not individual membership.
  I do not blame the Leader of the House or the Opposition for the current situation, as I think that it is a result of the abject failure of the reform process and the way in which we go about our business in the House and select Select Committee members. We all recall the stitch-up of a few weeks ago, when proposals made by the Leader of the House, which I fully supported, were scuppered by the underhand actions of the Whips Office. The stitch-up was cooked in the Whips Office and served up by compliant Back Benchers.
  Mr. Robin Cook: It was not cooked up.
  Mr. Thomas: It was undercooked, but served up by compliant Back Benchers who were anxious to be seen to be doing the Whips' bidding in a so-called free vote. I am not surprised that we have not got the arrangements right for the House properly to select members of Select Committees, Joint Committees, the Liaison Committee and whatever other Committees. I am very concerned, as are hon. Members from all the minority parties of this House—
  Kevin Brennan: Where are they?
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will see them when we vote.
  I am very concerned about the precedent that we are establishing. I thought that even the narrow point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley was incorrect because we know already what the options are. One option is a fully elected House and another is a fully nominated House. It is the third option that we are charging the Committee to propose, and that is the crucial option. because whatever side of this spectrum we are on—I am on the fully elected side—we know that it will somehow carry the day, as it will be the only one that can muddle through the processes that we have established to decide these matters. We will use it to make the final decision on the proportion of elected Members in the House of Lords and it will be produced by the Joint
  364
  Committee. We have heard protestations all along that the Joint Committee will not come up with a blueprint, but it will. Once it does, the pragmatic reality is that the third option is the only one likely to go through.
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman may have misread the motion before the House which talks about a number of intermediate options. There will not necessarily be just a third option, but a fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth option if the Joint Committee recommended that.
  Mr. Thomas: I did not misread the motion. The reality is that a preferred option will sneak its way through, so the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley falls. Whether we have just one option or the number of options to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall referred, the Joint Committee will produce the blueprint. The lack of any representation of any minority party on that Committee is a backward step in the modernisation the House. It fails both devolution and our representational and territorial role as minority parties in these debates.
  8.51 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: I congratulate the Government on ditching the White Paper, with its scandalous accusations that elections would be a bad thing for the second Chamber. They have accepted the weight of public and parliamentary opinion that that solution would not be acceptable and would stick in our throats. In revising the constitution, the Government need to bring Parliament and the public with them.
  I urge swift progress towards a vote for options on the composition of the second Chamber. Some people suggest that deciding composition is a secondary matter deriving from the powers of the second Chamber. At present, we are going about that in the right way. There is a broadly settled view about powers. The proposals and reports produced every decade since the beginning of the last century on reform of the second Chamber overwhelmingly endorse a second Chamber which is a deliberative, revising Chamber that contributes to scrutiny of the Executive. There are marginal variations at different periods, but that is the continuing theme of reports and proposals from Governments of all parties for reform, most of which have not got anywhere.
  Mr. McCabe: I want to agree with my hon. Friend, but the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has a different view on the powers of the second Chamber. If his view commanded a broader majority in the Conservative party, would that not mean that the consensus on which my hon. Friend is relying would not exist? In those circumstances, to argue about composition before we have agreed on functions, role and powers would be an error.
  Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is jumping into a trap created by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. That is something that the right hon. Gentleman frequently does with great charm and aplomb. He takes one position one day and another the next day to wind us up, and at the moment he is succeeding. That makes him very happy. I suggest that we should not fall into his trap and should not be wound up. It is interesting to watch the right hon. Gentleman's journey on this

  365
  subject. It has consistently reflected his commitment to this Chamber—which is deeply held—and to Parliament, but it is also about how he can do the best thing for his party. That is not an unrespectable position to take, and it is not one that he has always taken, but it is the role that he plays as shadow Leader of the House. We should enjoy watching it, but not fall into his heffalump trap.
  History shows that although the function is broadly a settled question, the issue that has caused controversy in every decade, especially recently, is that of where the second Chamber derives its authority from. That is the underlying issue in respect of composition. There needs to be a clear decision about the source of that authority. Does it come from the people, through voting; from other institutions of civic society—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) suggested in terms of the involvement of local government—or from the appointment of the great and the good, following on from life peerages and people's peers?
  That seems to be a chronically unsettled question, yet in practice it is settled both in public opinion and in the opinion of the House. Every time the public are consulted, it is clear that they think that the people should give permission and authority to legislators in the second, as well as the primary, Chamber of the House. The view of this House has been made clear by the breadth and depth of support for early-day motion 226, tabled by me and some of my hon. Friends, which has gained more than 300 signatures—a clear majority of the 571 Members of Parliament who are neither Ministers nor Government Whips.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Lady talks about public opinion. Does it surprise her to learn that of the 60 million or so people in this kingdom, fewer responded to this consultation than to a consultation by Isle of Wight council on the pedestrianisation of Newport high street?
  Fiona Mactaggart: Not at all. That is not because people are not interested in how they are governed, but, I am afraid, because the White Paper was rightly treated with derision by the public as it was such a flawed piece of work. The grown-up aspect of what the Government are doing—it is unusual for a Government, and worthy of praise—is to say, "We were wrong; we are prepared to look again and think again on this matter." Public opinion is not often expressed in specific responses to a consultation on a deeply flawed White Paper. It is expressed in other ways, and every time that it has been measured on this subject it has been clear.
  Let me urge the Committee, in giving us the opportunity speedily to achieve what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House called a centre of gravity in relation to the composition of the second Chamber and the source of its Members' authority, to take a leaf from the book of those of us who tabled early-day motion 226—that is, to concentrate on finding what we agree on rather than what divides us. If we consider the history of the debate, we realise that the search for perfection has been the enemy of progress.
  We are parliamentarians and we therefore hold opinions. I urge members of the Joint Committee, who will all approach their deliberations with a view of the
  366
  perfect solution, to submerge perfection and build consensus, which can be the platform for progress. Unless we do that, we shall simply be this decade's example of failure to make progress on an important constitutional question.
  The debate about the irrelevance of politics and about politicians being self-serving, boring and more interested in whether they can outflank the royal family will be fuelled by our failure to take responsibility and say that we can improve the way in which the country is governed. We have a duty and an opportunity to do that now. I wish the Joint Committee well, but warn it not to delay. We must act now.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I have been an Opposition Member since 1997 and it is therefore refreshing to listen to speeches from all parties with which I can largely agree. I hope that that happens more often in future.
  I congratulate the Government on introducing the proposal. The Leader of the House has done a marvellous job in getting the motion on the Order Paper today. I support the motion, for which I shall vote if there is a Division. I have been pressing my party and arguing in the House for such an approach for more than five years. I am delighted that we have got this far.
  That leaves the question of whether to support the amendment if it is pressed to a Division. I do not instinctively support restrictive timetabling for measures of constitutional reform; I sympathise with the views of the shadow Leader of the House on that. However, I have listened carefully to the arguments tonight and I believe that I am persuaded of the case for the amendment, for three reasons.
  First, it deals only with the need for clarity on the narrow issue of composition, which is the basic building block for subsequent reform. Without that, we cannot proceed far. Secondly, composition has been aired and debated fully. There is no need for extensive further consultation and hearings by the Committee. It already has the requisite information to draft a proposal to put before the House. Thirdly, and most important, some Committee members—their names are on the Order Paper—will be determined to prevent meaningful progress. Indeed, several members have said on the record that they do not support any change and will be obstructive. Lord Weatherill said that keeping the status quo was,
  "a consummation devoutly to be wished."
  I have no reason to believe that he has changed his view.
  Mr. Forth: Given our current position and that the measure has to go back to another place for final resolution before the Committee is formally established, is it reasonable to expect the Committee to meet for the first time, elect its Chairman, settle its procedures, survey the progress made today and determine sensible options for the House by the date that the amendment specifies? Does my hon. Friend, with his customary thoughtfulness, truly believe that?
  Mr. Tyrie: I thank my right hon. Friend for his final remark. I believe that a month is a reasonable time for determining the basic point. However, if hon. Members

  367
  agree with my right hon. Friend, perhaps the time could be extended until the end of the Session. I should certainly support that, too. We have, however, reached the point at which we must push this matter forward. There has been interminable delay on every aspect of this reform, as other hon. Members have pointed out.
  I would like clarification on one point, and I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Cannock Chase would nod his head if I am correct in assuming that I am supporting an amendment that refers to direct elections rather than just elections.
  Tony Wright: indicated assent.
  Mr. Tyrie: I am getting the affirmation that I was looking for, and I can therefore wholeheartedly—or, at least, reasonably heartedly—support the amendment.
  I have one other brief point to make to the hon. Gentleman, which comes under the heading of "Getting from here to there". Whether or not his amendment is passed, I hope that, in an effort to speed things up, the Public Administration Committee would consider submitting a draft proposal to the Lords Committee, setting out how the proposal for voting could be implemented by both Houses of Parliament. I suggest that his Committee do some of the work right away—in a sense to disprove the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has just made—to show that this work can be done expeditiously and that it is relatively simple to draft the motion on composition.
  I recommend that the hon. Gentleman and his Committee draft that motion and submit it as a proposal of a Select Committee of the House to the Committee on House of Lords reform. That would concentrate the minds of the Lords Committee on the need to get on with this, even if we do not get the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I hope that he will give consideration to that proposal. I realise that he and his Committee might have other investigations under way, but it is not asking a great deal of the Committee to consider such a draft.
  I have one last point, which I want to communicate to the members of the Committee as they think about what to do. In this attempt at Lords reform, we are in new territory in the crucial area of composition. There is a very high degree of agreement among people in many parts of the country about what to do. In all previous reform attempts, that has not been so. In the 1960s, people were all over the place. Indeed, the current Prime Minister would have been right to say of that time that there were as many proposals as there were Members of the House. However, that is not true this time.
  I am sure that far more members of the Labour party support election than ever before. There has been a sharp decline in the Labour party of support for unicameralism—for abolishing the Lords altogether. Many might still hanker after that, but a very high proportion now seem in favour of election. In the Conservative party, there has been a transformation. In 1997, it was certainly against election. It is not now. I would say that three quarters of the present parliamentary party support majority election for the House of Lords.
  I have tabled an early-day motion on this matter, as has the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). As she points out, the combined effect of all this work on
  368
  early-day motions is to show that more than half of all Back Benchers are even prepared to put their head above the parapet and sign on the dotted line for majority election. In so doing, they are, of course, in line with public opinion. More than three quarters of the public support election. They have done so in opinion polls, which have been phrased in different ways at different times to different groups, using different samples, but which broadly speaking have consistently come up with the same answer. The polls have always shown that between three quarters and 85 per cent.—occasionally 90 per cent.—of those questioned were in favour of at least a majority elected second Chamber of Parliament.
  If the Lords reform Committee fails to permit Parliament to express its opinion on this crucial issue of composition—if it lets us down—it will also be letting the wider public down, and, in the long run, the growing number of us who want constitutional reform on this issue will not forgive it.
  9.10 pm
  Kevin Brennan: Time is brief and I shall try not delay the House so that other Members can speak before the winding—up speech. I welcome the motion before us, and I hope that the Joint Committee will indeed be established. However, on reading the motion carefully, it seems that, despite tonight's debate, the ordering of paragraphs has put the cart before the horse—or perhaps I should say the Lord before the cook. Paragraph (1) states that the Joint Committee should
  "consider issues relating to House of Lords reform, including the composition and powers of the Second Chamber and its role and authority within the context of Parliament as a whole".
  Not until paragraph (2) is it stated that the Joint Committee's first task—a task that need not delay us for months or years—is
  "to define and present to both Houses options for composition, including a fully nominated and fully elected House, and intermediate options".
  I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that we could have more than one intermediate option, but I hope that he was not serious in talking about six, seven, eight or nine options. To go down that road would, along with his detailed exegesis of proportional representation, ensure delay in the introduction of composition options.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I raise not a point of disagreement but a technical footnote on which it is important to reflect. If the Joint Committee recommended just one intermediate option, involving certain percentages of the elected and the appointed, it would of course be amendable. Any Member of the House could suggest different percentages, and table an amendment to that effect. In practical terms, the offer of one intermediate solution therefore opens the way to others. That is why I share my hon. Friend's view that it would be helpful if the Joint Committee were under no pressure to produce six different alternatives.
  Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and having heard it I now understand why he said that he could spend two minutes in a room and come up with the three options being presented to the House. Of course, any option could be amended to take

  369
  account of the proposal put forward unanimously by the Public Administration Committee, which includes Labour and Opposition Members. I should add that we on the Committee were not in agreement in approaching this issue. We came from many different perspectives, but we did agree that progress must be made and that we must take this opportunity to bring about reform.
  I do not care what positions prospective members of the Joint Committee held on this issue, but I hope that they adopt the same attitude as we did, and approach it in the same spirit—that of bringing about reform. If the House does not want reform, it can vote accordingly, but it must be given an early opportunity to vote. Perhaps the House does not agree with the date suggested in our amendment, but, as was pointed out, we should not set a date of July 2003 or 2004. We know what would happen if such a date were set.
  I reiterate that the first job is to produce composition options, but I should also point out that it is possible to proceed quickly. You will undoubtedly know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when my home county, Glamorgan, played Surrey today in a one-day match on the other side of the river, at the Oval, more than 850 runs were scored in 50 overs. That shows that, with the right attitude, it is possible to dispatch the ball to the boundary and make quick progress. However, if many players on this particular team are determined to present a straight bat to every proposal, we will make no progress, perish, and end up with a boring draw.
  I turn briefly to the membership of the Joint Committee. I agree that the proposed names represent a distinguished group of hon. Members; among them is my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), who is new to the House. However, 303 hon. Members signed the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I congratulate the person who, according to the House's mysterious processes, was responsible for selecting the membership of the Committee, as that person was able to find 11 hon. Members who did not sign that early-day motion.
  That is extraordinary. I checked the 303 signatories, and I apologise if I have missed someone. I am willing to stand corrected, but as far as I can tell the only member of the Committee who signed the early-day motion proposing that we should have a second Chamber that is wholly or substantially elected was my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: What about my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers)?
  Kevin Brennan: His name does not appear on my list.
  Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) is also a signatory.
  Mr. Tyler: As am I.
  Mr. David Heath: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) should provide a number of options.
  Kevin Brennan: I am providing a number of options, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)
  370
  suggests. The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), is clearly right not to trust the modern technology that provided me with the print-out.
  I hope that members of the Joint Committee will read tonight's debate. If the amendment is not pressed, I hope that that will not be taken as an excuse for delay, because delay means no change. If the tactic is to delay, there will be no change. We must be clear and honest about that.
  If reform is prevented by delaying tactics and the deliberate use of the straight bat, Parliament will lose its credibility as an institution, because we will not be doing what we claim to he doing. We will not be being straight and honest with the public. The issue may not be of great importance for people in high streets around the country, but when they lose faith that politicians will do what they say that they will do, we will all perish.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Andrew Turner: The question of how we rule ourselves is probably the second most important of all those that could come before the House, the most important being whether we rule ourselves. The composition of the upper House and its functions, powers and legitimacy are of course of great importance in the matter of how we rule ourselves.
  I must, however, immediately dispute the assertion made by the hon. Members for Cardiff. West (Kevin Brennan) and for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) that we have to move on. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush made what I thought was both an astonishing admission and an astonishing attack on his Government, although I am sure that it was not intended as such. He applauded the way in which the Government had waded in and—I think that these were his words——"smashed up the shop". He said that it was therefore necessary that something be done to put the shop back together again.
  The Government have certainly made changes to the upper House that I and many others regret, but their action could not be described as "smashing up the shop". We still have a perfectly effective, functioning and legitimate House of Lords. It is certainly as legitimate as anything that may be cobbled together as a result of this motion.
  The House of Lords presents no threat to the Government's business. It scrutinises legislation and holds the Government to account perhaps a little more effectively than this House.
  Mr. Forth: A lot more effectively.
  Mr. Turner: From a sedentary position. my right hon. Friend says that it does so a lot more effectively, and I concur with him. However, the House of Lords does not obstruct the Government's legislation unnecessarily—indeed, it improves it, as I am sure that the Home Secretary, for one, would admit, in retrospect.
  Mr. Tyrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that more than three quarters of so-called improving amendments are tabled by the Government to patch up shoddy legislation brought in here and then bunged up there for subsequent improvement?
  Mr. Turner: My hon. Friend is right. The House of Lords debates and accepts those amendments, and a further quarter of their own devising, in many cases improving the quality of legislation.

  371
  The only serious problem with the House of Lords is its size and the capacity that the Prime Minister of the day has to pack it if he wishes, although heaven forfend that I suggest he does. I should not criticise the unrepresentative nature of some recent appointments to the peerage because the peerage is not meant to be representative. However, it is noticeable that a huge proportion of recent appointees to the peerage live in the south-east of England and a tiny proportion live in other regions of England.
  May I say to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) that there are worse things in life than a boring draw, as I am sure members of the England team would have agreed after their boring draw with Sweden in the early rounds of the World cup? Worse than a boring draw would be a worse upper House. It might be more representative and present more of a challenge to this House and its members but it might obstruct the Government's business for no good reason and exclude many of the able and intelligent people, represented largely by life peers at present, who would not dream in a month of Sundays of putting themselves forward for election.
  The fact that so few people responded to the consultation contained in the document—1,113 out of a population of 60 million—may be, as the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, because the White Paper was treated with derision. Or it could simply be that there is no overwhelming demand across the country for a wholesale reform of the House of Lords. There certainly is not in the pubs and clubs or on the beaches of the Isle of Wight. The consultation is wholly unrepresentative. It is not even as representative as the Isle of Wight council's consultation on the pedestrianisation of Newport high street, to which 1,135 people out of 130,000 responded.
  The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) suggested that we should not consult any more. The Government appear to have a strategy of consulting to death, until the people in the final consultation are such a tiny distillation of the political classes that the Government can, if they wish, ignore the result. However, on this occasion, the Government and the Joint Committee, if it is established, should ignore the result.
  We need proper consultation on the powers of the House of Lords or its replacement, its functions and its composition. That consultation should be undertaken by the Joint Committee in the regions, involving real people, not just the political classes, so that they have a genuine say, an accessible opportunity to give their views on this important element in our constitution. [Interruption.] Labour Members seem to treat with derision the idea of people in the regions having a genuine say.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I was not laughing at the proposal to consult people in the regions, as the Wakeham commission did. That consultation has continued, and I fear that the hon. Gentleman is arguing for consultation because he is not eager to make progress.
  Mr. Turner: The hon. Lady is right— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—I am not willing to make progress in the wrong direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) said that one quarter of the parliamentary Conservative party was not in favour. As one of the four hon. Members to have spoken from the Conservative Benches, I probably am that one quarter. However, we
  372
  must understand the profound conservatism of the British people, who do not want their constitutional arrangements to be upended for no good reason. I am not sure that that has come through in the consultations so far.
  On the functions of the House of Lords, of course, it is important that it should scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. It is still more important that it should protect and enhance our constitution and provide a constitutional longstop to the Government's ability to get constitutional changes through this House on a whipped vote. It is also important that the House of Lords should represent those people who would not dream of standing for election. I believe that the established Church should also be represented in that House.
  I take my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) seriously when he says that the House of Lords might take on a greater role in holding the Government to account. That is certainly the only justification that I can think of for a larger elected element, accountable to the people.
  The other issue is the range of options that the Committee is asked to produce. I am unsure that it is right that it should start, as hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to have accepted, by determining the composition of the other place. It has to start by determining the powers; then it must consider the different elements of the composition. That is not a one-dimensional question. It is not simply a question of 100 per cent. nominated at one end and 100 per cent. elected at the other. The nominated category encompasses an infinite variety, ranging from the retention of existing life peers to a big bang nomination of 100 per cent. by the Government of the day, the political parties, regional assemblies where those exist, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all—the corporate institutions, the Confederation of British Industry and the trade unions.
  The question of composition is not one-dimensional at the nominated end of the spectrum, nor is it one-dimensional at the elected end. Does elected mean directly or indirectly elected? Although we have the nod from the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), I am not sure that we have the nod from anyone on the Treasury Bench as to whether "elected" in the motion refers only to directly elected.
  It is a widely held view that there are too many politicians in this country already— [Interruption.] That is, politicians of all parties. A 100 per cent. elected House of Lords would simply be a job creation scheme for second-rate politicians. Although I do not wish to go into the details of voting systems, the single transferable vote proposed by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) would be the worst possible form of election because the only way in which one could be elected if one did not have a constituency interest would be by publicity seeking or representing more and more extreme views of one type or another.
  I hope that the Joint Committee will consider not only the type of elected individual, if it is considering elections, but also the means of election. We cannot make these decisions separately; we must make them together. If it takes longer to take a better decision, it is right that the Committee should take longer.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Chris Bryant: I am delighted to speak in this debate as the last Back Bencher to be called. This is the second time that I have achieved that honour in debates on Lords reform. I am also delighted, if the motion is approved tonight, to achieve the honour of providing some freshness on the Committee—in the words of the shadow Leader of the House—and to act, in the words of the Leader of the House, as a shop steward or convenor for the forces of progress.
  I had been delighted with the whole thrust of the debate until the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) spoke. He took us down several avenues that are not likely to help the Committee. Indeed, they might have been specifically designed to hinder the Committee in the progress that it might make. It is worth remembering that the major reason for the Committee—and why I welcome the Government's decision to set it up—is that the House of Lords still seems to the vast majority of people more like something out of a Shakespearean play, rather than a legislative body. It still contains the Bishop of Chester and the Bishop of Carlisle—characters from "Richard II", "Richard III", "Henry IV", parts I and 2, and "Henry VI", parts 1, 2 and 3, who are all still forming legislation for this country.
  David Winnick: They must be pretty old by now.
  Mr. Bryant: The personnel change, but they retain the titles. It is as if Bushy, Bagot and Green will come in at any moment and offer their allegiance to the king.
  The House of Lords still feels wholly unrepresentative. One might expect the second Chamber to look more like the country from which it is drawn.
  Mr. Robert Key: It does.
  Mr. Bryant: It does not look anything like it. It may look like the planet from which the hon. Gentleman has come, but it does not look like the country from which the rest of us have come. The second Chamber, as presently constituted, still has significant powers but without authority, accountability or legitimacy. That must be a fundamental problem for the British constitution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) made the point well that Britain has taken great pride in its constitution by virtue of its ability to adapt, reform and change. We now need to make additional change. In the words of the Leader of the House in the first debate held on the issue since I was elected, a centre of gravity already exists, certainly in this Chamber. It is intriguing that those who argue for no change often do so on the basis that they want to retain the primacy of this Chamber. However, they are often prepared to pray in aid the views of the second Chamber as if it should hold primacy on this sole issue.
  The centre of gravity on the issue has been evident in many of the debates that we have already had on this subject. It includes the belief that we should have a second Chamber that is a secondary and revising House, without significant additional powers of any kind. I believe that the majority of Members of this House think that any additional powers that it has should be exercised with legitimacy. There is also a centre of gravity around the
  374
  belief that the second Chamber should be smaller, with transitional arrangements to take us from the present situation to a better one.
  Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that the only form of political legitimacy is democratic legitimacy. Surely he is far too intelligent to believe that. If he did, he would have to argue that the monarchy, and our head of state, were not politically legitimate.
  Mr. Bryant: The monarchy and our head of state as currently constituted attract the support of the vast majority of the people in this country, as was demonstrated when Her Majesty visited the Rhondda last week. However, I personally believe that the best form of legitimacy for any country is democracy, and we should push arguments for democracy more strongly, especially when democracy is having a difficult time.
  As one who, I hope, will be put on the Committee by the end of this evening, I want to issue a couple of warnings. First, the Committee has been referred to by many in the press and the media, including the BBC website, as the "long-grass Committee". I am something of an expert on long grass, as I have not cut the grass in my garden for some time. I bought a strimmer last week, however, and, in recognition of how strong the grass is in my garden, a bush cutter. Perhaps it would be a good idea if all members of the Committee were issued with strimmers to make sure that it does not stay long in the long grass and that we can get it right back in the middle of the lawn.
  My second warning is that there is no point in the Committee repeating the work of previous Committees. There has been a royal commission and endless different Committees of the House and of the other place. Various different organisations and think tanks have been round these bushes so often that it is time that we cut through the Gordian knot. That will not best be done by trying to repeat the work by calling a vast array of witnesses who have already given evidence to Select Committees. It is most important that we move forward.
  On the best way to move forward—perhaps the Minister will reply to this later—there still seems to be uncertainty about what stage 1 and 2 are. My understanding is that stage 1 puts a simple series of questions—not fully worked out options—about the composition of a new second Chamber. For instance, will the composition be 0 per cent., 60 per cent., or 100 per cent.? We shall vote on those and any amendments but not on a wholly worked-out system. That is the building block for the second stage. Once the Committee knows whether the composition is to be 0 per cent., 60 per cent., or 100 per cent., it can put forward a whole set of proposals with recommendations about the electoral system, length of service, transitional arrangements and other issues that will need to be addressed.
  If the Committee spends a large amount of time in its first months deliberating about all those other issues, it will never manage to achieve the most important first step of establishing the building blocks of what the composition should look like. Above all, the final outcome—this must be a kind of lodestar for the Committee—is a historic opportunity to create a settled constitution. A parliamentary system that commands

  375
  authority, respect and legitimacy, not just in one part but in its entirety, can only bring greater respect and legitimacy to the whole of the political endeavour, which can only be good for democracy and for Britain. I also believe that it cannot be beyond the wit of the men and women on the Committee, and of the whole political system of this country, to devise a parliamentary stem that is complementary, in which the two Chambers work together, not in competition, but have separate roles.
  Many members of the Labour party might say that these constitutional issues are largely irrelevant compared with the bread-and-butter issues of law and order, health, education and transport. In many ways, I agree. The Labour Government will stand or fall on those issues far more than on this one. The question of how we choose to run the country, however, is about the way in which we use power. I shall make no apologies, as the Member of Parliament for the Rhondda, for spending what I estimate will be a considerable part of the summer and other parts of the year ahead working on this matter, if only because the first Member of Parliament for the Rhondda, William Abrahams—who was known by all as Mabon—spent all of his maiden speech, and much of his parliamentary career, trying to seek the disestablishment of the Church of Wales, as it then was, and, subsequently, of the Church in Wales, and trying to make sure that the bishops of the Church of England were removed from the House of Lords.
  I hope that we can finish the job on behalf of Mabon. I note that there is no bishop on the Committee, and that is a significant first step. It is the first time that there has not been a bishop on any Committee that has been set up to try to reform the House of Lords. I hope that we follow through in that style.
  9.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): It is with pleasure that I close what all Members will agree has been an extremely valuable and constructive debate on setting up the Joint Committee.
  In establishing the Joint Committee, the Government have taken an historic step—to put the decision on Parliament's future into the hands of Parliament itself. We believe that the membership of the Joint Committee broadly reflects the range of views in this House and the other place, as have been expressed in this and earlier debates and in the response to the Government's consultation. The initial phase of the Committee's work will be followed by detailed consideration of the implementation of reform. After that, it is the Government's intention to legislate.
  We also believe that it is right for both Chambers to have an opportunity to express their collective view on the issue, and that is why the first task for the Joint Committee is to devise a set of options for the composition of the second Chamber. They will be put to the House in free votes.
  We have heard many contributions to the debate urging speed on the Joint Committee. They have been given focus by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) and his fellow members of the Public Administration Committee. We have heard many voices in the Chamber calling particularly for speed in putting forward the options for the free votes. I am sure that members of the Committee, many of whom have spoken in the debate, have heard those exhortations.
  376
  The Government did not want to set a deadline for the Joint Committee to report, because we felt that it should be a matter for the Committee itself to set a timetable. However, I am sure that it will take into account what has been said in the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made a number of specific recommendations about timing and I hope that he was reassured by what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said when he made it clear that we will have to have the options on which to vote by the autumn if we are to keep to a timetable of introducing legislation in the next Session. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) requested, there will have to be a final report by the end of the year. We are with my hon. Friends on timing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase acknowledged, the Government want to make progress and bring the matter to a conclusion. I hope that what I and my right hon. Friend have said this evening will be enough to persuade my hon. Friend not to press his amendment to the vote.
  Tony Wright: In the spirit of compromise that we have urged on the House so as to make progress, let me give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requires In view of the assurances that he is giving now and that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave earlier, I confirm that we will not press our amendment to the vote.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend also made several points about the important role that his Select Committee's report played in contributing to the debate. I agree with him on that. He commended to the House and to those watching and listening outside that part of the report entitled "Getting from here to there", and I recommend the whole report to those Members who have not yet read it. It is excellent, and we share his sense of urgency.
  My hon. Friend also expressed regret that none of the members of the Joint Committee were drawn from his Select Committee. I hear what he says hut, if it is any consolation, the whole House would expect him and other members of the Select Committee to be among the first to be called upon to give evidence. We hope that the Select Committee will mount a critical and constructive critique of the Joint Committee's work. There may be advantages in doing that if there is no overlap in membership.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: What criteria were applied for selecting members of the Joint Committee?
  Mr. Bradshaw: The ability of members to reach a conclusion while approaching the problem with fresh minds and retaining a balance. My hon. and learned Friend has only just arrived in the Chamber—
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: No I have not. I was here before. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] When the Minister was not here.
  Mr. Bradshaw: That is amazing because I only popped out to the loo for about 30 seconds. Had my hon. and learned Friend listened to the whole debate, which I am sure he did even if he was not present, he would have

  377
  heard every hon. Member, with the exception of the nationalists, commend the membership of the Committee and its qualities.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made important references to the report by the Public Administration Select Committee. He spent some time advocating the benefits of certain electoral systems and the timing of elections. Although the White Paper, the report and the Wakeham commission might not explicitly support what he said about electoral systems, they at least tilt towards his view.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) made an excellent contribution. He welcomed the establishment of the Committee and I welcome the fact that he will be a member of it. He also had interesting things to say about the West German model, which I have studied and it has much to recommend it. Like all the details raised by right hon. and hon. Members, those matters will be for the Joint Committee. As a member of the Committee, I am sure that he will be able to make those points to it.
  My hon. Friend was right to remind the House that the reform needs to be seen in the context of this Government as the first Government radically to reform the United Kingdom constitution for many years. I thank him for that. He also expressed a desire for a speedy process. Like other hon. Members, he volunteered to sit through parts of the summer, although hopefully only when it would not upset his family too much. My hon. Friend rightly expressed the near consensus that exists on the importance of maintaining the pre-eminence of the Commons. He stressed how vital it is that its Members are elected on a manifesto and given a mandate to carry through those commitments.
  The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) startled many in the House with his declaration that we are all modernists now, for which he earned a rebuke from his right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. As a new member of the Public Administration Select Committee, he also spoke warmly of its report and in favour of the amendment. I hope that he accepts the reassurances that my right hon. Friend and I have given on timing and is happy that the amendment will not be pressed to a vote.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, another member of the Public Administration Select Committee, accused the Government of having a poor track record on constitutional reform. I do not accept that. Indeed, the Committee's report went out of its way to praise the Government's record on such reform and, as I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush thinks that the Government will go down as one of the great radical reforming Governments of all time. However, having said that we have a poor track record, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle welcomed the fact that we are leaving the matter to Parliament. I am glad that he is at least pleased about that.
  My hon. Friend was concerned that any debate about regions or regionalism would slow down the process. Those hon. Members who want to make progress are unanimous that wherever the regional debate goes, it should not slow down reform of the House of Lords. I
  378
  hope that that reassures him. As I said, his request that the final report should be ready by the turn of the year is one to which we can all agree.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) raised the concern expressed in an intervention about the lack of representation of nationalist parties on the Joint Committee. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear in his opening speech, we have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's points. However, as my right hon. Friend said, if there were to be proportionality in the representation on the Committee, it would have to be more than twice its planned size, and that, we fear, would slow down its work. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) made the good point that, in the end, we will have a free vote on the options in which all our votes will count equally.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), in another very good contribution, welcomed the steps that we are taking this evening and called for swift progress. She rightly drew attention to the importance of this debate as part of the wider debate in the country about the need for politicians to reconnect with people who feel that politics has nothing to do with them. My hon. Friend was right to point out that that is a crucial part of the constitutional right of reform. We share the belief and hope that it will help to revitalise our political life and re-engage people.
  The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), in another very positive contribution, warmly welcomed the motion, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I accept the hon. Gentleman's congratulations on his behalf. The hon. Gentleman called for speed and rightly pointed out that some members of the Committee may well seek to delay the process. I hope that those Members who are present and others who read the report of the debate take on board the almost unanimous view that the Committee should get a move on. The hon. Gentleman accused the Government of interminable delay, and I do not recognise that description, but I am glad that he is generally on the side of the angels in this matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) was right to say that the Committee's first task will be to present options, and he expressed the hope that there will not be too many. I hope that he was reassured by the intervention of my right hon. Friend, who expressed his own hope that that will be the case. My hon. Friend expressed regret that only one Member of this House who had signed the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough had been selected for the Committee. We have done a little research in the meantime, and the latest count is five and rising, so I hope that my hon. Friend feels reassured.
  I think that it would be fair to say that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was a lone voice this evening in arguing that we should not move on. He talked about many details, such as the role of the established Church and whether any faiths should be represented. He made the point that there are too many politicians, and I suggest that this is a good opportunity for us to decrease that number. People have talked about consensus, and I think that one point on which there is consensus is that the second Chamber could be a good deal smaller than it is.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), in an excellent speech, showed that he will be an excellent member of the Committee. He reminded us why Lords

  379
  reform must be brought to its conclusion. He also, rightly, spoke of a centre of gravity. In recent months, too many people have got away with suggesting that there are as many views on the matter as there are Members of Parliament, and that argument is very dangerous.
  Mr. Tyrie: The man who has argued most forcefully that there are as many views as there are Members is the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Bradshaw: That is as it may be, but in recent weeks and months, the realisation has been growing that it is possible to bring people around to a consensus, and I think that the report of the Public Administration Committee achieved that. Although the House contains many views on the way forward, consensus is coalescing around a number of issues, although strong differences remain on composition and the proportions of elected and appointed Members, which is one of the reasons why the Joint Committee is to make settling on recommendations and presenting us with options a priority.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda expressed the hope that the Joint Committee would not be a "long-grass Committee". I think that most hon. Members share that hope. He also stressed the importance of the Committee not repeating work that had already been done, and he was absolutely right to do so. He was also absolutely right in his definition of stage 1: it needs to be quick and to serve as a building block so that we can get on with the nitty-gritty and the detail. He generously offered to emulate his distinguished predecessor by spending much of the summer dealing with constitutional reform.
  Several hon. Members have made specific proposals on the direction of reform, and although I do not want to duck those issues, I have to say that such matters are now for the Joint Committee, which has been established to consider the way forward in a way that reflects the views of this House and the other place. I think that those proposals were directed more at the members of the Joint Committee in this House and people outside than at my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House or me. I am sure that those members of the Joint Committee who have been present for the debate have noted the points made and will consider them during their deliberations.
  I join with other hon. Members in wishing the Joint Committee well in its deliberations. There should be no doubt that it is a Committee of very high calibre, whose members will bring to it a large amount of collective wisdom and a healthy mix of opinions. I am certain that they are up to the task.
  The matter with which the Joint Committee will deal is not a small one, and it is to the Government's credit that we have put Parliament in the driving seat of reform of the House of Lords. Parliament now stands on the brink of an unparalleled opportunity to shape itself for the future. It is considering one of the most important constitutional decisions of the past 100 years, and the effect of its deliberations will be felt for decades to come. I know that it will rise to the challenge. I trust that the House agrees that the motion is for the convenience of all parties and that it will support it.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) does not want to pursue his amendment.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the hon. Member for Cannock Chase has decided not to press his amendment, is it possible for you to reconsider accepting ours?
  Mr. Speaker: That was a decision made at 12 o'clock today.
  Question. put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 14.

  Division No. 277]

  [9.58 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Ainger, Nick

  Chidgey, David

  Allan, Richard

  Clapham, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  (Norwich S)

  (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clwyd, Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coaker, Vernon

  Austin, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coleman, Iain

  Baird, Vera

  Colman, Tony

  Baker, Norman

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Banks, Tony

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barrett, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cox, Tom

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cranston, Ross

  Beard, Nigel

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bell, Stuart

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Best, Harold

  (Copeland)

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blizzard, Bob

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Borrow, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brennan, Kevin

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Donohoe, Brian H

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Browne, Desmond

  Doughty, Sue

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dowd, Jim

  Bryant, Chris

  Drew, David

  Burgon, Colin

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Burnett, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnam, Andy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Efford, Clive

  Cairns, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fisher, Mark

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Casale, Roger

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Caton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Cawsey, Ian

  Flynn, Paul

  Challen, Colin

  Follett, Barbara

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  381

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lidington, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Love, Andrew

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Lucas, Ian

  Gapes, Mike

  Luke, Iain

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCabe, Stephen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gilroy, Linda

  McDonnell, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McKechin, Ann

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWatter, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWilliam, John

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mann, John

  Havard, Dai

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hayes, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Healey, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Heath, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Heyes, David

  Mole, Chris

  Hill, Keith

  Moore, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morgan, Julie

  Hoey, Kate

  Morley, Elliot

  Hope, Phil

  Mountford, Kali

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Hurst, Alan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Olner, Bill

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Illsley, Eric

  Owen, Albert

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pike, Peter

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Joyce, Eric

  Prisk, Mark

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Khabra, Piara S

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Kidney, David

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rendel, David

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robertson, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lamb, Norman

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rooney, Terry

  Laws, David

  Ross, Ernie

  Laxton, Bob

  Ruane, Chris

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lepper, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Ryan, Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Salter, Martin

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  382

  Sawford, Phil

  Twigg, Stephen Enfield)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Tayler, Paul

  Simon, Siôn

  Tynan, Bill

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Soley, Clive

  Watson, Tom

  Southworth, Helen

  Watts, David

  Squire, Rachel

  Webb, Steve

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  White, Brian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wilson, Brian

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winnick, David

  Tami, Mark

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wayre F)

  Woolas, Phil

  Timms, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Todd, Mark

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Wright,Tony (Cannock)

  Touhig, Don

  Wyatt, Derek

  Trickett, Jon

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Angela Smith and

  Mr. Jim Murphy.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Spink, Bob

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Fallon, Michael

  Weir, Michael

  Hermon, Lady

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Price, Adam

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Mr. Simon Thomas and

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Pete Wishart.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Lords Message [10th June] relating to House of Lords Reform be now considered.
  That this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution.
  That a Select Committee of twelve Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform

  (1) to consider issues relating to House of Lords reform, including the composition and powers of the Second Chamber and its role and authority within the context of Parliament as a whole, having regard in particular to the impact which any proposed changes would have on the existing pre-eminence of the House of Commons, such consideration to include the implications of a House composed of more than one 'category' of member and the experience and expertise which the House of Lords in its present form brings to its function as the revising Chamber; and

  (2) having regard to paragraph (1) above, to report on options for the composition and powers of the House of Lords and to define and present to both Houses options for composition, including a fully nominated and fully elected House, and intermediate options; and to consider and report on—

  (a) any changes to the relationship between the two Houses which may be necessary to ensure the proper functioning of Parliament as a whole in the context of a reformed Second Chamber, and in particular, any new procedures for resolving conflict between the two Houses; and

  383

  (b) the most appropriate and effective legal and constitutional means to give effect to any new Parliamentary settlement;

  and in all the foregoing considerations, to have regard to—

  (i) the Report of the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform (Cm. 4534);

  (ii) the White Paper The House of Lords—Completing the Reform (Cm. 5291), and the responses received thereto;

  (iii) debates and votes in both Houses of Parliament on House of Lords reform; and

  (iv) the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Report The Second Chamber: Continuing the Reform, including its consultation of the House of Commons, and any other relevant select committee reports.

  That the Committee shall have power—

  (i) to send for persons, papers and records;

  (ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

  (iii) to report from time to time;

  (iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

  (v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

  That Janet Anderson, Mr. James Arbuthnot, Mr. Chris Bryant, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Dr. Jack Cunningham, Mr. William Hague, Mr. Stephen McCabe, Joyce Quin, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Paul Stinchcombe and Mr. Paul Tyler be members of the Committee.

  House of Lords Reform (Joint Committee)
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      HOUSING
      That the Housing (Right to Acquire) (Discount) Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 1091) he referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  NHS Pensions
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  10.11 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I think that all hon. Members share one common experience: we often get asked why we ever got involved in politics. Whenever I am asked that question, I either blame Lucas Industries or pension provision, especially for women. On this occasion, it was my interest in pensions for women that drew me to a particular problem, which also happened to relate to the health service.
  I had the great honour of serving as a Minister in the Department of Health and I want to put it on record that the NHS is an exemplary employer. In many ways, it has driven forward the agenda on fair employment practices, so I am by no means criticising the NHS as an employer. However, I want to criticise an especially quirky provision in the pension system that has historic roots. The best way of describing it is to use the words of one of my constituents.
  Dr. Susan Collier, who works in a neighbouring health authority, said:
  "My husband and I both qualified from Birmingham Medical School in 1978 and our medical careers have been similar to date. We both work in general practice. We have no children and I have therefore taken no time out for maternity leave etc.
  However, under the current law any pension payments made by a female GP before 1988 cannot be included in calculations of payments to be made to the GP's husband if he survives her. However, the pension scheme does allow widows of GPs to receive payments based on all pension contributions made by their husbands. This means that if I pre-decease my husband he will get less merely because I happen to be female."
  Dr. Collier describes the problem succinctly. It is not clear how many GPs will be affected, but I think that the figure is estimated at about 5,000. The potential cost of remedying the problem is also unclear, as calculations often tend to ignore the fact that women still tend to live longer than men. In a sense, there would be a practical effect on the Treasury only if the woman predeceased her husband.
  I think that I have a fairly good idea of what the Minister might be tempted to say in her response. Indeed, I know what I would probably have been tempted to say in her shoes. In all fairness, the Department of Health has been very consistent in its response. A written answer given as long ago as 1999 stated that, to put the problem right,
  "these costs would have to be paid in full by the whole membership and there is no indication that they would be willing to do so."—[Official Report, 13 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 212W.]
  I think that that is a very rational and logical response, but I am afraid that that does not make it right. I put it to the Minister that it is unacceptable in this day and age that a pound paid into a pension fund by a woman should be worth less than a pound paid in by a man. There should not be any differences between widows and widowers. The days of systems designed with the man as breadwinner were, I hoped, well and truly over. Surely that sends out the wrong message, as the NHS wants to recruit and retain more GPs, especially women. I urge the Minister not just to give me the usual answer but to justify the gender difference.
  However, I am a realist and I know that I am asking the Minister to right an historic wrong from the period 1972 to 1988. She may tell me that that is not the best

  385
  use of money and may well have a point. If she resists the temptation to right a past wrong, may I urge her not to create a wrong for the future? In 2001, after lengthy negotiations with the Department of Health, agreement was reached on whether GP locums would be able to join the NHS superannuation scheme. It was thought that all locum income would be superannuable from 1 April 2001.
  Alas, on closer inspection, that does not appear to be the case. Repeated pressure on the NHS Pensions Agency and the Department of Health did not produce the necessary draft regulations to ensure that arrangements were made for the 2001–02 financial year. Draft regulations finally saw the light of day in January 2001, but locum income was excluded in cases where the doctor also worked as an assistant or principal practitioner. Bizarrely, any locum who also had a hospital post was included.
  To avoid delay in full-time locum doctors receiving entitlements, the NHS Pension Scheme Amendment Regulations 2002 were laid, but provisions for part-time GPs have yet to he introduced. The new GP contract includes an undertaking that in future all net NHS income earned by GPs will be pensionable, including locum earnings by assistant and principal practitioners. When the regulations were laid, assurances were given that they in no way marked the end of discussions. I hope that is the case.
  Even if the Minister cannot remedy a past wrong on this occasion, and even if only a small group of doctors are affected, two long-term issues must be addressed. First, women will he disproportionately affected, so I hope that we move to a system that does not discriminate against women. Secondly, we want to recruit more doctors and keep more GPs. We do not want women GPs to be lost to the health service when they have families, so the flexibility to work part-time at certain times of their lives without losing the chance to build up pension rights is in all our interests.
  Given the time of night I shall be brief. I should be grateful if the Minister addressed past wrongs, but I accept that I shall probably have to accept whatever she says. However, will she assure me that the draft regulations will be amended so that we do not create another generation of women GPs who will experience discrimination on retirement?
  10.18 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing a debate on the important issue of national health service pensions and women doctors. I also acknowledge her expertise and experience on pensions and the NHS.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend recognised that the NHS has an excellent final salary pension scheme, with benefits on average worth about 20 per cent. of pay, which is open to all NHS employees, regardless of hours worked, including general medical and dental practitioners. It has more than 1 million members and currently pays benefits to nearly 475,000 NHS pensioners. The NHS scheme operates under the principles of mutual assurance, allowing employers and members to join together to share the risks and spread the costs. There is no individual pot of money for each member, which means that the scheme can offer a defined package of benefits for a standard contribution.
  386
  Like many public service schemes, the NHS pension scheme is unfunded. There is no pension fund, and contributions are not invested to provide for future pension payments. My hon. Friend will be aware that NHS employers pay a 7 per cent. contribution, with the Exchequer guaranteeing scheme benefits and underwriting the cost of inflation-proofing pensions in retirement. The NHS scheme has introduced many changes over the past 50 years, sometimes adding extra pension benefits, at other times withdrawing outdated provisions. New rights accrue prospectively and withdrawn rights are protected for existing members. Employers, the Government and, ultimately, taxpayers take the financial risk of underwriting future benefits. That means that we must ensure that the NHS scheme operates with a fair degree of financial certainty. The future may be unpredictable, but at least past liabilities can be assessed and accounted for.
  My hon. Friend rightly raised concerns expressed by women doctors about the restrictions on past service rights. We recognise those concerns—indeed, as a member of another public service scheme, I recognise them personally and acutely. However, sharing risks and costs means that a feature of defined benefit schemes is that proportionately some members may do better than others. For example, it generally costs more to provide pensions for doctors than it does for administrative and clerical staff, but each pays the same 6 per cent. contribution. Female members will generally outlive their male counterparts and so may take a greater share of personal benefits from the scheme. Moreover, some members may not be interested in a particular aspect of the package. For example, single members may not want and may never benefit from dependants' cover, but the cost of providing those benefits is spread across the whole membership under the mutual assurance principle. Members cannot opt out of parts of the basic benefit package.
  Before April 1988, the NHS scheme did not include a general widowers' provision. Widowers' benefits were not part of the package that members were buying and on which the NHS scheme was costed. When widowers' benefits were introduced for membership after 6 April 1988, the new benefit was included in the future costing arrangements, but only on the basis of the prospective cover. Backdating widowers' cover to 1972, when half-rate widows' pensions were introduced, would have created unfunded liabilities.
  The Government want all workers to be treated fairly. In that respect, we ensure that the NHS pension scheme complies with all existing domestic legislation and European Community directives and law. I understand that saying that the scheme complies with the law offers little reassurance to those who want equality for the past as well. However, given that there is an equal treatment rule that has applied for the past 14 years, it is difficult to see the justification for back-dating the provision to an even earlier date. It would seem unreasonable to expect the general membership and current health budgets to address such issues now, especially as there are more contemporary and relevant improvement candidates. My hon. Friend emphasised that when she talked about how we respond in future to recruiting and retaining more NHS staff. The Government sometimes have to make hard decisions about matters such as pension rights. We want and need to be fair to scheme members, but equally we have a duty to be fair to the taxpayer and to users of health services. It is a question of balance.

  387
  Although widowers' cover was not backdated in 1988, a special scheme was available until 30 June 1989 that allowed existing female members to purchase widowers' cover for their earlier service. The costs were shared with NHS employers. There are provisions in the NHS pension scheme for the unrestricted payment of widowers' benefits when the member's husband is permanently incapable of earning a living because of ill health and is wholly or mainly dependent on his wife.
  We understand the strong feelings of women doctors and the view that they subsidised their male colleagues over the provision of half-rate widows' pension cover from March 1972. We have considered whether retrospective cover should be made available but the costs are significant. Of course, there would be wider implications because the policy on widowers' benefits applies across the public service. Even at 1999 salary levels, the Government Actuary has calculated the capital cost of backdating NHS widowers' cover for those who were members in 1988 at approximately £500 million. I understand that the costs are little different today, and we are not prepared to pick them up. It is not reasonable to expect us to do that, and we would not realistically expect the general membership to want to pay.
  On a more positive note, I hope that I can answer my hon. Friend's second question on locum GPs. We opened the NHS pension scheme to freelance locum GPs from 1 April 2001. That was a major step forward and means that all doctors practising in the NHS have access to sponsored pension arrangements.
  Our commitment was to allow scheme access to freelance locums when the health authority supplementary lists were in place. The link was to improve the protection for patients by ensuring that all GPs who work in the NHS have access to training and regular appraisal by their host health authority.
  Consultations with the profession about the shape of the new lists were greatly protracted and we were not able to introduce the legislation until December last year. The changes to the NHS scheme depended on the arrangements agreed for supplementary lists and, in that context, we can claim some credit for having scheme amendments in place by the end of the tax year.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that the new opportunity will be especially important to the increasing number of women GP qualified doctors, who now have the option of working in the NHS and joining the NHS pension scheme without having to join a main health authority list as a GP principal. That will give them access to generous pension arrangements but with the flexibility to balance their work and family commitments. We take that seriously as we develop recruitment and retention in the NHS.
  I know that the scope of the regulations did not go as far as doctors wanted. We understood their anxieties, but our priority was to fulfil the commitment to freelance locum GPs. Unlike other GPs, they had no access to the NHS scheme.
  388
  However, as my hon. Friend said, the Department has given an undertaking that the amending regulations do not mark the end of the discussions. We made it clear to doctors' representatives that we would continue to consider the position of principals and assistants.
  We recognise that assistants and other GPs want all their NHS earnings to be covered by the NHS pension scheme. I understand my hon. Friend's point about the importance of that form of working. That is understandable because, unlike those of employees, GP pensions are based on total uprated career earnings.
  Clearly, there are detailed issues to consider but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the framework document for the new GP contract says that we would expect all net NHS income earned by GPs to be pensionable, including locum earnings in the hands of assistants and principals.
  GP pension issues are complex and we should not overlook the fact that practical difficulties and cost implications need consideration. However, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the NHS Confederation, with the active support of officials from the Department and the NHS Pensions Agency, is currently engaged in detailed discussions to identify solutions in order to present recommendations to Ministers as soon as possible.
  In summary, we have taken steps to ensure that the NHS pension scheme complies fully with equal treatment legislation and provides all members, including doctors, with unrestricted access to an excellent package of pension benefits. The NHS pension scheme continues to provide very good value for money and, in the light of the recent turbulence in private sector final salary schemes, a very attractive inducement to working in the NHS.
  We must, however, look forward to the future recruitment and retention needs of the NHS, in line with our NHS plan aspirations. That does not mean that we can forget about the past, but, with competing priorities for resources, it would seem increasingly appropriate to spend tax revenue on things that will significantly help to improve the delivery of patient services rather than redress past inequalities, however deserving those claims may be.
  For locum GPs, we have addressed a long-standing grievance over access to the NHS pension scheme. To meet our commitment to provide scheme access from April 2001, we have not been able to resolve some of the outstanding concerns of other GPs, but we have committed to further discussions within the new GP contract negotiations.
  In conclusion, may I again thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue? I assure her that, as we go forward with developments in the NHS pension schemes, we shall bear in mind both the need to ensure equality of treatment and the need to ensure that we recruit—and retain—the very best people into the NHS to provide the very best treatment for those who depend on it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.