Sitting of 19 May 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Member Sworn
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath required by Law: Gordon McMaster, esquire, Paisley, South
Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    National Lottery
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to reduce the level of national lottery funds allocated to the present good causes. [360]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Chris Smith): I am delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman's question as the first Labour Cabinet Minister to answer a departmental question in this House in 18 years.
    The national lottery is the people's lottery, it is the people's money and the new Government believe that we should address the people's priorities. That is why our proposals in the Queen's Speech will bring the benefits of the lottery to more people in more imaginative ways. The financial success of the lottery, particularly the introduction of the midweek draw, means that we can implement our plans without any significant effect on the existing good causes.
    Mr. Bruce: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman and his team to the Front Bench. In particular, I warmly welcome the Minister for Sport, who will encourage Back Benchers to feel that perhaps we can all make it. Perhaps the Minister will take time to look back at the honourable record of the previous Minister for Sport, who for many years wanted a national lottery, even when the Labour party was against it, and who on every occasion—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I think that we ought to get off to a good start for the first Question Time. Therefore, I would like a question now, please.
    Mr. Bruce: The previous Minister for Sport said that that there should be no replacement of Government spending with lottery spending. Will the present Minister for Sport have to say "We was robbed" on behalf of the good causes, which may lose up to £1 billion?
    Mr. Smith: First, many hon. Members from all parties have long supported the principle of a national lottery.
    360
    Secondly, as a Government we hold fast to the principle of additionality—that money from the lottery should not replace the essential projects which are rightly funded by the Exchequer. The lottery is there to add value to projects which would not otherwise be possible. That is precisely what our proposals for using some of the midweek lottery proceeds are all about.
    Mr. Pike: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State and on being the first Labour Cabinet Minister to answer questions at the Dispatch Box for so many years. I hope that he will continue to do so for as many years as we were in opposition. Does he realise that one thing that we could do to help more good causes to benefit from the lottery is to ensure that Camelot does not make excessive profits, far greater than were originally intended? Should not more money go to the good causes that we all want the lottery to support?
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and his welcome. We shall be looking to create a "not for profit" operation of the lottery once the present contract for its operation comes to an end in 2001.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on their appointments. The past five years have seen unprecedented investment in arts, sports and heritage and I commend to him the Department, the excellent officials who work there and the many independent bodies with which he will need to co-operate. Let there be no doubt, however, that the midweek draw was part of the original licence and the proceeds of that draw are part of the anticipated return on which the arts, sports and heritage are depending. If the right hon. Gentleman now rolls over to the Treasury and allows it to fund mainstream public spending from the lottery, he will have thrown away the greatest opportunity we have ever known to invest in sports, arts, heritage and the caring charities.
    Mr. Smith: I thank the right hon. Lady for her welcome and I concur entirely with the first part of her remarks about the extremely fine servants who serve us at the Department. However, the second part of her remarks is based on a complete misunderstanding. There is no question of our replacing mainstream Exchequer funding with proceeds from the lottery. Through our proposals for the use of some of the midweek lottery proceeds, we want to fund projects related to health and education which would not otherwise be possible. I had hoped that the right hon. Lady would give a rather warmer welcome to the idea of having healthy living centres in the high streets of this country and after-school clubs for the school children of this country, which are some of the things that we want to fund with lottery money.

    Motor Racing
    Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will meet representatives of British motor racing to discuss funding of that sport. [361]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Tony Banks): First, I acknowledge that a previous, very distinguished sports

    361
    Minister is asking this question. I intend to meet representatives of many sports in the coming months and they will, of course, include representatives of motor racing.
    Mr. Key: May I be the first to congratulate the Minister on his new appointment? It is an early example of job creation in the Labour Government-two people did the job before and four people are doing it now, so we can expect a great deal. In view of the Government's decision today to abolish tobacco sponsorship as well as advertising, will the hon. Gentleman talk to the motor racing and motor sports industry, which employs more than 50,000 people? Will there be time and assistance for a transitional period and, if so, how much? Will the ban also include the broadcasting by television in this country of events overseas where tobacco bans do not apply?
    Mr. Banks: We need the extra Minister here to answer the many supplementaries that the hon. Gentleman has put. Motor racing in this country relies to a degree on sponsorship from the tobacco industry. However, I have been supplied with a list of all the other sponsors of motor racing and there are clearly adequate substitutes. One does not want to see the sport suffer as this country benefits enormously from the technology, skills and other spin-offs from the motor racing industry. However, there is a manifesto undertaking. It is clear that people voted overwhelmingly for my party with that manifesto undertaking and we intend to implement it. What transitional period we can get into place is a matter for negotiation, but nothing can stand in the way of our implementing that manifesto undertaking.

    National Lottery
    Mrs. Organ: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to make the national lottery more relevant to ordinary people. [362]
    Mr. Chris Smith: Unlike the previous Government, we have listened to what the people have to say about the lottery. The Bill to reform the lottery will ensure that some of the proceeds of the lottery go to health and education-related projects and are used to nurture young talent in the arts and sciences. I shall be reviewing the way in which the existing good causes benefit to see that they, too, are increasingly relevant to the widest possible range of people.
    Mrs. Organ: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply, but what assurances can he give the people of the Forest of Dean that they will receive an equal and fair share of lottery funding, as should other rural areas? Can he assure the people of the Forest of Dean that the distribution system for lottery funds will be reformed so that it does not become metrocentric, as it did under the previous Government?
    Mr. Smith: I start by welcoming my hon. Friend to the House and saying how pleased we are to see her here. I am glad that my campaigning visit during the general election campaign was such a success.
    I aim to ensure that all parts of the country benefit fully and fairly from the lottery. Early this summer, we shall issue a White Paper for consultation in preparation for the
    362
    National Lottery (Amendment) Bill, which will be introduced later this year. In the White Paper, we shall address precisely such issues.
    Mr. Alan Clark: As the Secretary of State seems to have a completely open mind about where lottery funds are directed, will he apply his mind to the issue of the British Olympic pistol shooting team, which appears likely to be wiped off the map by his Government's intemperate legislation?
    Mr. Smith: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to make those points when legislation is rightly introduced to ban handguns. However, I can say to him that we have one very firm purpose in mind-to ensure that the proceeds of the national lottery are spent on the things that the people of this country want them to be spent on. That is why we came up with proposals during the general election campaign. It may surprise Opposition Members to know that the present Government—exceptionally—believe in fulfilling the commitments that we made during the general election campaign.
    Mr. Maxton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment to what I consider to be the most interesting and one of the most important jobs in Government. May I suggest three quick ways in which he might improve the lottery?
    First, will my right hon. Friend ensure that sports councils and arts councils can allocate money especially to areas of multiple deprivation? At present, the process of allocating funds is entirely bid led. Secondly, will my right hon. Friend ensure that a larger part of the total amount given to those projects is distributed in areas of multiple deprivation?
    Mr. Fabricant: Thirdly?
    Mr. Maxton: Thirdly—I have forgotten.
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his question; if he remembers the third question in due course, I shall be happy to discuss it with him afterwards.
    The answer to the first question is yes: one aspect of the lottery that bothers me is the fact that it is entirely application driven, which is one reason for the apparent misdistribution of lottery funds regionally across the country.
    The answer to the second question is that I believe very strongly indeed that funds from the lottery must benefit those areas of deprivation that can most benefit from them.
    Mr. Dafis: In Wales, there is a fair amount of praise for the work done by the National Lottery Charities Board and by the system of distribution of funding for sports and the arts, but there is a fair amount of dissatisfaction regarding the work of the heritage fund and the Millennium Commission, and that dissatisfaction probably has something to do with the fact that there is no specific Welsh organisational structure with reference to those. Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the

    363
    Secretary of State for Wales how that situation might be rectified, and specifically what that might have to do with the establishment of a Welsh Assembly or Parliament?
    Mr. Smith: I certainly wish to discuss with my right hon. Friend all matters relating to the deployment of lottery funds in Wales—especially, of course, in relation to the establishment of a Welsh Assembly.
    One of the things that please me most about what the lottery boards are doing is the work of the National Lottery Charities Board, especially in making small-scale grants at neighbourhood and community level to pensioner groups, tenants and residents associations, and so on, throughout the country, including Wales.

    Millennium Commissioners
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to increase the number of Millennium Commissioners. [364]
    Mr. Chris Smith: The National Lottery etc. Act 1993 provides that there shall be nine members of the Millennium Commission, appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. There are no plans to increase the number of commissioners.
    Mr. Vaz: May I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on his outstanding start? Does he agree that it is essential that the Millennium Commission be representative of the community? As constituted, it is not representative. I tried for four months to have a meeting with my right hon. Friend's predecessor to discuss these very issues, but she was not able to find time to see me and community representatives at such a meeting.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to look again at the membership of the commission? It would be quite easy to introduce a small Act of Parliament to change the composition of the commission to allow for more commissioners who are representative and to deal with the backlog of assessments.
    Mr. Smith: I should be only too delighted—unlike my predecessor, perhaps—to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these matters. Under the legislation, six of the nine members of the Millennium Commission are in place until 31 December 2000. Three members of the commission change with the change of Government and I am delighted to say that I am taking up the post of chairman. Of course, the decisions that the commission takes must reflect the needs of the community as a whole, including all parts of the community—all races, all ages, both genders and all regions of the country. Those are firm principles which must guide the considerations of the commissioners.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure a fairer distribution of lottery proceeds to regions. [365]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Mark Fisher): It is clear that some areas of the country have benefited a great deal more from the lottery than others. Our policy is based on
    364
    the premise that the lottery must benefit, and must be seen to benefit, everyone, wherever they live. We shall therefore be looking at this as part of our overall review of lottery distribution and considering what changes can be made as a result.
    Mr. Skinner: I hope that the review will not be dragged out. We have been the party of protest for 18 years and now we are the party of power. Now that we are in government, let us transform all our wonderful ideas from our time in opposition and bring about some changes.
    Is my hon. Friend aware that the Bolsover area—a string of pit villages with no jobs left—has fared badly in respect of the lottery? We have no major towns or cities, no opera houses and none of the fancy areas that have been getting money hand over fist. In future, let us make sure of a fair redistribution to those who contribute to the lottery in those mining villages, so as to restore some balance.
    Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend is quite right: the east midlands has received only 4 per cent. of awards and grants, and has benefited the least in per capita terms—£29 per head—of any part of the country, so my hon. Friend's grievance is well put. I should point out, however, that there have been 10 awards worth £400,000 in Bolsover and brass bands—a subject dear to my hon. Friend's heart—have benefited by more than £3 million so far. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right to say that areas such as the east midlands have fared badly. We were shocked to find that the former Government gave no leadership and offered no strategy on this, and we are determined to see that the lottery boards give priority to a better geographical distribution and to all types and ranges of project.
    Mr. Butterfill: When considering how to allocate money to the arts, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that such money should not go only to the major cities, even though many of them may be represented by his party, but should also benefit towns and villages that might not otherwise have a chance to see the arts? The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am thinking of touring companies such as the Bournemouth symphony orchestra and the Bournemouth symphonietta which tour the country bringing their contribution to the arts to a much wider public.
    Mr. Fisher: It is strange to find the hon. Gentleman agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that small villages in rural areas should benefit, but I agree with both of them: it is right that rural areas and small towns and cities should benefit as well. That is why our review will look at geographic distribution and ensure that not only London and large metropolitan areas benefit from the lottery.

    Televised Sport
    Mrs. Gordon: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to increase the number of listed sporting events on television. [366]
    Mr. Fisher: As promised in our manifesto, the Government will carry out a review of the listed events.
    Mrs. Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree with the popular demand from my constituents in Romford that

    365
    everyone is entitled to watch all the major fixtures that feature the national team, including all the world cup qualifiers, and that the right to see the world cup finals free to air should mean exactly that—the right to see every match and not just the last few fixtures?
    Mr. Fisher: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her successful election campaign and welcome her to this place. What she says about the world cup matches is well taken; that is why they are included in the listed events. My hon. Friend speaks for many people in wishing to see a wider range of key events listed and protected from privileged viewing. We shall therefore conduct an urgent review, starting this week, in which we shall consult sports bodies, broadcasters and the public to ensure that the greatest number of people can see the events that they want to see.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will the urgent new review include an investigation into the secret deal between the Prime Minister and Rupert Murdoch on Cayman Island? In the light of reports over the weekend that Murdoch now intends to do further deals for pay per view with cable television, is it not clear that the only way in which sport will be seen by the majority of people is if the link is broken between the Prime Minister and Rupert Murdoch?
    Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman makes a puerile and ridiculous point. The review is about which sporting events should be available to everybody, regardless of whether they have satellite or any other broadcasting facility. That is the basis on which we have been elected—to ensure that the good things in this country are available to everyone, unlike the situation under the previous Government. Our review will ensure that good sporting events are available in that way.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to alter the way in which funds raised by the national lottery are used. [367]
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Government's plans will widen access to the benefits of the lottery by extending the range of initiatives that can receive lottery funding. The creation of a national endowment for science and the arts, in particular, is an imaginative proposal for investment in youth, in talent and in the future.
    Mr. Rendel: May I add the congratulations of Liberal Democrat Members to the Secretary of State and his team on their appointment? Does the Secretary of State agree that his response makes the bid for the restoration of Shaw House school even more important, as it is not only probably the second most important historic building in Berkshire but it comes within the scope of his new funds for matters on the periphery of the educational establishment?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not up to me to make a decision on that application, but I have no doubt whatever that he will vigorously promote the interests of his constituents in that regard. However, our proposal for the use of lottery money for the national endowment for science and the arts and for education and
    366
    health-related projects—which will come forward in legislation later this year—will do an enormous amount to put money into worthwhile initiatives, including after-school clubs, the national endowment, healthy living centres and information technology training for teachers. Those projects are crying out to be undertaken, but at the moment there is no Exchequer funding to do so. That is valuable work done by the people's lottery in accordance with the people's priorities, and I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will welcome the proposals when they are presented in legislation.
    Mr. Cohen: I offer my congratulations and commiserations to my right hon. Friend—congratulations on his appointment, and commiserations because it presumably means that he will have to sit through the Eurovision song contest next year. On the use of lottery funds, will he specifically allow local authority schools and nurseries to bid for money for projects dear to their hearts?
    Mr. Smith: On my hon. Friend's first point, if we have such a landslide victory again in the Eurovision song contest it will be a pleasure to sit through it. On his second point, there is a wide range of projects coming from all sources, including those closely related to schools and education, to which we shall want lottery money to be allocated. Precisely to assist that process, we intend to reform the lottery by means of the amendment Bill later this year.
    Mr. Fabricant: It may be the people's lottery, but will not the people will be rather confused since the right hon. Gentleman said today that the principle of additionality would be adhered to but he also said that plans such as those for the training of teachers in information technology would be funded out of the national lottery? The two do not agree.
    Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The two do agree. We intend to hold to the proposal that we announced during the election campaign because we intend to hold to everything that we said during the election campaign—unlike a certain other party elected five years ago. The proposal in relation to IT training for teachers is to ensure, as a one-off exercise, that existing teachers can develop the skills in teaching and using information technology that many of them do not currently have. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not interested in ensuring that the school pupils of this country can learn properly from their teachers about the use of new technology.

    National Museums Week
    Mr. Cranston: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to promote access to museums during national museums week. [368]
    Mr. Fisher: I welcome the contribution that museums week makes to encouraging people to visit museums. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all hon. Members encouraging them to visit museums in their constituencies during museums week this week and our Department has contributed towards the cost of the event.
    Mr. Cranston: Will the Minister outline his policies on the educational role of local museums, given that many

    367
    have adopted an innovative policy in that regard? Some local museums, such as the Dudley museum and the Black Country museum in my constituency, have also performed a valuable function in terms of cultural policy and even economic regeneration.
    Mr. Fisher: I welcome my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his excellent election result. I agree with him that museums have a key role to play in education, which is why we place particular emphasis on their work with schools. Museums are our history in tangible form. As my hon. Friend points out, excellent museums such as the Black Country museum allow his constituents to understand our industrial past, which is a vital part of understanding where we come from as a people and respecting our history. That is why we believe that museums week is an extremely important innovation. We pay tribute to that, and especially to the leadership of Mr. Loyd Grossman, the chairman of the museums week campaign.
    Mr. Fearn: Has the issue of access for the disabled been examined thoroughly during national museums week? Many of our museums are still not accessible to the disabled. Also, the Minister mentioned the education system, but the youth service seems to be the Cinderella of the museums service. Could young people be invited to visit museums during national museums week?
    Mr. Fisher: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back; when he was a Member of Parliament before, he played an important part in arts and cultural debates. I was interested in his reference to Cinderella, because he is a well-known pantomime Dame—so his contribution to our debates will be even more enjoyable.
    I agree that not only many museums but theatres, libraries and other key cultural elements in our communities remain inaccessible to people. We will not tolerate that situation, and the hon. Gentleman may be reassured in that regard by the fact that our departmental team comprises my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who has laboured hard in the House promoting the interests of the disabled. I think that all hon. Members would agree that we must make our cultural life much more accessible to every person, regardless of ability or disability.

    United Kingdom Football Team
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had with Mark Hughes concerning proposals for a single United Kingdom-wide representative Association Football team. [370]
    Mr. Banks: I had a couple of conversations with Mark Hughes over the weekend, but, in view of the circumstances, I cannot remember what we talked about. My reference to a United Kingdom football team was well described as "pub talk". Madam Speaker, I think that you and the House will understand that there have been some glitches in my transition from saloon bar sage to world statesman, but I shall try. I remind my hon. Friend that, although many people said, "What a load of rubbish," every single journalist then suggested a United Kingdom team. It was just an idea to kick around—or even out.
    Mr. Morgan: May I bracket my congratulations to the Minister for Sport with congratulations to Chelsea and to
    368
    Mark Hughes on their magnificent cup final victory on Saturday? What on earth was the Minister doing upsetting Chelsea's star Welsh centre forward just three days before the cup final?
    I know that the Prime Minister said in the Queen's Speech debate that we would be a one nation Government, but I thought that the Minister's suggestion an hour or two later that the United Kingdom should have a one nation soccer team was carrying total sycophancy rather too far. Will the Minister accept also that in the sport of cricket, where we play as one country, the decline has been even greater than in soccer? I suggest that his idea was not just half-baked; it was not even quarter-sauteed.
    Mr. Banks: That was a question in two halves, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.] Indeed, it is right to point that out. Mark Hughes played an extravagantly useful part in Chelsea's cup success. All I can say is that Labour delivers on its promises: I became Sports Minister and Chelsea won the cup in the same week.
    I think that my hon. Friend should lighten up a little on this point. There is no great problem in discussing such matters in an open and general fashion—although perhaps I shall have to think more carefully in future about making constructive suggestions that people may take very seriously.
    I conclude by extending congratulations on behalf of the whole Department to Barry Town on becoming the successful Welsh team to compete in next year's European champions league. Let us hope that they win it.
    Mr. Robathan: Saloon bar sage or world statesman, I add my congratulations to those extended to the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment. I am sure that he would agree that, whether it be a United Kingdom team or individual nation teams, we all want them to be successful. Sporting success depends on how sport is taught to the young. Therefore, will the Minister give his whole-hearted support to encouraging competitive sport in schools?
    Mr. Banks: One of the first things we must do is stop the sale of school playing fields which the Conservative Government not only encouraged, but required, of education authorities. We have now stopped those sales, and we shall examine the matter carefully. The hon. Gentleman is right: unless we encourage sport in our schools, we cannot look forward to the success of our athletes and sports men and women later in life. I assure the hon. Gentleman that encouraging sport in schools will be a priority of this Department.

    National Lottery
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what new areas of community activity he plans to allow to qualify for lottery grant aid. [371]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): Our people's money proposals will allow lottery funds to make a greater impact than ever before on communities throughout the country. The first priorities will be establishing after-school clubs to provide homework centres and extra-curricular opportunities in

    369
    the arts and culture; establishing a national network of one-stop healthy living centres promoting health and fitness; and training teachers in the information technology skills that they need in the information age.
    Mrs. Jackson: I welcome the swift action of my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench in announcing the improvement and widening of the lottery guidelines. Will my hon. Friend take on board the suggestions in my constituency? High Green school was adapted for disability, but, tragically, closed under the cuts of the former Administration. However, it is hoped that it will be restored and that its facilities will not only be made available for disabled teaching but opened up to sports development and activities, with the full backing of the community. Will my hon. Friend confirm that centres offering such community and educational use will be eligible for lottery funds in the future?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has, as always, made a very valid point. She put her finger on precisely the activity that we support in funding.
    On my hon. Friend's specific point, she will, of course, know that people who wish to apply for lottery funding should apply to the National Lottery Charities Board, which will consider it in the light of its published criteria. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has taken on board the objectives of the people's lottery. I am pretty sure that people, not only in Sheffield but throughout Britain, will recognise and endorse her priorities.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Community and voluntary groups rightly value the opportunities provided by the lottery, but is the Minister also aware that such groups greatly benefited from the active sponsorship of the Department of National Heritage? What possible justification is there for returning community and voluntary organisations to the Home Office? What consultation took place? What are the next responsibilities that the hon. Gentleman expects to lose? Do we expect that, each time the Department loses further responsibilities, extra Ministers will be appointed?
    Perhaps the Minister will be aware that assisting on public bodies is the community activity in which many serve. Now that the chairman of the UK Sports Council has left, thanks to the injudicious remarks of the Minister for Sport, will the Minister deny today's reports that the chairman of the BBC, appointed under Nolan procedures, has been told that speaking against Government policy is to be considered as grounds for dismissal?
    Mr. Clarke: I had not thought that the Tory leadership contest would intrude on questions to the Department of National Heritage. The former Minister at the Home Office deserves greater support from the right hon. Lady than she seems to have had this afternoon.
    With regard to the responsibilities of individual Departments, I want to pay the same tribute that voluntary organisations throughout the country paid to my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Is this a party that believes in law and order—what is left of it?
    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for the wonderful work that he has done with voluntary organisations. I am sure that that will continue in his new post.
    370
    I remind the right hon. Lady that this is a people's lottery involving people's money. The people took their decision on 1 May and she would be wise to accept it.

    World Cup 2006
    Mr. Pound: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress is being made to secure the staging of the 2006 world cup in England.[372]
    Mr. Banks: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on winning Ealing, North and so freeing the House from the grip of the Ealing One? The Government fully support the Football Association's bid for the 2006 world cup. I have already had positive discussions with the FA, and we are assisting it as much as we can.
    Mr. Pound: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I add my congratulations on his team's success on Saturday and note that it was a comparatively rare success for the Blues. I ask my hon. Friend to redouble his efforts to secure the world cup in 2006. As I think everyone in the House knows, the United Kingdom wins the world cup only when under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Banks: I thank my hon. Friend. I was quite happy at Wembley to be singing about keeping the blue flag flying—but, I hasten to add, not politically. It is essential that we get the 2006 world cup. It is in our manifesto. We cannot compel that to happen, but we have given an undertaking that we shall do whatever is necessary to get the world cup for 2006. The country is looking at a sports-orientated Government, starting from No. 10 Downing street and working right the way through to my humble level.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Immigration Appeals
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to clear the backlog of cases before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. [391]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The new Government are committed in their manifesto to ensuring that decisions in these cases are swift and fair. I agree with my hon. Friend that the backlog is unacceptably large. As a result, about 40 more part-time adjudicators will be recruited over the summer. Our plans to abolish the primary purpose rule should have a substantial effect.
    Mr. Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. I am certain that he will do an excellent job. As he has said, he has inherited an intolerable situation from the previous Government. My hon. Friend must be aware that the delay in obtaining IAT dates causes enormous distress and hardship to the thousands of applicants who are awaiting their hearing dates, especially those who have made pre-entry applications and are waiting abroad. Will my hon. Friend please consider the representations made by various organisations that efforts should be made to ease the backlog? The appointment of

    371
    more adjudicators will help, but perhaps my hon. Friend will consider the possibility of a fast-track system for cases that involve children.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes. I repeat: the Government are determined to reduce the level of the backlog. We recognise that it is imperative that we deal with it before dealing with new cases that are coming through the system. I have already had a preliminary meeting with Home Office colleagues to discuss the matter. My hon. Friend will know that a new listing system has been piloted successfully at a new hearing centre at Lambeth, and consideration is being given to replicating that success elsewhere in the country.
    Mr. Malins: May I suggest that the Minister consider increasing the time limit within which an appeal may be lodged following an adjudicator's decision in an asylum case from the current five days to, say, 14 days? The problem with the five-day limit is that enormous numbers of appeals being lodged are not well thought out. Appeals are being lodged in haste as a protective measure. Those appeals clog up the system, increasing the time within which individual appeals could be heard. Increasing the time limit might help.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. We shall consider urgently all proposals to deal with the backlog. The hon. Gentleman should know that, of the 33,000 appeals outstanding, 22,000 relate to asylum cases. It is clear that there is an urgent need to deal with this problem.
    Mr. Gerrard: My hon. Friend has mentioned possible changes in policy, such as abolishing primary purpose. Such changes will be welcome and will make a great difference to the number of appeals being heard. Will my hon. Friend confirm that when those changes occur his Department will liaise with the Home Office so that appeals, the number of which will be reduced, are dealt with speedily? That would be another method of reducing the backlog.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. As he suggested, it is primarily a matter for the Home Office. My hon. Friend will be aware that about 10 per cent. of the backlog of cases are concerned with primary purpose. We anticipate that abolition of the primary purpose rule will speedily sort out many of the problems.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Baker: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to change the qualifying criteria for legal aid. [392]
    Mr. Hoon: The new Government pledged in their manifesto to undertake a wide-ranging review of the civil justice system and of legal aid.
    Mr. Baker: I am grateful for that reply. Is the Minister aware that only 47 per cent. of people now qualify for legal aid, compared with 70 per cent. in 1979? Is that not a severe indictment of the previous Conservative Government? Is the Minister further aware that,
    372
    notwithstanding the people on legal aid and the very rich, huge numbers of people are, in effect, barred by financial circumstances from access to law? Is that not an affront in a civilised country? What steps will the hon. Gentleman take to rectify that?
    Mr. Hoon: That is why our manifesto refers to the need for a review of not only the civil justice system, but legal aid. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact, however, that the cost of legal aid has doubled since the beginning of the decade. In 1990–91, net expenditure was £682 million; for 1996–97, it is expected to be £1.5 billion. The increase in 1996–97 alone is expected to be 6.2 per cent., which is more than double the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Mitchell: Having accepted my congratulations on his appointment, does my hon. Friend agree that, although it is a good thing to have a Government who will undertake a review of legal aid, instead of making the system leaner and access more restricted, it would be sensible to run the system more economically by having an employed solicitor service operating through a public defender service, so that legal aid and its services could be made available much more cheaply to a far wider proportion of the population?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. He will know from the manifesto on which he was elected that the Government are committed to investigating the possibility of developing a community legal service. One of our initiatives will be to bring together the expertise currently available in the professions and in the voluntary sector. We think that, together, they can make a significant contribution towards ensuring that as many of our citizens as possible have access to high-quality legal advice.
    Mr. Streeter: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment, and wish him every success with his important responsibilities. Will he explain to the House how, having turned their back on a cash-limited budget, the Labour Government intend to keep control of legal aid spending in the next five years?
    Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. He struggled with these problems in previous months. He knows better than I the difficulties that we face with an expanding legal aid bill. I do not propose to repeat the figures that I gave the House a few minutes ago, save to say that we all face the challenge of ensuring that as many citizens as possible have access to high-quality legal advice while recognising that that can be achieved only within reasonable financial limitations.

    Ethnic Minority Magistrates
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to increase the number of magistrates from ethnic minority communities. [394]
    Mr. Hoon: In making their recommendations, the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees have regard to the need to ensure that the composition of the bench broadly reflects the area that it serves in terms of age, gender,

    373
    place of residence, politics, occupation and ethnic origin. To that end, a survey of the ethnic origin of serving magistrates is being undertaken. The Lord Chancellor will decide, in the light of its results—which will be made available in the autumn—what further initiatives may be necessary, both nationally and locally.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for his reply and congratulate him on his appointment. When the survey is finally published, will he consider carefully the possibility of establishing a national policy and guidelines to ensure that magistrates panels contain sufficient numbers of persons from ethnic minorities? If necessary, will he give the Lord Chancellor's Department powers to override the local nomination committees to ensure that those national guidelines are adhered to? I am sure that he would agree with me that it is unacceptable for magistrates benches in some areas to be totally unrepresentative of the communities that they judge.
    Mr. Hoon: Once again, I am grateful for the good wishes. The Lord Chancellor's local advisory committees already undertake a range of recruitment initiatives, including advertising in the ethnic minority press, distributing leaflets and posters and contacting ethnic community organisations. In addition, the Lord Chancellor's Department each year funds advertisements in the national ethnic minority press. As my hon. Friend recognises, it is clearly important for the Lord Chancellor's Department to continue to fund initiatives locally to attract candidates from the ethnic minority community. We shall press to ensure that those efforts are redoubled.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: In the course of his duties, will the Minister be good enough to put a note in the Library about the progress that has been made so far with the amalgamation of magistrates courts committee areas? Many of us in the west midlands are watching the position with some anxiety.
    Mr. Hoon: Yes.

    Scottish Devolution
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his role in Her Majesty's Government's proposals for Scottish devolution. [395]
    Mr. Hoon: Scottish devolution is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Lord Chancellor's Department is one of a number of Departments that are concerned.
    Mr. Dalyell: What account is the Lord Chancellor's Committee taking of the natural desire of many Scots working in England to have their say in the referendum?
    Mr. Hoon: The key criterion for voting in the referendum will be residence in Scotland. That is why we have provided that all those currently on the local government register in Scotland will be entitled to vote. All Scots who live in England and are registered as local government electors in Scotland will therefore be eligible to vote. The Government are currently considering the
    374
    most effective way of making the public aware of the "absent voting" provisions, which will be in place at the time of the referendum.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Lord Chancellor's Department knows better than anyone, this is a fundamental, massive and costly constitutional change. Will the Minister seek to persuade his colleagues that it would be outrageous and unthinkable for it to be introduced without a clear indication that a substantial majority in Scotland wanted it? Could we at least have a 40 per cent. rule to ensure that it will not happen unless a majority in Scotland want it?
    Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, there will be opportunities for all Members of Parliament to debate and vote on such a matter in due course.

    Court Procedures
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he proposes to modernise procedures within the courts; and if he will make a statement.[396]
    Mr. Hoon: The Government plan to conduct a review of the present proposals for reform of civil procedures and the legal aid system. An announcement will be available in due course. On the criminal side, we will streamline procedures so that we halve the time it takes to get persistent young offenders from arrest to sentencing. Both are important measures which are relevant to modernising court procedures.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Has the Minister noticed that the most popular and successful Speaker manages to preside over the High Court of Parliament without wearing a full-bottomed wig? Is it not time that the compulsory wearing of Jacobean garb in our courts was ended?
    We still maintain the dock system in criminal trials, although it is intimidatory and, I think, prejudicial to fair trials. Will that be reviewed?
    Mr. Hoon: Policy on court dress is indeed a matter for which the Lord Chancellor has policy responsibility. A practice direction was made on 11 April 1995 by the then Lord Chancellor Mackay, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and heads of divisions.
    On a personal note, I have great sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend. I recall the first time that I appeared in a Crown court. I should have been worrying about the law with which I was having to deal; I should have been worried about the defendant whom I was representing; what I was really worried about was whether my wig was going to stay on my head.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Minister rightly referred to the criminal side of the courts. In the two and a half weeks since the Government changed—I do not blame the new Government for this—about 6,000 people have been convicted of a serious criminal offence for the first time. Would it be for the Minister's Department to commission

    375
    research, especially among young people, examining their life circumstances to establish which of their habits—and their families' habits—are more likely to be associated with less persistent trouble with the law? Bringing people up in a way that makes them likely to get into trouble, and then condemning them when they are in trouble, is not always the most effective way forward.
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable suggestion, but I think that he would do better to direct it at my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Bermingham: When reviewing the whole question of civil law, will the Minister consider the problems that are now being highlighted in respect of the Woolf report and the fast-track system? He might also consider a further slight amendment to the legal aid system that would save an awful lot of time: allowing the
    376
    Crown court to grant legal aid for specialist evidence, rather than referring it to the Legal Aid Board, which causes insufferable delays and, therefore, delays in trials.
    Mr. Hoon: The Lord Chancellor has indicated his support for the spirit of Lord Woolf s recommendations, which are designed to deliver a civil justice system that is quicker, simpler and cheaper. As we proposed in the manifesto on which my hon. Friend and I were elected, we shall undertake a review of the civil justice reforms and of legal aid; it will examine the workability, cost and benefits of the reforms. Meanwhile, we are continuing with the programme of work that should still enable us to deliver the reforms to the original target if that option were to be endorsed. We want to keep all the options open on this matter.
    My hon. Friend made a helpful proposal on legal aid. I shall meet representatives of the Legal Aid Board later this week and discuss that matter with them.

Members of Parliament (Oath)
3.30 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I again rise on the question of your statement about the position of Members of Parliament who have not taken the oath. When you made the statement on Wednesday, it had the force of the common law of Parliament, and in due course it will be embodied in "Erskine May". Of course, when the election took place on 1 May the law of Parliament was quite clear and "Erskine May" states:
"But although until he has taken the oath a Member may not sit and vote, he … is entitled to all the other privileges of a Member (but not to his salary), being regarded, both by the House and by the law, as qualified to serve, until some other disqualification has been shown to exist."
John Bright sat and voted on a Committee of the House before he had taken the oath.
I sent you a memorandum on a broader question, Madam Speaker, but the position that I want to put to you is that those electors who voted for the two hon. Members concerned voted on the basis that although they may have been abstentionist in their policy towards the Chamber, they would be entitled to all the rights of Members in safeguarding the interests of constituents. In the light of your statement, the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) are denied the right to represent their electors in the broad and full way of other hon. Members.
In the memorandum that I submitted to you, which raises a range of other questions, the matter of privilege arose. But my present point is supplementary to that. Is it right that the law of Parliament should be changed retrospectively in a way that denies electors the rights that they legitimately believed they had when they voted, but which they now find have been taken away? I am aware that the Privileges Committee has not been set up and that
378
privilege should not be raised on the Floor of the House, but I would ask you to defer the deadline for the operation of your ruling until these aspects have been properly considered.
Madam Speaker: I shall certainly look carefully at the matters that the right hon. Gentleman raises. He should look carefully at the list of services that were appended to my statement. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wrote to me on a wider issue. That is indeed the case: I received a memorandum from him on Friday, the first paragraph of which raises the matter and asks me to look at it as a matter of privilege. I am doing precisely that and I shall respond to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as I am able to do so. Therefore, the matter should not be raised on the Floor of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 28th November, 12th December 1997 and 16th, 23rd and 30th January, 6th and 13th February, 6th, 13th, 20th and 27th March, 24th April and 3rd July 1998.—[Mrs Ann Taylor.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays),
That the House shall not sit on the following Fridays: 13th June, 4th July, 31st October 1997 and 20th February, 3rd April, 1st and 15th May, 12th and 26th June and 10th July 1998.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.25 (Periodic adjournments),
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 22nd May, do adjourn till Monday 2nd June.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [FOURTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14 May],
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
  Question again proposed.

  Home Affairs
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.33 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: I beg to move as an amendment to the Address the words standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others, namely, at end add:
  But humbly regret the lack of a firm commitment to implement the provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Bill 1997 to give second time serious violent and sexual offenders automatic life sentences from October 1997; seek the reinstatement of the original provisions of that Bill to give third time burglars and dealers in hard drugs mandatory minimum sentences of three and seven years respectively-save in exceptional circumstances; congratulate the previous Government on its achievements in tackling crime and protecting the public; and believe that the implications of the Government's proposal to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into British law should be carefully examined.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that the Minister has inadvertently made a mistake. He said that he was moving the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I am sure that he meant in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  Madam Speaker: I know full well that Members on both sides of the House have made that mistake. It will take a day or two perhaps to get used to it.
  Mr. Maclean: It shows that I am an optimist, but I apologise to the House for that slip. I notice that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) called me the Minister—he may be optimistic, too.
  Nevertheless, that does not detract from what I was endeavouring to say. I congratulate most sincerely the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on his appointment as Home Secretary. I also congratulate others on the Front Bench on their appointments to the Home Office, in particular perhaps the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is doing, in essence, my old job. I thought that I had a heavy portfolio in the Home Office, but, from examining his ministerial responsibilities, he seems to be doing about twice what I endeavoured to do.
  380
  I hope that he has doubled the number of his private office staff assisting him and that, as a result of his increased duties, the other members of the ministerial team are not drawing their full salary.
  I wish all Labour Members well in their endeavours. May I also take this opportunity to thank publicly the staff whom I encountered at the Home Office, who worked with me, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and others? They served us well and they will serve the new Government well. It was a pleasure to work with the staff, to take their advice and, occasionally, not to take their advice. Whether we took it or not, it was always diligently given and it was a pleasure to work with them.
  Holding office is a great honour, which, I believe, we discharged with integrity. Some serious allegations have been made about the conduct of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe as Home Secretary. I know that he intends to rebut them comprehensively later this evening. Personally, I have just one point to add. I have worked with him closely for the past five years, first at the Department of the Environment and then at the Home Office. It was a great honour to work for him. He was absolutely meticulous in ensuring total accuracy in all his words and in all his dealings with Parliament and others. He was a man of integrity who has my full respect, not because he was my boss, but because he is a decent man who deserves it.
  The new Government acquire a goodly inheritance. In the past four years, crime has fallen by 10 per cent. in England and Wales. That is more than 500,000 fewer crimes, the biggest fall in recorded crime since records were first collected in the middle of the last century. Over the same period, burglary fell by about 15 per cent.—that is almost 100,000 fewer burglaries—and theft fell by 16 per cent, which is more than 450,000 fewer thefts.
  The police of course deserve much of the credit for that success. They have totally transformed the way in which they fight crime by targeting persistent offenders. Operation Bumblebee, of which we have all heard, is run by the Metropolitan police and has led to some 9,000 arrests. Policing must be a matter for chief constables and not for civil servants in Whitehall, but we have consistently supported zero-tolerance policing initiatives against low-level offending and anti-social behaviour where chief constables have thought such initiatives appropriate—for example, in Hartlepool and King's Cross. The police, however, do not operate in a vacuum. They need the help and support of Government. We have provided that help and support.
  During our period of office, spending on the police service increased by more than any other part of Government spending, up by 100 per cent., even after allowing for inflation. That helped to pay for about 16,000 extra police officers and 18,400 extra civilians to help them.
  Mr. Pikee: Despite all that the right hon. Member claims the Government did, is it not true that, after 18 years, more people dare not go out at certain times of the day, particularly women and old people, because of crime and the fear of crime? Is not that a sad condemnation of our society?
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention many people's—particularly elderly people's—fear of

  381
  crime. His point would cut more ice, however, if he had also said that crime is feared in an exactly inverse proportion by those who have the most to fear from it. Crime against the elderly and women—whether it is being mugged in their own home or in the street—represents a very small proportion of all crime in the United Kingdom. Moreover, violence represents a small proportion of all crime. Incidents of violence against individuals involve mainly young men, who are involved in violent crime both as perpetrators and as victims. The elderly, however, fear crime the most.
  All hon. Members have an obligation not to scare people or to instil fear of crime. Now that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is sitting on the Government Benches, perhaps he will wish not to scare as many people as he did when he was an Opposition Member. The current Opposition will draw attention to any failings that we think that the new Government may exhibit in dealing with crime, but we will not attempt to scare the public in the manner practised by some former Opposition Members. That did a great disservice to many people by causing an unnecessary fear of crime.
  The former Government provided support for the police. We provided, for example, the financial support that allowed the police to recruit those 16,000 extra police officers. Among the excellent civil servants that the Home Secretary will find at the Home Office are those who are skilled in numeracy and in accounting. I therefore hope that he will be able to confirm the accuracy of the figures on police numbers that I and my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Home Secretary have long been issuing.
  In the next few months, I may table a parliamentary question—perhaps from further back on the Opposition Benches—to request information from Ministers confirming that Britain is close to having 100,000 police constables, which will be an all-time record. I look forward to receiving the Government's confirmation of that figure, which was strenuously denied by Labour during the general election.
  We have provided the police with the most up-to-date technology, such as a DNA database. That database is the first of its type in the world, and now contains information on 100,000 criminals, who are now literally marked men. We evened up the scales of justice, to ensure that the law worked to help and not to hinder the police in fighting crime.
  We also reformed the right of silence. Hardened criminals can no longer stay silent in the knowledge that their silence will remain a secret. Since we initiated that reform, the number of suspects refusing to answer simple police questions has almost halved. It would seem rather churlish to remind the Government that, only two years ago, they ridiculed that programme.
  We left office with high police morale and high police numbers. I ask the House to compare our record with that of the previous Labour Government, whose actions so exasperated the police that they were threatening strike action when that Government left office. I hope that that situation never arises again.
  We pursued policies that were based on a clear set of principles: criminals must be held responsible for their crimes and appropriately punished; victims' interests must
  382
  be at the heart of our criminal justice system; and public protection must come first. For a first-time offender, the most appropriate punishment may well be a caution. Cautioning repeat or serious offenders, however, undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system, which is why, in March 1994, my right hon. and learned Friend issued new guidance to the police to discourage repeat cautioning and cautioning for serious offences. Consequently, in 1995, the number of cautions fell by 5 per cent.
  The most appropriate punishment for a less serious offender is probably a community sentence. Community sentences, however, have to be a proper punishment and not a soft option. For serious and persistent criminals, the best place is prison. Our clear view is that prison works. Criminals cannot commit more crime while in prison. That is not only self-evident, but research conducted by the Home Office—which the Home Secretary will no doubt eventually discover—suggests that between three and 13 offences could be prevented for each and every domestic burglar imprisoned for a year instead of given a community sentence. Of course, the threat of prison helps to deter others from committing crime, as the Chief Constable of Lancashire, Pauline Clare, pointed out in her letter to me on 12 September 1995. She said:
  "There is no doubt that the fear of imprisonment is an extremely effective deterrent".
  We need, of course, to do everything we can to rehabilitate criminals while they are in prison. That is the main reason why we introduced mandatory drugs testing throughout the Prison Service and why the number of hours that prisoners spend in education and training more than doubled from 4.6 million in 1979 to 9.4 million in 1995.
  Throughout our period in office, we had little help from the then Opposition. In 1988, they voted against increasing the maximum penalty for taking a gun to a crime to life imprisonment. They voted against giving the Attorney-General the right of appeal against lenient sentences. In 1991, they voted against giving the courts the power to make parents attend court with their children. In 1994, they also voted against reforming the right to silence. The Prime Minister, who was then Labour's home affairs spokesman, described our approach as "open to potential injustice", despite the fact that the then Lord Chief Justice believed that it introduced
  "an element of common sense and realism which has been sadly lacking hitherto".
  I shall not recite the catalogue of all the occasions on which the then official Opposition voted against the law and order reforms and tough measures that we were taking against crime. Fortunately, Labour's Front-Bench team appears to have seen the error of its ways, and it would be churlish of me not to accept that at face value. I hope that it is a genuine conversion, not one of convenience.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: The right hon. Gentleman has recited a catalogue, but, as two thirds of the current criminal statutes were introduced over the past 17 years, yet crime increased during that period, does that not show that there is a need for a new approach—an approach which this Government have brought to the scene?
  Mr. Maclean: Yes, there was an increase in crime in the 1980s, as happened in all countries in the western

  383
  world. However, Britain was unique in the last four years in that it had a falling crime rate—a record which had not been matched for more than 100 years. It was clear that the approach taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the former Home Secretary—an approach involving changing the law, strengthening the police service and targeting burglars and persistent criminals—was working and reducing crime. There was no reason why that approach could not have continued to be successful over the next five years. The hon. Gentleman will be hard pushed to find another country with a consistently falling crime rate for four successive years.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Were that approach to be continued, it would be necessary to build at least 12 new prisons in addition to those already planned to deal with overcrowding in order to meet the requirements of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Home Office research suggests that there might be even more prisons for which the previous Government made no financial provision. How could the approach have been continued?
  Mr. Maclean: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. When we were in government, we made financial provision up to, I think, the year 2010 for the extra prison places required as we implemented the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. The new prison places would not be required immediately, which the right hon. Gentleman should know. Our White Paper set out the scale of provision required. The same approach cannot be continued exactly because the right hon. Gentleman and his party were among those who sabotaged that Act as it went through the House in the closing stages of the last Parliament.
  Nevertheless, the official Opposition firmly believe that the "prison works" policy is successful. We do not have to lock up every criminal, but if we lock up the hardened and persistent burglars and drug dealers—those who commit the bulk of crimes—we make a disproportionate impact on crime across the country. That is what our research has shown over the past few years.
  Mr. Clive Soley: I am not sure whether this has occurred to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is too late to win the last general election. I wonder whether he would like to reconsider his approach. The position has been made worse by an awful lot of things that the last Government did not do. That is one reason why they lost. Will he direct his comments to crime prevention, about which the Conservatives did virtually nothing? Will he refer to victim support, for which they cut the money? Will he talk about the damage that the last Conservative Government did to families and parenting, which underlies many of the problems that we face? A little humility might help them do better at the next election, even if they still will not win it.
  Mr. Maclean: A little accuracy might help the hon. Gentleman. The information that he has given to the House is not as accurate as one would wish it to be. He is wrong to suggest that little was done to prevent crime—we set up an agency on crime prevention. The crime prevention initiatives are partly responsible for the fall in crime over recent years, particularly car crime, which has seen a large fall. The hon. Gentleman is also wrong to assert that financial help for the victims of crime has been cut.
  384
  I am perfectly happy to accept the result of the general election and I congratulate the Labour party on a magnificent win. However, I do not believe that, having lost the election, we should throw overboard all the policies that we believe were working well. That may be the approach of new Labour, but it is not my approach as an old Tory.
  Mr. Tom Cox: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of prison, will he tell us whether, during his time as a Minister, he read the reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, who repeatedly condemned prison conditions during the Conservatives' term of office? Talking to anyone who works in the Prison Service, one hears criticism after criticism of the administration that the new Government have inherited from the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
  Mr. Maclean: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. It is always possible to find criticisms of prisons, but the facts are that the amount of education and training in prisons has increased, prison conditions have improved enormously and prison overcrowding has been all but eliminated. However, what matters is ensuring that we have adequate prison places for those hardened and dangerous persistent offenders who need to be taken out of public circulation, where they may create more victims. That is the first duty of the Government. We fulfilled that duty assiduously.
  We have yet to see the full details of the Bill on crime and disorder announced in the Gracious Speech. From what we have heard so far, we support its broad objectives. We particularly welcome its emphasis on faster justice and tackling juvenile crime. At the beginning of this year, we published two papers—a report into delays in the criminal justice system and a Green Paper on preventing children from offending. I hope that the new Government will take forward the proposals in both those papers.
  I accept that our criminal justice system is too slow. Liaison between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service needs to be closer. Juvenile criminals should be brought to court more quickly. The Government propose having a Crown prosecutor in every area. Labour Members should remember that in 1993 the number of operational units in the CPS was increased from 31 to 98. As a result, they match police force areas closely.
  In the north-east, for example, there are six operational units, three of which match Cumbria, Durham and Cleveland forces almost exactly. Newcastle has its own CPS operational unit, headed by a branch Crown prosecutor. What would happen to those operational units under the Home Secretary's proposals? Would Newcastle's operational unit be replaced by a more distant chief Crown prosecutor for the whole of Northumbria?
  I welcome the Government's aim to halve the time taken for persistent young offenders to be caught and sentenced, but I am not entirely convinced that the way in which they aim to cut delays is the most sensible available to them or that it will deliver the results they intend. I urge the Home Secretary and the Minister of State to consider carefully the proposals in "The Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System", known in the

  385
  Home Office as the Martin Narey report. The report suggested that courts be given new powers to caution juvenile offenders and to attach meaningful conditions to a conditional discharge. At the moment, if the police are unsure whether to caution or charge a young offender, they must refer the case to an inter-agency panel. That can take weeks. It would be far better, perhaps, to commit the case to court straight away and let the court decide.
  Delays in the youth courts could be cut by removing 17-year-olds from their jurisdiction. The Narey report was written by a Home Office civil servant and had no political input—[Interruption.] That excellent report had no political input until we published it and presented it to the House. The Home Secretary may wish to use a new broom to sweep away all that is before him, and he may be tempted to discard reports published by the previous Government because he feels that they are politically tainted. It would be a grave mistake not to pay close attention to the Narey report, which had no political input into its formulation until my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe presented it to the House.
  We agree with the Government about the need to prevent youngsters from turning to crime—particularly by making parents more responsible for their children's actions. Indeed, in 1991, we gave the courts the power to bind over parents to take good care of their children. That was another of the things that—no doubt by accident—the Labour party strongly opposed at the time.
  I also commend "Preventing Children Offending", a consultation document which suggested a twin-track approach: early intervention to head youngsters off before they are tempted into a life of crime, and parental control orders—which do not seem a million miles away from orders of a similar name with which the Government are toying. A lot of good spadework has been done by the juvenile offenders unit at the Home Office in writing that report. The consultation period is now closed, and the report will now enter the ministerial mincer for consideration. I suggest to the Home Secretary that the twin-track approach in the report should commend it to the Government.
  We believe that although it is important to head youngsters off from entering a life of crime, they ought to be properly punished if they do enter that life. For a first-time or less serious offender, a caution may well be appropriate, but it is not appropriate for repeat offenders who must face the consequences of their crimes. In the previous Parliament, we legislated for secure training centres for persistent 12 to 14-year-old offenders. The aim of the centres is to combine strict discipline, education and training for one express purpose—to steer youngsters away from crime when they are released. Before the election, we signed a contract for the first STC at Cookham Wood in Kent. Perhaps the Home Secretary will state whether the Government plan to push ahead with the other STCs, or whether they will opt a softer alternative.
  We believe that the probation service, rather than social services, should be responsible for enforcing community punishment for those under 16. Social services are naturally concerned with the welfare of children—that is their job—but that can put them in a difficult position
  386
  when supervising younger offenders. It is a role which could be more suitable for the probation service to perform.
  In the previous Session, we introduced the Crime Bill which had one simple aim—to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals. The Home Secretary was quick to claim to support automatic life sentences for repeat rapists and the like. As he knows, we always intended to implement those proposals in October this year. I hope that he will confirm to the House that he intends to do the same.
  I would also urge the right hon. Gentleman to think again on mandatory minimum sentences for career burglars and dealers in hard drugs. Let me remind the House of the facts: the maximum penalty for domestic burglary is 14 years, but a sample of domestic burglars convicted in the Crown court in 1993 and 1994 shows that the average prison sentence for a first-time offender was 16.2 months and it was only 18.9 months for a third conviction. For a seventh conviction, it was barely higher—at only 19.4 months—and, indeed, we found that 28 per cent. of offenders with seven or more convictions were not sent to prison at all.
  While most dealers in hard drugs are sent to prison, the average sentence for a third offence is just four years. Our proposals, which the Labour party voted to wreck, would have ensured that third-time burglars and dealers in hard drugs received three and seven years in prison respectively. I urge the Government to reinstate those provisions in their crime Bill.
  As I said earlier, we shall judge each of the Government's proposals on its merits. If it is sensible, we shall support it. I regret that so often when the Labour party was in opposition, it did not support proposals that were to the advantage of this country and which they now claim to support or have adopted as policy. It is the job of the Loyal Opposition to support proposals that are in our country's interest and help to bear down in the fight against crime. We shall oppose only those that are contrary to this country's interest and do not assist the police or do not bear down in the fight against crime.
  Hon. Members who sat on the Opposition Benches and who now sit on the Government Benches won the election and sit where they are now because they promised not to dismantle the reforms that have been made over the past 18 years. They promised not to dismantle the reforms to the criminal justice system, and reforms to curb the excesses of the trade unions will not be changed either. Reforms to create a free market will not be changed—the Labour party now believes in a version of capitalism and the enterprise economy. Labour Members now espouse our principles and our policies, despite having fought them every inch of the way at the time. I hope that they will now stand firm and stick to those principles and policies. If they fail to do so, we shall lose no opportunity to remind the electorate that behind all the glitz, glamour and sound bites of new Labour there still lurks the beast that voted against all those reforms over the past 18 years.
  4.2 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I thank the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for the generosity of his congratulations to myself and my hon. Friends on our appointments. I should like to add, parenthetically,

  387
  that I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) for his congratulations, which were conveyed to me privately.
  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border on the tone of his speech. As one of the world's experts on opposition, having spent all but two weeks of my 18 years in Parliament on the Opposition Benches and having been present on the Front Bench after Labour's catastrophic defeat in 1983, I know that making the first speech on the Loyal Address after such a defeat is not an easy matter and the right hon. Gentleman made his with great dignity and tone.
  I want to commence by offering my own tribute to Sir Michael Shersby, who died so suddenly and so tragically just 11 days ago. Sir Michael was loyal both to his party and to his colleagues, but he was also able to talk frankly and freely to hon. Members on the other side of the House. As he and I shared common interests in police and criminal justice issues, I talked with him a great deal. I valued not only his views but his advice. With his family, friends and colleagues, I shall sorely miss him.
  This is my first speech in this Session and I am delighted to be making it from this side of the Chamber. I shall shortly give details of the proposals in the Queen's Speech, but first I shall set out our approach in context.
  On election day, 1 May, the British people overwhelmingly endorsed the Prime Minister's appeal that, after 18 years of Conservative administration, our nation deserved better. The better society that we want to build is one that fosters and celebrates strong British values: decency, reward for hard work; tolerance and respect for others. It is one in which rights for everyone are matched by responsibilities for all.
  The legislation in the Gracious Speech that I shall introduce to the House will set a framework for underpinning those British values; for restoring responsibilities and for better protecting rights. That may sound abstract. But the benefits that should flow will be real and concrete for individuals, for families and for communities throughout the United Kingdom. We want to bring about changes in the way in which people relate to one another by changing people's public behaviour and their sense of responsibility towards one another.
  We want to reclaim our towns, cities and villages so that everyone is free to go about their neighbourhood in safety and security.
  Some people would deny that any Government can achieve such changes. But the Government have at their disposal more effective levers than are available to any private individual or agency. The Government also have the responsibility—the moral duty—to use the power that they have for the good of all.
  Martin Luther King said:
  "Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated.,
  Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless."
  Laws can help to shape more tolerant values and a better society. We need only consider the Race Relations Acts, introduced by two previous Labour Governments and passed by the House in the 1960s and 1970s.
  There was then the predictable outcry from our opponents, claiming that free speech and individual liberties were being threatened; but although more needs
  388
  to be done, those Acts succeeded in enhancing the rights of black and Asian people in Britain and in encouraging racial tolerance and understanding in our society.
  If the cynics are still unconvinced, let me point to the conclusive negative proof of the power of Governments to influence behaviour. Madam Speaker, you may bridle, if you like, at my belief that good government can encourage good behaviour, but let no one doubt that bad government leads to bad behaviour.
  For the past 18 years, Britain had a Government who preached the values of self-interest above everything else. It should therefore come as no surprise that some people then chose to ignore their responsibilities to other people. Where there is
  "no such thing as society",
  there can be no shared standards of behaviour. Where there is a steady erosion of community, of shared values, links between individuals collapse and people become fearful and distrustful of others. It's "Get what you can, don't worry about anyone else"—the instincts of those who commit crime.
  Crime is the ultimate selfish act. It results from the breakdown of rules and from an evasion of responsibility for other people. That, I suggest, was why, every time that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe opened his mouth during the general election campaign, the British people were powerfully reminded of the Conservatives' culpability for the high levels of crime and disorder that they had suffered in the previous 18 years. That was why his hysterical claim that I was the "burglar's friend" helped persuade floating voters in their droves to vote for Labour candidates.
  For weeks I have nurtured the thought that perhaps that was the purpose in the mind of the former Secretary of State. After all, as has become clear, he and I shared a common goal: we both wished to see the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) out of Downing street.
  On Monday 12 May, the results of an international crime victimisation survey were presented at a conference in the Netherlands. That survey gave the lie to the claim by the shadow Home Secretary and of the shadow shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, that; under the stewardship of the Conservative Government this country had become safer. The survey showed that, by international standards, England and Wales continue to have very high levels of property crime and violent crime. More than one third of people surveyed in England and Wales had been victims of crime in the previous year. That record was worse than that of the United States and beaten only by the Netherlands. Not surprisingly, the survey also showed that people in England and Wales are more anxious than other nationalities about their safety on the streets.
  The one comfort to be drawn from this international survey—and a most important one—is that our police forces enjoy internationally high levels of confidence from the public.
  Law and order featured high in the list of people's concerns during the election campaign. That is hardly surprising, of course. Crime doubled during the Tory years, while the number of criminals punished actually fell by a third.
  What was surprising, however, was that once the election had begun, the Conservative party did not even attempt to engage on the issue and to argue its case. After

  389
  some hopeless early skirmishes, including the charge that I was the burglar's friend, the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply gave up and accepted defeat.
  The so-called party of law and order held just one press conference on the issue in the five weeks of the election campaign. The Conservative party apparently still suffers from this blindspot. In the debate on the Queen's Speech on 14 May, the Leader of the Opposition did not see fit to mention crime once.
  I ask the House to contrast that with our approach—new policies on neighbourhood disorder, on tackling drink-related crime, on major improvements to the youth justice system, on new protection for children under 10, and on reforms of the Crown Prosecution Service. Many aspects of these proposals will be contained in a new crime and disorder Bill which will be introduced to the House later in this session.
  I believe that we commanded the confidence of the public because our analysis and prescription chimed with theirs. The public are not fools. They know that crime has causes; that while criminal behaviour can never be excused, social and economic factors such as deprivation and unemployment are bound to create conditions in which people can more easily be tempted into crime.
  The public wanted action on the causes of crime—but saw that they were never going to get that from the former Administration. They will however get it from this Government, not least with our welfare to work programme financed by the proceeds of a windfall tax.
  The public also desperately wanted firm action against crime and disorder. Instead, the Conservative Government stubbornly pursued a narrow approach. It did not work. Eighteen years ago, the system that we left to the Conservatives was much more effective at nipping offending in the bud. Recorded crime in 1979 was half the level suffered today; but 50 per cent. more offenders were being convicted and the prison population was lower by 20,000.
  Our prison population today is 60,000 and rising. Many—indeed most—of those prisoners began their criminal careers as young offenders. The previous Government's failure to tackle youth crime effectively has contributed both to the high levels of crime and to the record prison population which we face today.
  Nowhere is the need for action to tackle crime and disorder more pressing than with young offenders. Last November, the Audit Commission pronounced a telling verdict on the previous Administration's record on juvenile crime. In a major report, the commission said this:
  "Overall, less is done now than 10 years ago to address offending by young people."
  By contrast with that record of indolence and inactivity, our new Prime Minister has made action against youth crime one of the Government's top five priorities. He has pledged that we will cut by one half the time taken to process persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence. At present, it takes on average four and a half months for a young criminal to be punished for his or her crime, and often much longer for persistent offenders. Young offenders are given the impression that they can offend repeatedly without punishment. Far from nipping bad behaviour in the bud, the present youth justice system perversely reinforces much bad behaviour.
  390
  We will take measures in the crime and disorder Bill to tackle these delays. We will also be taking early action in advance of legislation to encourage all agencies in the youth justice system to deal with cases more speedily. By speeding juvenile justice, we aim to ensure that young offenders are made to see the clear link between crime and punishment, and to face up to the consequences of their offending for their victims and for themselves.
  The repeat offending of some youngsters wrecks their own lives and the lives of those whom they victimise. From the outset, it must be made clear to young people that they will not get away with offending. The response to youth crime must be rapid, consistent and effective.
  The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border mentioned the Narey report and suggested that we should take proper account of it. He was right to do so. I recognised, when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe presented the outcome of the report to the House in February, that the report had many recommendations of which any Administration should take account in the most serious way. Based on the experience of the previous Government, this Government would welcome any constructive views about the methods that we intend to pursue in order to achieve what I gather from the right hon. Gentleman has now become a common goal.
  We shall replace the archaic rule of doli incapax, which assumes—absurdly—that a child aged 10–13 cannot differentiate between right and wrong. Child protection orders will be available to deal with children aged 10 and under left out unsupervised late at night.
  We shall end the practice of repeat cautions. There will be a single final warning, which will usually trigger effective intervention by youth offender teams. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border was also right to draw attention to the complex bureaucracy that currently obtains when cautions are being administered. We want a system—perhaps slightly different from the one that he proposes, but we are happy to discuss it with him—where, even if cautions are administered outside the court system, the supervision of the court system is plainly with the courts and the police alone. Advice should be taken from other agencies, but one reason among many for the current delays is that no individual or agency is clearly responsible for running the youth justice system in England and Wales.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the Secretary of State accept that we have had considerable difficulty in ensuring that those children whom society regards as having parents who are not capable of looking after them are properly looked after in public care? As he extends society's capacity to look after those children, will he do everything in his power to ensure that society looks after them properly?
  Mr. Straw: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the quality of care in some of our residential homes and the overall legislative framework. He may like to know that, with the Prime Minister's approval, I have appointed as my senior special adviser, Mr. Norman Warner, who chaired the previous Government inquiry into conditions in some children's homes. I take his work and recommendations and the whole issue extremely seriously.

  391
  There are some serious and persistent offenders for whom custody is necessary, either for sentencing or for remand purposes. We shall have in place a range of sentencing options for the courts, which will allow them to react appropriately both to protect the public and address the youngster's offending behaviour.
  The crime and disorder Bill will also establish a new national youth justice board to monitor and set national standards for community and custodial sentences and to ensure a consistent and cost-effective response to young offenders right across the country.
  Our emphasis on responsibility is not limited to young offenders and their parents. The wider community, including business, has a responsibility to encourage good behaviour in the young. That is why I condemn—I hope that the whole House does—the cynical and irresponsible behaviour of some in the drinks industry who have been targeting under-age drinkers with so-called alcopops.
  We shall not forget the "order" part of law and order. Disorderly, anti-social behaviour causes alarm and distress. It heightens the fear of crime. We shall act to free communities from brutish and unacceptable behaviour. That is the purpose of the strategy of zero tolerance about which the Prime Minister and I have often spoken.
  The crime and disorder Bill will give courts a new power to make community safety orders. Those orders will, at last, give the police and local authorities the powers that they need to tackle that blight on local communities.
  There are some acts that deserve specific condemnation by the criminal law. Racial harassment and racially motivated violence deserve such condemnation, because of the corrosive effects that they have on the very fabric of society. We shall create new offences of racial harassment and racially motivated violence to protect ethnic minorities from intimidation and injury.
  Our response to the unacceptable level of crime in Britain is to attack both crime and its causes. We will place a new responsibility on local authorities to develop statutory partnerships with the police to prevent crime and to enhance community safety.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on his appointment. Does he agree that racial harassment and racial abuse are so obnoxious that we should set up a special squad, like the vice squad, the firearms squad and so on, of dedicated officers who could track down racists and make sure that they are brought to justice?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. The issue of whether an individual police force should set up a special squad is—I am sorry if my hon. Friend thinks that I sound a little like a Secretary of State—a matter for individual chief constables, but I certainly believe that his suggestion should be taken on board by chief constables. Different forces have different approaches to tackling the issue. In any event, we must ensure that every police officer, of whatever rank, is seized of the need to take firm and effective action against racial harassment and racial violence, wherever it takes place.
  Support for our agenda on crime and disorder has been wide. Last week, the Police Federation added its backing for our proposals. Its chairman, Fred Broughton, said that
  392
  he welcomed the positive steps outlined in our crime and disorder Bill for tackling juvenile crime and for dealing with disorder, which he said
  "can ruin the quality of life for whole communities."
  I was glad to hear from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border that he was offering his support, too, for our proposals.
  Mr. Beith: The Home Secretary will also have heard from the Police Federation a challenge to increase the number of police officers, particularly when new responsibilities such as carrying out zero tolerance campaigns and dealing with racial attacks are added to their present responsibilities. Does the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of increasing the total number of police officers and, if so, how will he fund it?
  Mr. Straw: The position is clear. We set it out at the election. Our position received rather greater endorsement than the right hon. Gentleman's. We have made it clear that for this year and for the following financial year, we stand by the departmental budgets that were provided in the public expenditure round last November.
  I refused to get into a numbers game because under legislation which we supported and the previous Government introduced, the decision about how to use available finance is not for any Home Secretary, but for individual police forces. That is the reality and the legal position. That was why, even in the Conservative party's manifesto, which was so comprehensively rejected by the electorate, if one read the words carefully there was no straightforward pledge to increase police numbers; instead, there was a pledge which meant different things to different people, to provide the resources which chief constables could use to increase police numbers if, of course, the other demands on their budget had been met in other ways.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: While I acknowledge that the number of police officers, especially those on the beat, is important, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no single answer to combating violent crime, especially disorderly conduct, and that essentially, there must be partnerships between communities, business and local authorities?
  Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. One of the things that we shall do through the crime and disorder Bill is to implement the recommendations of the Morgan report, updated. It recommended in 1990 that a statutory responsibility should be placed on local authorities to work in partnership with the police in dealing with crime and disorder. We shall also require each local authority, in partnership with the police, to set its own targets for reducing crime and disorder in its area. Of the many things that I found almost impossible to believe during the 18 years that I sat on the Opposition Benches and witnessed the then Government, I never, ever understood why they refused point blank to implement the Morgan report, on which there could clearly have been a consensus across the House.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I thank him publicly for coming to Portland on Friday to examine the

  393
  floating prison facility. Many of his remarks revolve around the problems that we have faced for many years in getting cases through the Crown Prosecution Service. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said so far will devote more resources to that area and solve the problems upon which many of his other remarks depend. Will he comment further on that issue?
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman can wait a second, I shall come to our proposals in respect of the Crown Prosecution Service. However, having spent a great deal of time in opposition examining the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service and having studied some very interesting insights in the Narey report about that service, I do not believe that the issue is about overall resources: it is a question of how those resources are used and how we can secure better and more effective co-operation between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police.
  I turn now to sentencing. The former Conservative Cabinet Minister and former right hon. and learned Member for Putney, David Mellor, said last August that, under the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, the present shadow Home Secretary, the Conservatives had "lost the plot" on law and order. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed because he lacked a comprehensive strategy for dealing with crime and its causes: a flaw in his approach which is reflected in the narrowness of the amendment that is the subject of today's debate.
  That amendment makes two demands. The first is for a commitment in respect of the provisions for automatic life sentences for second-time serious sexual and violent offenders. I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend often enough when my party was in opposition that we supported the principle of that provision, and my view has not changed since 1 May. I hope to be able to meet the target date for implementation, set by the previous Government, of later this year. However, I shall not set a date until I am satisfied that sufficient provision within the Prison Service is available for those prisoners.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman can hardly complain about that, since he knows better than anyone that the projections of the rise in the prison population that were published before the election were optimistically on the low side. The reality that has confronted me is more serious than I thought it would be. We must address that situation. One of the ways in which I shall do so—to pick up the remarks by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce)—is to take comprehensive action against delays in the criminal justice system. Reducing delays should help to reduce the numbers of prisoners held on remand.
  The second demand made in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment is for a reinstatement of the original provisions about exceptional circumstances in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Those provisions were successfully amended by the Labour party in the Lords, and confirmed by the Commons, just before the election. It is a sign that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to come to terms with his defeat that he has bothered to pursue that point—that he should try to fight the last war rather the next, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said.
  394
  It was almost the only thing that he argued on law and order during the election—on those few occasions when Conservative central office let him off the leash.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): Not very often.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's view was comprehensively rejected by the electorate, and I have absolutely no intention of acceding to it. The measures that we intend to take in respect of sentencing were flagged in our manifesto. We will address the need for greater consistency in sentencing by the courts and extend the powers of the Attorney-General to appeal against unduly lenient sentences.
  I turn now to the issue of drugs, as drug-taking and drug abuse are the cause of a huge amount of crime and disorder currently affecting society. Drugs devastate the lives of addicts, their families and their communities, and lead to much property and violent crime. Action to target crime and its causes must therefore include tough and realistic measures against drugs. To break the vicious circle of addiction and crime, we shall introduce a new drug treatment and testing order, requiring serious drug-addicted offenders to undergo treatment and random drug testing.
  As the Prime Minister announced before the election, he will appoint a new drugs tsar with a wide role to lead the fight against drugs and to help educate young people not to take them. The drugs tsar will have the power to co ordinate the efforts of the police, educationalists, social services, prisons, the probation service and health authorities. This appointment will build on arrangements established by the previous Administration that had our firm support.
  Victims, too, often feel neglected by the criminal justice system. I am committed to improving the services that criminal justice agencies provide to the victims of crime. Victims should be kept fully informed of the progress of their cases, and should be told why charges have been downgraded or dropped. The police in some areas are piloting a system of "one-stop shops" to keep victims informed—a welcome indication of their commitment to better treatment of victims—but that task should not be left to the police alone.
  Under the reorganisation of the Crown Prosecution Service, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be taking forward shortly, the Crown Prosecution Service will be accountable for its decisions, particularly the local Crown prosecutors who will be put in place. They should be prepared to explain to victims their reasons for discontinuing or downgrading cases. We will also give greater protection to victims and witnesses in rape and other serious sexual offence cases, and take steps to protect those who may be subject to intimidation.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: As the Home Secretary will be aware, the previous Administration set up, with all-party support—perhaps the only initiative to have had all-party support—a Scotland against drugs campaign, in which the leaders of all the Scottish political parties sit. That committee meets on Friday. Before it meets, would it not be useful to consult it about the

  395
  Government's intentions? Will the Home Secretary give me an undertaking that that consultation will take place before moving ahead with the Government's plans to combat the drugs menace?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion sounds sensible. I promise to pass it on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I should add that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who has particular responsibility for drugs, hopes to be present at that meeting on Friday. We are very strongly open to suggestions. The campaign against drugs undertaken by the previous Government had our full support and backing. This is not an area in which any one party has a monopoly of wisdom or views.
  Through legislation and through our actions, the Government will help to rebuild our society by promoting a culture of mutual respect for rights and responsibilities. An essential part of that project will be a Bill to incorporate the main provisions of the European convention on human rights into UK law. It is almost 50 years since the United Kingdom signed up to that European convention. Yet, because it has never been incorporated into United Kingdom law, our citizens must undergo the cost and delay of appealing to a Strasbourg court to enforce their rights under the convention.
  We will bring rights home to the British people, making the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European convention part of British law. This will provide the opportunity for our own courts to decide whether our citizens' rights are being properly observed. Incorporation will not detract from the sovereignty of this Parliament.
  Mr. William Cash: In the light of the draft treaty on European union that has just been produced, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House the extent to which—in relation to home affairs and justice and the pillar that currently exists under the existing treaties—the Government would allow the Court of Justice to take a role in determining questions relating to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in relation to those functions?
  Mr. Straw: One of the problems with those who are single-subject obsessives is that they work the European Union and European Community into every issue under the sun. It may come as a surprise and a shock to the hon. Gentleman to learn, however, that the European convention on human rights has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the European Union. It was developed—
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Straw: No.
  It was developed by British lawyers, including a very distinguished British Conservative lawyer who later became Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir. It formed part of the Council of Europe not the European Union. [Interruption.] The intergovernmental conference has nothing whatever to do with what I was saying. I will come on to deal with our position on border controls in a moment.
  I was going to refer in complimentary terms to the part of the Opposition's amendment that said that our proposals for incorporating—not the EU treaty—the
  396
  ECHR should be carefully examined. I agree with that sentiment. In opposition, we set out in detail our thinking in a consultative document "Bringing Rights Home". We held useful discussions on that document with the Liberal Democrats. If the hon. Gentleman has comments on our proposals about how we incorporate the ECHR into British law without affecting—as we intend—the sovereignty of Parliament, I shall be very happy to hear from him.
  Among other matters discussed with the Liberal Democrats was the reform of voting systems, with a commitment in our manifesto for a referendum. This will be preceded by the establishment of, and then a report by, an independent commission on voting systems, which will be asked to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system. I recognise the importance attached to this matter by many hon. Members and I intend to make the fastest progress that I can on this undertaking.
  We shall introduce primary legislation to give effect to the European Union data protection directive. We shall also make proposals on the funding of political parties.
  The Government will work nationally and internationally to protect our citizens from terrorism and organised crime. We shall implement as quickly as possible the legislation enacted under the previous Administration in the Police Act.
  We pledged in our manifesto to take proper ministerial responsibility for the Prison Service. That was before I had any anticipation that the debate might be a re-run of previous debates on the Prison Service. I have no plans to end the service's status as an agency within the Home Office, but I intend to examine the structure and organisation of the service and the Home Office's policy role, taking account of the conclusions of the director general's organisational review, which is already under way.
  The reputation of the previous incumbent of my office was, in my judgment, deeply damaged by his refusal to accept proper responsibility for the Prison Service, and his arcane and unconvincing attempts to distinguish between policy and operations. As a first step to restoring proper ministerial responsibility, I have already announced that in future all parliamentary questions about the Prison Service will be answered by a Home Office Minister and not by the director general, who is a civil servant.
  That is no reflection whatsoever on the director general, Richard Tilt, who has my full support. It will, however, put right what many right hon. and hon. Members have long regarded as bad practice. I regard it as essential that Ministers should answer personally to the House for what is done in our prisons and not leave the matter to their civil servants.
  Our manifesto stated that we would establish an audit of the Prison Service, and arrangements for that are under way.
  The Government will uphold firm controls on immigration, with applications being dealt with fairly and speedily. At the election, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, refused to allow his party to be dragged down into debate about immigration policy. The then Prime Minister was correct to do so.
  Our manifesto proposals in respect of the primary purpose rule are not about numbers but about fairness. Under the current bizarre arrangements, individuals

  397
  refused under the primary purpose rule are still allowed into the UK in the end, but only after years of expense and, often, humiliation.
  An announcement about the changes that we propose will be made in due course. I can tell the House, however, that everyone who wishes to seek entry to the UK as a spouse or fiancee will continue to have to show that their marriage is genuine and that they will not be a burden on the state. We shall strongly reinforce those rules and also bring forward long-overdue proposals for the control of unscrupulous immigration advisers.
  I take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury or Shropshire. Perhaps it is Stafford.
  Mr. Cash: Stone.
  Mr. Straw: I am sorry, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). He moved, as it were, like every other Conservative who survived the election.
  We have made it clear that we shall maintain Britain's frontier controls, including controls at the internal frontiers with other European Union states. Our commitment to that is clear and absolute, and it will be made even clearer at the intergovernmental conference negotiations in Amsterdam next week. It is time to put the issue of frontier controls beyond doubt.
  I have left until last the Home Office Bill that is due to be introduced to the House first.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. Before he leaves immigration law, will he tell me what plans he has in government to end the routine imprisonment of asylum seekers in this country? Is he aware of the protests made by a number of asylum seekers who are currently held in prison in Birmingham? Is he prepared to examine their cases?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. Let us, however, start as we mean to go on. I share or agree only with the congratulations that he included in his intervention. We did not criticise the previous Administration for what my hon. Friend described as routine detentions of immigrants. About 1 per cent. of immigrants who are here unlawfully are the subject of detention. I am, of course, concerned to ensure that no individual who is required to leave this country is detained unnecessarily, but, as with prisoners, those who are detained for immigration purposes cannot be allowed to secure their own release by taking action, such as going on hunger strike. The prison and detention systems would break down if that were so.
  I have left until last the Home Office Bill that is due to be introduced to this House first. The previous Government acted in the face of considerable opposition from its own side to tighten firearms controls following Dunblane. We supported those measures, but made it clear that we believed that they did not go far enough. We will, therefore, give Parliament the opportunity to vote on a total ban on handguns in general civilian use. A Bill will be introduced quickly. Labour Members will have a free vote. If Parliament supports a total ban, we will implement the necessary legislation as quickly as possible.
  398
  That is a substantial programme of action and legislation from a Government who will tackle crime and disorder, make people safer and help to build a better society. We shall encourage greater responsibility and, in doing so, seek to protect the rights of all.
  Ours is an ambitious but attainable programme. Great good will and trust have been invested in this new Labour Government by the British people. That is a heavy responsibility, but it is a responsibility which we are proud to carry. We can and will make a difference to people's lives for the better. On that let us be judged.
  4.41 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Madam Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and for your advice that it will be in order for me to concentrate on events that occurred in the Home Office under the last Administration. If my remarks need a current context, they are made in the light of the necessity for the current Home Office Ministers to sort out their proper relationship with the Prison Service and other agencies.
  Before embarking on my remarks, I should like to join in the tributes paid to Sir Michael Shersby, and in the congratulations to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the rest of his Front-Bench team. That is probably the nicest thing that I shall say to them for the rest of this Parliament.
  I should say two things at the outset, because it is now generally known that what I have to say will be less than encouraging to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). First, I pay very great and very genuine tribute to his work at the Home Office. He put the protection of the public at the top of the agenda, and he kept it there. His term of office saw a fall in crime and a vast improvement in Her Majesty's prisons. He introduced a raft of measures to make Britain a more orderly place, and had the courage to make much-needed reforms to our widely abused asylum system.
  It is therefore with genuine sadness and considerable reluctance, which I have had to overcome, that I turn to the rest of my remarks. But for my utter conviction of their rightness and of the imperative that lies behind them, I should not be making these remarks at all.
  Secondly, although my remarks are informed by a number of documents and oral evidence, I shall not identify any individual document or any civil servants and Ministers whom I may quote. If ex-Ministers were to do that, government would become unworkable. However, if my right hon. and learned Friend hears me allude to things that he does not recognise, I will be happy afterwards to point out to him where the words occur.
  It is urgently necessary for the House to restore its reputation with the nation. Many of our great institutions are falling into disrepute. I was wretchedly aware of how many people to whom I talked during the election uttered the sentiment that politicians of all parties are sleazy and corrupt, and principally concerned with their own interests and survival. That is an unjust and distorted picture, and does great disservice to the overwhelming majority of dedicated, honourable and hard-working Members of the House. It is regrettable that the House has been back only five minutes and already there is a corruption story—this time on the Labour Benches—all over our newspapers.

  399
  It should alarm us all that the House is now so comprehensively viewed as devoid of honour and a sense of service. In case there are smug looks on the faces of Labour Members, I have to say that the Labour party is ill placed to talk of principle when it changed its mind on policy three times a day merely to win an election. Whatever fun the public make of us, and no matter how upset the public may be by our decisions, it is still essential for there to be an underlying view that Members of the House are just, honourable and truthful. The higher the office, the greater that imperative.
  Honourable treatment means that we treat those in our power justly, and that we do not reject from them defences that we regularly mount for ourselves. I profoundly regret that, in the previous Parliament, Ministers were criticised in independent reports and did not resign. I am not saying that they necessarily should have done, but if it is justice for them not to resign, it is also justice for our loyal servants not to resign.
  If a party can go to the country and urge that its occasional disasters, however monumental, be overlooked on the basis of its otherwise truly magnificent achievements, it cannot, in honour, deny that same defence to individuals. Regularly to protect and excuse ourselves while visiting serious vengeance on others corrupts justice and demeans office.
  Earlier, I alluded to the fact that there had been a great improvement in Her Majesty's prisons under the former Home Secretary. That improvement was the result of the efforts of two men: my right hon. and learned Friend and the former head of the Prison Service, Mr. Derek Lewis.
  Mr. Lewis was an outstanding director general. He inherited an appalling and troubled service, which in 14 years we had not got right. Escapes took place daily, assaults were rife, industrial relations were chaotic and financial management poor. Under his vigorous leadership, escapes fell by a staggering 77 per cent.; overcrowding was reduced, despite a sharp rise in the number of prisoners; purposeful activity was increased by hundreds of thousands of hours, despite a reduction in costs per place; industrial relations were transformed; and the private finance initiative was so successfully run that it became a model for the rest of Whitehall.
  The agency essentially met all targets set by Ministers, and new initiatives, such as reform to home leaves, drugs testing and the incentives and earned privileges regimes, were successfully implemented. All that was managed in the space of two and a half years.
  There was still a great deal to be done—that is common ground—but it would have been unreasonable to expect everything to be achieved in the first 18 months, which is when the escape from Whitemoor occurred. After all—although I hesitate to point it out—we still had things to achieve after 18 years.
  If people want a snapshot comparison of the Prison Service before Mr. Lewis came and when he left, they need only read the speech of the former Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). He referred to the poor state of the Prison Service and correctly and courageously said that Ministers of all parties must take the blame. That speech, which was made in 1992 before the establishment of the agency, should be compared with the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe to the Prison Service conference in 1996—only
  400
  a few months after Mr. Lewis left—in which he praised to the skies the achievements of the service in the previous two years.
  It was for those reasons that Ministers, very senior civil servants, the Prisons Board and its non-executives, urgently advised the then Home Secretary that he should not dismiss Mr. Lewis. It was for those reasons that two of the four non-executives resigned in protest, and that others chose other forms of making their views known. It was for those reasons that I nearly resigned, and now regret not doing so. I put that on the record: I now regret not doing so. If Mr. Lewis had been an indifferent director general, there would have been less achievement and certainly less support.
  The Learmont report—which was used by the Home Secretary to dismiss Mr. Lewis—took no account of that progress; nor did it attempt to measure it, because that was not the general's brief. But, when—two months after Derek Lewis had left—the general was briefed to measure progress on implementation, this time on the Woodcock recommendations, he found:
  "In the space of less than a year the Prison Service has made more headway than could reasonably have been expected".
  Another report produced at that time found that Mr. Lewis had provided visible leadership, and reached other conclusions not compatible with the main Learmont report. One wonders what my right hon. and learned Friend would have made of it if he had had all three reports when reaching his conclusions. It is also worth recording that a previous report on the Whitemoor breakout had specifically exonerated Mr. Lewis of any negligence.
  Before I end this section of my remarks, it is worth pointing out that there were serious flaws in the Learmont report in terms of approach and substantiation. I find its credibility severely dented by the fact that, when the general appeared before the Select Committee, it became obvious that he had no idea how escapes were measured and he admitted to simply missing a basic analysis of escape by categorisation of prisoner. Having made a large number of recommendations about Prison Service headquarters, he said that he had not visited the headquarters. The reason he gave was that he did not think that his team would be very welcome.
  In a major report on security and organisation, that does not inspire me with confidence. My right hon. and learned Friend is very skilled forensically, and I cannot believe that he was taken in by the superficiality of some of the report. It is hard to conclude other than that the report was his pretext rather than his reason. There is evidence within the Home Office that he had wanted for a long time before that report was produced to remove Mr. Lewis from his post.
  In his Spectator article, the former Home Secretary says that any chief executive of a private company who had received such a damning report would have been expected to resign. I say that any chief executive who had secured a 70 per cent. improvement in performance would in fact have received the highest rewards.
  What did we actually achieve by the dismissal of Mr. Lewis? We had to pay him £220,000 in compensation, in return for which the taxpayer received nothing at all. We had to pay his costs, in the sum of £41,000, in return for which the taxpayer received nothing at all. We had to pay our own costs, in the

  401
  sum of some £16,000. A most unnecessary bill of more than a quarter of a million pounds was the cost to the general public of my right hon. and learned Friend's decision.
  We severely damaged relations with the private sector, as we found out when we considered the possibility of running an open competition for Mr. Lewis's job—a possibility from which we quickly retreated. We created a false distinction between policy and operations which has reverberated around the whole of Whitehall, not just the Home Office. We have endured swingeing headlines in the press, not least when the Home Office was ignominiously forced to consent to the judgment on the very day that the Conservative faithful were being rallied at the central council.
  We left the Prison Service without a confirmed leader for five months, and we shattered its morale, just when things had been going well for 10 months. Manpower and time have been taken up by endless briefings and Select Committees—not just the Home Affairs Committee but the Public Service Committee—and the effects of the whole affair still rumble on.
  And, for all that, did we eliminate disasters from the Prison Service? No. Only a few months later, approximately 541 prisoners were released before the end of their sentences. They did not even have to break out. The fact is that there were disasters in the service before Lewis—including high-profile escapes—disasters in the service during Lewis, and disasters in the service after Lewis; but, as the current director general—to whom I pay considerable tribute—has told the Home Affairs Select Committee, the real progress has been made since the granting of agency status and that was due largely to the man who ran the agency at the time.
  Quite apart from the merits of the case, the handling was deplorable—and personally witnessed by me—and was the cause of the distress that has now become public knowledge. The former director general was refused point blank on two occasions the opportunity to discuss the basis on which he was being dismissed. He had filed a large and detailed defence to the Learmont report, which was subsequently published, and even the former Home Secretary acknowledged that defence to be "persuasive and impressive".
  My right hon. and learned Friend decided, however, that it painted a different picture of the Prison Service from Learmont's, and that he preferred Learmont's. Mr. Lewis immediately said that the two pictures were compatible, but the Home Secretary would hear no argument on the point. I consider that an amazing act on the part of the head of a justice Department.
  A dismissal meeting on the 15th lasted 20 minutes; a meeting on the 16th lasted 12 minutes, with, again, the former Home Secretary refusing to hear Mr. Lewis's defence. Although we had had the report on 27 September, a decision was not communicated to Mr. Lewis until 15 October, and he was then given six hours in which to resign. That was subsequently extended, and, in the meantime—although he had been asked to resign and to give notice and was therefore presumably still head of the service—he was not admitted to meetings, and not copied into documents then being prepared for the statement. It is not surprising that Mr. Lewis did not go quietly.
  402
  I might add that it was the minutes of those meetings that convinced me that minutes of meetings may be perfectly accurate without reflecting the tone and full content of the meetings. For example, there was a question of security audit which showed that the then Home Secretary believed that Mr. Lewis had set up security audits only after Whitemoor. In fact, they had been set up before Whitemoor, which suggests that Mr. Lewis did not need a disaster to see the importance of security. That exchange is not recorded.
  It has often been said that Mr. Lewis was dismissed because, after Whitemoor, he failed to take action to prevent Parkhurst. One could be forgiven for believing that absolutely nothing was going on between the two events. In fact, the opposite is true.
  Mr. Lewis had already put in hand additional cameras, alterations to fence height, infra-red screens, alarm-activated static cameras, installation of closed-visit facilities, new methods of recording intelligence, an increase in rub-down searches, routine searching of all staff and visitors, upgraded supervision of visits, the introduction of specialist arms and explosives search teams, local staff training, high-technology searching equipment, the introduction of personal alarms and volumetric control—but, of course, he did nothing in that couple of months.
  We all know that, when Ministers come before the House, they sometimes give us coded messages. [Laughter.] These Ministers will do it, too. We know that, if a Minister appears before the House and says, "I have received an important report, and I will publish it shortly," we may truly expect to find it in the Library shortly. If he says, "I will publish it as soon as possible," we know that it will take quite a long time. If he says, "I will publish it in due course," it is going to take a very long time indeed. But if he says, "This report has very serious implications which need very careful examination, and I will not be able to report to the House until that has happened," that means, "By gum! I am leaving this one for my successor."
  My right hon. and learned Friend has a most exquisite way with words. On 16 October 1995, when presenting the Learmont report to Parliament, he told the House—hon. Members will find this in column 32 of Hansard
  "One particular aspect that I asked Sir John to consider was the extent to which visits should be closed. He recommends that there should be closed visits for exceptional risk category A prisoners other than in exceptional circumstances.
  He told us:
  "That coincides with the policy that I introduced in June this year."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol.264, c.32.]
  The use of the word "coincides" is intriguing. It is not unsustainable, but it is a bit curious, because no coincidence whatever was involved.
  The Salmon version of the Learmont report specifically recommended that there should not be closed visits, even in SSUs. However, my right hon. and learned Friend subsequently wrote to General Learmont and stated in a very brief letter that he had decided that, when the SSU was opened at Whitemoor, closed visits would be implemented, whereupon the obliging general wrote back in five lines thanking him for that input, and stating that it would be reflected in his report.
  The final version of the Learmont report totally reversed the original conclusion, and recommended closed visits. That says a great deal about the methodology of

  403
  the Learmont report, on which I have already commented, but it also causes me to raise my eyebrows a little at the choice of words that were used to the House.
  When there was a decidedly embarrassing court settlement, a document was put in the Conservative Whips office for the use of Members. That suggests that Members could have used the information to deploy in the House. I think that, had they done so, they would have left themselves open to serious embarrassment.
  That document was certainly not written personally by my right hon. and learned Friend: it was produced by Conservative central office. But it is inconceivable that it would have arrived in the Whips office if he had thought it inaccurate. That document told Members that the settlement is not an admission that Mr. Lewis was either wrongfully or unfairly dismissed. That statement is sustainable only on the utmost technicality.
  I shall read to the House, because they have already been published, as has the foregoing Learmont exchange, by Mr. Lewis in his evidence to the Select Committee and are therefore in the public domain, the exact terms of our lawyer's letter, our having been told that we admit no wrongful dismissal. The letter states:
  "For the avoidance of any possible remaining doubt I confirm that notwithstanding the Home Office is unable to admit terminating Mr. Lewis's contract in breach of contract due to the constitutional position of the Crown, it is accepted that, but for that position, your client's employment was terminated otherwise than in accordance with the terms of his contract. Accordingly, my client is willing to compensate Mr. Lewis upon the basis of damages for wrongful dismissal."
  No wonder Mr. Lewis described our defence as
  " a fig leaf so small as to be grossly indecent."
  I shall now turn to the censure debate in October 1995. My right hon. and learned Friend said:
  "On Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition made three allegations:".
  He went on to list them and said that the first one was
  "that I personally told Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended immediately;"
  He listed the other allegations, and said:
  "Each and every one of the allegations is untrue."—[Official Report, 19 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 524.]
  In other words, he categorically denied in the House that he had personally told Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended immediately.
  Some hon. Members may have watched "Newsnight" on Tuesday 13 May, in which my right hon. and learned Friend was far less categoric. He said of Mr. Lewis:
  "I gave him the benefit of my opinion in strong language."
  I can tell the House that the "Newsnight" version is the correct one.
  There is ample documentary evidence that my right hon. and learned Friend did indeed personally tell Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended. The atmosphere at that meeting, attested to in the documents, is of fury and confrontation. I was told in a personal note by one of those present:
  "This was the subject of the worst disagreement. The Home Secretary wanted suspension, Derek Lewis adamantly refused."
  Another document recorded:
  "the discussion generated a lot more heat than light … and you made it clear that your preference was for suspension."
  404
  The warning that Derek Lewis has said that he received after he had been asked to reconsider his decision—that
  "this is all getting white hot and I do not want it to become n uclear"-
  is documented within the Department.
  I say categorically to the House that the documents in the Department and the recollections of the civil servants and Ministers concerned show that Derek Lewis was told that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended, and that he was told to take time to reconsider his decision when he refused. That is a very different picture from the one that was painted in the House on 19 October 1995, when all that my right hon. and learned Friend would admit to was wondering whether suspension might be more appropriate, and asking questions. I can only ask the House to imagine "white hot wondering" or "questions going nuclear" or "querying in strong language" consist of.
  To tell Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended is completely different from instructing Mr. Lewis. My right hon. and learned Friend has frequently said that he did not instruct Mr. Lewis—and he did not: there is common ground on that. However, he told him that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended. The threat of instruction was distinct and was the second allegation, and we need to make sure that the two are disentangled.
  The reason why the right hon. Member for Blackburn, now the Secretary of State for the Home Department, came to such grief in the debate on 19 October 1995 was that there was insufficient precision in using terms, and my right hon. and learned Friend is very precise in his terms. In the debate, my right hon. and learned Friend was asked by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin):
  "Mr. Lewis says that he was given a deadline by the right hon. and learned Gentleman by which to agree to the removal of Mr. Marriott, after which he would be overruled. Is that true?"
  My right hon. and learned Friend replied categorically:
  "There was no question of overruling the director general".—[Official Report, 19 October 1995; Vol.264, c. 520.]
  Oh, yes, there was. As he rather belatedly admitted last week, and as documentary evidence within the Department shows, after Mr. Lewis had been asked to reconsider his decision, my right hon. and learned Friend took advice on whether he could instruct Derek Lewis to suspend Mr. Marriott—this bearing in mind that he had told the House that he had not personally told Mr. Lewis that Marriott should be suspended.
  But my right hon. and learned Friend was now carrying matters to the extent of seeking to instruct Mr. Lewis, and, after consultation with the Cabinet Office and legal advisers in the Department, he was advised that he could not instruct him. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no question of overruling the director general. The question was asked, it was pursued, and it was answered in the negative.
  In the October 1995 debate, my right hon. and learned Friend was asked whether Mr. Lewis had left the meeting to consider the deadline that the Secretary of State had set him to reconsider his decision. The former Home Secretary replied:
  "I have no idea, at this distance in time, why he left the meeting".—[Official Report, 19 October 1995; Vol.264, c.521.]

  405
  However, the day before, he had received an account of that meeting, which clearly showed that Mr. Lewis was asked when he left the meeting to "talk further" and "to think it through". I cannot believe that my right hon. and learned Friend's formidable memory should cause him to feel that 24 hours is a great distance in time.
  In column 523 of the Official Report, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to minutes of the disputed meeting which he had placed in the Library. He told the House that the minutes were the detailed official account, and that he was doing his best to give the House a full account. But those minutes are not a full account. For example, they omit the very important fact that Mr. Lewis was invited to reconsider his decision. They are not the most detailed account. That would be the transcription of the private secretary's notebooks. The minutes are silent on matters that are well documented elsewhere.
  There has also been some uncertainty about why the former governor of Parkhurst was moved from his post on the day that my right hon. and learned Friend made his statement, rather than within a few days, as the director general and operational director had intended. I have now seen detailed evidence that makes it clear that it was only a transcript of the words used by my right hon. and learned Friend to the House, which was transmitted to Parkhurst, which caused that change.
  Hon. Members will note that there has been much interest in the press this week as to whether there was a direct threat from the former Home Secretary to the former director general that my right hon. and learned Friend would have to consider overruling him if, when he had reconsidered his decision, he did not come to a different view. We know that he was sent out to reconsider his decision. We know that, during that time, advice was taken on whether he could indeed be overruled. It is very strange that my right hon. and learned Friend refused to answer that question 14 times on "Newsnight" last week, and was so uncharacteristically tongue-tied that he could not explain, as he later claimed, that he was simply unsure about that element of such a traumatic disagreement, and needed to check the papers.
  Although it was not debated in the House on 19 October, questions had been raised in that week as to whether the Home Secretary had threatened not only to overrule Mr. Lewis, but to sack him. This was 10 months before he was sacked. I can confirm that he did talk about sacking him that day, but not to Mr. Lewis himself. Mr. Lewis subsequently found out from a third party, but it shows the degree of ferocity that existed in that fateful meeting.
  Therefore, the questions to my right hon. and learned Friend are these. Why did he say that he had not personally told Mr. Lewis that Mr. Marriott should be suspended immediately, when he had? Why did he say that there was no question of overruling Mr. Lewis, when the question had been pursued as far as consulting the Cabinet Office and legal advisers? Why did he say that he could not recall at that distance in time why Mr. Lewis had been asked to leave the meeting, when he had received only the previous day an account of that meeting, which showed that Mr. Lewis had been asked to reconsider his decision?
  406
  Why did my right hon. and learned Friend say that he was giving the House a full account, when he well knows that important issues that were discussed in the House were in fact omitted from the minutes that he laid before it as a full account? Will he now, to clear any doubt at all that may exist in the minds of hon. Members, ask the current Home Secretary to release the full transcript of the meeting, minus of course anything that might have involved security in our prisons?
  I should say that, intriguingly, when I asked the Home Office whether I could have access to the document, it was denied, on the perfectly proper basis that I had not been involved in the meeting at the time. I then said, "Ah, but the document does then exist," and I was told, "Yes, but it might need some adjustment."
  My right hon. and learned Friend has a problem, in that his first reaction to attack is denial and refuge in semantic prestidigitation. Why did he not simply come to the House on 19 October and say, "So what? Yes, I did tell the director general that Marriott should have been suspended. Yes, I did feel about it so strongly that I put huge pressure on him. Yes, I did tell him to reconsider his decision, and, yes, I did consider overruling him"? It was just too important not to consider it. Why on earth did he not say that, to what I have no doubt would have been high cheers from the then Government Benches? He could not do so because he had dug a hole for himself over policy and operations, and he would never have had to dig such a hole had he been prepared to keep the director general in place.
  The issues before the House are not whether Marriott should have been suspended; I think that he should have been. They are not whether there was a smoking fax; the Opposition were confused. They are not about the precise form of words used in evidence to the Select Committee on the Marriott removal. It is purely statements made in the House on 19 October to which I am addressing myself. As a matter of fact, as I have said, I do believe that the former Home Secretary would have been right had he taken all those actions. It was simply that he told the House that they were not taken.
  In the winding-up speech on 19 October 1995, I said that there was no doubt of the validity of the statements made to the Select Committee by the then Home Secretary and the then director general of the Prison Service, but, even as I stood at that Dispatch Box and spoke those words, I was starting to have very severe doubts about some of the statements that had been made in the House on that day.
  Even so, for a long time, I could not be sure that actual words, as opposed to tone and impression, could be challenged. All manner of things made me determined to carry out the analysis that I have now carried out; and I regret that among those things was the treatment of Mr. Lewis after he left the Prison Service.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has been defending himself this week against various statements that have come out—they have come from me, most of them. None of those defences has taken us much further forward. Asked why he refused 14 times on "Newsnight" to deny something that he had already categorically denied in the House, he said that he would have to check the record, but that seems, in the words of an article in The Economist,
  "a strange lapse for a high powered lawyer who had been challenged many times before on this precise point."

  407
  He then offered a defence in The Spectator, saying, significantly, that civil servants would have checked his account, and that they would have told him if it had been wrong.
  I have two comments to make on that statement. The first is that it contains the familiar sound of looking for scapegoats. Can my right hon. and learned Friend really not take responsibility for what he said himself? Secondly, it the question: supposing the civil servants had pointed out an inaccuracy, would he have rushed down to the House to correct it? He did not do so when he inadvertently—I stress that it was inadvertent—misled the House of Commons Select Committee over geophones.
  In January 1995, my right hon. and learned Friend told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that money had not been switched from construction projects, including geophones, to building new house blocks. Indeed, he made the clear and unambiguous statement that additional money had been provided for the house blocks. Many months later, he was advised by his civil servants that that was wrong and he was also advised that statements that he had made in the House in connection with the timing of the decision to install geophones were also wrong. The issue was important, because the absence of geophones had been criticised by Sir John Learmont.
  When I pointed out that no correction had been made, the former Home Secretary issued another of his statements. He said that he had sought immediate advice from Derek Lewis, who had advised that there was no practical significance to his answer, as funds were found for the geophones from other sources. Therefore, he advised the former Home Secretary that probably he had not misled the Committee, and the former Home Secretary takes refuge in that advice from Derek Lewis. It must be one of the few times that he was grateful for advice from Derek Lewis.
  My right hon. and learned Friend omits to point out that, in two succeeding memoranda, his own Prison Service monitoring unit stuck to its guns and said that the statements were misleading; that they did not consist of a full account, which Ministers are obliged to give under "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"; and that, had officials given such information, they would have been obliged to correct it.
  But no correction was ever made, despite the fact that an ideal opportunity was presented when the Learmont report was published. A very bland, all-encompassing statement could then have been made, to the effect that the detailed analysis replaced all previous information and corrected any previous information inadvertently wrongly given.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made much of how he is the one to take tough decisions. Tough decisions concern a great deal more than instant law and instant dismissals. The toughest decision of all that he would have had to take was to come to the House on 16 October, told it that a damning report had been received, but that half its recommendations had already been implemented or were actively being put in hand; that the progress of the Prison Service under the director general was of such outstanding quality that he was continuing, with my right hon. and learned Friend's personal support; and that he, the Home Secretary, also had no intention of resigning, because there was no direct connection between himself and what had happened.
  408
  That would have been tough, because the then Opposition would have howled for a head, and, if they were not given Mr. Lewis's, they might have howled for that of my right hon. and learned Friend, but we had a majority, so there was no reason to suppose that they would get it. However, he had been through that terrible sort of confrontation in the House in January, immediately after the Parkhurst breakout, and he was not quite tough enough to face it again in October.
  Courage and toughness are both more than instant law and instant dismissal. We demean our high office if we mistreat our public servants. As hon. Members, we demean ourselves if we come to the House to indulge in a play of words and make statements which, although they may not be untrue—they never are in the House—may be unsustainable.
  My decision to do what I have done today was extremely difficult to reach, and I have agonised over it for months. One of the worst moments was when I decided that I would do it. I knew how shocked, hurt and upset not only my right hon. and learned Friend but many of my colleagues would be, but I formed the view that I could do no other. I reached my decision in the interests of giving very belated justice to Mr. Lewis, of giving some comfort to his wife Louise—who supported him faithfully while he gave us seven days a week looking after the Prison Service—partly of clearing my own conscience, although that is my problem, because I should have resigned at the time and did not—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] Yes, I agree.
  I reached that view also to draw to the attention of the House the overwhelming necessity for the Leader of the Opposition—whoever he will be—and the new Prime Minister to clean up Parliament's image in the eyes of the British people. It is not enough to preserve our own positions at all costs. When we occupy high positions, and certainly when we occupy such positions in justice Departments, justice must be our first concern.
  I am aware that I probably will not be forgiven for my decision by some Conservative Members until the day I leave Parliament. If I had not done what I have done today, however, I would not have forgiven myself until I left Parliament and beyond.
  Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I shall respond in detail to the allegations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when I reply to this debate. I respond immediately, however, to her invitation to ask the Home Secretary to release the full transcript of the meeting to which she has referred, in the hope that it can be made available in time for my speech later today.
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I am sure that the House and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will understand if I do not attempt to follow her remarks.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his appointment and on his excellent first speech as Home Secretary. Like most of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate on the Loyal

  409
  Address, I welcome both the tone and most, if not all, of the content of the Queen's Speech. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's remarks and the Government's proposals on law and order, as I do those on health and education.
  I especially welcome the windfall tax proposal. If it is successful—I am sure it will be—it will impinge upon and help with law and order problems. During the past 18 years, in my constituency, as in most others, one of the greatest scourges has been youth unemployment, particularly among young men. I hope that the windfall tax and its attendant measures will do something to alleviate such unemployment, which has caused misery to those unemployed men and women, worry to their parents, and serious economic and social consequences for the community.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned the drug problem, which is complex and has often had disastrous consequences. The causes of the problem may not be easy to determine, although, in my constituency—which, in terms of the drug problem, is no different from other—there was only a very minor, if any, drug problem in 1979, when the previous Labour Government left office.
  One consequence for candidates and for the electorate—I will not say that it was necessarily a benefit—of a six-week election campaign, during which there was almost constantly good weather, was that we saw a lot of each other. We probably saw more of each other than we did during the previous seven general election campaigns that I have fought, and I met more electors and constituents than ever before. I usually found—as the election results showed-that my constituents welcomed Labour's proposals on law and order, health, education and the windfall tax.
  There was, however, one group of electors—who are now constituents—who were very angry: pensioners. For the first time in the eight general elections that I have contested, in a traditional Labour constituency, I did not detect an enthusiastic welcome from pensioners for the Labour party's policies or for its candidate for Llanelli. They were angry and frustrated primarily because, in 1979 or 1980, the Conservative Government broke the link between pensions and wages, which had been introduced by a previous Labour Government. That was the root cause of their anger, after someone had calculated that pensioners had lost at least £18 a week because that link had been broken.
  I told the pensioners that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse the actions of the past 18 years, and they grudgingly accepted that. Then they asked, "But what will you do?" I started with our proposals on decreasing VAT on fuel; again they grudgingly accepted my answer. I went on to say that pensioners would be helped by Labour's proposals on law and order, on health and on other social issues, as mentioned in our manifesto. They again expressed a grudging acceptance of my answer.
  I was still not able to escape, however, because they asked me about television licences. They asked, "Why should we pay £87 a year when other pensioners pay nothing?" They did not criticise that exemption, but they asked, "Why should we, who have very little
  410
  entertainment available, pay an exorbitant sum for a television licence?" I did not want to tell them that the chattering classes at the BBC had to be kept in the style to which they have become accustomed, because that might have been pushing my luck a bit far. I had no answer for them.
  When I thought that I could perhaps make an escape, they hit me with a question on the Republic of Ireland—because west Wales has suddenly discovered Ireland. West Wales, if not all of Wales, has discovered that the average gross domestic product per head in Ireland is now as high as it is in the United Kingdom—and that it is much higher than it is in Wales. I was told—I could not refute it, because I did not know the figures—that pensions in the Republic of Ireland are higher than in Britain, that Ireland's television licence fee is much lower, and that pensioners can travel free throughout the island of Ireland.
  My confrontations—sadly, that is what the meetings became—with pensioners in my constituency were not very productive for me or for the Labour party. After reflecting on the general election and thinking about it, however, I have concluded that the only way in which we can eventually—not tomorrow, but soon—deal with the matter is to consider increasing the basic rate of the old age pension. I see no other solution. The introduction of price differentials in television licences would probably be too difficult, and travel is often a matter for local authorities, but we should consider increasing the basic pension by perhaps £5 a week for a single person and £8 a week for a married couple.
  I do not criticise my right hon. and hon. Friends for not including such a step in the Queen's Speech. I shall not criticise them if it does not appear in the next Budget—it will not—because I am told that the cost of such a proposal, taking into account the need to uprate income support and the effect on the Exchequer, is probably around £2 billion. However, we say in the Queen's Speech that we are a party of one nation. The speech deals with young people, law and order and the health service, so I hope that, over the next year, we can consider the injustice that has been done to pensioners and, somehow or other, find the £2 billion to put it right before too long.
  As I said, I welcome the Queen's Speech but, sadly, I have one reservation. It involves the proposal to transfer the power to control and set the price of money and to set interest rates from the Treasury—and, basically, from the House—to the Bank of England.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but we are now debating the amendment. I hope that he will steer his remarks in that direction.
  Mr. Davies: I apologise; I was under the impression that we were debating the Queen's Speech in general. The amendment may have been moved, but I did not think that we were precluded from debating topics not mentioned in it—that has certainly not been the practice in the past.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, once the amendment has been moved, the debate should concentrate on its contents. However, I have given the

  411
  right hon. Gentleman some leeway. I hope that he will accept what I have said in the spirit in which it was intended.
  Mr. Davies: In that case, I shall continue to deal with the question of parliamentary responsibility with which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dealt when he mentioned the Prison Service. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald dealt with parliamentary responsibility—she said that it had not been exercised in relation to the Prison Service. My remarks on the Bank of England deal with what I should think is the overriding issue of parliamentary responsibility. However, I defer to the occupant of the Chair. If I am out of order, I shall draw my remarks to a close, but I repeat that the transfer of power to the Bank of England is a transfer of democracy, just as the transfer of some power to the prison authorities was a transfer of democracy. The point is that such a transfer leads to all kinds of problems, as the right hon. Lady said.
  I support the Queen's Speech. My right hon. Friends have made an excellent start, with the exception of the transfer of power to the Bank of England. However, we shall debate the matter again when we consider the relevant legislation. I am sure that the government of the country is in good hands.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your election to your new office. I had intended to congratulate the Home Secretary on his appointment, but, as he has already fled the scene, I shall save my congratulations for another occasion. Perhaps he has gone for a rummage in the archives, but he will quickly discover that he does not have access to the records of the previous Administration.
  The debate has taken an intriguing turn. It must especially intrigue my many newly elected colleagues, not to mention many new Labour Members of Parliament, because it has shown that there are two Conservative parties. We heard initially from what we must assume is the moderately pro-Howard Conservative party, which speaks from the Front Bench—at least when it is in the form of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). We then heard from the anti-Howard party in the form of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) who in fact extended the debate of 19 October last by saying various things that she ought to have said then, and which she should have said from the Back Benches rather than the Front Bench.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has left the Chamber so soon after making her speech, because there are several questions to be put to her. I wonder whether she communicated the full extent of her concerns to the Prime Minister at the time. Was he made aware of them? He certainly ought to have been. If he was, but did nothing about the situation, it suggests that the Government were as little under control as many of us came to believe in the course of their last few years.
  I can now congratulate the Home Secretary, who has returned to the Chamber. I wish him well in his important and demanding office of state—few are more demanding, and I genuinely wish him well.
  I do not think that I need to have given any notice to the former Home Secretary that I intended to refer to him in this debate. Indeed, everyone is expecting the debate to
  412
  turn to a considerable extent on the previous Home Secretary. I have a number of things to say about him. He failed to keep the promise to increase police numbers that the Conservative Government made in 1992. He distorted and debased the debate on prisons and punishment. The country was treated to tabloid and soundbite penal policy, which was extremely damaging to any reasonable debate on how crime can be reduced. The test to earn the approval of the Home Secretary depended on how many people one was prepared to lock up.
  The former Home Secretary demoralised the prison service, and the full extent of that was illustrated by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. He also seriously undermined parliamentary accountability, especially in relation to the Prison Service. He sought to draw a distinction between policy and operations, which is difficult to do in the Prison Service. However, if there is a distinction, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was no more capable of abiding by it than a drunken man is able to walk along the straight line that used to be drawn on the police station floor.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman was temperamentally incapable of observing a distinction between policy and operations and intervened in all manner of things. Had he been more open about his intentions, he could have defended them. They were all based on his very firm conviction that he was right and that suspension of this governor, the changing of that salary structure or the alteration of that prisoner's term were all matters in which he should properly intervene. However, once questions were asked, the matter became a matter of operations, nothing to do with policy and not something to which he should refer when answering to the House. He is now getting his come-uppance as the Conservative party splits into two. The second of those parties was represented here this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
  I have to say to the new Home Secretary—some of his friends as well as his political opponents will have said this to him, too—that he was a consenting participant in the tabloid competition to sound tough in the period before the general election. Some of his sympathisers think it was all a deception. Polly Toynbee, most notably, writes in the press that we do not have to believe what the then shadow Home Secretary said because it will change when he gets into office. I, however, take him to be a more sincere and honest man than that. The worry that arises from my belief in his sincerity is that he accepts much of the tough talk about prison working in which he participated before the election. He now has to face the challenge, especially in connection with prison policy and policing.
  Our prisons are already appallingly overcrowded. The prison population has risen by 15,000 in three years; the number of women prisoners has gone up by two thirds over the same period; and 86 per cent. of people in prison are there for non-violent offences. So serious are the dangers of overcrowding, following, as they do, an attempt to find a more humane pattern to prisons, that the Home Secretary now has to visit prison ships moored off Dorset and consider whether holiday camps should be brought into use. Before long, he will have to consider whether police cells are to be used to house prisoners, which would be not only an unsatisfactory way to house them but a waste of police time. We must not take that step if we are to continue our serious attack on crime.

  413
  Using police cells and police time and resources to deal with the custody of prisoners is the very opposite of an attack on crime.
  I should like to refer to a couple of recent reports to the Home Secretary from boards of prison visitors. The report on Swaleside prison published in April says:
  "Education is still a major area for concern as it was last year. Privatisation has produced less prisoners being educated for more money…
  The closure of some work shops and the cut back and deterioration in the Education Department has created a situation where during 1996 more and more prisoners spent 19/20 hours locked in cells."
  The press release accompanying the board of visitors report on Wandsworth prison in April says:
  "The Report complains about the reduction in the number of staff and services caused by budget cuts. One part of the prison which houses sex offenders has had its staff cut from 70 to 50, the Probation Department has had its numbers cut from 14 to three and the number of classes run by the Education Department has been halved."
  I should add for fairness that the press release continues:
  "On the positive side, however, the Report commends the prison's Drug Strategy and the refurbishment of A and B Wings—two Victorian 'slopping out' wings—which were only recently closed and which the Home Office had threatened to re-open if overcrowding demanded."
  If overcrowding continues, we shall have to reopen wings that have not been adequately refurbished.
  All that poses an even more serious question for the new Home Secretary. We must know not just what he will do about the effects of the recent trend in prison numbers, but whether he is serious about implementing the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, passed just a month or so ago. If he is serious, we shall need not just the eight new prisons already planned, but a further 12, 20 or, according to some unpublished Home Office figures, even 60 new prisons.
  Significantly, the Home Secretary said this afternoon that he would not be prepared to implement the measures if the prison places were not available. That must mean a significant change in the timetable for implementation set out by the previous Home Secretary. Even if the timetable is changed, it will require a huge diversion of resources into prison building.
  Is the new Home Secretary converted to the building of private prisons? All the estimates so far made for building prisons to meet the provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 are based on the assumption that they will all be private prisons. On that assumption, there will be no immediate capital cost to the Exchequer, merely the payment of revenue costs to private providers of prisons. Is that new Labour's policy? It cannot be squared with what Labour said before the election. I do not believe that the new Home Secretary will be able to implement the Act. I think that he will gradually slide away from the commitment that he made in the heat of the election campaign. Even his repetition of it today was heavily qualified.
  Another severe challenge to the Home Secretary is what he intends to do about police numbers. Nothing in his speech or, to be fair, in Labour's manifesto, suggests an increase in police numbers. He sought to defend that today by pointing out that the decision on how money is used rests with chief constables. I do not think that that
  414
  was the only reason for there being nothing on the subject in the manifesto. I think that the Home Secretary did not want to make a promise that he had not made provision to keep by setting aside additional funds. Unless police authorities get additional funds, we shall not get additional police officers.
  Many police authorities have reorganised their resources as effectively as they can, cutting out management structures to release more officers to put on the beat. There is not much slack left in many forces. Getting more officers on the beat will need additional resources that are not already pre-empted for new equipment or other essential expenditure to which the Home Secretary referred.
  The story does not end there. The Home Secretary wants to introduce new responsibilities for the police. He is inviting them to engage in zero tolerance campaigns in some areas. That requires additional resources, unless the rest of the police authority area is to be seriously denuded. We had some experience of that in Northumbria, with all the Meadowell problems and the concentration of resources in one area.
  The Liberal Democrats have some anxieties about the concept of zero tolerance. We do not want to encourage the use of the phrase, which implies a social authoritarianism that does not seem right to us in a free society. I hope that the Home Secretary means not such social authoritarianism, but that rigorous enforcement of the law will ensure that the extent to which an area is law abiding will be vigorously improved in ways that the public would welcome, although some senior police officers have already expressed doubts about how manageable the consequences of some of the more aggressive zero tolerance campaigns might be.
  Even if the campaigns meet all our criteria, they require more resources and more officers. If those resources are to be taken from other parts of a police authority area, the net effect will probably an overall increase in crime, with one area being helped, but others suffering.
  Other new responsibilities are proposed. If there are to be general child curfews, police officers will have to stop and question young children they see about at night. We are not convinced that that is a good scheme. Police officers are already able to use their common sense and stop and question children who are too young to be wandering around late at night. If they are to be pressed to organise curfews, more police resources will be needed.
  We would place the emphasis in dealing with crime on having more police officers available in communities and on a range of crime prevention measures, including diverting young people from crime and confronting offending behaviour. Such measures are more likely to be effective than the massive diversion into custody implicit in the plans that the Government have inherited and seem willing to continue.
  As we have said for many years, the drugs problem lies behind much crime. When the Home Secretary was quoted the other day as being surprised by the scale of the problem, someone said to me, "Where has he been?" The fact that a lot of crime arises from feeding the drugs habit is well known. When new Labour brings us a tsar, we see how much the political tables have been turned. Tsars used to be people who were murdered by communists. Now they are people whom new Labour

  415
  wishes to appoint. The responsibilities and powers of someone with such a grand title have not been vouchsafed to us.
  We want serious research into the problem, and consideration of drugs policy away from the political atmosphere of the last Parliament and the general election, in which any suggestion of significant variation on present policy was regarded as a weakening. None of the parties has all the answers and there is uncertainty about the effects of policies. There is considerable difference of view among professionals. We want serious research, hard-headed debate and Government backing nationally and locally for co-ordinated strategies to deal with drugs problems. Measures that look simple and attractive can easily go wrong. Mandatory drug testing in prisons seems a wonderful idea until we discover that it encourages people to shift from cannabis to harder drugs because the harder drugs are more difficult to pick up under the mandatory testing programme. We should beware simple solutions.
  The Home Secretary will also face challenges on other issues. We shall challenge him on some of the issues not covered in the Gracious Speech. Legislation is desperately needed to regulate the private security industry. Such measures would be welcomed in many parts of the House, and the police would like such legislation in place soon.
  We welcome some of what the Home Secretary has said on immigration and asylum policy, but we are not yet convinced that he will do enough to deal with the problem of families being divided by the harsh application of immigration law. We await his further announcements with particular interest.
  We shall look carefully at the Home Secretary's plans to speed up the youth justice system and to deal with anti-social behaviour. We very much welcome his commitment to bring the European convention on human rights into British domestic law. I took a Bill through the House on that subject about 15 or 20 years ago. Some conversions take a long time. In those days, the idea was bitterly opposed by Labour, but I genuinely welcome the Home Secretary's stance. We hope to assist on that. We also welcome what he has said about legislation on racial attacks and racial harassment.
  The handguns issue will remain a free vote issue for my right hon. and hon. Friends, as it was in the last Parliament, although the Home Secretary may find my party working together to press him on compensation. If he creates a new compensation requirement, we shall seek, as we did on the previous legislation, to ensure that those who are affected by legislation that is in no way their fault have proper compensation provision.
  We shall oppose the amendment tabled by the official Opposition. We do not want a return to the measures set out there.
  Of all Departments, the work of the Home Office most closely involves the protection of civil liberties. I include the liberty that requires people to be protected from crime, as well as the other areas of civil liberty. Many people think that civil liberties did not feature highly on new Labour's agenda as it sought power. The rhetoric that Labour used suggested that that was the case, but now we shall see.
  416
  Up to the very last days of the last Parliament-when we blocked some measures to which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border referred—the Liberal Democrats served as guardians of liberty. We will continue to do so; that is one of the reasons we are here.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: The interesting speech by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will, I am sure, be alluded to by other hon. Members. I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith); I agreed with many of his comments and intend to touch on some.
  During the election campaign, the one thing about which we heard day after day was the fear of crime. It did not matter whether one talked to men or women, or what age they were—crime in the community was the key issue. In my constituency, people were concerned about the amount of youth crime and the type of crime in which young people are now involved—hooliganism, vandalism, abuse and violence. People in my constituency are terrorised by gangs of youngsters—often just school children—and I am sure that other communities suffer that problem.
  Local people are often scared to do anything about the abuse that they suffer. If one complains to the police and the youngsters are taken to court, one may have to give evidence—even when it is known which youngsters are involved. There is a fear that a person giving evidence will identify himself and will suffer following the decision of the court. It is totally unacceptable that our constituents can be terrorised in that way.
  I welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary this afternoon. When the Bills to which he referred go into Committee and start to gain publicity, we must make it clear that we will no longer tolerate abuse and violence. All of us will warmly welcome such a statement.
  I wish to refer to two cases that, sadly, highlight what is happening. I have no intention of indulging in party politics, because we are dealing with gut issues which concern the people whom we represent. The first is the horrendous case of an Austrian lady who came to London and was picked up by a gang of youngsters who brutally gang-raped her. When she gave evidence in court, she said that she had no fear when she was first approached, as the gang were just youngsters. Yet they raped her and threw her into the river. They were prepared to allow her to drown; they had no idea whether she could swim.
  The other case, which was reported in a national newspaper last Friday, is that of a school bullying ring of 10 boys aged between 13 and 15 who have been robbing and blackmailing other children for some eight months. Those are two examples, and I am sure that other hon. Members could give many similar ones from the areas that they represent. We know what kind of crimes are taking place, and I hope that we can develop penalties that the courts will be expected to impose on those who break the law.
  Many of us have constituency problems. In my constituency—although this problem has been almost overcome—kerb crawling and prostitution have caused enormous difficulties. One of the biggest problems has been getting local magistrates courts to understand what is happening. Sadly, the lack of meaningful action by the

  417
  courts against those committing the offences has broken down the effects of much of the hard work of the local police force in trying to clear up the problem.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have no fear; if his actions are fair and realistic, he will gain the overwhelming support of the House and—more important—of the people.
  Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman is making important points. Does he agree that all of us—not only in this place, but in our circles of friends—should support magistrates, rather than constantly belittling them? Is not one of the real difficulties that often these public servants—who voluntarily give up hours of their time—are out of touch with some elements of the scene in which they operate? Unless they are supported rather than belittled, will it not be hard to recruit magistrates?
  Mr. Cox: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. We should not criticise magistrates, although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the inconsistencies in sentencing that we see repeatedly. That may mean that magistrates should attend courses or conferences. Whenever I have tabled questions on the matter to numerous Home Secretaries, I have always been told that it is not for the Government to interfere with the judiciary. That may be, but the judiciary needs clear guidelines.
  I recognise that many hon. Members wish to speak, and I shall turn briefly to the Prison Service. One of the major prisons in the country, Wandsworth, is in my constituency and I serve on the board at Wormwood Scrubs. We heard some interesting remarks on the subject by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, and those involved with the Prison Service know that enormous changes have taken place. If one talks to those who run our prisons—governors, prison officers or boards of visitors—one finds that they have little time for many of the changes that were introduced by the previous Government.
  I am closely involved with Wandsworth prison, its governor and the Prison Officers Association. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has inherited a Prison Service which has enormous problems, and it is no good Conservative Members saying that the Government have inherited a wonderful Prison Service. That is not true. Prisons up and down the country are seriously overcrowded and are not properly funded. Morale—which I believe is of key importance in prisons—is very low.
  I realise that some of the things I am about to suggest will not be done quickly, but as long as we have guidelines for which we can aim and as long as those who run the Prison Service can see that here is a Government who will listen to their concerns and act on them, morale in the Prison Service will improve. I hope that action will be taken to reduce the prison population. One reads in the national press that certain actions are to be taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, for example, in relation to fine defaulters. I am sure that many Labour Members have felt it scandalous that fine defaulters—often women with young children—should be sent to prison, with all the problems that that creates.
  There are many people in prison—certainly there have been since the failures of care in the community—who suffer from mental illness and who, sadly, find their way
  418
  into the prisons of this country but most certainly should not be there. I hope that we will seriously look for alternative forms of care for such people.
  I fully accept that there are some very dangerous people in society—people who are convicted of horrendous crimes and who should be sent to prison for a long time—but what do we achieve by sending them to prison for only a short time? Governors and prison officers will say that they are only containing such an individual for a period, but that that individual is learning nothing of benefit for when he or she is released at the end of the sentence.
  It costs more than £500 a week to keep a man or woman in prison. In view of the financial tightness that we know exists, we have to wonder whether that is the proper way in which the Prison Service should be run. We need to review how we run our prisons. If one talks to anyone working within the system, one hears of the despair about trying to do a meaningful job as a governor or prison officer while many of the inmates in their charge are locked up for hours on end, day after day.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned two reports, one of which was the Wandsworth prison board of visitors annual report. Following an abortive inspection of Holloway prison—an inspection was to have taken place in December 1995—the chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, said:
  "I had to pull an inspection team out of Holloway women's prison in London. An unprecedented move, it was the quickest and most effective way of registering our horror at what we found there.
  In all my 36 years in the Army, until I left in 1993 with the rank of Adjutant-General, I had never visited an establishment as filthy as that one-and that includes a prisoner-of-war camp in the Falkland Islands. There was ample evidence in Holloway of rats, cockroaches, ants and rotting food. It was difficult to argue with the warder who described the place as a 'rat-infested refuse tip'.
  Worst of all, the inmates were locked up in their cells for 23 hours a day. There was no work, no training, no education. All in all, Holloway had become an almost perfect example of everything that a modem prison is not meant to be."
  I am sure that what the chief inspector of prisons said could be repeated by many prison governors and senior prison officers up and down the country.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues will start to take note of what the chief inspector of prisons says. I hope that we are to hear—if not today, then soon—how my right hon. Friend envisages the role of the chief inspector. I hope that the relationship will be supportive and that not only the chief inspector's reports but those of boards of visitors will be welcomed and acted on. The men and women on those boards give up an enormous amount of their time and know what is really happening in the prisons in which they serve, so their reports should not be received, acknowledged and then conveniently forgotten.
  When I visit prisons, I am greatly concerned by the number of young inmates and, sadly, in the big city establishments, the number of young inmates who come from an ethnic background. I believe we have to take serious action in many of our big cities to try to keep such youngsters—both men and women—out of the prison system. Once they get into that system, it is very hard to break out. I hope that we will hear more on that subject in the coming weeks from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  419
  My right hon. Friend and his colleagues will be aware of my next point, but I feel that it should be made clear in a debate such as this. When I meet prison officers, I hear that the one policy that has not worked is the privatisation of the Prison Service. It has not worked and countless examples of that failure can be found up and down the country. I hope that we will soon hear that we shall no longer continue with the policy of the privatisation of the Prison Service in any part of the United Kingdom. I want to see a Prison Service that is the responsibility of the state and whose day-to-day operations are accountable to Parliament.
  I know that my right hon. Friend said that, in future, all questions relating to prison matters will be answered by Ministers, and I welcome that. Since the privatisation of the Prison Service, the complaint has been raised that privatised prisons no longer have any responsibility to Parliament. The policy absolves the Government from any responsibility whatsoever and I totally oppose that. The very nature of the Prison Service means that it should be accountable to Parliament and I hope that that will happen in the near future.
  It is rare that we have debates about the Prison Service in the House, but I hope that in coming weeks there will be a major day-long debate on the service. There are many issues relating to prisons that should be debated: for example, the way in which prisons are run; the sort of inmates they hold; vulnerable prisoners and the suicides that have occurred in increasing numbers, particularly among young offenders; and how we intend to treat young offenders.
  I am sure that all hon. Members, but especially those who sit on the Government Benches, hope that, at long last, those who run our prisons—be they governors, senior prison officers or rank-and-file officers—can believe that they have a Government who will listen to them. I have been told by officers at Wandsworth prison in my constituency that they believe that the Government will start to act on the experience that they have built up by doing the job. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his team adopt such a policy, it can only be for the betterment of the Prison Service and thus for the betterment of this country.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist party, I welcome the new Home Secretary and the other Ministers of the Home Office to the Dispatch Box. I must also thank the former Home Secretary for the interest, understanding and courtesy that he has always shown my party.
  The new Home Secretary will find that we have many ideas and attitudes in common with those that he has expressed, and we wish him well. Already, his attitude to one of the main causes of fear and suffering throughout the nation—the scourge of drug abuse—has struck a chord.
  There are three areas in which the Home Secretary must seek to make an impact: the home, schools and the press. He will need to show equal commitment to the two primary resources that can be used to reverse the current trend: education and punishment.
  On the education front, we want the Home Secretary to co-ordinate, among schools, police, sporting authorities, business institutes, trade unions and every facet of
  420
  representative life, an anti-drugs programme that will reach effectively to every corner of the kingdom—and that includes Northern Ireland.
  On the justice side, the Home Secretary must ensure that those in whom we vest responsibility to protect us from criminal degradation are conscious of their primary responsibility to the law-abiding community. When it comes to tackling the godfathers of crime, it is time to adopt more of a "throw away the key" philosophy. The rewards of criminality for the big boys far outweigh the punishments; that must change.
  My party believes that parents have a responsibility for their children. It must be made clear, therefore, that society expects a positive response from parents when it comes to accounting for misdemeanours committed by their children. There must be a properly defined accounting system, so that neither persistent young offenders nor persistently negligent parents can for ever evade their debt to society.
  As a schoolmaster of 23 years' service—16 as a principal—I must now say something that may not go down too well with some. There is in my profession a small but significant element who no longer fulfil the "role model" criteria that society requires of them. They are slovenly in dress, speech and attitude. They, and similar small, but significant, elements of the social work and probationary services, must be encouraged to meet their obligations or—to put it bluntly—get out.
  Of course there is an onus on the Government to ensure that those who perform well are given fair recognition for the demanding job that they do. They must be reassured that they have the moral support of the community and the tangible support of the present Administration.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will seek to build a better and safer environment, not least for the young and the elderly. In that, I urge him to seek, and I believe that he has the right to expect, the co-operation of our press and television, which too often appear to indulge in pandering to the lowest instincts of society.
  It is time for all to put the interests of victims above those of the criminal. The time for potty pseudo-liberalism is long past and the present Government must show that they are more concerned with bleeding victims than with so-called "bleeding hearts".
  Before I move to an issue that more specifically relates to Northern Ireland, may I ask the Home Secretary whether there is any specific law to cope with bullying in schools and the workplace? I have been advised by a victims of bullying group that there is not, and that one must prove physical or serious psychological injury to obtain redress. If that is so, will the Home Secretary address the issue of bullying? Emotional scars that the victims suffer and the power fixation that the perpetrators acquire do nothing to promote a stable society. Both victims and perpetrators are in danger of finishing up with a badly warped view of life.
  Turning to Northern Ireland, there are several matters on which the Home Secretary, although not having primary responsibility, will be consulted by his colleague, the right hon. Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam). I hope that the Home Secretary will familiarise himself at first hand with Northern Ireland affairs.
  That which most immediately exercises our thoughts is the comparatively new phenomenon that has arisen as a result of a Sinn Fein-IRA tactic to orchestrate opposition

  421
  to traditional parades. No Member on the Ulster Unionist Bench would assert that every parade that occurs in Northern Ireland is conceived in innocence, but established parades of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the Apprentice Boys of Derry, the Irish National Foresters, the Orange Order and the Royal Black Institution are certainly not designed to give offence.
  Now, after more than 25 years of IRA murders by the very people who whinge that their exclusion from this place is unfair, we find that so deep is their hatred of anything Unionist or Protestant that they object to the very sight of their Protestant neighbour walking to and from his church along a public highway.
  Despite the fact that article 11 of the European convention on human rights states:
  "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests"
  and that article 21 of the international covenant on civil and political rights states:
  "The right to peaceful assembly shall be recognised. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of health or morals or the protection of the human rights and freedoms of others",
  the threat of violence by IRA-Sinn Fein-motivated mobs has been deemed sufficient cause to ban parades. We find that main arterial routes, such as the Ormeau road and Garvaghy road, are being designated "Roman Catholic". Main roads with sectarian affiliations—what next?
  Evading his responsibility in 1996, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland set up the North commission, basically to decide how it would be possible to compromise—compromise—with threat, intimidation and bigotry. The new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may fall into the trap that has been set for her—if she gives without further consultation, as she infers she may, a range of powers to a five-person commission to decide if and when IRA threats are sufficient for it to recommend a ban on traditional parades. That is what it boils down to.
  Where will this folly end? I predict that it will end in total chaos, as Sinn Fein-IRA tests the patience of Unionism at every turn and the commission becomes part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Does anyone believe that those of us who have endured IRA bombs and bullets since 1971 are going to surrender to such threats and abuses of our civil rights? The Ulster Unionist party has a fairer and simpler solution. As in the United States of America and many other western countries, we believe that the right to assemble should be a basic human right—so long as such assembly is not primarily designed to give offence. Traditional church parades are hardly intended to give offence.
  Working on the principle of the right to free assembly, we believe that it should be possible for the Chief Constable to agree codes of conduct with the leaders of all traditional organisations. We would support him in that. We have already said that we would be happy to see a registration of parades system in operation. Such a solution could be applied to all traditional parades of both traditions, so that mutual respect, not mutual antagonism, could be fostered.
  422
  I ask the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to think long and hard before embarking on the drafting of any parades legislation that would pander to the IRA's tactic of creating further ghettoisation in Northern Ireland. That is indeed the IRA's fundamental requirement in its sectarian war and its attempt to dominate and control the Roman Catholic tradition.
  The Ulster Unionist party will look objectively at any proposals intended to help to stabilise our community; but, in line with our principled position in the past, we shall not support short-term expediency that panders to the IRA.
  Despite all the pre-election allegations of partisan deals supposedly struck by the Ulster Unionists with the former Government, new Labour is unlikely to have discovered anything that was not done honourably by us on behalf of our entire community. So it will be in the future.
  Finally, I apologise to the Secretary of State and to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), for the fact that, because of local government elections, I shall not be here at the end of the debate. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, understand; he may even sympathise with me after more than six weeks on the hustings.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Chris Pond: Seeing the packed Benches and Press Gallery earlier today, I thought that word must have slipped out that I was hoping to catch the Chair's eye to make my maiden speech this afternoon, but that misconception has since been quickly dispelled. I do not know whether it will be appropriate to congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on her speech, but I certainly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—not just on his speech this afternoon, with which I whole-heartedly agreed, but on his appointment as Home Secretary.
  I am privileged to stand here as the Member of Parliament for Gravesham, one of eight new Members elected for the county of Kent. You may be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are hoping to work informally as a group to take a more strategic approach to some of the big and exciting issues that our county will face in the years ahead. Traditionally, it has been the garden of England; now, increasingly, it is the gateway to Europe.
  It has been suggested to me that we might like to extend membership of our group to the Conservative Members from Kent who retained their seats. I have no great confidence that we shall be able to get the right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to sit in the same Committee room, but I promise to try.
  Gravesham's population is richly diverse, combining the Thameside conurbations of Gravesend and Northfleet with the picturesque countryside of Meopham, Shorne, Higham and Cobham. Those who have spent a lifetime in the traditional industries and trades along the river—paper making and cement manufacturing—which unfortunately have been rapidly disappearing, now live and work alongside those who pursue professional careers, many of whom commute to London each day.
  Even in this corner of south-east England there is considerable deprivation and hardship alongside real prosperity, and the quality of life, even of the better off among my constituents, is diminished and demeaned by the inequality and poverty that scar our nation generally.

  423
  Gravesham also has a significant Sikh population which makes an important contribution to enterprise and to the life of the local community. That contribution is illustrated by the work of the Denton multicultural youth and education association, and will soon be enhanced, I hope, by a new Asian resource centre. Given some of the National Heritage Secretary's statements this afternoon about the use of lottery money, I shall be writing to him on that matter.
  I am proud to be here representing all those groups in the constituency. It is a reflection of that diversity that Gravesham has traditionally been considered a barometer seat, in the Peter Snow sense of the word. Rarely has there been an election when the wise people of Gravesham have returned to this House a member of a party different from the one in government.
  My distinguished Labour predecessors in the seat include Albert—later Lord—Murray and John Ovenden. My immediate predecessor, Jacques Arnold, was a diligent constituency Member who deserves a fine tribute for his work in that respect. I shall do my best not just to live up to that reputation but, if possible, to better it. He was also known as a vigorous supporter of the interests of Latin America. His passing may mean fewer questions about Rio de Janeiro, but I shall try to fill the vacuum with rather more questions about Gravesham. I know that he will certainly be missed by those in the Press Gallery.
  Gravesham has a fine history. General Gordon built its fort in recognition of its still important strategic position on the mouth of the Thames. Charles Dickens lived there. Pocahontas died there of a broken heart. So deep was her grief, it was said, that even the quiet charms of Gravesend were not enough to save her.
  Ours is a distinguished history, but a hopeful and optimistic future. Gravesham is to be the site of the new international station at Ebbsfleet on the channel tunnel rail link, making it not just the gateway to London but the threshold to Europe. That, together with the development of the Thames Gateway, offers the prospect of growing prosperity.
  My constituents, however, have already paid dearly in terms of the disruption and anxiety caused by living amid major infrastructure projects: the channel tunnel rail link, the widening of the A2, and the building of Europe's largest shopping centre at Bluewater Park. I am determined that the quality of life of my constituents will be enhanced, not destroyed, by that development process.
  The people of Gravesham expect from a new Labour Government the opportunity to look to the future with hope and confidence, instead of always anxiously looking over their shoulders at the past. That is why I welcome the programme set out in the Gracious Speech; in particular, it is why I welcome some of the Home Secretary's remarks earlier.
  Gravesham was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he opened the debate last week. He told the House of a war pensioner whom he had met when visiting my constituency during the election. The pensioner's life had been blighted by crime and disorder. He was quoted as saying:
  "I fought for this country—it's not fair, is it?"—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 66.]
  I visited that constituent again at the weekend. He lost both legs in a submarine attack in the war and was adrift at sea for five days. Like so many of my other
  424
  constituents, that brave and courageous man is now suffering intimidation through crime and disorder. Likewise, his near neighbour hears young people on the roof of her bungalow in the evenings. One night, she opened the door to a live firework thrown into her hallway. She is almost blind and could not see it, although she could certainly hear it.
  Despite the statements that we heard from Opposition Members this afternoon, violent crime in Gravesham has increased by 400 per cent. since 1979. That is why I support the plans that we have heard about again this afternoon for faster track punishment for young offenders and why I support the ban on handguns. It is also very much why I support the pledge to create 250,000 jobs or training places for young people and the long-term unemployed, bringing back some hope to many of those whose aspirations have been shattered by the previous Government's actions.
  Today's debate is about crime and disorder, which cause such a climate of fear for so many people. There is, however, another cause of that anxiety. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me for mentioning the fear that the health service will not be there for people when they need it. No routine operations were carried out in Gravesham and Dartford last autumn due to a lack of beds and nurses.
  Yesterday, a constituent told me of his fears. On 14 February—Valentine's day—he was told that he needed an urgent heart bypass operation. He expected to be rushed into hospital, but has now learnt that it will be 23 June before he gets even a consultation with a specialist. He is an active member of the local community, but now lives in fear, as do so many others, that the NHS simply cannot cope and will not be there to help him when he needs it.
  That is why I whole-heartedly support proposals to cut waiting lists and applaud the decision to introduce early legislation to clear the remaining legal obstacles to the building of a new district hospital in Dartford and Gravesham at Darenth Park, for which my constituents have been fighting for many years. I shall fight hard to ensure that when that hospital is built, it will provide sufficient beds for the district's needs. The current proposal suggests a cut of 20 per cent. in present levels, but not a general practitioner in the district believes that that number of beds will be sufficient. I shall also work to ensure that Gravesend hospital is brought back to life.
  I have diverged slightly from the subject of the debate, but the issues of crime and inequality are closely linked. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will give me leave to say a few final words about an issue that is close to my heart: the proposal to introduce a national minimum wage. I am proud to have worked for the past 18 years as director of the Low Pay Unit. That fine organisation, staffed by committed and very able people, was established almost 25 years ago by the new Minister for Welfare Reform. I congratulate him on taking on that role.
  We have argued that a minimum wage of the type that operates in every other advanced industrial country is not only a matter of decency and social justice but makes good economic sense. Low pay is the single most important cause of poverty, contributing to the threefold increase in poverty that now afflicts the lives of 14 million of our citizens. I could never understand how a nation that accounted for a quarter of the poor in the European Union, even before the opt-out from the social chapter, could be

  425
  described as the success story of Europe. Nor could I understand why it was a cause for celebration that the poorest in Britain, whose real incomes have declined considerably since 1979, had a cash income little higher than the poorest in Hungary or the Korean Republic.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), seconding the motion on the Gracious Speech last week, spoke of a constituent earning 89p per hour. The Low Pay Unit has come across wages as little as 59p and 66p an hour. One woman working in a residential care home sent the Low Pay Unit a copy of a letter written by her employer, which said:
  "I would like you to work 5 pm to 9 am Monday to Sunday inclusive. Your salary will be paid in arrears at a rate of £150 a week".
  Today, the Low Pay Unit was told of the case of another residential care home that pays its staff partly in cash and partly in supermarket vouchers.
  One reason why I stood for election to the House was to work to bring to an end the scandal of poverty wages and the inequality that not only scars the lives of many of our citizens but demeans and diminishes the lives and the dignity of the rest of us. I am pleased that we now have a Government with a programme, outlined in the Gracious Speech, that will begin to rebuild economic prosperity for this country on the firm foundations of social justice.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: First, I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to the Chair. We entered Parliament together in 1983, but you have progressed much further than I have or ever will—and certainly to a better class of suit.
  It is my pleasant duty to congratulate, on behalf of the House, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) on his maiden speech. It was an extremely polished and articulate speech. I am almost tempted to describe it as ambitious, but I am not sure whether ambition is now one of the necessary virtues of the new model Labour party. The hon. Gentleman described the new hospital to which his constituents and mine are looking forward. He omitted to mention, however, that the hospital is being developed under the private finance initiative, first pioneered by the previous Government, but I welcome the fact that the hospital will serve both our communities.
  I shall not tangle with the hon. Gentleman today on the subject of a minimum wage. The Conservative party always resisted that proposal and I believe that there are other better solutions to the problem, not least in the form of minimum tax. That, however, is well outside the remit of today's debate and the amendment before us.
  Conservative Members were glad that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to Jacques Arnold. I know, from the neighbouring constituency—my colleagues who were here in the last two Parliaments will also know—just how hard Jacques Arnold worked for all his constituents, and it was right and proper that he was thanked for that. We shall miss him and it is no disrespect to the new Member for Gravesham that we express the hope that we shall see Jacques Arnold take his place again among us.
  I also have the duty of paying tribute to my predecessor for Sevenoaks. Mark Wolfson was one of those hon. Members who never sought self publicity; nor did he
  426
  achieve ministerial office, but he served the House for 18 years. It is right, too, that I should pay tribute to the work that he put in for all his constituents throughout the Sevenoaks constituency. Indeed, I commend his career to some 70 or 75 per cent. of the new Labour Members who will not have a chance to enjoy ministerial office but who will, we hope, find other ways of serving the House as well as their constituencies.
  I am not a new Member; I am what is now described in the jargon as a "retread". I checked with my local garage and I understand that retreads are not necessarily dangerous, provided that they are correctly balanced. I assure the House that I am correctly balanced; what is incorrectly balanced is the Queen's Speech. There is an imbalance between its aims, which are a mixture of the uncontroversial, the pious and the banal, and the means, which are mandatory, minatory, bureaucratic and often contradictory.
  There seems to be much about new Labour that involves banning things, whether it is tobacco advertising, fox hunting or the voting of hereditary peers. Much about the Queen's Speech is certainly contradictory. The very paragraph that speaks about the need to decentralise goes on to offer us regional development agencies that will take power away from county councils such as Kent, and strategic authorities for London that will take power away from the boroughs that currently serve it.
  In the realm of home affairs, we see the Queen's Speech at its worst. We see a disturbing amount of social authoritarianism. A network of national homework centres is to be established. We are to have parental responsibility orders. The Government are even to set up healthy living centres. All those measures take the state further into the realm of the family, parenting and the local community. I doubt whether we improve parenting by substituting for it. In my view, the role of the state in that area should be to ensure that people are protected, crime is punished and good education is provided in our schools.
  I am extremely wary of such all-embracing and comprehensive measures of social authoritarianism, not least from our own experience in government. Too often, we, too, were tempted into the trap of all-embracing social legislation. The Children Act 1989, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, and the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 come to mind. Even the institutions that we created—local police authorities, grant-maintained schools, NHS trusts—though we gave them devolved budgets and modern management and though we encouraged them to market themselves, were still in the end regarded as branches of central Government—branches of the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Health or the Home Office.
  We must think more deeply about how we make such institutions more local and how they can build up stronger ties of loyalty and affection in the communities that they serve. That applies particularly to our system of criminal justice. We need a system that more directly serves the local community.
  I welcome the Government's proposal to make justice for young offenders more rapid, but we also need to ensure that it is made more local. Too often, we not only read of delays between the offence and the trial, or indeed between the trial and the sentencing, but we are told that the offenders cannot be named or that they cannot be punished in the usual way.

  427
  I hope that in opposition as well as in government, we can think again about how we encourage more transparency in our system of criminal justice, to ensure that the sentences that are handed out better reflect opinion in the local community. I therefore urge the Government to be wary of national solutions—general curfew orders or national requirements that they seek to impose from Queen Anne's gate.
  I have never understood why the Home Secretary should have to approve the length of the police baton that the chief constable of Merseyside wishes his officers to deploy. I hope that the new Ministers at the Home Office will reflect on the need to move with greater common sense and to reflect more directly the local experience of the communities in which our police serve.
  Those comments about criminal justice apply more widely to the way in which our own system of law is increasingly being encroached on from Europe. It is no accident that the laws that are least respected are those that are made most remotely. Nothing has brought Europe into more disrepute than the interference of the two European courts and the other institutions of the European Union.
  I therefore deeply deplore the proposal to incorporate the European convention on human rights into our legal system. I do not want a Portuguese judge, however well qualified, to have the casting vote on the time limit for abortions to be carried out in Britain. Incorporation of the European convention is further pandering to the European institutions and will further reduce the rights of the House to make law for the people of this country.
  In the end, the British will not be directed by commissioners, whether in Brussels or Strasbourg. I hope that in the fullness of time those who promote the European idea will realise that there is another way to co-operation and trade on our continent than the coercive, harmonising and centralising proposals being put forward in Brussels and Strasbourg.
  The Sevenoaks constituency is fortunate. We enjoy a good level of prosperity, we have a low level of unemployment and we enjoy a good measure of choice in all types of schooling. That prosperity and choice are threatened by the Queen's Speech. The proposed new taxes and regulations will not encourage business or create new jobs. The grammar schools and grant-maintained schools on which parents in my constituency rely are under threat from the proposals presented by the new Education Secretary.
  Above all, my constituents will lose out under new Labour because the Queen's Speech further diminishes freedom. The new social authoritarianism contained in its proposals further narrows that vital space in any successful society between what is compulsory and what is forbidden. I shall oppose the Queen's Speech and support the amendment tonight.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I welcome the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) back to the House, and ask him to pass on my best wishes to Mark Wolfson, his predecessor, who served with me when I was Chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee. That was not always the easiest subject, but Mark was extremely helpful on a Select Committee which, for
  428
  obvious reasons, was dominated by Conservatives and Unionists at that stage. He worked diligently and I always found him helpful.
  Before I deal with the issue of law and order, I shall comment briefly on two other aspects of the Queen's Speech, which is one of the most radical and exciting documents that it has been my good fortune to read for many years, and by far the best in the past 18 years that I have been a Member of Parliament—but I would say that.
  I draw attention to a matter that we shall have an opportunity to debate on another occasion: the commitment in the Queen's Speech to reform the British constitution and the way in which Parliament works. We must carry all Members of this House with us when we do that, but I cannot over-emphasise how frustrating it is that the House of Commons, which set the world standard for so many centuries, has not reformed itself sufficiently over the past 70 years to make itself a modern Chamber. The same applies to the constitution.
  The remarks by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks on the European Court of Human Rights was one of the saddest comments on the modern Conservative party. That human rights legislation was drawn up by the British and introduced in Europe precisely to stop the abuses of power that had taken place in Europe in the period leading up to the second world war. We should be proud of that and we should sign up to it with pride. We wrote it, we brought it about, and we did that because we believe that human rights are a fundamental right of the people of the world. We should continue to say that proudly.
  The other issue that I shall touch on briefly is Northern Ireland. I welcome the progress by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister. It was right to start talks at a particular level in a particular way with Sinn Fein. It is important to break the logjam that has developed. I pay tribute to the last Government—particularly the then Prime Minister and now Leader of the Opposition—for putting Northern Ireland at the top of their political priorities. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was the first Prime Minister to say expressly that he was doing so and he deserves credit for that.
  Unfortunately, the peace process in that sad area was bogged down by the mathematics in this place and the problems involved with getting the Unionists to shift position. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has left the Chamber. He also served on the Select Committee and he was quick to condemn, quite rightly, the violence of the IRA. However, it is easy to forget that Unionist paramilitaries have killed almost as many people as the republican paramilitaries. The House and British and Irish people everywhere must be even-handed in their approach: killing for political purposes, whether by Unionists or republicans, is absolutely unacceptable. It is also counter productive. We should say that to both sides equally.
  I return to today's debate on law and order. I am encouraged by the thinking emanating from the Home Office. For 18 years, we saw crime increase dramatically while the prison population accelerated out of control and prison sentences had little effect on the number of crimes committed. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition today, made great play of the increased number of policeman that the Conservative Government

  429
  put in place—although that is debatable—and the many ways in which his Government had got tough with criminals. The reality is that the majority of criminals are not caught and convicted.
  I was burgled the weekend following the general election, so I feel like getting tough with burglars. I have been the victim of three or four attempted burglaries in the past few years, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, in my experience—which is considerable—burglars do not wait around for a police car to appear on the scene before they commit their crimes. Most burglars check the street for police and station someone outside before they commit their crimes. Crime prevention is the key.
  As I said when we were in opposition, we reduced burglaries on one estate in Shepherd's Bush in my constituency by 66 per cent. in two years. We achieved that result almost in spite of the Government. The number of burglaries has fallen in my constituency because the police and local authorities have learned to work together on good crime prevention schemes. I pay credit to the previous Government for providing some money for a concierge system in high-rise blocks. If that system operated in all high-rise blocks, burglaries in those buildings would be cut dramatically and they would become much better places to live. Crime and vandalism—particularly the sort of vandalism that stops lifts working—could be prevented. That would make people feel safe and improve their quality of life.
  I make several appeals to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I am delighted to see him on the Front Bench; he has extensive knowledge of crime prevention and his work in the youth system will stand him in good stead in his present position. We must get the police forces of this country, in conjunction with local authorities, to compile a map of crime—we have one already, to some extent. We could then pinpoint the types of crimes that are causing most problems in certain areas and direct our resources in that direction. Crime prevention is about good targeting, which is achieved by encouraging the police and local authorities—and sometimes the voluntary sector—to co-operate. That has occurred in some of the examples that I have mentioned. It is vital to compile such a map.
  It is not sufficient to view crime prevention in terms of stronger locks, better windows, and so on. My hon. Friend is aware of the importance of the youth service. Many hon. Members have talked in their maiden speeches about the links between unemployment and crime. That link has always existed, not because the unemployed are more likely to be of criminal mind but because unemployment breaks down families. The children of broken families—who have never been near a job because they are supposed to be in school, but often are not—frequently get into trouble and commit crimes. Many crimes are committed by 14, 15 and l6-year-olds, so we must target them.
  The last Government did virtually nothing in that area. They ignored the problem until late in the day when they began to realise that locking people up and throwing away the key was not the answer. We should lock up persistent offenders and those who are a danger to the public, but we must not believe that it will prevent crime in the future. Incarceration is not an answer in its own right—and it never will be.
  430
  I hope that my hon. Friend will examine the Scottish family court system because I believe that it provides a better opportunity for dealing with families and offenders, who are often 15 or 16 years old. I am particularly interested in the opportunities presented by the new disorder legislation to which the Home Secretary referred. Such legislation must be used carefully, but it will provide considerable opportunities if we get the balance right.
  I want to involve victims and the local community in the process of dealing with criminal offenders so that we can alleviate crime through social pressures. However, we must not follow the same road as the United States, where the victims of crime are allowed to watch—and often appear to enjoy watching—the infliction of punishment on offenders. For example, in some states, victims of crime are allowed to witness the death sentence being carried out. That practice—and the death penalty itself—is totally abhorrent and must never be allowed to happen here.
  Perhaps we could design a structure that allows the court to enable—rather than order—the victim to meet the offender in certain circumstances in a controlled setting. Such meetings could be chaired by a police or probation officer or someone like that. That would make the offender confront what he or she has done to the victim. It would be difficult to do that in the case of violent crimes, but even then there are exceptions.
  I know of a care in the community patient who is now in a secure unit and who stabbed someone in the street. Some years later, the victim is trying to write about his experience. He has come to terms with the stabbing and would like to meet the offender so that he can explain his actions. It would enable both parties to understand what happened in that dreadful incident. We should allow that to occur, but we must be careful to strike the right balance.
  Returning to the disorder legislation, we have all heard about one or two families who have caused mayhem on a particular street or an estate. I see no reason why, if we had a suitable structure, we could not involve such families in discussions with their neighbours. Some months ago, I intervened in such a case in my area when I saw that some youngsters were not attending school. When I asked them what school they attended and told them to go there, I received the answers that one might predict in such circumstances. I could not deal with them brutally, grab them and say, "Look here, I'm taking you to school." So I did what I had to do in such a situation and, after several days, I called the police who took the lads to school.
  Those youths were also causing problems in the immediate area, and it would be helpful to involve their families in discussions with the school and with others who were affected. I should like to have the opportunity to explain why I was concerned about the welfare of those children. I know that, if I could spend some time with them, they would not simply shout abuse at me. I am sure that I could establish a relationship with them.
  The courts can be quite imaginative in such cases. However, the previous Government were keen on boxing in the courts and forcing them to give certain sentences for certain offences. I want to give judges and magistrates more leeway. We need to be more flexible. In doing so, we must be careful, as there are certain legal rights that have to be respected. We must ensure that the right of

  431
  appeal is always there. We could do far more about involving victims and offenders in resolving the problems that afflict those areas. I have no hesitation in saying that, in the estates and streets that suffer problems from particular families, we should have much greater powers to move that family out of the flat or house where they are causing mayhem. It then becomes not only part of the punishment but part of the solution.
  That is the sort of imaginative thinking in which we should get involved. There are difficulties and dangers, but all I am asking at this stage is that my right hon. Friend includes in his Bill the power to experiment with such measures. I think that we would be surprised at how much we could achieve. Other countries do it, so why not here?
  Another point that I wish to highlight is the wider crime prevention issue, because I heard the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the previous Home Secretary, condemn drug dealers right, left and centre. I have no problem with that, as I do exactly the same, but I also remember how, when he was Home Secretary, he persistently ignored not just questions but a letter from me asking him to ban alcopops. What message do we send out when we say, "Let's get tough on drug addicts, but let's sell alcopops to teenagers and thus encourage under-age drinking"?
  The body that is supposed to regulate the drinks industry had better get tougher with it, because if the industry is not prepared to regulate itself, the message should go out very loud and clear from here that the House will have to regulate it. It is unacceptable that soft drinks that are laced with alcohol are sold, and encouraged to be sold, to young people. We have to stop it, because we know that there is a close link between crime and alcohol.
  Parenting is the other underlying problem which the previous Government just could not recognise. I complained bitterly throughout the last five or 10 years of the Conservative Government that they were doing nothing about parenting or family structure. All they did was make moralistic noises about single parent families or about whether one was married, both of which are pretty irrelevant to the problem of parenting. What matters in parenting is good relationships between the child and the parent, and the child growing up in a secure setting.
  Obviously, it is easier if there are two parents, and that is generally to be encouraged, but let us get away from the scapegoating role and focus instead on how we can help people to be good parents. We can do that through nursery education and by not putting families with young children into high-rise blocks, where the children either have to play indoors all day—how would we cope with that if we were the parents?—or they play outside unsupervised and fairly quickly drift into petty vandalism and, all too easily, crime.
  It is also about teaching parenting skills in schools. Teachers tell me that it is quite difficult to teach those skills at times. I accept that. I am not skilled in that area, but I do know, however—teachers also seem to accept this—that we can teach relationship, education and social skills, and out of that comes the recognition about how to bring up children to have respect for themselves and for others. For too long the previous Government allowed families to split apart, encouraged by matters such as unemployment and inappropriate housing, which made it
  432
  easier for families who were just about surviving, who were just about good enough parents, to tip over suddenly into crisis. When that happens we all sit back and wonder why the kids are a problem. The kids are a problem because we failed the families.
  My last message today to my Front-Bench colleagues is, please can we have a policy on families and parenting? It is not a matter of having a Minister for the Family or a Minister for Children. It is certainly not just a matter of having a Minister for Women, as some people have suggested, because that misses the point almost totally. It is a question of trying to achieve effective co-ordination between Government Departments, local authorities and health authorities, and between the private sector and those bodies.
  We can do it, and in my judgment the best way to do so is to have a subcommittee of the Cabinet chaired by a senior Minister—I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would have more than enough status to do that, as he has already produced a good paper on parenting—so that we can start to address issues which, if addressed now, will give us a much happier society in 10, 20 or 30 years' time. We look at the monster who kills, abuses or sexually assaults a child and we all forget that that monster, 20, 30 or 40 years' ago, was in all likelihood an abused child. If we do not learn that lesson and try to direct something towards it, we will go on repeating the same cycle of deprivation, poverty and cruelty and impose it on others as well as ourselves.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. Quite apart from anything else, he comes with very long experience of the voluntary sector, and I know that many people in it are delighted with his appointment.
  My only regret is that the voluntary sector has been brought back to the Home Office, as, in my experience, the Home Office deadens the impact of the voluntary sector. Under Conservative Governments, it has always eventually managed to escape into another Department, but under Labour Governments, it has always been brought back to the Home Office. I encourage the Minister whole-heartedly to use all his experience and expertise to ensure that the dead hand of the Home Office does not deaden the impact of this very important sector. It has something to do with the fact that most people in the Home Office have to spend most of their time policing or restraining in some way, and when they get to the free fall and open experiments of the voluntary sector they get slightly apprehensive.
  I wish the Minister well in his new post, but hope that he will take seriously the importance of liberating and strengthening the voluntary sector, despite the Home Office.
  Because the last time that we had a Labour Government was 18 years ago, there is a temptation to refer back to it for the origins of this Queen's Speech, but we must resist. New Labour has strained every nerve to disown any link with previous Labour Administrations, and we have to go back further for its roots. The roots for this Queen's Speech really belong with Cromwell's major-generals. There lies the root of the Government's puritanism. Are we talking about smoking, pistol shooting or country sports? If people enjoy it, ban it. If it does not fit in with

  433
  what Tony or Peter believe to be good for us, let us have zero tolerance of it. In the short term, it is popular stuff. The British have always had a puritanical, punitive streak, and it is easy enough to appeal to it—for a while. I warn the Government that the British public's tolerance of puritanism runs out quite quickly.
  One of the least attractive features of the general election campaign was the competition between the two main parties to present themselves as more repressive than the other. Curfews, punishments for parents, restrictions on judges flowed out from the hustings to evoke a popular response in our time, rather like that sought by Hieronymus Bosch in his. There was precious little about supporting the efforts of parents and children who want to do well. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), who has a distinguished record in speaking out for parents and the support of families, has done the House a service in an excellent speech.
  Look at the messages that we are getting from the new Labour Government. To a generation castigated for lack of respect for other people, what do we get in the first week of the new Government? Two enduring images. One, a Minister of the Crown crossing his fingers at a solemn moment in Parliament itself. Then, of course, we are told that new Labour wants to get rid of all formality. How does a school pupil corrected for refusing to wear a school uniform respond to the refusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wear evening dress, or to the Prime Minister's desire to be on first-name terms with his subordinates? Make no mistake, they are the right hon. Gentleman's subordinates, as many of them will rapidly discover.
  Many years ago I was in the Navy. I remember that on one occasion there was an exercise with the Americans. I was struck by the informality between the relations of their officers and men. It took me a little time to realise that to maintain discipline, the penalties on American ships for minor breaches of discipline were draconian by contrast with those on our ships. I suggest to Labour Members that they go for formality. If they do not, they will find themselves facing even more savage discipline.
  New Labour's slogan is, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." Let us unpick that a little. Let us start where all of us surely can agree. Punishment for wrongdoing is, and always will be, a central component of any law-abiding society. Children recognise the place of punishment in marking out the boundaries that they need so as to feel secure. In the recent survey by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children entitled "Talking about my Generation", it is disclosed that only one in six of 12 to 15-year-olds believe that it should be for that age group to decide whether they should smoke or drink alcohol. Fewer than one in four thought that members of that age group should decide at what time they should return home in the evenings.
  Such young people clearly understand that if they break the rules they will be punished. When a secondary school invited pupils in its sixth form to help in interviewing new staff, it found, somewhat to its surprise, that the sixth formers always chose the candidate who they thought would be most successful at imposing discipline. So we have no disagreement about punishment.
  434
  Children want especially—it is something that we all want—that punishment should be predictable and fair. It is highly significant that most of our criminals are young men and women who have been disproportionately criticised and physically punished more than their law-abiding contemporaries. Their punishments have been more frequent, more violent and less predictable than that of others. I distrust the tide that is sweeping us towards longer and harsher punishments without an equal concentration on recovering as many young people as possible for a productive, law-abiding life.
  That is why I am an enthusiast for the new scheme "CSV on line", which was launched last month by community service volunteers. It is designed to attach a full-time volunteer mentor who is close to the age of the young offender. The idea is simple. Someone who understands what it is like to be 15 in 1997 will help with school work, ensure that appointments are kept and that court appearances take place, for example. Such a scheme has much potential to recover some young crooks. It illustrates the cardinal principle that lies behind getting on top of crime and other related problems. That is the principle of making use of young people.
  In all the rhetoric of the election and in all the verbiage of the Queen's Speech, virtually nothing has been said about the most important resource of all, which is young people. The old slogan, "Use it or lose it" applies to the skills and energy of young people as well as to anything else. Young people have already shown that if they are given the chance they are the most effective opponents of drug peddlers in schools, of bullying and of racial harassment, as well as being the most effective agents for passing on positive attitudes to other young people.
  Young people are currently underused. Indeed, they are often ignored. That being so, we wonder why only half of them bother to vote in a general election and why so many of them become irresponsible. I should respect the Queen's Speech a great deal more if it referred to listening to young people as readily as it refers to punishing them.
  I acknowledge that the Queen's Speech contains a positive policy aimed at young people in the form of the work-to-welfare programme. Surely we can all applaud whole-heartedly the aspiration to take 250,000 young people from the unemployment register into work. There is no canker more destructive of the young man or woman than the lack of a job. If new Labour can do better than the Conservative Government, who produced more than 900,000 more jobs between 1992 and the end of 1996, I shall be the first to give them credit. I have my doubts, however, about whether the Government's scheme is the vehicle to achieve the aim.
  The Government's finance for the programme is extraordinary. For how long will the money last? That will depend on the level at which the windfall tax is set. If it is set high enough to allow the scheme to last for more than six months, costs will inevitably increase for utilities' consumers. New Labour has promised to give consumers 40p a week by cutting value added tax on fuel. That will look pretty meagre if they are asked to pay an extra £1 a week to finance the windfall tax.
  Let us assume that the money is available, that companies' legal challenges fail, that definitions stand up and that shareholders and customers fork out gladly. But how will the scheme work? The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for

  435
  Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), has been transmuted by the magic of a general election from being a Conservative ex-Minister representing an English seat into a new Labour Minister representing a Welsh seat. I am sure that he feels gratified. I must warn him, however, that general election magic has its limitations. It will not, however much he wishes it would, remove the practical problems of making a big scheme work.
  It is not, of course, the first such scheme. Conservative and old Labour Governments have tried several times to break the vicious circle of under-achievement at school, lack of employment, loss of self confidence, welfare dependency and crime. They all found that it was not easy to do so. What will be new Labour's magic ingredient? If 250,000 young people are involved, it will be a big scheme. New Labour Ministers will be desperate to be seen to deliver a central promise of the new Jerusalem. Delivering presumably means getting 250,000 young people into full-time, long-term employment.
  Will new Labour manage to avoid the pitfalls that have bedevilled earlier projects? Will the scheme choose or avoid those young people who are so far behind even the norms of inner-city unemployed youth that they will need several weeks of skilled pre-education and training if they are to reach the threshold at which they can begin to be trained?
  Such pre-training is extremely expensive and tends to play havoc with the target timetable of a big scheme. It is the youngsters who will need that training who, above all, will need the scheme. Will those running the scheme be able to resist the temptation which, for example, those running the Manpower Services Commission's schemes were unable to resist, of going for employment that will enable large numbers of people to be deployed, even if the skills required are either at low level or not much in demand outside the scheme?
  Conservative Members will be listening for the first complaints from the young themselves that they are merely in make-work projects. I am prepared to accept that the Conservative Government's youth training scheme had its defects. At the same time, I see nothing in the Government's proposals to assure me that they can improve on the Conservative Government's drop-out figure of 34.6 per cent. What about work experience? I shall certainly take my hat off to new Labour if it can find enough work placements without displacing any existing employees who happen not to attract the £60 a week rebate.
  As for education, the old temptation to reach targets by excluding, formally or informally, those least likely to achieve them in the time allotted will surely rise to haunt the architects of this scheme, as it did their predecessors. In short, I applaud the aspiration and I wish it every success, but I remain cautious about its practicalities.
  I end by repeating my plea to the new Government. Listen to young people themselves. Give them some real responsibility in the society in which they are growing up. At the end of the previous Parliament, I moved a ten-minute Bill, which suggested that there might be some mileage in requiring local authorities to spend a portion of their money only on schemes put forward by young people themselves, and that young people themselves could make work. I believe that such responsibility would transform a generation that is being excluded from most traditional responsibilities until they are about 24 or 25 years old.
  436
  The Government should challenge the energy, ingenuity and strength that are so often used for criminal activity, and should use them to build up the areas and communities that are so much in need of those qualities. If they succeed in that, I will wish them well.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Fraser Kemp: I begin my maiden speech by thanking all those who worked so hard to get me elected: my party members who selected me, and the electors who returned me to the House on I May. I was born in the constituency that I represent. It gives me an extra special honour to represent people in the area whence I came.
  I pay tribute to my predecessor, Roland Boyes. I do so not merely because it is a convention of the House, but because he is a friend of mine. He was the Member of Parliament for Houghton and Washington from 1983, before which he served for four years as Member of the European Parliament for Durham. Roland was a passionate campaigner for social justice. He represented his constituency with dignity and courage wherever he went. He also served as an Opposition spokesman on the defence and environment teams.
  Apart from politics, Roland had another great passion: photography. He produced an excellent book of photographs of people who work in the House: Members and their staff. Hon. Members are aware that he suffers from Alzheimer's disease. Being an inveterate campaigner, he is very involved in raising money for the Alzheimer's research trust that he established. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have contributed to that trust.
  I met Roland on Friday last week. He and his wife asked me to pass on their thanks for the hundreds of acts of kindness that hon. Members have shown to Pat and Roland. I am sure that I can say with confidence that I can take back the good wishes of the House.
  I read Roland's maiden speech in 1983, and I was struck by one of his remarks. Fourteen years ago, he said that Labour's slogan should be "enough is enough". He was clearly a man ahead of his time, because I seem to remember that that slogan figured significantly in Labour's general election campaign.
  The constituency that I represent is a series of mining villages in the Durham coalfield. Its past is very important. The hard work and talents of its people determine its future. I was born there 38 years ago into a mining family, and I know a little of its history. I beg the House's indulgence while I say a few words about the constituency.
  The new town of Washington was a former mining village. It makes a great claim to be the ancestral birthplace of the founding father of the United States of America. The Shiney Row ward contains the Penshaw monument, the great beacon to returning north-easterners. It was erected as a tribute to the first Earl of Durham. It is not my intention to praise the former coal owners—I doubt whether any of my predecessors have done so—but it is significant that it was erected after he was given the nickname "Radical Jack", because he supported the extension of the franchise in the Reform Act 1832. He may be a role model for those in the other place who are contemplating opposing Labour's plans for constitutional reform.

  437
  I make the proud boast that, every time the House or the nation hears Big Ben, they hear the tongue—the piece that swings in the bell—which was cast in Houghton-le-Spring. We are also proud that, in Hetton, George Stephenson, one of the founding fathers of the railway industry, designed a railway in advance of the more famous Stockton and Darlington.
  It would be wrong of me not to mention football, which is another great passion in the constituency. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who is a good friend of mine and whose constituency contains the Anfield ground, will not object to my saying that we also produced one of the greatest managers of Liverpool, Bob Paisley.
  The men and women I represent are decent and honest. They are descended from generations who have toiled underground to generate the wealth of this nation. The adversity they have faced has given them the strength and humour that run through their veins as richly as any coal seam in the earth, but there are also despair and poverty in many parts of the constituency. One can physically see it cut into people's faces as if by a surgeon's knife. All that the people I represent ask for is a fair deal and social justice. They are hard-working people, with talent and ingenuity. What they want is a fair crack of the whip and some decency.
  I am proud of the traditions in the constituency and its past, but I know that it is the future which matters. The people's skills and talents, many of which have remained unused and wasted in recent years, can and will make a great contribution towards this nation. We are making a start. It is a proud boast that my constituency is the fastest growing automotive area in the United Kingdom, and long may that remain so.
  It cannot be right that 40 per cent. of technological innovation since the second world war has originated in the United Kingdom, yet we have only 5 per cent. of those markets. Clearly, the Government must address that problem. We must nurture that innovation, and encourage the development of skills and sensible long-term investment, as well as forge links between education and industry, so that we can close the gap between our ability to invent products and our ability to manufacture and sell them on the world markets.
  All of us in politics are regularly concerned by what we hear: occasionally it affects us deeply. I want to dedicate this speech to someone whom I had never heard of and have never met. On 1 May 1997, a man went into a polling station and asked the presiding officer if she could point out the Labour candidate on the ballot paper. With great courage, because there were other electors in the station, he admitted that he could neither read nor write. If I and the Government show one tenth of the courage, guts and determination that he showed in voting Labour on polling day, Britain will be a better place. The Gracious Address fills me with great optimism.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: I am very pleased to have been called to make my maiden speech today, when so many fine maiden speeches have been made. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for
  438
  Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) for the great political passion which has obviously brought him to the House.
  My predecessor in Sheffield, Hallam was Sir Irvine Patnick. He was and is above all a good Sheffielder—and in Sheffield that counts as much as, if not more than, one's party political allegiances. Sheffielders have the particular quality of speaking quickly and not wasting words, and I hope that I, too, will bring those qualities to the House.
  As well as spending 10 years in this place, Sir Irvine was well known for the decades of dedicated public service that he performed on various local authorities in Sheffield. Indeed, legend has it that it was he who coined the great phrase "the socialist republic of South Yorkshire"—a phrase which, of course, needs updating nowadays, but the phrase "the new Labour (socialist values updated for the modern era) republic of South Yorkshire" somehow does not have quite the same ring.
  The constituency of Sheffield, Hallam covers the south-west of the city of Sheffield. While in general it is an affluent area, it contains quite a mixture of people and places, as befits most of our metropolitan constituencies. I want to refer particularly to three key aspects of the Hallam division. The first is the part of the Peak district that it contains. That magnificent landscape of moors and gritstone edges was preserved by previous generations of far-sighted people who understood the deep meaning of the environment and the necessity to preserve it against development. We now enjoy it, along with our many parks and the wonderful tree landscape that we find in Sheffield.
  Secondly, the constituency contains the two universities of Hallam and Sheffield, which are the biggest employers in my constituency. They have brought so much to Hallam and I am sure that much of my time in this place will be spent on issues concerned with them. Thirdly, there is the strength of our local communities in Sheffield, particularly in the Low Edges estate, where local residents have set up a community safety forum to work with the police and other agencies to deal with some of the problems in the area, particularly those relating to youth crime.
  That brings me to the subject of the debate. I want to draw attention to the importance of the environment in reducing crime. If we are to tackle the causes of crime, we must create a high-quality urban environment that people will respect. As we can all see, when a house becomes derelict in our area, as it starts to fall down the vandalism begins. First one window goes; then the rest rapidly follow. The quality of our urban environments is crucial if we are to start tackling the causes of crime.
  We should increase the visibility of the police in our communities. Our community constables in Hallam do a first-class job, and that should be built on so that we see more police on the streets.
  Given all this—from the natural glories of the Peak district to the academic glories of our universities, and the human glories of our communities—I am filled with pleasure to have been able to speak on behalf of Sheffield, Hallam today.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): It is a great pleasure to be able to make my maiden speech as Member of Parliament for my home area of North-West

  439
  Leicestershire. I am proud to inform the House that I stand here representing two parties, the Labour party and the Co-operative party. The Co-operative party is the political party representing the co-operative movement, and it is dedicated to the promotion of co-operative principles as a means of organising our society and our economic interests. I am therefore very happy to be the Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament for North-West Leicestershire.
  Let me begin by thanking my predecessor, Mr. David Ashby, who had represented North-West Leicestershire as a Conservative since the seat was created in 1983. I first met Mr. Ashby when we were opponents in the 1992 general election, and I found him then—as I have since—to be a courteous, thoughtful and industrious representative of our area. Let me express the appreciation of the 85,000 people of north-west Leicestershire to David Ashby for his work over some 14 years: we are most grateful for his unflagging efforts on our behalf.
  Some people are due little in the way of thanks. David Ashby owes no thanks to the press, which hounded him unmercifully following allegations about his personal life. I deplore that. He has nothing for which to thank the courts, where he was the victim of an appalling legal decision when he tried to clear his name. I deplore that, too. He was given few thanks by his local association when it deselected him because of the adverse media coverage. That was the most deplorable thing of all.
  One of the first telephone calls that I received after the election was from David Ashby. He gave congratulations and much helpful advice about tackling the daunting role of a newly elected Member of Parliament. That is the true measure of the man.
  North-West Leicestershire is at the heart of our country. It is very much middle England—the real middle England, not that of Ford Galaxies, second homes in Italy and nanny problems. We are a working area and proud of it. We are at the transport crossroads of the midlands, sitting astride the Ml, beside the East Midlands airport. Our two major towns urgently need partly completed bypasses to be finished-but more of that on another occasion.
  The main urban area in my seat is centred on the former mining town of Coalville, which, like the country, has endured the pain of unemployment. The pit closures that took place in the 1980s and early 1990s had a profound impact—economically, socially and environmentally—but the town has responded well to local authority initiatives, and now has good shops, a first-rate leisure centre and a magnificent discovery park celebrating the industrial background of North-West Leicestershire and the bright technological future that is now emerging.
  To the west of the seat lies my birthplace, the pleasant market town of Ashby de la Zouch, famous for its castle and for being the setting of "Ivanhoe", reputedly the Prime Minister's favourite book. Further west still is another former coal mining area, around the communities of the Ashby Woulds. There is a sizeable rural core to the seat, containing numerous attractive villages, while in the north are the bustling and prosperous villages of Castle Donington and Kegworth.
  Many hon. Members will have rushed through my constituency on the M1 without being aware of its many attractions. In view of the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald
  440
  (Miss Widdecombe), I am pleased to say that those attractions do not include any penal establishments. I urge hon. Members to stop for a little; they will probably stay very much longer. All we need to link this archipelago of communities is improved public transport, and especially the restoration of passenger rail services—the second flag that I will wave on another occasion.
  Environmentally, North-West Leicestershire has contained vast tracts of derelict land, which are now being restored with great assistance from the national forest, whose headquarters are in the seat. The attentions of R. J. Budge and others who want to opencast remaining coal seams on greenfield sites are a constant threat and handicap, and the circling opencast vultures will certainly form the basis of a future speech from me.
  Socially, North-West Leicestershire's proud mining culture survives, as I am sure that it will for generations. It underpins a community spirit that remains sound and in good heart—but communities, like individuals, need to feel safe and secure in order to thrive. Various corrosive influences have been at work, which have made life difficult for the residents, businesses and towns of our area.
  An example is the small town of Ashby, which has a population of 12,000. Its gracious Georgian market street, with its numerous pubs, shops and restaurants, acts as an entertainment mecca for a wide catchment area. That often means large numbers of people in a confined space, which frequently produces an unacceptable level of crime and anti-social behaviour on our streets.
  Like those in other parts of middle England, we have called long and loud for more effective policies on crime in our part of Leicestershire, which has seen crime double and violent crime treble in a political generation. I am therefore pleased to have been called to speak in a home affairs debate on the Loyal Address. I particularly welcome the Government's programme for the reform of the youth justice system. I am a lay magistrate in my constituency, but I am not out of touch, as Conservative Members have suggested. Lay magistrates live in their constituencies, experience their problems and are open to their opportunities.
  For many years, I have been concerned about the persistent problems caused for the many by the disruptive few who are the grit in society's eye. I welcome the commitment to fast-track punishment for some offenders, the creation of youth offenders' teams and the establishment of a national youth policy board.
  My constituents have not stood idly by waiting for effective Government action on crime. Three years ago, we resolved to tackle the roots of crime rather than just wringing our hands and calling for harsher sentences for the few who reach our courts. We believed that, unless we acted, we would all take some blame for crime in our society. Acquiescence would merely be guilt by default. The North-West Leicestershire Safer Communities Forum was formed as our way of fighting crime, and I commend it to the House. It is a partnership of concerned people from the Churches, youth organisations, police and local councils, and it could be a model for the Government as they plan how best to extend the crime prevention and community protection roles of local authorities.
  The forum took a long look at our area, analysed the facts and figures, the incidents and the trends. We put local criminality under the microscope and got to know it

  441
  intimately. We tackled the roots of identified problems within our very limited resources. We backed a secured-by-design concept for the layout and specification of housing estates. Developers are now taking that up as a sales plus, and wider building regulations incorporating security measures would help us to make real progress.
  We designed a closed circuit television system and lobbied hard for its installation to ensure that shoppers, residents and businesses would benefit from a more secure Ashby town centre. That system is to be switched on in a few weeks. Of course, it will not be a panacea because some crime will be displaced, and there are also civil liberties concerns; but the system is a big step in the right direction. We can at last reclaim the streets of our town.
  We are also creating a youth council in north-west Leicestershire to involve young people in the running of the area. The council will be a grey-suit-free zone so that the young will have a real say. When they speak, we must listen, and when their demands are reasonable, we must respond. If we begin to nod because boredom or intolerance has set in, the time will have come to examine our behaviour because we shall be contributing to the alienation of the young with the sad results that we know only too well.
  We all have the bricks in our hands to build a safer Britain together, but it cannot be done from the Floor of the House. Bricks can be laid only on firm foundations by local people throughout the community. I am certain that ours is the right way ahead. Building safer communities needs local involvement and a supportive national framework within which to work. The community safety plans in the Gracious Speech are the guiding lights for advance.
  A statutory responsibility on local authorities to produce local crime prevention partnerships involving the police and other agencies is welcome, although it is much overdue. Of course, local plans must integrate with the Government's priorities on crime prevention and community safety, and the Home Secretary should report annually on those priorities.
  For too long, the approach to crime prevention has been incoherent, ad hoc and, crucially, underfunded. We have relied on reports from a less than coherent Home Secretary, whose only solution to crime was to lock up yet more people. The Government's crime fighting initiatives are based on good practice by local authorities such as the one in north-west Leicestershire. I commend them to the House.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech. My constituency is highly desirable, not least because it has a Conservative majority of 11,300. It is bounded on the east by the Lymington river and on the west by the River Avon. Between those two rivers along the coast are the towns of Lymington, Milford-on-Sea and Barton-on-Sea, all of which are excellent resorts offering a view of the western Solent and the Needles.
  The constituency stretches north through the town of New Milton to the New Forest villages of Sway and Burley to Ringford and Fordingbridge. It takes its name from the fact that it contains more than half of the
  442
  perambulation of Crown lands that make up the New Forest. It is perhaps one of the most important conservation areas in the western world, yet it would not exist but for the wisdom of 11th century monarchs and their passion for hunting. Even today, hunting is very much a way of life and a source of livelihood. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind later in the Session.
  I pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson, who was a formidable and assiduous worker on behalf of his constituents. Perhaps his singular achievement was that, after 28 years, he was able to hand over the New Forest much as he found it. It is little wonder that the boundary commissioners found it necessary to replace him with two hon. Members rather than one.
  In some respects, the Gracious Speech sounded tough in terms of law and order, but, for some time, the Home Secretary has given the impression of being tough. Now that he is in office, I hope that he will be able to maintain that impression of toughness and, more important, give concrete evidence of it. I hope that he will be able to resist the advice of new social scientists, new criminologists, the new elite, new vegetarians or whoever who sit behind him.
  I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) because I was a prison visitor to Wandsworth, and I am now a prison visitor to Wormwood Scrubs. Some years ago, those who approached the prison block from the main gate waded through a sea of litter. All sorts of articles had been hurled from cells. They included shoes, clothing, food and equipment, such was the abundance within those walls. In the prison cell, one was confronted by every convenience that the Argos catalogue could supply. That has changed dramatically in the past few years.
  A few days ago, I confided in a murderer friend whom I visit once a month that I was considering voting for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) as the leader of my party. His reaction was such that, had I been less tolerant, it might have ended our friendship. His response was not a consequence of a belief that there was something of the night about my right hon. and learned Friend; it was entirely a measure of my right hon. and learned Friend's effectiveness in changing and toughening up the regime in that institution. I commend that reputation to the Home Secretary and urge him to pursue a similar one. We should eschew currying favour with the criminal classes.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I first congratulate you on your appointment? You will be sadly missed on the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and I wish you well.
  I compliment the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on his excellent maiden speech. It was interesting to hear. I did not agree with much of it, but it was well presented. I also wish well my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and his team because, although they may not inherit a poisoned chalice, they do not inherit anything that is worth talking about. They have a tough job ahead.
  I was interested to hear the debate on prisons. The first thing we should be examining is how many people who have been described as violent, anti-social and a threat to

  443
  society are in prison. It would be interesting to know how many of them are in prison and what percentage they make up of the prison population.
  Of the advanced nations in Europe, we have the highest proportion of the population in prison. We need to ask questions about that. Far too many people seem to be languishing in prison for offences that most reasonable people would think do not deserve prison.
  I remember that the Opposition used to ridicule my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he talked about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. The second part of that phrase seemed to be largely overlooked. If we do not know what the causes of crime are, there is not much chance of being able to do much about it.
  In answer to a question that I put to him, a previous Home Secretary, who is also standing for the Conservative party leadership, informed me that less than 1p per citizen per annum was spent on research into juvenile crime. I sincerely hope that, in power, we can do a bit better than that.
  I am impressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's insistence on speeding things up. I hope that we will see that first in relation to immigration and asylum seekers. At a recent meeting of the Council of Europe I attended, two motions were passed. One was that no one, be they an asylum seeker or an immigrant, should be put out of a country until their appeal had been heard. I trust that Britain will abide by that. The other was that children who were involved in such situations would not be incarcerated, but looked after properly in a family atmosphere. I trust and hope that that will also come to pass.
  We have a poor record, not so much on the policy of immigration as on the way it is carried out. We read of many cases where people suffer injustice. If we are in favour of social justice and fairness—I know we are—we need to abide by those motions. We must show a better face to the world on this issue.
  We must do something about the time it takes to bring juvenile offenders, in particular, to justice. Whether they are guilty or innocent, there is no excuse for these things lingering on for months on end. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has assured us that process will be speeded up. I look forward to that happening.
  What impressed me above all in the Queen's Speech was the undertaking that the House would debate the abolition of handguns. I greatly welcome that. I hope that, eventually, the ban can be extended to all firearms, dangerous air pistols and all other weaponry that is designed to maim or take life. We do not have to face bears, lions or tigers in Britain; there is therefore no need for anyone to have such weapons. Britain will be a much better place to live in when we get rid of all those horrible weapons.
  I greatly welcome the measures on education, which were the central plank of our election-winning campaign. I look forward to the abolition of the assisted places scheme, which meant that the taxpayer underpinned the private education sector. I have stated in the House that I have never objected to anyone wishing to purchase private education for their children—that is up to them—but what I object to is people who do not want to do so being dragged in through the tax system. The measure is a great step forward. Reducing class sizes for five, six and
  444
  seven-year-olds is well worth attaining, and I assume that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be in favour of it.
  Eliminating the nursery voucher scheme will be a great step forward. That has not been mentioned, as far as I am aware, but I know that it will come. Many good local authorities already provide places for four-year-olds, and sometimes three-year-olds, in pre-education classes, and I look forward to the time when that is universal. We can look forward in the next few years to that working its way through and gradually improving education at all levels.
  I also look forward to the introduction of legislation on the funding of political parties, which is long overdue. The present situation is a disgrace and a blight on the parliamentary system. I point that out, particularly to Opposition Members, most of whom have been involved with the sort of thing that led to the setting up of the Nolan committee. It was set up because, basically, in many cases, the behaviour of Conservative Members left much to be desired—not all of them, but very many. I hope that the Nolan committee, which was accepted in the House, will continue to move forward, will be respected and will widen the scope of its activities so that all of us in the House, the vast majority of whom are decent, honest, hard-working people, can again obtain the respect of society in general, which, sadly, we do not have—not to any degree. That will be a welcome step in the right direction.
  Much of the new Government's economic planning is based on reducing unemployment. My constituency has had more than its share of unemployment—and it is still way above the national average. It has a low-wage economy. I look forward to the measures having a distinct effect on my constituency and the north-east in general, which for far too long has had more than its share of that undesirable political effect.
  We have heard a lot about the windfall tax. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make it realistic. I hope that he will obtain enough funds to ensure that we start to make an impression on unemployment. My belief is based on Keynesian economics, which more or less worked for 50 years—until 1979. They will bring about an improvement in society, particularly for younger people, many of whom see no future. Of course, that matter is tied up with crime. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Worthing, East and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) would like to intervene, I am willing to give way to him.
  Mr. Tim Loughton (Worthing, East and Shoreham): I am working up to it.
  Mr. Etherington: Just take your time then.
  I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reopened the initiative on Northern Ireland. I am a little pessimistic in some respects because I believe that only when we get a united Ireland—however long it takes—will we achieve peace in the Province. Nevertheless, I feel good will towards both the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister for their endeavours, just as I felt good will towards the previous Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for their endeavours, although in the end they proved not to be too successful.
  When I was asked what I was most looking forward to when Labour got into power, I said legislation on the minimum wage, which Opposition Members seem to be

  445
  so paranoically opposed to. I am in favour of it because it would bring about a redistribution of wealth. If as a party we say that we are in favour of social justice and fairness, we must start to do something about the huge and ever increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots. If, at the end of five years, we have not had some impact on that issue, we will have failed. I think, however, that we will start to make some meaningful progress.
  Labour Members have already said in this debate that we want to build a better society, and work against self-interest. Since 1979, however, the population has been encouraged to be greedy and selfish, and it will therefore take a long time to establish belief in a different philosophy. We will also receive very little help from Conservative Members in trying to achieve that transformation. Such a philosophy is alien to the beliefs of Conservative Members, who look after vested interests. The Conservative party is currently anything other than a one-nation party.
  I regret that, for two years, the Government will be committed to the previous Government's public expenditure figures. That commitment will lead to some difficulties, but it is a challenge which the Labour party will face. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find ways round the problems.
  I am very pleased that the European convention on human rights will be incorporated into our law, because Britain has reached a stage in its history at which an unwritten constitution is not good enough to function in a modern world or sufficient to meet our population's expectations.
  8 pm
  Mr. Bob Russell: I represent the only golden constituency in the eastern counties. As one East Anglian hon. Member to another, may I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment?
  The convention is that hon. Members pay tribute to their predecessors. I have a problem with that convention, however, because the Colchester constituency is new, and the two hon. Members who served the different parts of the town and the many surrounding villages for the past five years had a good sense of political survival, and moved to nearby constituencies. They both therefore continue to serve as hon. Members. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr. Whittingdale), who was formerly the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon, and to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who was formerly the hon. Member for Colchester, North, for their sterling service to the town and people of Colchester.
  I pay tribute also to the hon. Members who preceded them: Lord Wakeham and Sir Antony Buck—who was, arguably, the last hon. Member to serve the town of Colchester as one entity. Although Sir Antony's more recent past has been somewhat more colourful, I pay tribute to the many years of service—from 1961 to 1992—in which he served Colchester either as a single constituency or as a part constituency.
  There are those who say that, following the 1979 general election, the old Colchester constituency was somehow gerrymandered out of existence. I would not
  446
  comment on that belief, but will say only that, after growth in the Essex population and a need to provide a 17th Member of Parliament, common sense prevailed, and Britain's oldest recorded town was reunited as a single, urban constituency. As a former mayor of the borough of Colchester, I am delighted to be the hon. Member who represents my home town.
  Colchester is one of Britain's most famous garrison towns, and I look forward to representing both citizens in khaki and residents of Colchester. Colchester also has one of Britain's leading zoos, which specialises in endangered species. The former Home Secretary would therefore be a welcome visitor whenever he cares to visit.
  On the edge of Colchester is the university of Essex, which is Britain's most international university. I have had the pleasure of working there for the past 11 years, serving the university not in an academic position but in other ways.
  Last but not least, Colchester has a football league team—which is the only one that has been admitted to the league twice. We have had the penalty of relegation to the Vauxhall Conference, followed by promotion from it. There is, after all, life for Hereford United after events there.
  As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Colchester is Britain's oldest recorded town because, 2,000 years ago, when the Romans invaded, it was the most famous town in southern England. It subsequently became Britain's first Roman capital. Colchester has much history, from Roman times to the Norman conquest and up to the present day. I am pleased to say that, in the civil war, during the siege of Colchester, we sided with Parliament. The siege, which caused much damage, was unfortunately caused by the royalists.
  In the past decade, much damage has been done to the industrial heart of our town, although other developments brought new jobs. The 600 Group, however, disgracefully destroyed the Colchester Lathe Company. It sold the factory site for use as a Tesco supermarket, took the money and left town. The world-famous Colchester lathe is still manufactured, however, albeit in Yorkshire.
  Colchester is famous for having the greenest council in Essex, and one of the greenest in Britain—but one would perhaps expect that from a Liberal Democrat-controlled council.
  The Opposition amendment states that the House congratulates
  "the previous Government on its achievements in tackling crime and protecting the public".
  That statement provides sufficient reason not to support the amendment, because crime doubled under the previous Government.
  As for protecting the public, the former Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will remember that, when Colchester borough council asked for financial assistance from the Government to buy security cameras for our town centre, I wrote him a generous, co-operative and constructive letter. Instead of receiving a simple no from the Government, however, I received an extremely rude, arrogant and dismissive letter. The money was, of course, not forthcoming. We could have accepted a reply citing a simple lack of money.
  Fortunately, Colcestrians do not take an answer of no lying down, and the campaign continued. I am pleased to say that those security cameras have now been installed,

  447
  because eventually we received a small grant, which was only half of what we would have received had the then Government delivered on their statement. We heard many words on law and order from the previous Government, but help was not initially provided for security cameras in our town centre.
  We were, however, blessed with a bootcamp by the previous Government. I sincerely hope that one of the first actions of the new Home Secretary will be to close that blot on the Colchester landscape, which has been established within the military corrective training centre. The Prison Service did not want it and the military authorities did not want it. We were lumbered with it because the then Home Secretary was in the market for gimmicks before a Conservative party conference. Something had to be done, and that was that.
  The bootcamp is a very expensive gimmick, and costs approximately two to three times as much as a normal institutional placement. I should think that the last thing we want is to have our young criminals placed in a military regime, from which they emerge fitter, stronger and with a team spirit that they did not have when they went in. The bootcamp is a big mistake, and I hope that the new Government will soon do away with it.
  Our problem, however, is that new Labour is planning new prisons: new Labour, new prisons, new crime. There is a problem because, for at least the next two years, the Government plan to continue the policies of the defeated Government. I urge the new Government to think very quickly and to find ways and means to reduce the prison population. Prison is an expensive way in which to deal with people, many of whom are there because they have psychiatric problems rather than criminal tendencies.
  We need many more police officers—more bobbies on the beat. I welcome Ministers' statements that they plan to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime because, to build a safer society, we must prevent and detect crime.
  Another matter that needs to be dealt with is the police authority quangos. There are nine local police authority nominees in the county of Essex. As of April next year, Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea will cease to be part of the county of Essex. However, each of those places has been allocated two seats on the police authority. In other words, two districts in Essex will have four seats and the rest of the county of Essex, including Colchester, Harlow, Brentwood, Chelmsford and other major centres, will have to share the remaining five. In simple arithmetical terms, that is not fair. The whole principle of quangos needs to be examined, but, as a first step, let us introduce some fairness.
  Our communities are very important. I have already mentioned Colchester's green credentials, but Colchester is under massive pressure from new development. The structure plan requires the town to build more housing. The country as a whole needs more housing, but my big fear is that as Colchester contains large landholdings owned by the Ministry of Defence and the national health service, the Government will press the town to release land over and above what a town of its size would normally expect. I seek assurances that Colchester borough council and Essex county council will have some say in what land the Government dispose of, because, as far as I can see, new Labour is not changing what the Conservative Government proposed. One way to tackle
  448
  crime is to deal with the environment in which people live. Broadly speaking, Colchester has a green and pleasant environment, but it is under threat and the biggest threat is posed by what the Government plan to do with their landholdings.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: I must first thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. I should also like to acknowledge the wide-ranging speech made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which offered several measures that the electors of South Derbyshire will welcome.
  Even if we set to one side the specific points of her dispute with the former Home Secretary, the speech by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) raised some interesting questions about the accountability of Ministers and the role of truth in the House, which I shall certainly note for myself.
  I have one slightly unusual personal acknowledgment to make, as 1 am not the first member of my family to sit in the House. Many years ago—between 1929 and 1935—my grandfather was a Conservative Member, mostly. I have to say "mostly" because, at that time, politics was even more fluid than it is now and changes of party allegiance were not particularly uncommon. He sat for the constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed, whose current Member of Parliament spoke earlier.
  My grandfather did not speak often in the House, but concentrated mostly on local issues such as farming and fishing and matters relating to ex-service men, of whom he was one. At the end of his time here, he had renounced the Tory Whip having had a dispute with his party. He just about made it as the official Conservative candidate at the 1935 election, but he lost the seat in an unusual example of tactical voting in which the Labour candidate stood aside to ensure that the Liberal candidate would be returned. That gives an insight into my family's political history. It also shows that my grandfather was no party zealot, and I suppose that the Whips will have to take that on board to some extent. He listened carefully to what others had to say. I greatly admired him as an old man, long after he had given up politics, and I missed him greatly when he passed away.
  That experience brought one other point home to me. My own son, who is four and a half, is almost exactly the same age as my father was when his father—my grandfather—was elected as a Member of Parliament. I asked my father about his experience of that time. He regarded it as an unpleasant period of his life. He did not see much of his dad and did not enjoy the experience greatly. It has certainly made me strongly committed to making the House a more family-friendly place. I greatly appreciate and support the huge increase in the number of women in Parliament, but have never regarded changing the House's workings as being solely their concern. It is a matter for fathers, too. I want to ensure that I see my son as much as possible and take as much of a part in his upbringing as I can.
  I turn now to the more conventional aspects of a maiden speech. The previous Member of Parliament for South Derbyshire was Edwina Currie. I say quite freely that I had a very friendly relationship with her, and anyone who stayed up until 5 am to watch the results of the election on television saw me kiss her on the cheek. We got on

  449
  well—rather better, I suspect, than she did with her parliamentary colleagues. Anyone reading her novels will find that the antipathy between her and some fellow Tories comes across more strongly than any antipathy between her and Labour Members. In any event, she predicted extremely accurately the result in her constituency and in the country at large, although I do not think that her contributions were welcomed by her colleagues.
  Edwina Currie was, and probably will continue to be, a fighter for causes which were not fashionable in her party. For that, I admire her considerably. It is not conventional to defend gay rights in the Conservative party, but she took that stance. It is not conventional to be as strongly pro-European as she was, but that was her position. She was brave. I by no means agreed with everything she stood for, but there were some other worthwhile nuggets—opposition to the reintroduction of grammar schools and, latterly, opposition to the existence of the hereditary peerage. I have yet to issue her with a membership form for my party, but there were encouraging signs of a shift in our direction towards the end of her time as the Member for South Derbyshire. She pursued individual constituents' cases with vigour and added a good deal of colour to local life. I shall not seek to imitate her, but she certainly offered something that will be missed in some contexts.
  Another previous Member of Parliament I must mention is George Brown who represented the seat, also with colour, for a considerable time. He is well remembered by many residents and, when confronted with an unpopular policy, is quoted—in a number of studies of the 1960s and 1970s—as saying, "They'll never stand for it in Swadlincote." He saw that as the benchmark of opinion in his constituency, and I shall do the same. It is the key town in the area where many people have straightforward opinions, freely expressed.
  South Derbyshire covers a large area to the south and west of the city of Derby. It also includes 18,000 electors within the boundaries of the city itself, which makes up about a quarter of the electorate. About another quarter is concentrated in the urban area of Swadlincote, which was the heart of the south Derbyshire coalfield and the home of British Coal's largest research centre. The last pit closed in 1988; virtually all the mining jobs have gone, but there is still a little opencast activity. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) referred to the industrial heritage of his area. My constituency, which borders his, shares that heritage.
  The remaining half of the electorate live in the many villages and hamlets across the area, ranging from villages linked to the mining industry, such as Linton, to those such as Melbourne, which is linked to agriculture and has a stately home nearby. There are several notable country houses in the constituency, including Calke abbey and Melbourne hall, as well as one major public school, Repton, and one prison at Foston Hall. The last two can, possibly, be confused.
  Many might consider South Derbyshire to be the centre of the universe. It has one claim in addition to that—it is the precise centre of the United Kingdom population. A hamlet in South Derbyshire marks the point exactly in the middle of the population. That is a small claim to fame,
  450
  but it shows that the constituency is a typical, precisely middle England seat in which people want their opinions listened to.
  We are also the home of the runaway champions of the Doc Martens league—Gresley Rovers. The team would have been promoted to the Vauxhall Conference had it had adequate ground facilities. I shall give the club my full support in any steps that it takes to gain that.
  Agriculture remains a key industry. I well remember attending a packed meeting of Derbyshire farmers with the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) at the time of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis. That remains a key issue. We look forward to a clear, progressive policy from the Government that will allow us to market our produce with confidence.
  The constituency is the home of Toyota. Its car plant at Burnaston offers more than 2,000 local jobs—a figure due to rise soon to 3,000 with the expansion of the plant. Inward investment on that scale can be maintained only with stable economic policies in a single European market.
  Two major power stations still offer jobs in the area, although they have declined with the coal industry and offer far fewer jobs than they did in 1992, when I first stood for the constituency. Much of the area's employment relies on hundreds of small local firms, which offer jobs in a variety of trades and industries. People also commute out of the area for employment in brewing in Burton and engineering in Derby.
  Official unemployment is extremely low, but that figure conceals a huge amount of under-employment of people who have given up their jobs with no hope of future employment. That is particularly true of people made redundant from the mining industry. They are still looking for opportunities, but they no longer appear on our registers. We also have one of the highest concentrations of part-time employment in the country. That is a key issue for the Government. We have the opportunity to introduce a minimum wage, which will be of tremendous benefit to such people. I strongly endorse that policy.
  Our schools have long laboured under the weight of cuts in Government expenditure. As recently as 1989, we had one of the best pupil-teacher ratios in the country; we now have one of the worst, after seven years of cuts. Three quarters of the primary schools in South Derbyshire will benefit from the introduction of a maximum class size of 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds. That is a critical part of the Government's programme.
  Nobody would claim that South Derbyshire suffers disproportionately from crime. The people of the area are some of the friendliest I know. Community really means something in South Derbyshire. Back doors are often left open and people talk freely in the streets. It is not a place of great fear and apprehension. I have listened with interest to hon. Members representing constituents for whom that is not the case. South Derbyshire is not like those areas, but crime has increased steadily there, as everywhere else, more than doubling in the past 20 years.
  Our police service is stretched to the limit. Derbyshire constabulary has to protect about 20 per cent. more citizens per officer than the average English county. That imbalance stretches the force terribly. The area below the Trent valley—the major police division for my constituency—normally has four or five officers and one sergeant available to cover a huge area of urban

  451
  Swadlincote and many small villages. It is not surprising that the people there seldom see a police officer and are becoming ever more concerned about the safety of their community. The method of calculating police resources used by the previous Government entrenched that difference and disadvantage for my constituency. I have already raised the issue with the Home Secretary and shall urge a review of those methods of calculation.
  I unreservedly welcome the proposals to reform the youth justice system and measures against anti-social behaviour. Before he took up his office, the Home Secretary visited an estate in South Derbyshire that, by our peaceful standards, has had problems. His proposals, together with the plans to provide jobs for jobless youngsters, will be strongly welcomed in South Derbyshire.
  We had the opportunity of a visit from the previous Home Secretary during the election campaign, when he sought to make political capital out of the introduction of closed circuit television in the centre of Swadlincote. That fell on stony ground, because the chamber of trade turned up and corrected his misapprehension that the plan was the solution to all its problems. I would have thought that that was one of his more embarrassing visits during the campaign.
  Our new Government have offered a programme to the people of this country and to the residents of South Derbyshire that I know they unreservedly welcome. We must now implement that programme with disciplined intent.
  8.26 pm
  Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight): I am proud to stand here as the newly elected Member for the Isle of Wight. I shall not go through a long historical or geographical description of the island, other than to say that it is the only English constituency that cannot be reached except by ferry. I shall come back to that later.
  I gladly follow convention by praising my predecessor, Barry Field, who was assiduous in the House in extolling the virtues of the Isle of Wight, especially as a tourist attraction, destination and investment opportunity for the new industries that we are trying to attract. He was also an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament, dealing with the casework generated by the largest constituency in the country. I am beginning to learn about that to my cost. While praising Barry Field, I should like to put a rumour to rest: I was not the doctor who advised him to give up his constituency duties on medical grounds.
  I am proud to extol the virtues of the island to the House, but I also have a duty to point out at every opportunity the social and economic disadvantages suffered by the island's economy. It is an irony that a sunny place with a wonderful population of very nice people suffers from having the lowest gross domestic product of any county in the country. It has an unbalanced population, with the highest number of elderly people in any county, the highest number of unemployed people in the south and the greatest dependency on low-paid, insecure and part-time jobs. We cannot survive on a good climate alone. I shall point out as often as I can to the new Government that we are looking for a fairer economic deal.
  The Isle of Wight is the only significantly settled island in Great Britain—or, indeed, in the European Community—not in receipt of any kind of government
  452
  assistance for being an island. There is no island factor in the distribution of funds for health, local authority services or our ferries. If Governments can fund 100 per cent. of motorways and trunk roads and pour millions of pounds of subsidy into the privatised railways, why can they not find money for one of the earlier privatisations—our ferries?
  Returning to the subject of today's debate, the Isle of Wight probably has the highest concentration of prisons in the country. The prisons and the prison officers make a valuable contribution to our community and to our economic life. Much has been said, especially by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), about Parkhurst and the escape, which was entirely predictable. Essential security work asked for by the then governor was not carried out, because funds were not forthcoming from the Home Office. We were not surprised that an escape took place, although we were relieved that the prisoners were recaptured, thanks to the vigilance of an off-duty prison officer and the efforts of the police.
  The local community was annoyed at the way in which the governor was scapegoated to hide the Government's inaction in making the prison safe. The Prison Service's loss has been the island's mental health service's gain and John Marriott now makes a big contribution to the island's community by looking after mental health services. However, he is owed an apology by the Home Office for his shameful treatment.
  Hon. Members may be surprised to hear that, following the escape, millions of pounds were invested in upgrading security at Parkhurst. The previous Home Secretary, on completion of that work, immediately downgraded the security status of the prison, resulting in the loss of hundreds of prison officer jobs. That was crazy. We have one of the best penal institutions in the country, but we are not using it.
  I make another plea to the Government—they must think about what penal institutions are for. The extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) illustrated the anguish of prison officers. Obviously, prisons have to be there to contain people who are irredeemably criminal—there may be some of those—but prisons should also ensure that people leaving prison have a better chance of making a positive contribution to society than when they went in. I hope that the educational work and the mental health services that have been dismantled in our prisons over the past 10 years will be restored. We must get people out of prison and allow them to make a positive contribution to society.
  I have spoken enough about prisons, which—as I have said—make an enormous contribution to the economy of the island. I want to echo earlier comments about co-operation in the House. If there is co-operation, we can solve some of the problems that we all recognise. They can be solved if the will to work together exists among the Government, local authorities and regional governments—when we have them.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: May I welcome you to your new position, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I am very happy to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), who talked about co-operation. In Scotland, we tend not to see the Liberal Democrats as the

  453
  full-frontal Opposition and we have worked with them on the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which is such a big plank in the Government's devolution proposals. I look forward to more co-operation in the House, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's party gains the respect it is due for the number of seats it has won. We may yet see the Liberal Democrats as the loyal Opposition on the Front Bench at Scottish Question Time, although I know that that matter has to be resolved by Madam Speaker.
  I very much welcome the speech by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is a joy to be on this side of the Chamber and looking across at the much-depleted—in fact, totally denuded—Conservative Benches.
  Mr. Michael: The Conservative Benches are empty.
  Mr. Connarty: Empty is the word, as someone might take the word "denuded" the wrong way. The Opposition are certainly lacking in strength tonight.
  Everyone welcomes the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to allow a free vote on a total ban on handguns. That is particularly true of Scots. Everyone recalls that it was not individual Members who failed to deliver a total ban; the three-line Whip by the then Conservative Government produced the majority of 25 that night. That was wrong and, on a free vote, I have no doubt that the total ban will be carried.
  I have previously referred in the House to what I call "my village from hell", which encapsulates the problems that we are trying to tackle with our crime and disorder proposals. 1 wish to refer to community safety. I would like to update the House on the village, which is as bad as ever—if not worse. More than 20 houses are now boarded up. There have been attempts to bring together the community, the police and the local authority to do something, but their efforts break down every time because individual citizens in the village are afraid of the families who are causing the trouble. For example, on one occasion, there were 30 witnesses to an offence, but, by the time the case came to court three or four months later, no one was willing to testify. The system has broken down because something is lacking in the present law. I hope that the Government will look seriously at ways of strengthening the hand of citizens and authorities in dealing with this matter.
  There is no law to make a local authority enforce its tenancy agreements. If tenants are consistently causing complaints, there is a remedy available to the local authority, which can remove these people from their tenancy. That reinforces the fact that they are known to be the cause of the problem. Local authorities say that cases must go through the police and the courts, and that individuals must put their safety on the line before they will enforce tenancy agreements. We must strengthen the hand of local authorities to allow them to take swift action against threatening citizens.
  A second issue of concern among my constituents is crime relating to paedophilia. There seem to be two trains of thought running through Scotland. We have a notorious character in Scotland—who has been lauded and given great publicity—called Mags Haney from Stirling. She goes around with a gang, and they stood outside the court during a recent case involving the molestation of a young person shouting, "Kill the beast." Obviously, they were trying to whip up public anger.
  454
  The other approach comes from a village in my constituency where there was a recent act of molestation against a young person. One of the mothers in the village said that local people were not vigilantes interested in breaking the legs of the person who was found guilty, but added that sentences such as he received had left them with no faith in the system. The man involved had a long history of offences against young people, but was charged in such a way that the maximum sentence was three months. The sheriff almost apologised to the people in the court for the length of the sentence. There must be some way in which a sheriff or a judge can question whether the disposal of the case by the procurator fiscal in Scotland or the prosecuting authority elsewhere is appropriate and can call for a retrial on a much stronger charge. Clearly, the charge in this case was not adequate for the crime committed.
  Incarceration, and longer incarceration, for those found guilty is what the public want, and we should provide that to protect children. I have spoken previously with the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and have said that we have to consider treating people who commit such crimes as ill—not insane, but mentally ill. Therefore, they should be compelled to get treatment to get to the bottom of their behaviour, which results in them abusing the most innocent. People might scream that this a breach of civil liberties, but I would argue that civil liberties for one's self derive from respect for the civil liberties of everyone else—especially the young and the vulnerable who are abused by paedophiles.
  I welcome the mention in the Queen's Speech of the appointment of a drugs supremo—although I always worry when someone is appointed as a tsar or an emperor. We are about to abolish the rights of one unelected organisation, and I do not like the idea of another being appointed. When I worked on a crime and drugs campaign in Scotland, I met every chief constable in Scotland. I was told that, in some areas, between 50 and 70 per cent. of all crimes are drug-related offences. People are either trying to get money for drugs, or older criminals are selling drugs to people who then commit crimes to provide money for drugs.
  May I give a word of warning? In some parts of Scotland, they have been using methadone replacement treatment for heroin users, and we have had several deaths in my constituency among people taking methadone as a substitute for heroin. There is also a strong rumour that methadone is being sold—it used to be methadone jellies, but is now methadone spittle. People have to drink it in the chemists, but they then go outside, spit it into a canister and sell it on. I see the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) grueing, as we say in Scotland—screwing up his face—at that idea. We have to be worried about the use of methadone, because it is clear that people want to get money for other drugs and do not therefore use the methadone as given.
  I know from consideration in the last Parliament of what became the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 that it is intended to put people in prison for longer. It seems to me that we have to think seriously about the role of prisons. I do not know whether it will be in the remit that the Government give themselves—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell us—but we should look at what prisons do. Prisons must protect people, but

  455
  we must also think about the second role, referred to by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, which is rehabilitation of prisoners so that they do not reoffend.
  I want to put two points on the agenda. First, the Government should consider banning alcopops—not only banning advertising of alcopops, but banning them from sale. We banned the Skoal Bandits nicotine chews, even though that had jobs implications in Scotland. It was even supported by the hon. Member who represented the area concerned. We should similarly consider banning alcopops, despite the fact that the industry is clearly doing a roaring trade. Alcopops do lead young people to drink.
  Secondly, I should like to see laws for the banning of drinking in the streets which do not leave the matter to local authorities and licensing boards. We have laws that talk about taking drink away from under-age drinkers, but I plead with the Government to think seriously about banning entirely drinking in the streets anywhere apart from designated licensed areas. That would go a long way towards dealing with some of the problems in our society.
  My final plea is to do something about white collar crime, which is not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. I made a plea several years ago when a building company went down, taking with it £200,000-worth of supplies that had been supplied by a company in my local area, and we could do nothing about it. I have recently had reported to me a case in my constituency of a building company that has three businesses: one buys the supplies, another owns the lands and the third sells the houses. I have had it reported to me by one of the companies that supplied it, Canon Building Supplies, that it suspects that the first company-the one that buys the supplies-will go into receivership in the next week or so. Everyone who has supplied that company with the materials to build the houses that are there will be left with no redress, because the company has no assets. That is not a business failure: it is fraud.
  I plead with the Government to think seriously about doing something to prevent limited companies from being set up with the explicit purpose of taking materials and supplies and then going into liquidation. Again and again this happens. It is a question not simply of bringing in laws to ensure that people receive interest on debt, but of ensuring that debts are paid. There is a solution: we could put a lien on the building that has been built, on behalf of those who supplied the materials. If the builder goes into receivership, the suppliers will get their money back through the sale of the property.
  The banks do not seem to be interested—they are interested only in securing their own loans. It is time that the Government spoke up for the small businesses that have been ripped off for the past 10 or 15 years while the Conservative Government sat back and laughed. They even had a President of the Board of Trade who admitted that he postponed paying debt as long as possible and hoped that the companies would go into liquidation. It is up to the Labour Government to show the way on white collar crime as well as on disorder. I commend the Queen's Speech to the House.
  8.43 pm
  Ms Hazel Blears: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. I really do believe that this is a turning point in politics—a time when millions of people can begin once again to trust those who govern and to have hope for the future.
  456
  I am proud and honoured to have been elected as the first woman Member of Parliament for Salford and to be a Salfordian, born and bred in our city. Salford is very much a city of firsts and it may surprise some hon. Members to hear of the vast range of achievements of Salford and her people. We have always been at the forefront of innovation and enterprise. In 1806, Chapel street, at the heart of our city, was the first street in the country to have gas lighting. In 1824, Salford corporation introduced the first horse-drawn omnibus service from Pendleton to Manchester. Those hon. Members who are aware of the historic, but friendly, rivalry between our two great cities will appreciate the significance of the direction of that journey.
  Salford has always valued learning and knowledge and in 1850, at Peel Park, the first unconditional free library was opened to the public. We have always been green—even when it was not fashionable. In the 1920s, Salford police were the first to wear white uniforms, so that they could be seen through the smog. Perhaps in response to that, the council promoted the first Clean Air Act, in 1956; and, in 1972, Salford was the first modern city to be declared completely smoke free—no longer the dirty old town.
  Salford has a proud history and a proud record of parliamentary representation—hardly surprising for a city at the forefront of both the Chartist and Suffragette movements. I pay tribute to two of the city's most recent representatives—Stan Orme and Frank Allaun.
  Stan was a skilled engineer, a lifelong member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, a keen and effective shop steward and a fighter for working people. He was elected Member of Parliament for Salford, West in 1964 and rose rapidly to become Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office in 1974 and Minister for Social Security in October 1976. He was always concerned to represent the people of Salford, especially those who were unemployed and those suffering hardship. Stan also played a major role in the Labour party and was a wise and respected chair of the parliamentary Labour party from 1987 to 1992. For 20 years, Stan was on the Labour Front Benches and made a tremendous contribution to the political life of this country. I wish both Stan and his wife Irene good health and happiness in all their future activities.
  I also have the honour of succeeding Frank Allaun, who represented part of my seat, Salford, East, from 1955 to 1983. Many hon. Members will recall Frank's irrepressible spirit, which inspired so many of us. His fight for the reduction of arms expenditure, for full employment, for decent housing and rights for working people will long be remembered. Frank was, and still is, an active campaigner and I know that he will take a keen interest in the work of this Government. Again, I wish him and his wife Milly joy in everything they do.
  Stan Orme was a great friend and colleague of Edmund Frow, who, together with his wife Ruth, worked tirelessly over the past 50 years to establish the largest collection of books, journals, pamphlets and other material charting the history of the struggles of working-class people. I am delighted to be a trustee of that library, which is now firmly established in Salford, but sad to report the death of Edmund Frow last week. I know that his spirit will live on in the work of his library.
  Salford people have known some very hard times indeed, but the qualities of Salford men and women shine through the adversity of their everyday lives. They were

  457
  and still are people with courage, determination, wit and compassion, and they have an unrivalled ability to see through falseness and to expose insincerity. Salford people, even in the hardest of times, possess an indomitable spirit and strength that cannot be crushed. In recent years, however, that strength and resilience have been sorely tested. The Conservative Government's boom and bust economics destroyed thousands of our manufacturing jobs, leaving many skilled people without work and consigning a whole generation of youngsters to a future with no hope of a job and no sense of self-esteem. It is in those conditions that crime breeds, and Salford people have lived with the fear and the reality of crime for far too long.
  I welcome the proposals in the Queen's Speech for a radical overhaul of the youth justice system. The current revolving door of arrest, bail, cautions, further arrests and further cautions does nothing to stem the tide of offending or to provide justice for the victims of crime. I welcome the proposal to introduce reparation orders, whereby offenders must face up to the consequences of their crimes. I welcome, too, the involvement of parents, who must take responsibility for the actions of their children.
  In Salford, we have taken many initiatives to try to identify young people who are at risk of becoming involved in crime, and to show them that there are positive things that they can do: that they do not need to steal cars or deal drugs to have some status. Fairbridge, a charity based in Pendleton, is doing a marvellous job working with young people who are at risk and some who have committed crimes. Its programme of activities combined with intensive personal support has been proved to cut re-offending by half, and it is helping two thirds of the young people back into work or education and training.
  A young man in Salford, on whom many agencies had given up, went through the Fairbridge programme and wrote to thank the charity:
  "You have given me the chance to do things that I never thought possible, to become part of a team, to see that if I want to do something there is nothing to stop me from trying."
  We need to change others' attitudes in such a way.
  We must have a twin-track approach—swift and effective punishments and long-term investment to give our young people jobs and hope. That is the real way to make our cities safer places to live.
  Salford has more than a proud history: there are exciting times ahead. By bringing together our enterprise and our love of beauty, art and culture, we are forging a new city, which is an exciting and vibrant place to live.
  On 19 June, building work begins on the Lowry centre—a national landmark millennium project, which will be a centre of excellence for the performing arts and will provide thousands of jobs for local people in its construction and operation.
  We shall soon witness the extension of Metrolink—the light rapid transit system through the city.
  The university of Salford has just launched its business and ecology centre, designed to help industry stay ahead of environmental regulation and increase its ability to compete with the best in Europe. In Salford, we shall also have the national centre for virtual reality—the ultimate in new technology.
  458
  We in Salford are famous for having our feet on the ground, but we also know how to dream. Our dream is of a city with a self-confident and vibrant community, freed from the fear of crime, giving our young people the chance to work and to have pride in themselves and their achievements.
  I believe that it will be this Labour Government who will liberate the skills and talents of Salford people and I look forward to playing a part in the exciting work that lies ahead.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With permission, I should like to make a brief statement.
  The House will recall that, earlier this afternoon, both the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) called for the publication of an official document, namely, notes of meetings held on 10 January 1995. The request was made to me, as property in such documents rests in the Crown for the time being.
  Having taken advice, I have decided to authorise publication; I shall describe how that will be done in a moment. Before doing so, however, I want to make it clear that at no stage in reaching my decision have I read the documents in question. Given that they relate to the work of Ministers in a previous Administration, it would have been totally inappropriate and contrary to the conventions for me to be able to read them before they were made public.
  The document for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Lady sought publication were the transcribed notes of meetings held on 9 and 10 January 1995. The official record of the meetings on 10 January was made by the Private Secretary—a note dated 17 January—and was published by my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, on 19 October 1995. That record was drawn up by the Private Secretary, using notes made at the time of the meetings. The request made to me today is for publication of a transcription of the Private Secretary's handwritten notes.
  In fact, I am now publishing two documents. The first is an exact transcript, prepared today, of the Private Secretary's contemporaneous manuscript notes of meetings on 9 and 10 January 1995, on which the official note of 17 January 1995 was based. The second document is a fuller version of those same notes, prepared in October 1995 for the then Home Secretary, which fleshes out the manuscript notes. The House will note that this transcription contains a number of typing errors and other mistakes. I am, nevertheless, publishing it as my predecessor saw it. Both documents are now being made available in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote Office.
  Miss Widdecombe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing with such speed to the requests that were made earlier. I hope that the documents now published will shed light, not only on matters that I raised today, but on that other issue which was of such concern to the House in October, and before that in January—exactly who insisted on the insertion of the word "Today"?
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Martin Linton: I am grateful for the chance to make my maiden speech today—just in time, by the sound of it.
  I regard it as a great honour to represent Battersea in the House. The constituency has many claims to fame. In 1892, it was one of the first constituencies to elect a Labour Member of Parliament, although he was not a member of the Labour party, which had not been created, but of a home-grown organisation, the Battersea Labour League. In 1922, Battersea became the first constituency to elect an Asian Labour Member of Parliament, Shapurji Saklatvala. In more recent years, it has been represented by Douglas Jay, who was its Member of Parliament for 37 years and was followed by Lord Dubs, whom I am sure many Members would wish to congratulate on his recent appointment.
  In the past two Parliaments, Battersea was represented by John Bowis, whom I knew long before he was a Member of Parliament, when we worked on opposite sides of Smith square and sometimes had a drink in the Marquess of Granby. Although we are from different parties, I am glad to say that there were never any personal differences between us and I am glad to pay my respects to him and to the work that he did for his constituents during his 10 years as their Member of Parliament.
  Sadly, I cannot claim to have the same respect for some of Mr. Bowis's colleagues in Wandsworth borough council, who did their best to gerrymander Battersea into Conservative hands, as a few of them had the honesty to admit, by selling entire estates to private developers and, more insidiously, by selling vacant flats on the open market instead of renting them to people who they knew to be in acute housing need—unlawfully, as the district auditor has since found.
  It is traditional to say a few words about the constituency that one represents. Battersea, and Balham and central Wandsworth, which are also in the constituency, have been changing rapidly. Traditionally, they made up a tight-knit community where one could often find three generations of the same family in neighbouring streets, but, as a result of Wandsworth's housing policies, many sons and daughters have been unable to find anywhere to rent in the area and have had to move out. Families have been dispersed and communities broken up by the policies of a party that called itself the party of the family. Strangely, although the council has been found to have been acting unlawfully and although the motive was obviously political, no action has been taken.
  In the few minutes that remain, I shall talk about what the Conservatives have done, not only in Wandsworth, but nationally, which has been far worse. In that regard, I welcome the commitment in the Gracious Speech to restore confidence in the integrity of the political system. Before the general election, the Prime Minister warned his predecessor that he risked leaving a stain on his reputation by his failure to act decisively on the cash for questions affair.
  The money involved in cash for questions was only ever counted in thousands. What will stand to the discredit of the outgoing Government for far longer was their failure to stop the corruption of our political system through the growth of large secret donations to the Tory party, often from overseas. That is why we should all
  460
  welcome the commitment in the Gracious Speech to regulate and reform the funding of political parties. The unpalatable truth is that the past two Tory election campaigns were financed to an alarming extent either by British business men who believed they were buying honours or by overseas business men who believed they were buying favours.
  When the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, he said that no honours could have been sold because that would have been illegal under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. Such blind faith is not apparently shared by Scotland Yard, which recently investigated the alleged case of cash for knighthoods involving the former Conservative candidate, Derek Laud.
  Scotland Yard could also look at the case of Sir Graham Kirkham, who received his knighthood soon after making a donation of £4 million to the Conservative party. It could also investigate the entire honours system over the past 18 years; it will be found that more than 50 per cent. of the honours given for services to industry or to exports went to the 5 per cent. of firms that make donations to the Conservative party.
  Indeed, if Scotland Yard could investigate undeclared private donations as well, I am sure that it would find an even closer correlation between donors and honours. The Conservative party could certainly assist by opening its books for inspection. That, I am sure, would reveal that the systematic sale of honours has always been a significant source of Conservative party funds. Indeed, the system might have continued indefinitely—
  Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman allowed to make such a controversial maiden speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is the custom of the House not to interrupt a maiden speaker. I have discretion over the matter, and I see no difficulty here.
  Mr. Linton: I am not trying to be controversial; I see that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has now come out in favour of a ban on overseas donations—so I am making a cross-party point, although the right hon. Gentleman's conversion is somewhat Pauline, given that his party fought two elections with tainted money. To make the point, I need only mention Asil Nadir, Octav Botnar, Nazmuddin Virani of BCCI, John Latsis, Mohammed Al-Fayed and Slobodan Milosevic—and I could go on.
  The Conservative party has always maintained that the money is given with no strings attached and for purely idealistic motives. Common sense should tell Conservative Members that if they raise money from business men, especially overseas business men who have no hope of honours, there must be the expectation of a favour. All their troubles can be traced back to this basic failure to understand human nature: the Hamilton affair and the Aitken case both sprang from a single disillusioned donor. The best thing the Conservatives can do now is make a clean breast of it and open their books to public inspection.
  There is a cancer in our political system: it is called undisclosed income. If Conservative Members want to help to clean up sleaze, I suggest that they take action

  461
  quickly to ban overseas donations and to declare all donations over £5,000, as our party has done—before they are forced to do so by law. Every other European country has introduced at least these two restrictions in the past 20 years. It is to the eternal discredit of the outgoing Government that they held out so long against sanity.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe): I begin by congratulating the Government on their election victory and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), on his appointment. The right hon. Gentleman and I have had many jousts across the Dispatch Box over the past three years. I wish him well in his office.
  I also join in the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to Sir Michael Shersby. He was a true friend to me; like the Home Secretary, I benefited considerably from his experience and detailed knowledge of the police and our criminal justice system.
  I congratulate all who have made their maiden speeches in the debate. I was able to hear only the last two of them, both of them good in their own way. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears); I thought her speech was a model of what a maiden speech should be. I am sure that we shall hear a great deal from her and from the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)—and from all who made maiden speeches today.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has made a number of allegations about my conduct as Home Secretary. The most serious was that I misled the House. Let me state categorically that I did not. I shall deal with each of her allegations in turn.
  At the heart of our disagreement is the decision that I took to dismiss Derek Lewis as director general of the Prison Service. My right hon. Friend disagreed with it. She is entitled to her opinion, but I believe that she is wrong. In September 1994, six prisoners, five of them IRA terrorists, broke out of Whitemoor prison. Just four months later, after I had been given repeated assurances about improvements in security by the then director general, three dangerous prisoners escaped from Parkhurst.
  The independent report into prison security, which I commissioned, severely criticised the management and leadership of the Prison Service. It concluded that "it is surprising that neither he"—
  the director general—
  "nor his board recognised the signs and symptoms of failure and inefficiency that were so obvious and so dramatically illustrated by the escapes from Parkhurst and Whitemoor".
  The report made no such criticism of me. As I told the House at the time, if it had, I would have resigned.
  I believed then, as I believe now, that the conclusion of that report made Mr. Lewis's position untenable. My right hon. Friend has questioned the adequacy of that report. I reject that criticism. The report's author, General Sir John Learmont, is a distinguished and respected soldier, and former quartermaster general of the Army. One of his fellow assessors was an experienced prison governor and
  462
  regional director of Her Majesty's Prison Service. They reached their conclusion after taking evidence from Derek Lewis, and after taking account of his response to their criticisms.
  It is true that the picture of the Prison Service presented in that report was different from that presented to me by Mr. Lewis. It is true that I had to choose between them. I did. I believed then, and I believe now, that it was my public duty to take that decision. On that matter, I had to overrule my right hon. Friend. That is at the heart of her grievance and her disagreement.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What was the attitude of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's permanent secretary at that point?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not at liberty to disclose the advice given to me by senior officials, and I shall respect that convention. If the permanent secretary wishes to respond to the hon. Gentleman's question, it is for him to do so. As the hon. Gentleman, with his long experience, knows full well, it is not for me to disclose to the House the advice that I received from the permanent secretary on that matter.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald made a series of other allegations. Many of them relate to a meeting that took place on 10 January 1995. The House should note that my right hon. Friend was not present at that meeting, as it took place some six months before she became a Minister at the Home Office.
  Let me tell the House about the circumstances in which that meeting took place. It occurred on the day on which I had to make an important statement to the House about a series of failings in the Prison Service. On 1 January, Fred West hanged himself at Birmingham prison; on 2 January, there were riots at Everthorpe prison; and on 3 January, three dangerous prisoners escaped from Parkhurst.
  Questions were rightly being asked about the future of John Marriott, then governor of Parkhurst. There had been serious shortcomings in the security arrangements at his prison. Indeed, the position at Parkhurst was later described by Derek Lewis as a shambles, yet I had been given specific assurances by Mr. Lewis about the security improvements which he said had been made there.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald spoke at length about the successes of the Prison Service under Mr. Lewis. There were also some spectacular failures. Little wonder that I wanted some answers.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): When the former Home Secretary came before the Home Affairs Select Committee in January 1995 to answer questions from me about geophones at Parkhurst, he said that the money was there and available. I understand that he subsequently learned that the money was not there and was not available. Why did he not either write to me or inform the Home Affairs Select Committee that he had made a mistake? Why was it buried? Was it simply because he did not want to come clean?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I shall deal with that allegation in detail in a moment or two. The

  463
  money that was due to be spent on geophones was indeed switched to another budget and then replaced, and the money intended to be spent on geophones was spent on geophones in the very year in which it had always been intended to spend it on geophones. That is the short answer to the inaccurate question put to me by the hon. Gentleman.
  The decision taken so far as Mr. Marriott was concerned was to move him from his job as governor to other duties, pending the outcome of the disciplinary investigation, rather than to suspend him. As Mr. Lewis has explained on many occasions, that was entirely a decision taken by him and other members of the line management team. That was what he told the Home Affairs Committee of the House. I do not believe that he misled the House.
  I was, of course, entitled to be consulted about that decision, and I was. I was entitled to express a view, and I did. I have never made any secret of the fact that the view that I expressed at the time was that the decision to move him was a fudge. That view was recorded in the minutes of the meeting, which I placed in the Library at the time of our debate in October 1995.
  What I was not entitled to do was to tell Mr. Lewis that he should suspend Mr. Marriott, and I did not tell Mr. Lewis that he should suspend him. The decision was one for Mr. Lewis, and, indeed, he decided not to suspend the governor. At no time did I cross the line between what I was entitled to do and what I was not, and at no time did I threaten to overrule Mr. Lewis.
  My right hon. Friend quoted an answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). This was the question:
  "Mr. Lewis says that he was given a deadline by the right hon. and learned Gentleman by which to agree to the removal of Mr. Marriott, after which he would be overruled. Is that true?"
  This was my reply:
  "There was no question of overruling the director general. He made the decisions that were made on that day."—[Official Report, 19 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 520.]
  I stand by that reply. Indeed, a similar question was directed by the same hon. Gentleman to Mr. Lewis when he appeared before the Select Committee. Mr. Lewis was asked:
  "Did the Home Secretary tell you to make sure Mr. Marriott was off the premises by the afternoon?",
  and replied,
  "No he did not."
  My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred to geophones. The truth is simple. I was asked at the Home Affairs Committee whether money had been transferred out of the geophone budget. I replied:
  "No, not to my knowledge."
  That was an accurate answer, to the best of my knowledge at the time.
  Six months later, officials told me that money had been transferred out of the geophones budget, but that equivalent sums, as I have just described to the hon. Gentleman, had been transferred back into it, so the sum earmarked for geophones was spent on geophones in the year in which it was intended that the money should be spent. In the words of Mr. Lewis,
  "the decision was of no practical significance."
  464
  That was why I decided that it was not necessary to write to the Select Committee.
  My right hon. Friend's final allegation is that a piece of Conservative Central Office briefing sent to hon. Members was in substance inaccurate. It is, of course, a deeply shocking allegation that Central Office briefing should ever be inaccurate. In fact, my right hon. Friend concedes that the briefing was technically accurate. That may make the more cynical Members think that it was one of the better documents provided to the House by party headquarters. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Dr. Mawhinney), the chairman of the party, will forgive me.
  I have always acknowledged that Mr. Lewis was not allowed to serve the remaining term of his contract. That relates to the point made by my right hon. Friend in relation to what was said about the matter of compensation. However, the fact that he was not allowed to serve the remaining term of his contract does not mean that his dismissal was either unjust or unnecessary. I do not believe that it was either.
  I have dealt with all my right hon. Friend's allegations. I do not believe that they have any substance. Every decision that I have taken in my career in government was taken because I thought that it was in the public interest.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. As ever, his replies do not address the precise questions that I raised. I am interested in his response that there was no question of overruling the director general. In the transcripts that the Home Secretary has now made public, my right hon. and learned Friend said:
  "It will be seen publicly as a"
  fudge.
  "I don't want to intervene formally."
  My right hon. and learned Friend is now telling us that he always knew that he could not intervene. The fact is that he did contemplate intervening formally, and that is why he said so.
  Mr. Howard: The fact is that I did not intervene, and that I did not cross the line between what I was and was not entitled to do. As the former director general has said on numerous occasions to the Home Affairs Select Committee and in many other interviews that he has given, the decision taken on that day was his decision.
  I say this to my right hon. Friend: she is perfectly entitled to disagree with my judgment, but there is no basis for her attack on my integrity. I came to this House determined to uphold the highest standards of public life, but I was also determined to get things done. I believe that I have done both, not least in my time in the Home Office.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Can the former Home Secretary tell us when an instruction is not an instruction? At the meeting of 10 October, he said:
  "John Marriott cannot continue as governor … I can't conceive of a clearer case for suspension."
  Was that advice or was it an instruction?
  Mr. Howard: I have told the House and the hon. Gentleman that I was entitled to be consulted, and I was.

  465
  I was entitled to express an opinion, and I did. However, I was not entitled to tell the former director general what to do, and I did not. He did what he had always intended to do: he did not suspend the former director general; he decided to move him. It was his decision, as he has explained to the House and to the nation on numerous occasions.
  I turn now to the main subject of this debate. When the Prime Minister was in opposition, he set me a challenge. At the beginning of my term of office as Home Secretary, he asked me to accept one criterion to measure the success of my policies: falling crime. Had the Prime Minister known what would happen over the next four years, I doubt whether he would have set me that challenge. In the next four years, recorded crime in England fell by 10 per cent.—that is more than half a million fewer crimes; the biggest fall in crime since records were first collected in 1857.
  The police deserve much of the credit for that success. They have revolutionised the way in which they fight crime, targeting persistent and known offenders, using the latest technology, and taking the fight to the criminal. The Conservatives are proud of the part that we played in helping to make it happen. We challenged the liberal consensus that criminals should not be held responsible for their actions. We evened up the scales of justice by putting the needs of the victim before the interests of the criminal, and we put the protection of the public at the top of our agenda.
  In all this, we received little help from the Labour party. It opposed our reforms to the right to silence, it opposed giving the Attorney-General the right of appeal against lenient sentences, and it opposed stiffer sentences for the most serious offences, such as taking a gun to a crime. All those reforms have now been accepted by the Government—they have been adopted as if they were their own.
  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but we shall soon know whether Labour's change of heart is genuine or whether it is a cheap fake. We have yet to see the details of the Government's crime and disorder legislation, but I support the broad objectives set out by the right hon. Member for Blackburn this afternoon. We want juvenile criminals to be quickly and properly punished. We want irresponsible parents to be held to account for their children's behaviour. We want action to tackle drugs.
  Unlike the Labour party, we always have wanted these things. We legislated for secure training centres for persistent juvenile offenders; Labour voted against them. We gave courts the powers to make parents attend court with their children; Labour voted against them. We proposed mandatory minimum sentences for persistent burglars and dealers in hard drugs; Labour voted to wreck those measures. They will not be in the Government's Bill. I pledge today that we shall do everything we can to reinstate them.
  In January, the right hon. Member for Blackburn promised that he would repeal the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. He went so far as to boast that this would be a monument to his time as Home Secretary. He had previously denounced that Act as racist. Yet there is no mention of any such repealing legislation in the
  466
  Gracious Speech. One assumes that the Home Secretary used the word "racist" deliberately. It is not, after all, language to be used lightly. What can we infer from his reluctance now to repeal that legislation? Is it simply an oversight? Is the legislation no longer racist, perhaps? Or is this just another example of the Home Secretary's moral indignation evaporating into hot air?
  One of the few consolations of Opposition—there are not many—is watching Ministers eat their words. It has not taken them very long. Not long ago, the present Home Secretary used to wax indignant about privately managed prisons. Despite the fact that Her Majesty's chief inspector was unstinting in his praise, for example, of privately run Doncaster, the Home Secretary discounts such prisons as morally repugnant. Those are strong words, but are now apparently to become a staple part of the Home Secretary's diet. Last week, he announced that he would, after all, sign any contracts that were in the pipeline for privately run prisons.
  I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's conversion. Those on the Benches behind him do not look too happy about it, but I welcome it, as I welcome his conversion on so many other things: the right to silence, DNA testing, extra stop and search powers for the police. In fact, in area after area, he has modelled his policies on mine.
  It has been suggested that I have something of the night about my character. It is, of course, well known in folklore that creatures of the night have no reflection, so hon. Members will understand my relief as I look across the Dispatch Box and see my reflection smiling back at me.
  The Gracious Speech contains a commitment to a firearms amendment Bill. I believe that the Government's decision to ban all pistols is wrong. We passed legislation to ban all handguns from the home and to outlaw high-calibre handguns altogether, but we believe that to go further represents an unacceptable and unnecessary infringement of law-abiding people's liberties. The proposed legislation will do nothing to reduce handgun-related crime. It will force our remaining pistol shooters to give up their sport, and will debar Britain from Olympic pistol shooting for the first time since 1896.
  We will oppose that vindictive measure. It does, of course, completely contradict assurances given last year by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who was in his place until just a few minutes ago. He told one of his constituents that there had, unfortunately, been some misrepresentation of Labour's position on the ownership of handguns. He wrote:
  "We support a ban on the holding of handguns in residential property. People such as yourself will still be able to own handguns. but they must be kept safely under lock and key at properly run centres".
  Since then, the policy has changed. To judge from the Government's early days, it is the right hon. Gentleman's outspoken colleagues—if there are any—who are now to be kept safely under lock and key at properly run centres. Incidentally, I can promise the hon. Member for Hartlepool that I have no intention of challenging him for the title of prince of darkness.
  At the centre of the Government's legislative programme is a Bill to incorporate the European convention on human rights into British law. We support the convention, to which Britain was one of the first signatories. The convention helped anchor democracy

  467
  across Europe, but we are not persuaded that incorporating the convention into British law is either necessary or desirable.
  Incorporation would mean that judges might find themselves having to make what are essentially political decisions. In any event, human rights in Britain are not under threat, even after the election of a Labour Government, but the sovereignty of Parliament is under threat, and incorporation of the convention would be a further blow to that sovereignty. As the Lord Chancellor has on a previous occasion admitted:
  "Incorporation will involve a very significant transfer of power to the judges."
  Indeed, the first few weeks of the Government's tenure have been characterised by the parcelling out of Parliament's powers to unelected bankers, unelected Brussels bureaucrats and now unelected judges. That diminishes the sovereignty of Parliament and the sovereignty of those who sent us to Parliament, and it is their power which is being whittled away.
  Throughout the previous Parliament, we heard a great deal from the Labour party, and especially from the present Prime Minister and Home Secretary, about standards in public life. They never tired of telling us that it was vital that only the highest standards would suffice. They made it known that, if any allegation was made against a Labour Member, his feet would not touch the ground before he was removed. They were particularly dismissive of our contention that a man was innocent until proven guilty.
  Yesterday, a Labour Member was accused of committing a criminal offence. What was the reaction of the Government Front Bench? First, there was a television interview with the Home Secretary at his most solemn and sanctimonious. Then the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) was invited to Downing street for a cosy chat. Now we read in this morning's Times that the Labour leadership issued a clear warning that it would consider the hon. Gentleman's suspension from the party if criminal charges are brought against him. "Consider"—goodness me, what decisive judgment.
  The truth is that, while the Labour Government pretend to be able to govern the country, they cannot even govern the Labour party. It seems that they cannot even govern Govan.
  Let us be clear about the challenge that faces this Parliament. We have a Government who have made many promises, and our task in opposition is to hold them to those promises. We shall support them when they act in the national interest, and we shall oppose them when they do not.
  But let us never forget that this is a Government who won power by scaring pensioners into believing that their pensions would be taken from them. This is a Government who won power by terrifying the sick that their national health service would be dismantled. This is a Government who won power by suppressing every belief that brought their members into politics in the first place. That is why it is not only our duty to provide opposition but our privilege to do so. We shall provide opposition with vigour, resolve and relish.
  9.29 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): What a contrast there was between the sad effort of the former Home Secretary to look like a
  468
  leadership contender and many of the contributions made to this serious debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on his opening speech, because he was gracious in defeat. I cannot imagine a more exciting challenge than my present role as deputy to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, nor a finer team to work with. I look forward to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border offering constructive amendments to our positive legislation and such help as I have given him in recent years.
  Conservative Members should revisit the mantra that crime has fallen dramatically in recent years. Has the shadow shadow Home Secretary not noticed that violent crime increased by 11 per cent. last year alone? There may have been dramatic falls in some offences, such as bicycle theft, but it is patronising for the shadow shadow Home Secretary to tell the elderly that they do not need to worry about crime, because they know the reality behind the fear and the statistics of crime. Even if the risk of attack, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, is greater for a young man than it is for a pensioner, the risk is too high for both. That provides a political imperative for this Government. During the debate, my hon. Friends, old and new, and from every part of the country, underlined our priority to tackle crime.
  There are so many hon. Members to congratulate. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) told us of the beautiful conservation areas in his constituency. He implied that they contain endangered species: I thought that he was talking about animals, but perhaps he was referring to the rarity of a large Conservative majority. He offered a bizarre recipe for success when he encouraged hon. Members to concentrate on winning the support of convicted murderers as a way of tackling crime.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) gave a short and powerful speech dedicated to his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) also referred to his home area. He, like me, is a Labour and Co-operative Member of the House, and I welcome him to it. They were two of many speeches that looked beyond party loyalties to civic and local pride and a sense of community. That is the essence of what is best in the House of Commons, and the essence of the message that we must get across if we are to tackle the problems of crime and disorder.
  I endorse the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) to Roland Boyes, who was a former Member. He was a fine representative of his constituency and a good friend to many hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) paid tribute to John Bowis, who has left the House. He was rare among Conservative Members in that he took an interest in the plight of the Somalis before the hidden war in the north of Somalia became a matter for press and media comment. I also pay tribute to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea showed his ability to bite back when he was harassed by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) in a controversial intervention.
  I join my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary in paying tribute to Sir Michael Shersby, whose death shocked and saddened us all. With Sir Michael, I and a few others took the first steps to establishing an all-party group on the police. The role of

  469
  the police is central not only to catching criminals, but to the larger objective of keeping the peace and creating a decent society. We need a balanced dialogue with the police. I recall that such an approach was encouraged by the late John Smith and by the then shadow Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, when we formed that group. Such dialogue led to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), serving as a consultant to the Police Federation. That role was previously played by my predecessor, Lord Callaghan. I am delighted to have my hon. Friend as a colleague in the Home Office now.
  This is an example of the way in which new Labour has rediscovered the art of listening. We have listened not only to the federated ranks, but to chief constables and superintendents. I suggest to Opposition Members that they will have to rediscover the art of listening, for in the past few years they have not listened to the police, they have not listened to the public and they have not listened to the anger that there is out there about the way in which crime has impacted on communities. It is dialogue of that sort that has led us to our determination to build a partnership with the police and others to tackle crime.
  I was pleased to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who explained that he would have to leave before the winding-up speeches. He expressed a wish to work with the Government on matters of common interest, referring particularly to the need to tackle drugs and the scourge of drug-related crime. We shall welcome his and his party's input on issues such as drugs policy, and I assure him and all parties that we shall always be prepared to listen with respect to the contribution of other hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of bullying in schools and the workplace—which needs to be tackled—and issues relating to the marches in Northern Ireland, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) did sterling work in Committee on legislation earlier this year. Now that Stirling is a Labour seat, we are allowed to say that. I agree with him about the importance of a ban on handguns. Like every Member of Parliament, he illustrated the importance of so many of our proposals. We all have a street here or a village there in which the atmosphere of the community has broken down into disorder. That is why the policies that we are adopting—the proposals for community safety orders; the proposals to nip things in the bud with young offenders—are so important.
  We heard a maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), one of eight new Kent Members. Over the years, he has been a distinguished voice, working for equality outside Parliament. He described graphically the concern of his constituents, especially the elderly, about youth crime and disorder. Indeed, I think that he showed the appropriate balance of care and determination to tackle those problems. He has a distinguished record on low pay and poverty, but he also recognises that crime hits the poor even more than the rich, and that the two are not alternatives: both are problems in society that need to be tackled.
  470
  The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)—a number of Kent Members seem to have taken part in tonight's debate—referred to the return to the Home Office of responsibility for the voluntary sector. I thank him for his kind words. I found his speech entertaining, but slightly barmy. Let me make it clear that it is not for us to tell the voluntary sector what to do; our task is to nurture that sector and work with it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, far from being inclined to be a dead hand, the Home Office welcomes back responsibilities for the voluntary sector with enthusiasm—an enthusiasm which is felt by those working in the Home Office, as well as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and me.
  I must tell the hon. Gentleman—who is clearly developing a massive pessimism—that the reason for that is that the Home Office should not be the Department for doing nasty things to people. It should complement the work of fighting and preventing crime—and doing nasty things to those who need to have nasty things done to them—with the work of rebuilding our damaged communities, and encouraging citizenship through volunteering and voluntary action.
  In his engaging way, the hon. Gentleman painted a picture of post-election Britain that I do not recognise. He seems to be suffering from some classic symptoms of depression, but I ask him to look at the faces of people in the streets since Labour won the election. What we see in their faces is a sense of relief and liberation. Far from being a dead hand of puritanism, Labour is a promise to a population who feel released by hope. People are already smiling more under a Labour Government.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith rose—
  Mr. Michael: It is a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. He spoke about hope; his party was supposedly elected on the basis of great hope. One of the Government's targets is to reduce the number of people who are incarcerated. If he has not reduced that number in a year, will he resign?
  Mr. Michael: Our aim is to attack crime and its causes so that there are fewer offenders and fewer victims. That is the target. Locking people up when that is necessary is a punishment and protects the public. It is an instrument to give the community the security that people have lacked during 18 years of Conservative rule. I was speaking about the positive side of rebuilding the community, but it seems that the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear about that.
  The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent said, pessimistically, that he could see no way in which we could bring unemployed people back into work. He seemed hopeless on that front, but success was being achieved in the late 1970s and into the early 1980s until the destructive force of the Thatcher era destroyed hope and opportunity for young people and, incidentally, made me angry enough to stand for Parliament. In a powerful, short speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) also emphasised the need to offer hope to young people.

  471
  The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), another Kent Member, this time a retread, seems to have learnt nothing during his enforced exile. How on earth can it be social authoritarianism at its worst—which I think were his words—to require parents to meet their responsibilities and help them to be good parents? Do not the Conservatives believe in that? He criticised the Conservative Government for the Children Act 1989 and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. He said that they were too centralising and state interfering. He deplored the incorporation of the European convention on human rights despite the fact that, as has been said more than once, it was written by a man who became a distinguished Conservative Lord Chancellor. The absurdity of that was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) in his short but pungent intervention.
  By contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said that, in effect, he was joining a family business. He told us about his colourful predecessors, Edwina Currie and George Brown. The Chief Whip wants me to inform him that there is no need to keep up that tradition. Wearing such a lurid tie and supporting Gresley Rovers is quite enough, thank you very much.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) made a thoughtful speech after we ran out of Conservative Members. It is interesting to note that Conservatives who have wandered in lately do not seem to have noticed that the Conservative Benches were virtually empty during large parts of the debate and the party ran out of people who wished to contribute.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) demonstrated her roots in her community and constituency. Hon. Member after hon. Member, and especially my hon. Friends, spoke about the problems of crime and the need to tackle them. They highlighted why this issue is so high on the new Government's agenda.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made a powerful contribution to the debate. I do not intend to go into the detail of the dispute between members of the previous Government, but the right hon. Lady acknowledged that there is a need for the relationship between Ministers to be sorted out. We take note of what she says, but I can tell the House that a significant step has already been taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has decided that Ministers will take responsibility for answering questions on the Prison Service instead of effectively using officials as scapegoats. I have frequently disagreed with the right hon. Lady on all sorts of issues, but no one could doubt the strength of her conviction or the seriousness of her criticism in today's debate. She criticised the waste involved in the £250,000 cost of sacking Derek Lewis. I reflect merely that local authority councillors would have been surcharged for such behaviour, but the former Home Secretary escaped penalty, at least until today.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): Will my hon. Friend invite the former Home Secretary to explain how he justifies spending large sums of public money on a person whom he deemed to be either lacking in competence or bad in performance, when other people—people we represent—get nothing when they are
  472
  dismissed for lack of competence or poor performance? But there is hush money to silence someone whom the former Home Secretary dismissed.
  Mr. Michael: The former Home Secretary gave us no explanation of the inconsistency between the sacking and having to admit that it was wrongful dismissal, but I believe that there are many other issues for which he will still be called to account. Although we have heard his defence tonight—an opportunity that was denied Derek Lewis, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald made clear—the former Home Secretary did not convince the House and he will not escape the consequences of his behaviour in office.
  The shadow Home Secretary made a robust defence of a position that many people may have regarded as untenable. It is for others to judge whether he succeeded. For Members of Parliament, this unseemly spat between two former Ministers distracts attention from their failure to tackle crime and its causes, from the previous Government's activities while in power and from this Government's positive and constructive programme, which is in contrast to those activities.
  We have heard the shadow Home Secretary deny responsibility for so many disasters in his time as Home Secretary that the tone of today's speech comes as no surprise. He defended even Conservative central office briefings, which is a sign of desperation. He has the cheek to stand on his record. It is undeniable that he is in denial as he refights the battles he lost during the last election and during the couple of years before, just as he is in denial as he refights the battles over the sacking of Derek Lewis.
  The shadow Home Secretary says that we have adopted his measures on issues such as gun control. He had the cheek to claim that he was in the lead on issues to tackle crime. Has he forgotten that he introduced the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 with no element to deal with violence in any way? It contained nothing to do with drugs, drug-related crime or weapons until Labour moved amendments. Who was the Home Secretary who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support legislation to deal with combat knives, stalkers, people who abuse children, and people who travel abroad to abuse children?
  We will take no lessons from the former Home Secretary. Over recent years, it is we who have set the agenda on law and order and he who has had to follow us. It is on his failure to tackle crime that I criticise him. He seems to believe himself to be some sort of teflon-coated reincarnation of Houdini. It is his failure on crime for which he will be remembered.
  The shadow Home Secretary criticised the announcements in the Queen's Speech on the banning of all handguns, but banning all handguns will set a clear line in law on those weapons, which are portable, easy to conceal and lethal to use. That is why there is such widespread public support for the Labour party's position on the issue. I believe that our proposals will succeed on a free vote.
  The shadow Home Secretary was very keen on quoting Mr. Fred Broughton, chairman of the Police Federation, when it favoured something that he said, but what did Mr. Fred Broughton say about our proposal on handguns?
  "The proposal to ban the private possession of handguns is a victory for common sense. No system can guarantee to exclude every potential mass killer, but we owe it to the victims of

  473
  Hungerford and Dunblane to take the strongest possible action to prevent a repetition of past tragedies. We believe the public will strongly support this decisive action."
  The Government believe that taking such action is right. We believe that it will be decisive, that it will have public support and that it will be supported by the House.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister tell the House why he is so determined to pursue innocent people—who are participating in a sport that is endorsed by the Olympic Foundation—whereas he was so insistent on watering down the former Government's tough measures to deal with repeat burglars and repeat drug dealers?
  Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not listened. He was also inaccurate in his description of Labour's record. The simple fact is that the public, the police and the Government believe that—so far as it is possible to do so in legislation—drawing a clear line, which involves banning all handguns, is the safest way in which to deal with the issue.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister tell us whether, in dealing with the issue so decisively, he will also ban rifles, shotguns and other weapon types?
  Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman recall, please, that the need to tackle those issues arose because of the death of 16 children by a man using handguns that were possessed legally? The Opposition will have to answer whether they really want to resist our proposals and obstruct legislation that the police, the public and the Government believe is necessary.
  Mr. Bruce: Answer the question.
  Mr. Michael: I have answered the question. It is for Opposition Members and their consciences to determine how they should reply.
  The shadow Home Secretary said that he supports the European convention on human rights. Why is he therefore afraid to allow British courts to apply its provisions in British courts? Why is he afraid to repatriate the convention's provisions, as we propose to do? We propose to trust British courts, instead of saying that Britons must go abroad to benefit from the provisions offered under the convention.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald went beyond an attack on the former Home Secretary to make a devastating critique of lowered standards in public life. In some of her remarks, she called on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to end sleaze and to restore confidence in the House and in standards in public life. I assure her that neither my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister nor my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be found wanting on that matter when action is required.
  The simple answer to the question asked by the shadow Home Secretary is that the Government's reaction to allegations about a Labour Member was simple and straightforward—to ask the police to investigate the allegations.
  474
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that he wished that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald had been in the Chamber during his speech, so that he could ask her whether she had expressed to the then Prime Minister her deep and serious concerns. That question hangs in the air.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also showed my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the respect of saying that my right hon. Friend believes what he says and that he is serious about being tough on crime. The right hon. Gentleman need not worry, because my right hon. Friend will be tough on crime, and he will be equally tough on the causes of crime. Above all, however, he will be effective. The issue will be one of what works, and the purpose will be to allow the public to be safe in their houses and on the streets. The previous Home Secretary consistently made similar statements, but my right hon. Friend means them, and he will deliver on them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) was absolutely right to highlight the terror inspired by crime in local communities. During the general election campaign, there was dissonance between the debates in the media and the comments that we heard on the doorsteps. I am sure that all my hon. Friends agree that, when we spoke to people—whether they were in Exeter, Cambridge, Birmingham, Cardiff, Colwyn Bay or the London boroughs—they were not reassured by the frenetic posturing of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Their experience was different. Crime used to be something that happened to other people; now it happens to them, their families and their friends.
  "Prison works" was the mantra repeated by the former Home Secretary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East said. Prison should work; it should hold securely the people sentenced by the courts, provide a regime that is firm but fair and return offenders to the community less likely to re-offend and more likely to be responsible citizens. The last Government failed to make prison work. Prison must be more effective. Being caught and punished must be more certain. However, prison cannot work on its own.
  The increase in offending under the Conservatives was matched by a drop in the number of people being caught and punished. Let us examine the statistics: only one offence in 56 now ends in punishment by a court, and only one crime in 750 ends with a custodial sentence. Prisons cannot solve crime on their own any more than the police can fight crime on their own. That is why effective action is needed for young offenders so that crime is nipped in the bud and why a range of measures to tackle violence and intimidation is so important. It is also vital to have effective partnerships between the priests and local authorities. Together—[Laughter.] Well, it would be a good thing if priests worked with them, too. The police and local authorities must work with the local community, including residents, the business community and the voluntary sector to tackle crime and its causes. Indeed, young people have a great deal to offer.
  The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border shared with me the privilege of judging the Prudential youth action awards. I am sure that he agrees that when judging those awards, it became clear that if young people are regarded as the hope of the future and as being able to contribute, they can help to tackle crime and its causes.

  475
  This is a matter for the whole of the Government, just as it is a matter for the police and local authorities. It is a matter for the whole of society because the devil makes work for idle hands. In this context, we should be aware of the relevance of opportunities for young people aged 18 to 25 and, indeed, the relevance of nursery education to our long-term efforts to tackle crime and its causes.
  Let us consider the false prospectus and the flurry of absurdities in the Opposition's amendment. First, the amendment begins with the words "But humbly regret"—the shadow Home Secretary has a great deal to be humble about, but anything less humble than the shadow Home Secretary is hard to imagine. Secondly, it tries to cast doubt on our commitment to giving second-time serious violent and sexual offenders automatic life sentences. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that we will do that later this year.
  I remind the Opposition that it was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who first identified the scandal of sentencing that is inconsistent and fails to be progressive. We shall tackle these issues as the previous Government did not.
  The third absurdity is that the amendment calls for
  "the reinstatement of the original provisions of that Bill"—
  the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997—
  "to give third time burglars and dealers in hard drugs mandatory minimum sentences of three and seven years respectively—save in exceptional circumstances".
  That is what the Act says now. The former Home Secretary began by brooking no exceptions and then did a U-turn, but refused repeatedly to explain his exceptions. It was most frustrating trying to draw blood from a stone. We defined the exceptions as relating to the offence or the offender or likely to be unjust. In voting for the amendment, the Opposition will be voting to be unjust. That is the ludicrous situation in which they find themselves.
  Fourthly, the amendment congratulates the previous Government
  "on its achievements on tackling crime and protecting the public",
  but that Government failed to tackle crime and protect the public. It ends with the ringing slogan that we should carefully examine the rights in the European convention.
  The Government will offer the community hope and opportunity, punishment for those who offend, safer and healthier communities, a balance between rights and responsibilities and the chance of safety in the community for those who wish to live their lives safely. We shall be tough on crime and on the causes of crime and we shall build healthier communities because Britain deserves better.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 422.

  Division No.1

  9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Amess, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Blunt, Crispin

  476

  Body, Sir Richard

  Leigh, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lidington, David

  Brady, Graham

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Loughton, Tim

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bums, Simon

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Butterfill, John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Madel, Sir David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Chope, Christopher

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clappison, James

  Maples, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Mates, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Merchant, Piers

  Collins, Tim

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Colvin, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Conmack, Sir Patrick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cran, James

  Page, Richard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Paice, James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Paterson, Owen

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Prior, David

  Day, Stephen

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Robathan, Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ruffley, David

  Faber, David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fallon, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Flight, Howard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Forth, Eric

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Soames, Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Fraser, Christopher

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Spring, Richard

  Gamier, Edward

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gibb, Nick

  Steen, Anthony

  Gill, Christopher

  Streeter, Gary

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Swayne, Desmond

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Syms, Robert

  Gray, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Green, Damian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Greenway, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Townend, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Tredinnick, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Trend, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward (Old Bexley & Sidcup)

  Viggers, Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Horam, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Wilkinson, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Yeo, Tim

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Key, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Mr. Bowen Wells and

  Lansley, Andrew

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  477

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tom (Coatbddge)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ashton, Joseph

  Cohen, Harry

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coleman, lain

  Atkins, Ms Charlotte

  Colman, Anthony

  Austin, John Baker, Norman

  Connarty, Michael

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Banks, Tony

  Cooper, Ms Yvette

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbett, Robin

  Barron, Kevin

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Battle, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Cox, Tom

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cranston, Ross

  Begg, Ms Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Crausby, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cummings, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John(Copeland)

  Best, Harold

  Betts, Clive

  Dafis, Cynog

  Blackman, Ms Elizabeth

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Darvill, Keith

  Blizzard, Robert

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Dean, Ms Janet

  Breed, Colin

  Denham, John

  Brinton, Ms Helen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Burden, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Burgon, Cohn

  Drew, David

  Burnett, John

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Butler, Christine

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Byers, Stephen

  Eagle, Ms Angela (Wallasey)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Cabom, Richard

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Etherington, Bill

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Cann, Jamie

  Fatchett, Derek

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Casale, Roger

  Field, Frank

  Caton, Martin

  Fisher, Mark

  Cawsey, Ian

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fitzsimons, Ms Loma

  Chaytor, David

  Flint, Ms Caroline

  Chidgey, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Follett, Ms Barbara

  Church, Ms Judith

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Foulkes, George Fyfe, Maria

  Galloway, George Gapes, Mike

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  478

  Gerrard, Neil

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Kingham, Tessa

  Godsiff, Roger

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Goggins, Paul

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Golding, Mrs Lfin

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gorrie, Donald

  Laxton, Bob

  Grant, Bernie

  Lepper, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Griffiths, Win (Bndgend)

  Levitt, Tom

  Grocott, Bruce

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Grogan, John

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Hain, Peter

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Linton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Hancock, Mike

  Livsey, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Lock, David

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Love, Andy

  Harvey, Nick

  McAllion, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Healey, John

  McCabe, Stephen

  Heath, David (Somerton)

  McCafferty, Ms Christine

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Macdonald, Calum

  Heppell, John

  McDonnell, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mclsaac, Ms Shona

  Hill, Keith

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Maclennan, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  McMaster, Gordon

  Hood, Jimmy

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  McNulty, Tony

  Hope, Philip

  MacShane, Denis

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  McWilliam, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Mallaber, Ms Judy

  Marek, Dr John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hurst, Alan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hutton, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Iddon, Brian

  Martlew, Eric

  Illsley, Eric

  Maxton, John

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Meacher, Michael

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Meale, Alan

  Jamieson, David

  Merron, Ms Gillian

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Michael, Alun

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Milbum, Alan

  Miller, Andrew

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Moore, Michael

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Monis, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Mounfford, Ms Kali

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Mudie, George

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Mullin, Chris

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Khabra, Piara S

  Norris, Dan

  Kidney, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  479

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Spellar, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Olner, Bill

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stevenson, George

  Opik, Lembit

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Osborne, Mrs Sandra

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Palmer, Nick

  Stott, Roger

  Pearson, Ian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pendry, Tom

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stringer, Graham

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Pike, Peter L

  Stunell, Andrew

  Plaskitt, James

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pond, Chris

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Timms, Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quin, Ms Joyce (Gateshead E)

  Todd, Mark

  Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Radice, Giles

  Touhig, Don

  Rammell, Bill

  Trickett, Jon

  Rapson, Syd

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rendel, David

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tyler, Paul

  Rogers, Allan

  Vaz, Keith

  Rooker, Jeff

  Vis, Rudolf

  Rooney, Terry

  Wallace, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roy, Frank

  Watts, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Webb, Steven

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  White, Brian

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Whitehead, Alan

  Salmond, Alex

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Salter, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sawford, Philip

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Willis, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wills, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wilson, Brian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Winnick, David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wise, Audrey

  Singh, Marsha

  Wood, Mike

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

  Wray, James

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. John McFall and

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Debate adjourned.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow

  Opencast Coal Mining
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  10.24 pm
  Mr. John Healey: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the concerns of Wentworth constituents about opencast coal mining, and I am particularly grateful for the chance to combine this debate with my maiden speech.
  It is a great honour to be elected to represent the people of Wentworth. It is a special privilege and responsibility as it brings together a unique mix of the political and pastoral duties of a Member of Parliament. I remember words from the book of Luke:
  "Everyone to whom much is given, of him much will be required".
  I hope to serve in that spirit.
  May I begin by paying a warm tribute to Peter Hardy? He had been a Member of this House since 1970, representing first Rother Valley, then Wentworth when the constituency was formed in 1983. "He is part of this area", an old newspaper editor once told me, "a very big part". He has been a dedicated local Member of Parliament and I am conscious that he is a hard act to follow-conscious that I can succeed him, but not replace him.
  The Wentworth constituency comprises a string of communities. Many were pit-based and all still retain a strong local identity. The parishes of Bramley and Wickersley lie to the east, next door to Dalton, Thrybergh and Sunnyside, which surround the site of the old Silverwood colliery. Rawmarsh, Swinton, Brampton Bierlow and Wath-upon-Dearne are our other major towns. The whole constituency now lies within the Rotherham borough, but the north also remains a proud part of the Dearne valley, with strong links to Barnsley and the town's successful football team.
  The constituency's history has been closely tied to mining, a dependence which has always been a mixed blessing. The first record of coal mining in the area is at Abdy, near Wath, in 1606. It is the first record of a mining death. Twenty years ago, the constituency still had six pits employing nearly 5,000 men. At Manvers, we also had British Coal's South Yorkshire headquarters, its regional science laboratories and the largest coking plant in Europe. The last pit in the constituency, at Silverwood, was closed in 1994 after breaking all production records for two years on the trot.
  In a typically British touch, however, the constituency draws its name not from coal but from the home of an 18th century aristocrat. Wentworth Woodhouse and the village of Wentworth lie on the far western edge of the constituency and were home to the first Marquis of Rockingham. It was there that the Whigs plotted the downfall of the Government of their day, although defeat was never on the scale of 1 May 1997.
  Wentworth is a constituency within a county that has suffered terribly under the Tories. Since 1985, 50,000 coal and steel jobs have been lost in South Yorkshire; one in three of our young people are neither working nor training; and unemployment is the highest in the whole of the Yorkshire and Humberside region. New jobs—where they exist—are part time, poorly paid and insecure.

  481
  Last month, a new European Union report showed that South Yorkshire is now bottom of the prosperity league in Britain. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister shares my concern about the county's future.
  That is the legacy of the old Conservative Government and the challenge for the new Labour Government. The events of I May lifted spirits across the constituency and throughout the country.
  I am proud to be part of a party committed to govern in the interests of the many, not the few. It is right that we reflect the concerns of middle England, but our greatest responsibility as a one-nation Government is to close the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. Our biggest challenge is to bring new opportunities to those who have been left out or overlooked.
  We must not take for granted those who have stayed loyal to Labour through the dark decades. They are looking to Labour for a fresh start. They are looking to us for a fair deal. My job is to help to make sure that a change in Government brings change in the lives and prospects of people in Wentworth.
  The foundations for change in the constituency are already in place. In the Dearne, we have new industrial sites from Cortonwood to Wath Manvers, we have an enterprise zone and a flagship facility in the new Dearne Valley college. Closer to Rotherham, the Retail World complex is flourishing and the Hellaby industrial estate is a model of its kind.
  It is time to talk up the area. It is time to look forward. We want to bring modern industries and jobs with a future to Rotherham and the Dearne. The coal era has ended. We want to put that period behind us. That is the wider community view within which plans for opencasting in Wentworth must be understood.
  I shall deal first with the specific case of New Stubbin in Rawmarsh, and then with opencasting in general.
  The application of the Chesterfield-based company, Coal Contractors Ltd. to opencast at New Stubbin was rejected by Rotherham council. The company appealed and the inspector's report is due any day on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  New Stubbin is a beautiful bowl in the green belt, overlooked by bungalows, school playing fields and the local cemetery. It is open space next to dense residential streets. The deep mine on that site was closed 20 years ago and the area is now naturally revegetated. There is a wide variety of wildlife and the area is popular with local people for walking and picnics.
  The opencast plans cover just 40 hectares, worked for four years to produce 270,000 tonnes of coal—the amount that the Selby complex can produce in little more than a week.
  I support the 810 Rawmarsh residents who petitioned against the scheme going ahead. The workings will be within a couple of hundred yards of local homes. Dust, noise and blasting will cause severe disruption to local people. Heavy lorries will cause havoc on local roads such as Rawmarsh Hill, which is a busy, narrow shopping and residential street with parked cars and pedestrians.
  There is a case for opencasting. Opencasting can restore derelict and contaminated land, but not at New Stubbin, where the bulk of the area is agricultural land and sports
  482
  fields, and less than a quarter is classified as the old colliery site. Opencasting can contribute to the commercial viability of deep mines through coal blending and commercial integration, but not at New Stubbin where the low sulphur, low chlorine Barnsley seam will yield a quick profit for the company and little long-term investment in the industry. Opencasting can bring new jobs to employment black spots, but not at New Stubbin where the promise of
  "20 to 30 very well paid jobs for local people"
  in the planning application was severely pruned by the time of the inquiry. Opencasting can bring company support for local projects, but not at New Stubbin where the
  "budget of at least £50,000 … to support local projects"
  in the application was no longer on offer at appeal.
  The case of New Stubbin highlights six key problems with the opencast system at present. First, companies are coming for green-field sites, and just 10 per cent. of new applications now propose to deal with derelict or contaminated land. Secondly, there must be provision for rejecting applications where opencasting may prejudice efforts to attract other investment to the area. Thirdly, despite improvements to MPG3 in 1994, there needs to be a stronger requirement to show clear benefit to the local environment and to local communities. If local people want it, fine; but if they do not, the local councils should not be cowed by the cost of appeal from backing local residents.
  Fourthly, the presumption against development in green belt areas should require all opencast applicants to prove that their scheme is compatible with green belt objectives—to keep land permanently open, to retain the attractive landscape, and to maintain land in agricultural or forestry use. Fifthly, Government research into the advantages and disadvantages of opencasting promised by a former Minister, the present hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), in the House on 5 July 1995 has still not been published. Sixthly, the proportion of all coal mined in the United Kingdom by opencast continues to increase. It was 12 per cent. in 1980, 19.5 per cent. in 1990, and more than 31 per cent. in 1995. As electricity generating contracts are renegotiated, this competition between opencast and deep mine coal can only increase and the pressure to open up new opencast sites can only intensify.
  My hon. Friend the Minister knows well that many hon. Members have opencast applications in their constituencies, and that Labour's 10-point plan for opencasting commanded strong support with the public before the election. We are anxious to see action, but we appreciate the difficulties of translating a pre-election campaign into public policy post-election. However, I urge the Minister to review, and to act rapidly to change the present system—especially the operation of MPG3. I also ask him to meet those hon. Members who have a constituency concern about opencasting.
  Finally, should my hon. Friend decide that primary legislation is required to strike a better balance between coal companies and the local community, there will be a large lobby of Members of Parliament ready to back him and there will be strong public support for such a move.
  10.38 pm
  The Minister of State, Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) on raising not only opencasting issues but issues affecting South Yorkshire. I am sure that many hon. Members are aware that I also have the privilege of representing that area in this place.
  My hon. Friend made a powerful speech to the House on an issue which affects many up and down this country, particularly those in the north. I also congratulate him on his election as Member for Wentworth. I am sure that he will continue to make very powerful contributions in the House, as he has helped the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to restructure the trade union movement in this country so that it is now respected across the world and is probably one of the most modern movements in western Europe. On the basis of such work, I am sure that his contributions to the House will have gravitas.
  I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and his constituents about opencast coal mining. Not only am I a fellow South Yorkshire Member of Parliament with direct experience of the issue, but, as he may know, I was Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, which produced a report on British energy policy and the market for coal. I am, therefore, well aware of the problems that can be caused by opencasting.
  I should make it clear at this early stage of my speech that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits or defects of any particular opencast application or appeal. That could prejudice the Secretary of State's position in his determination of any appeal that has already been made, or which may be made if a particular planning application is refused by the mineral planning authority.
  Before I turn to the particular concerns that have been raised, it may be helpful if I briefly explain the background to the current planning guidance on coal mining and the policies that it contains.
  As my hon. Friend may know, the current national policy guidance is contained in minerals planning guidance note 3, which deals with all coal mining in England and Wales and replaced guidance published in 1988 that dealt solely with opencast coal. That contained a strong presumption in favour of maximising opencast coal production. Following a monitoring exercise in 1992, even the previous Tory Government decided to revise the guidelines to reflect environmental concerns and the development plan-led system. That revision was, however, held up by their coal review between October 1992 and March 1993.
  During the coal review, the Trade and Industry Select Committee published its report on British energy policy and the market for coal. The Committee recommended, among other things, much tougher planning guidance on opencast coal mining.
  Following the outcome of the coal review, the previous Government issued "Interim Planning Guidance For Opencast Coal", which withdrew the previous strong presumption in favour of opencast coal mining dating from the 1980s. Subsequently, draft revised guidance was issued for public consultation. In the light of responses to
  484
  consultation, the reference to opencast coal mining being in the national interest was removed. The final revised guidance was published as MPG3 on 21 July 1994.
  MPG3 responded to some of the concerns that were expressed during the consultation procedure. The strong presumption in favour of opencast coal was removed. The new emphasis was on the development plan-led approach. Tests of environmental acceptability had to be applied to individual projects.
  The Select Committee and many of my hon. Friends can rightly claim credit for putting pressure on the previous Administration to change the whole planning guidance. The Tory free for all of the 1980s and early 1990s that had so damaged communities in the shallow coalfields had been stopped.
  The new emphasis on the development plan-led approach and the importance of environmental acceptability means that decisions on land availability and use should be debated fully and openly at the local level. In principle, this offers more certainty for industry about where coal extraction is likely to be allowed, and communities where workable coal reserves exist have a clearer idea about where such activities are likely to take place and over what period.
  MPG3 placed no bar on making planning applications for development in the green belts, because minerals can be worked only where they are found and are not a permanent use of land. Indeed, opencast working need not be incompatible with green belt objectives, but, like all other forms of development, applications for mineral working in the green belt must be examined particularly carefully. Development should be allowed only where the highest standards of operation and restoration can be achieved. If anything, the environmental test has to be tougher, because more can be at stake. I know that this is an area of particular interest to my hon. Friend and I shall want to look at it closely in reviewing the present approach.
  Nevertheless, MPG3 does not encourage applications for green-field sites. It says that priority should be given to proposals that involve the clearance of dereliction. Operators would need to demonstrate that real benefits offsetting the disbenefits will accrue from their proposals if they wish to work sensitive green-field sites.
  MPG3 gives comprehensive advice on the specific environmental impacts of opencasting and how to deal with them. These include visual impact, noise, blasting, dust, water pollution, heavy transport movements and the damage to heritage and wildlife sites. MPG3 also makes it clear that the guidance that it contains on these matters is relevant to the consideration of planning applications.
  Ms Joan Walley: My hon. Friend will know that many Members are concerned about opencasting. What sort of consultation does he envisage taking place with hon. Members who represent constituencies where opencasting takes place, in the context of getting the 10-point plan incorporated into the planning guidance?
  Mr. Caborn: If my hon. Friend waits until the end of my reply, she will know exactly what I propose. That will be made clear at the end of my response, and I do not want her to leave the Chamber too early.

  485
  The acceptability of individual proposals will depend on the likely environmental impact of the development and the steps taken by the developer to minimise those effects. If necessary, tough conditions can be attached to permissions and enforced by local authorities to deliver the required protection.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Conservative Members—there are not many in the Chamber this evening—will know that many opencast coal planning applications are now subject to a formal environmental assessment. At present, an environmental assessment is required for opencast coal mining if the particular project is judged likely to give rise to significant environmental effects. That is a judgment for the mineral planning authority in the first place.
  In practice, that has usually meant that applications involving sites of 50 hectares or more have been subject to environmental assessment although the mineral planning authority must also require that assessment to take place in other cases where there are likely to be significant environmental effects. Under the revised European arrangements coming into effect in early 1999, all opencast sites of 25 hectares or more will automatically require an environmental statement.
  As I have said, the present MPG3 gives detailed advice on environment impacts. To provide background information to those considering these matters, my Department has continued through its research programme to monitor the environmental effects of surface mineral workings including opencast coal mining. Research into the control of dust was published last year. Current studies are examining blasting and traffic, and we expect to publish the results later this year.
  We cannot ignore the environmental problems that opencast operations can cause, and I recognise my hon. Friend's concern that the present guidance in MPG3 does not go far enough. Equally, we should recognise that opencast coal working can produce benefits through, for example, the removal of dereliction.
  Other benefits can include the contribution to, or maintenance of, local, regional or national employment. Evidence presented to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry estimated that the numbers directly employed at opencast sites in 1991–92 ranged from "over 5000" to 8,000, and the number dependent on opencast mining for their livelihood at about 15,000. More recent estimates by the Coal Authority in 1996 put the figures lower at about 6,000 directly employed, and a similar number of jobs in the support, supply and contracting industries.
  We should not overlook the need to provide opencast coal for blending to make deep mine coal suitable for burning in power stations, by providing coal with low moisture, volatile or chloride content, or high calorific value.
  Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. As he was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, I know that he is aware of the economic circumstances of mining. He will be aware also, bearing in mind the studies that were undertaken in 1992, that the amount of coal that is required for sweetening is considerably less than the
  486
  amount of opencast coal that is now being mined, which for the last complete year was 16.1 million tonnes. Deep mine coal amounts to 36 million tonnes. It is clear that the proportion is wrong. Does my hon. Friend agree that a considerable reduction should take place?
  Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) is an expert on these matters, and he is right. The figures show that we need about 9 million tonnes from opencasting in England for the sweetening process. That balance must be struck, and it must be borne in mind when we discuss these matters.
  It is interesting to consider MPG3 since 1994. In 1995–96, opencast coal production accounted for about 23 per cent. of total coal production in England. During the same year—the first full year of operation of the revised MPG3—24 applications covering 5,551 hectares and 2.7 million tonnes of coal were approved by planning authorities. Seventeen applications covering 1,189 hectares and 9.3 million tonnes of coal were refused. None of the six appeals to the Secretary of State was allowed.
  By contrast, in 1992–93, before the new policy was introduced, 39 applications covering a smaller 1,225 hectares extracting as much as 7.1 million tonnes were approved by planning authorities. In 1992–93, seven appeals were allowed covering a further 470 hectares and 3.6 million tonnes of coal. In other words, 11 million tonnes of opencast were approved in 1992–93 compared with just under 3 million tonnes in 1995–96. More production was allowed through on appeal in 1992–93 than was approved by mineral planning authorities in 1995–96.
  I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members agree that those figures show clearly that the pressure put on the then Government to change MPG3 is now working. There has been a reduction in both the number of opencast planning applications and appeals allowed since that revision.
  However, I appreciate that there are still many concerns about the adverse environmental effects of opencasting both in the coalfield communities and more widely. I share those concerns. I assure the House that the Labour Government will not be complacent about the issue.
  It may be that a number of those concerns can be addressed effectively within the existing planning framework. We shall carefully consider the possibilities. For example, mineral planning authorities can already attach strict and enforceable conditions to planning consents. They are constrained only by what the courts would consider relevant and reasonable.
  Environmental assessments will become mandatory in 1999 for sites of more than 25 hectares, and mineral planning authorities must already require such assessments if they judge that a project is likely to have significant environmental effects. Although I cannot prejudge individual cases, I would expect environmental assessments to be the norm, not the exception. Where there is hard evidence that opencasting would prejudice other inward investment, which brings jobs to an area, that is already a material consideration which should be taken into account by the planning authorities in reaching their decision.

  487
  Planning authorities can already set strict time limits for the commencement and completion of development, and require high standards of restoration by attaching conditions to permissions. But on certain matters it may still be right to go further. I shall, therefore, look carefully at the existing guidance in MPG3, its effect on the level of opencasting and the results of the research into blasting and traffic. I intend to review urgently the present stance of MPG3 on opencast coal and to consider, with my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and in Scotland and Wales, whether changes in policy are needed, both in the short and the long term.
  488
  I have taken careful note of the points made by my hon. Friend during his excellent maiden speech. I assure him and other hon. Members who are concerned about this matter that I will take those points into account, together with other representations made to me, when I come to consider, in the light of Labour's 10-point plan for opencast coal, whether any further changes are necessary to ensure even stronger protection for the environment. I have asked my officials to prepare urgently the necessary plan of action. I shall welcome any contribution from hon. Members as we undertake that review.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Security Services
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Council if she intends to propose the setting up of a Select Committee to oversee the security services. [78]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  There is already an Intelligence and Security Committee established under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Secret Intelligence Service, Security Service and GCHQ. It reports annually to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who is required to lay a copy of the Committee's annual report before each House of Parliament. My right hon. Friend is in the process of considering the appointment of hon. Members to that Committee within the terms of the Act and will make an announcement in due course.

  Wigs and Gowns
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Council if she will consult as to whether it is appropriate for wigs and gowns to be worn in the Chamber by senior officers of the House. [83]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  This is a matter which could be considered by the new Committee on the modernisation of the House, which I hope will be established soon.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Visitors' Visas
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reinstate the right of appeal against the refusal of a visitor's visa. [283]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our manifesto commits us to providing a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa. We are examining the options for doing this.

  Life Sentence Tariffs
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications of the judicial review of Kavanagh and Quigley ex parte Secretary of State for life sentence tariffs; and if he will make a statement. [152]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  We are considering the judgment.

  Full Sutton Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the report of Council of Europe Committee on the Prevention of Torture on its visit to the special secure unit at HMP Full Sutton; and if he will make a statement. [156]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  A delegation from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe visited Frankland, Full Sutton and Belmarsh prisons on 12 and 13 May 1997. The Prison Service will consider and respond to any report prepared by the committee.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in considering the request of Danny McNamee currently detained in the Special Secure Unit at HMP Full Sutton for a temporary transfer to Northern Ireland. [160]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  Mr. McNamee's request for transfer to Northern Ireland is currently under consideration. A decision will be made as soon as possible.

  Prisoners (Temporary Extended Transfer)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently held on temporary extended transfer to Northern Ireland; and if he will consider making those transfers permanent. [151]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  Nineteen prisoners are currently transferred on a temporary basis from England and Wales to Northern Ireland. It is open to any of the prisoners concerned to request a permanent transfer. Any such request will be considered on its individual merits in accordance with the criteria announced to Parliament on 23 November 1992.

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a personal inspection of the condition of prisoners currently detained in special secure units. [157]

  Mr. Straw
  I intend to visit a number of prisons in the near future and will inspect a special secure unit as part of this programme.

  Asylum Seeker (Algeria)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a citizen of Algeria was refused asylum in this country and is now reported to have been murdered. [80]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has investigated the claim made on 9 May by the Refugee Council that an asylum seeker whose application was turned down had been killed on his return to Algeria. The Government have received categorical assurances from the Government of Algeria that the individual is alive and well, and our ambassador met the former asylum seeker on Sunday 18 May. We are therefore satisfied that the claims made are unfounded. Removals of failed asylum seekers to Algeria will now resume where appropriate.

  Derek Lewis
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library all the papers and other documents relating to the dismissal of Derek Lewis; and if he will make a statement. [81]

  Mr. Straw
  It is not possible for me to meet my hon. Friend's request. I am not responsible to Parliament for events which took place under the last Administration; nor do I have access to their papers.

  Racist Attacks
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet Mrs. Doreen Lawrence to discuss racist attacks. [393]

  Mr. Straw
  Yes. I would be happy to meet Mrs. Lawrence. My office will be in touch with my hon. Friend to make the arrangements.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will restore residence rights in the United Kingdom for citizens of St. Helena. [139]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have no present plans to do so.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT ANDTHE REGIONS
  ENVIRONMENT AND THE REGIONS

    Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the regulations and guidance in relation to part IV of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996; what will be the implementation date; what (i) draft guidance and (ii) further consultation he proposes before taking such action; and if he will make a statement. [707]

    Mr. Raynsford
    We expect to consult local authorities on the draft regulations and guidance on relocation grants in June. The guidance will then need to be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament for 40 days, excluding periods when Parliament is prorogued or adjourned. We therefore expect to implement the provisions in the autumn.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Tickets
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to ensure that passengers receive impartial advice when purchasing rail tickets. [54]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Train operators have a legal obligation to sell tickets impartially and to provide accurate information about ticketing and fares options. Serious and persistent contravention of their impartiality obligations will trigger formal action by the independent Rail Regulator.10
  The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and I will be meeting the Rail Regulator shortly to discuss how we might achieve more effective regulation of the railway industry. We have already commissioned a report on the shortcomings of the sanctions currently available to the regulatory authorities.

  Rail Regulator
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to increase the powers of the Rail Regulator. [55]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have clearly stated that they intend to establish more effective and accountable regulation by the Rail Regulator. We are currently considering the options.

  South West Trains
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the total amount paid in subsidy to South West Trains by week for each of the last six months. [31]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising makes four-weekly support payments to all franchise operators on the basis of the rail industry periods. The four-weekly amounts paid to South West Trains covering the last six months—13 October 1996 to 26 April 1997—are as follows:

  £

  1996–97 Period 8

  5,076,824.01

  1996–97 Period 9

  4,520,756.84

  1996–97 Period 10

  4,655,886.81

  1996–97 Period 11

  4,708,747.86

  1996–97 Period 12

  4,887,630.58

  1997–97 Period 13

  4,632,509.64

  1997–98 Period 1

  4,351,435.10

  Aviation Policy
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to publish a White Paper on UK aviation policy. [53]

  Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to publish an early White Paper on aviation.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was (a) the total number and (b) the number in each local education authority of (i) head teachers, (ii) deputy head teachers and (iii) teachers who took early retirement on the grounds of ill-health in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [165]
  11
  Mr. Byers
  Teachers in service in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector in England at 31 March 1995 who were awarded ill-health retirement in the financial year 1995–96 are as follows:

  Ill-health retirements in financial year 1995–96

  Heads

  Deputies

  Classroom teachers

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  0

  *

  19

  Greenwich

  *

  0

  16

  Hackney

  *

  *

  9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  *

  0

  17

  Islington

  *

  *

  5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  *

  0

  9

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  17

  Lewisham

  *

  0

  9

  Southwark

  *

  0

  13

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  11

  Wandsworth

  0

  *

  11

  Westminister

  *

  *

  8

  Barking and Dagenham

  *

  *

  8

  Barnet

  *

  0

  18

  Bexley

  *

  *

  9

  Brent

  0

  *

  10

  Bromley

  7

  0

  12

  Croydon

  *

  0

  17

  Ealing

  0

  *

  11

  Enfield

  *

  0

  16

  Haringey

  6

  *

  7

  Harrow

  0

  *

  13

  Havering

  *

  *

  18

  Hillingdon

  0

  *

  9

  Hounslow

  *

  *

  19

  Kingston upon Thames

  *

  *

  13

  Merton

  *

  *

  *

  Newham

  0

  0

  11

  Redbridge

  *

  0

  7

  Richmond upon Thames

  *

  0

  8

  Sutton

  0

  *

  13

  Waltham Forest

  *

  *

  19

  Birmingham

  6

  9

  94

  Coventry

  0

  *

  26

  Dudley

  *

  *

  23

  Sandwell

  5

  *

  22

  Solihull

  0

  *

  12

  Walshall

  *

  *

  29

  Wolverhampton

  0

  *

  19

  Knowsley

  *

  0

  15

  Liverpool

  *

  *

  42

  St. Helens

  *

  *

  13

  Sefton

  *

  *

  25

  Wirral

  *

  *

  26

  Bolton

  *

  *

  20

  Bury

  *

  *

  17

  Manchester

  *

  *

  36

  Oldham

  *

  *

  18

  Rochdale

  5

  *

  28

  Salford

  0

  *

  21

  Stockport

  *

  *

  32

  Tameside

  *

  *

  22

  Trafford

  *

  *

  23

  Wigan

  *

  5

  23

  Barnsley

  0

  5

  16

  Doncaster

  *

  *

  25

  Rotherham

  *

  *

  14

  Sheffield

  6

  *

  32

  Bradford

  7

  5

  39

  Calderdale

  *

  *

  20

  Kirklees

  *

  *

  39

  Leeds

  *

  6

  72

  Wakefield

  5

  *

  42

  Gateshead

  *

  *

  26

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0

  18

  12

  Ill-health retirements in financial year 1995–96

  Heads

  Deputies

  Classroom teachers

  North Tyneside

  *

  *

  9

  South Tyneside

  *

  *

  15

  Sunderland

  *

  *

  33

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  12

  8

  57

  Bedfordshire

  *

  5

  34

  Berkshire

  *

  *

  55

  Buckinghamshire

  5

  *

  44

  Cambridgeshire

  *

  5

  37

  Cheshire

  12

  7

  74

  Cleveland

  5

  11

  76

  Cornwall

  12

  7

  35

  Cumbria

  5

  9

  34

  Derbyshire

  14

  9

  47

  Devon

  17

  9

  78

  Dorset

  6

  0

  50

  Durham

  6

  11

  85

  East Sussex

  8

  5

  37

  Essex

  9

  14

  110

  Gloucestershire

  5

  *

  32

  Hampshire

  11

  12

  129

  Hereford and Worcester

  12

  8

  59

  Hertfordshire

  *

  *

  75

  Humberside

  6

  13

  86

  Isle of Wight

  *

  0

  16

  Kent

  26

  11

  131

  Lancashire

  24

  20

  175

  Leicstershire

  6

  5

  73

  Lincolnshire

  9

  *

  41

  Norfolk

  16

  11

  58

  North Yorkshire

  7

  5

  39

  Northamptonshire

  6

  5

  68

  Northumberland

  5

  *

  26

  Nottinghamshire

  13

  9

  78

  Oxfordshire

  *

  *

  47

  Shropshire

  8

  *

  28

  Somerset

  15

  6

  49

  Staffordshire

  8

  11

  115

  Suffolk

  8

  *

  52

  Surrey

  7

  5

  50

  Warwickshire

  5

  *

  38

  West Sussex

  8

  *

  26

  Wiltshire

  5

  *

  38

  England

  483

  381

  3753

  In order to avoid sensitive information about individuals being identified, numbers less than five are shown as asterisks.

  Mount St. Mary School, Exeter
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce a decision on the application by Mount St. Mary school, Exeter, for grant-maintained status. [88]

  Mr. Byers
  My right hon. Friend expects to make a decision on the proposals to establish a new grant-maintained school at Mount St. Mary's shortly.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places, at what schools and at what cost were provided under the assisted places scheme in Nottinghamshire in 1995–96 and 1996–97. [128]
  13
  Mr. Byers
  The number of assisted places taken up and the cost of those places for each participating school in Nottinghamshire in academic years 1995–96 and 1996–97 is given in the table:

  Assisted places scheme: Nottinghamshire

  Academic year

  School name

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Nottingham high school

  Number of assisted pupils

  174

  184

  Cost of places £000s

  498

  553

  Nottingham high school for girls (GPDST)

  Number of assisted pupils

  197

  220

  Cost of places £000s

  529

  556

  Worksop college

  Number of assisted pupils

  27

  29

  Cost of places £000s

  131

  146

WALES

  Welsh Devolution
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish a White Paper regarding the Government's proposals on Welsh devolution.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  We expect to publish the White Paper on a Welsh Assembly as soon as possible after the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many payments were made and what was the total amount paid under the arable area payments scheme in 1996–97. [125]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  During 1996–97 the Welsh Office dealt with 2,486 claims and the total amount paid is estimated at £11,856,000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  GCHQ
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to lift the ban on trade unions at GCHQ. [77]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Yes; I issued the following press statement on 15 May which was placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Government have signalled their commitment to open and fair relations in the work place. As part of that commitment, I want today to right a long-standing wrong. Since 1984, we have been pledged to restore normal trade union rights to the staff of GCHQ. We are now honouring that pledge. I can announce that the conditions of service of staff at GCHQ have today been changed: they once again have the freedom they previously enjoyed to join any trade union they choose. Talks with the unions will begin as soon as possible to settle future arrangements for staff representation and to secure a collective agreement
  14
  on no disruption to the work of GCHQ which will ensure that GCHQ's operations are protected from any threat of industrial action.
  Once they are complete, and once I am confident that the national security interest will continue to be properly protected, I will revoke the certificate that contains the remaining restrictions on access to industrial tribunals. This ensures that the existing protection arrangements will remain in place until we have a satisfactory alternative. Those former employees who were dismissed for continuing union membership and are below normal retirement age are free to apply for re-employment under the new conditions of service: each case will be treated sympathetically, within the normal civil service rules for such employment. GCHQ staff make a valuable contribution to protecting the liberties and freedoms of our country. Today's move enables them to share fully in one of the important liberties that they defend.

  GCHQ

    Gibraltar
    Dr. Marek
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards Gibraltar's territorial waters; and if he will make a statement. [140]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    The territorial sea adjacent to the coast of Gibraltar is under British sovereignty. The territorial sea extends for three nautical miles form the coast, except where it abuts Spanish territorial waters, in which case the boundary follows a median line.

    Dr. Marek
    To aks the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to terminate the Brussels process with the Spanish Government. [141]

    Mr. Henderson
    Dialogue with Spain on Gibraltar is important. I will be working to encourage a more productive exchange, including, as necessary, through the Brussels process.

    Roisin McAliskey
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from(a) the Government of the Irish Republic and (b) others about the continuing detention at HMP Holloway of Ms Roisin McAliskey; and if he will make a statement. [154]

    Mr Robin Cook
    I have received no formal representation about Ms McAliskey, but I am aware that we have received a number of representations from Irish Members of Parliament, US Congressmen and other individuals.

HEALTH

  Elderly Citizens (Rehabilitation)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the rehabilitation of elderly citizens; and if he will make a statement. [142]
  15
  Mr. Boateng
  We have received some representations from medical and social care professionals and members of the public concerning the provision of national health service rehabilitation services, and expect to receive more in the near future.

  Effective recovery and rehabilitation of patients is particularly important for older people, who may need a longer period to recover, especially after a spell in hospital. It is increasingly recognised that access to hospital and community-based rehabilitation and recovery services for patients who need them in one way to ensure older people retain optimal independence and to avoid unnecessary admissions into long-term care.

  This Government are committed to the provision of an NHS recuperation service which will combine nursing and rehabilitation therapy services to those patients who have been assessed by a medical professional or multi-disciplinary team as being able to benefit from a rehabilitative programme of care.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prime Minister's Questions
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he undertook with Opposition parties before proposing the abolition of Prime Minister's Questions on Tuesdays and Thursdays. [304]

  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions were held with representatives of the Opposition parties and with the House authorities before the announcement of the decision to change the arrangements for Prime Minister's Questions. [123]

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed the Government's intention to change the timing of Prime Minister's Questions with the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats shortly before the change was made public. The change is the first step to meeting our clear manifesto commitment to make Prime Minister's Questions more effective.

  EU Negotiations
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he proposes in respect of(a) fishermen, (b) beef farmers and (c) taxpayers in his first month of negotiations in Brussels. [301]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friends, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have already visited Brussels to pursue the United Kingdom's interests. We are working within the intergovernmental conference negotiations for a solution to the problem of quota hopping; pursuing a progressive relaxation of the ban on exports of British beef; and seeking to ensure that the money British taxpayers contribute to the Community budget is used efficiently and effectively towards goals which the British people support. In the IGC we have already announced our intention to table new proposals to tackle fraud against the Community budget.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ban(a) import and (b) use of asbestos; and if he will make a statement. [51]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are determined to deal effectively with the problems of asbestos, in line with advice from the Health and Safety Commission. Negotiations are being renewed at EU level which are likely to lead to further widespread prohibitions on the supply of asbestos. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be advised by the Health and Safety Commission on developments and on the balance to be struck between EU and domestic arrangements.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce freedom of information legislation. [84]

  The Prime Minister
  As announced in the Gracious Speech, we shall shortly be setting out in a White Paper our proposals for a freedom of information Bill.

  Security Services
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he intends to make for parliamentary scrutiny of the security services; and if he will make a statement. [79]

  The Prime Minister
  Under the terms of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, an Intelligence and Security Committee of nine Members from the House of Commons and the House of Lords is established to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Secret Intelligence Service, Security Service and GCHQ. It reports to me and I am required to lay a copy of the Committee's annual report before each House of Parliament. Following consultation with the Leader of the Opposition I will be appointing members to the Committee.

DEFENCE

  Eurofighter Missile
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce the outcome of the competition for a weapon to meet the RAF's requirement for a beyond visual range air-to-air missile for Eurofighter. [709]

  Mr. Spellar
  After careful consideration of the responses we have received to the invitation to tender for missiles to meet Staff Requirement (Air) 1239 for a beyond visual range missile for Eurofighter, we have concluded that there is a need for further work to reduce risk in performance and time scale before we let a development and production contract. We therefore intend, subject to satisfactory negotiations, to place contracts with Matra British Aerospace (UK) Ltd. and Hughes (UK) Ltd. for project definition and risk reduction work on their respective solutions to the staff requirement. We expect to let these contracts in July and their duration will be about 12 months. We plan to make a contribution of £5 million to the costs of each contractor for this phase of the project.
  17
  Our intention is to ensure that Eurofighter enters operational service with the most cost effective equipment available.

  Defence Review
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the future of the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation and the continuing use of Boscombe Down airfield will be included in his proposed defence review. [75]

  Mr. John Reid
  Our country's security needs and foreign policy objectives must be fully reflected in the roles, missions and tasks of our armed forces. The Government have decided therefore to hold a strategic defence and security review. All aspects of defence will be considered in this process.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many payments were made and what was the total amount paid under the arable area payments scheme in 1996–97. [127]

  Mr. Rooker
  During 1996–97, the Ministry dealt with 46,844 claims under the arable area payments scheme and the total amount paid is estimated at £1,101 million.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to require a universal £20 application fee for legal aid. [398]

  Mr. Hoon
  The idea of universal contribution for legal aid came from the hon. Member's party. We propose to take forward our manifesto commitment to review civil justice and legal aid. In any event, the guiding principle in relation to such matters will be access to justice.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to ensure that legal aid is available only to those in genuine need. [400]

  Mr. Hoon
  We shall be carrying forward our manifesto commitment to a review of civil justice and legal aid, but we shall in any event seek to ensure that legal aid is appropriately targeted.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans Her Majesty's Government have to expand eligibility for legal aid. [401]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no plans at present to expand eligibility for legal aid.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to alter the current political balance among magistrates. [399]
  18
  Mr. Hoon
  While politics play no part in the work of the bench, the Lord Chancellor considers that there should not be an undue number of supporters of any political party on any bench. He requires his Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace to strive to ensure that those recommended for appointment are drawn from a broad cross section of the community, taking into account, amongst other matters, their political affiliations and the voting figures for the area. Anyone may apply to become a magistrate. I would, of course, welcome any assistance that hon. Members can give in encouraging those they regard as personally suitable to apply for appointment.

  Limitation Legislation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the review of limitation legislation to be completed. [402]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Law Commission is undertaking a comprehensive review of the law of limitation and expects to publish a consultation paper on the subject later this year. A period of consultation will follow before the Law Commission begins work on the final report.

  Rural Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the importance of retaining small, rural magistrates courts. [403]

  Mr. Hoon
  Magistrates courts are provided by the local paying authority for the use of the magistrates courts committee. Closure decisions are for the MCC to determine, although the paying authority may appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. Each case will be dealt with on its merits.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he will take to deal with the backlog of appeals to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. [404]

  Mr. Hoon
  The immigration appellate authorities have been resourced to deal with over 9,000 more cases this financial year than last. More adjudicators will be recruited over the summer, and our plans to reform the primary purpose rule should have a significant effect on the backlog.

  Bail
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on advice given to judges about bail for those accused of murder. [390]

  Mr. Hoon
  No advice has been given. The granting of bail is subject to legislation, principally the Bail Act 1976.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism Industry
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what meetings he has had with representatives of the tourism industry about the social chapter and the minimum wage. [373]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Tourism, with its potential to generate employment, is one of the priorities we have set for the Department. We shall of course be taking every opportunity to meet representatives of the tourism industry to discuss a range of issues which affect it. The evidence is that most employers and employees in the tourism industry support a minimum wage. Minimum wages and basic standards of employment, by creating a better rewarded and motivated work force, can help to improve business of performance.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the impact on the tourism industry of a national minimum wage. [377]

  Mr. Clarke
  Tourism, with its potential to generate employment, is one of the priorities we have set for the Department. The UK tourism industry must compete on the quality of its product and service. The introduction of a national minimum wage, by helping to create a better rewarded and better motivated work force, will drive up standards and increase business.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to promote the British tourism industry. [389]

  Mr. Clarke
  Because we fully recognise the importance of tourism to the economy of this country and its potential for employment generation, we shall be acting with the industry, the tourist boards, local authorities and others to achieve our policy aims. These include: a positive approach from Government for the industry; effective marketing of Britain overseas; reinvigorating domestic tourism; improving the quality of the product; jobs, training and investment in people; and sustainable development.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to make the national lottery more responsive to the views of ordinary people. [374]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government's proposals to reform the national lottery are specifically designed to meet the concerns of the public over the way it has worked to date. The new good causes are ones which have overwhelming public support and our plans to seek a not-for-profit operator will help maintain the public's faith in the lottery by maximising the amount going to the good causes.

  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much lottery money he plans to divert to health and education. [375]

  Mr. Smith
  We intend to invest £1 billion between now and 2001 in health, education and establishing a national endowment for science and the arts, while maintaining our commitment to the existing good causes.
  20
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the estimated amount that will be available for good causes in the current financial year from the national lottery. [376]

  Mr. Fisher
  Income to the good causes depends on sales levels of national lottery tickets and other factors such as the interest gained by the good cause fund. We expect that between £1.6 billion and £1.8 billion will be raised for the good causes in this financial year.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his proposals to use funds generated from the midweek lottery to finance health and education projects. [379]

  Mr. Smith
  The lottery reform Bill will allow lottery funds to make a greater impact than ever before on communities all over the country. The first areas to benefit will be: IT training for teachers, to give them the skills and the materials to exploit new technologies in schools; after-school clubs, to provide homework centres and extra-curricular opportunities in the arts and culture; and healthy living centres, to establish a national network of one-stop centres promoting health and fitness.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when funds from the lottery will be diverted to educational projects. [380]

  Mr. Smith
  The Government will invest £1 billion between now and 2001 in spending on health and education projects and establishing a national endowment for science and the arts. The programme will start as soon as the necessary legislative changes have been made.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he intends to undertake with health authorities requiring the use of lottery funds for health service expenditure. [386]

  Mr. Smith
  We will undertake wide consultation on our plans for the national lottery in the coming months and will publish a White Paper in the summer. We will make sure everyone with an interest in the national lottery, including health authorities, has an opportunity to present their views.

  Miss Anne Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to restructure the national lottery. [363]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The Bill to reform the lottery will widen access to the benefits of the lottery and introduce a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to distribution of the proceeds. We will also seek a competitive and efficient not-for-profit operator so that the maximum amount of money possible goes to the good causes.

  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to meet the chairman of the BBC to discuss matters related to broadcasting. [378]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I met the chairman last week for an initial discussion of broadcasting issues.

  Piers (Preservation and Development)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has for making funds available to preserve and develop piers. [381]

  Mr. Tony Banks
  Public funding for the built heritage is available from English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund. English Heritage has so far contributed ELI million for works to piers. The National Heritage Memorial Fund has provided a further £4.5 million, the greater part of which has been lottery funding. Under the terms of the National Heritage Act 1997, the National Heritage Memorial Fund trustees will for the first time be able to consider funding applications in respect of privately owned piers.

  Millennium Celebrations
  Mr Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for millennium celebrations. [384]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department is responsible for co-ordinating the Government's interests in the millennium. Through the Millennium Commission we will be spending nearly £.8 billion of national lottery money on projects—great and small—to mark the year 22
  2000. My Department is also working with other organisations involved in the process of planning for the millennium, to ensure proper co-ordination.

  Inner-city Theatres
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to increase funding for inner-city theatres. [385]

  Mr. Fisher
  I am a great believer in the power of the arts to help regenerate and build local communities, in inner-city areas in particular. Decisions on the distribution of funds are made by the Arts Council of England and the regional arts aboards in conjunction with local authorities and other funding partners, and I know that they are all aware of the wider benefits which the arts can bring to communities.

  British Academy of Sport
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to make an announcement on the setting up of a British Academy of Sport. [387]

  Mr. Tony Banks
  The Government are committed to the development of a British Academy of Sport and I am currently considering carefully the three shortlisted bids from the Central, Heyford and Sheffield consortiums. I also intend to visit the sites in the next few weeks. A joint announcement with the United Kingdom Sports Council will be made as soon as possible thereafter.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Lord Simon of Highbury
Sir David Alec Gwyn Simon, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Simon of Highbury, of Canonbury, in the London Borough of Islington, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Ashburton and the Lord Haskel.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.
Lord Gridley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Quinton—Took the Oath.

Disability Discrimination Act
2.50 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to amend the Disability Discrimination Act to ensure full civil rights for disabled people.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, our manifesto commits us to establishing
"comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people against discrimination in society or at work, developed in partnership with all interested parties".
The Disability Discrimination Act does not achieve those aims. We are already talking to disability organisations, business and disabled people about how we can give them the rights they deserve and whether we can build on the DDA until new legislation is in force.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her appointment. I am sure that she will serve with her usual distinction. Is she aware that I welcome the Government's commitment to civil rights for disabled people and their view that the Disability Discrimination Act at present is inadequate? Does she agree that nothing of real value will be achieved until there is legislation for a strong commission to enforce the rights of disabled people, enforce the law, investigate allegations of discrimination and represent them in courts of law? As this matter was not referred to in the Queen's Speech, can my noble friend inform the House when that legislation is likely to be forthcoming?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend for his very kind words of
136
congratulation. It is a pleasure for me to take my first Question as a Minister from my noble friend Lord Ashley, who has done so much for disabled people in this country. The Queen's Speech sets out a very ambitious but at the same time achievable programme of legislation in the first Session of Parliament. We realise that some will be disappointed that that programme does not include a Bill to establish a commission to help enforce the Disability Discrimination Act. However, that should not be seen as any lessening of the Government's commitment to comprehensive and enforceable anti-discrimination legislation. We have never led anyone to expect that there will be major disability legislation in the first Session of Parliament. That does not mean that we are not committed to further disability legislation in this Parliament. We shall he consulting widely and developing our proposals in partnership with interested parties. We want to avoid rushed or half-baked legislation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in offering my congratulations to the noble Baroness for taking on this job. In the spirit of constructive criticism, I also offer my congratulations to the Government for transferring the Disability Unit, as I understand they have, from the Department of Social Security to the Department for Education and Employment. We believe that that move is justified by the merger of education and employment and it is one that we very much welcome. I should like to ask the noble Baroness—I now have to learn some new tricks—whether it is the case that there is no longer a person with the title Minister for disabled people and, if so, whether she believes it is a good idea that there should be such a named individual. Further, will the noble Baroness ensure that the rights and interests of disabled people are not enhanced and improved by knee-jerk reactions and the extension of the Disability Discrimination Act without consulting employers and others who may be affected?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. He was my predecessor in this post. I also have a few tricks to learn. I am most grateful to him for accepting that it is desirable that the whole question of the rights of disabled people should be handled by my department. As to why there is no Minister for disabled people, the Government are committed to promoting the interests of disabled people and are not short-changing them by not having a Minister with that title. Disabled people, in particular younger ones, recognise that economic independence is fundamental to their playing a key role in society. That means that proper education and training, as well as good employment policies, allow disabled people to make the most of their opportunities. Their interests can have no better champions than the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Equal Opportunities,

137
who are now in the lead in securing that those interests are recognised right across the Government's policies and programmes.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that when in opposition noble Lords opposite informed this House that they had consulted very widely on the need for a commission? I supported the establishment of a commission. At that time noble Lords opposite stated with some force that all the consultations led to the formation of a commission. I am very disappointed. I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that the disability lobby will be extremely disappointed by this hedging on the creation of a commission. The noble Baroness will also be aware that there is great disappointment that the Disability Discrimination Act has not been working in the way that it should have been. Indeed, both the noble Baroness and her colleagues were aware of that when the legislation was passing through this House. Noble Lords were informed that they would do something about it. I am sure that everyone will be extremely disappointed.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it was the Government supported by the noble Baroness who decided against having a disability rights commission. Perhaps I may try to reassure her that no decisions have yet been reached about whether there should be an overarching human rights commission or disability rights commission. We want to consult all interested parties before coming to a final view on the matter. I hope that that reassurance will help.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that our Royal British Legion is greatly interested in this issue? It was the contributions of the men and their fathers who are members of that great organisation which allow us to live in the freedom that we enjoy. I hope that my plea will be heeded, because the Question is of interest to our Royal British Legion.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question. We shall of course want to take into account the views of the Royal British Legion in any discussions about a disability rights commission.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as one who has often complained about the overloading of legislative programmes, I cannot but accept the Minister's first Answer. However is she aware that the welcome commitment that she mentioned may receive occasional refreshment by contributions from these Benches?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is nice to receive that advice from the noble Earl. It is the first time that I have had a full frontal view of him. I look
138
forward to many further debates and, I am sure, difficult questions. I know that he will ask me one later.

Mobile Telephones: Use While Driving
3.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government
Whether they will consider making it an offence to use a telephone while driving a vehicle on a public road, whether the telephone is held in the hand or not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for the Environment and Transport (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I am urgently considering how best to tackle the hazards posed by driving while using a mobile telephone—whether hand held or hands free. Recent court cases show that the police can and do successfully prosecute the offences of dangerous driving, careless driving or failure to exercise proper control of a vehicle that may arise from the use of a mobile phone while driving.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, and congratulate her upon her debut today speaking as a Minister. I wish her all the best in her new role. Perhaps I should have addressed her not as "Minister" but by her Christian name so as to keep in line with the cosy informality now being encouraged by the Government. Is she aware that there are differing views among the safety and motoring organisations about accidents involving car phones, because those phones can be beneficial and needed, for example, by women driving on their own? Can an attempt be made to devise a code of practice?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for at least some of his comments. I am sure that the House would be interested in assessing any procedural innovations of the kind he suggested if he wished to make them. We have to balance the undoubted assistance that having a mobile phone in a car may be to passengers and drivers on their own against the danger that is constituted when people use that mobile phone when driving. The drawing up of a new Highway Code gives us an opportunity to strengthen its provisions. I have asked that the wording of Rule 43, which deals with this issue, be strengthened, and that will go out for consultation in the summer.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, perhaps I may join in the congratulations to the Minister on her new appointment to the transport portfolio. Does she feel that there is a danger of being over-prescriptive in this area, given that people such as airline pilots manage to land a sophisticated piece of equipment while talking on the radio and occasionally while talking to their colleagues? Does the Minister have an opinion as to what effect a tax on mobile phones may have on their use and consequent abuse?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his welcome. In the past the danger has

139
been caused by being under-prescriptive in terms of informing drivers of the hazards that can result from the distraction caused by the use of mobile phones. I in no way wish to legislate where it is unnecessary, but there is a great deal that we can do in terms of driver education through the mobile phone companies and our own agencies to encourage better practice in this area. Perhaps I may write to the noble Viscount about taxation.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government could consult RoSPA, whose members represent a broad base of opinion on this subject? I declare an interest as RoSPA president.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that would be helpful. I know that RoSPA has recently amended its own advice in this area. When we go out to consultation on the Highway Code I am sure that it will be one of the organisations to which we shall be speaking also about the wider areas where there may be opportunities for improvements.
Lord Winston: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may congratulate my noble friend on her appointment, which is welcome. Is there any clear evidence that using a hand-free mobile telephone or the many other activities, such as smoking a cigarette, which are carried out in a motor car are dangerous? It would be good to have some clear, hard evidence about that.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the evidence that came out in the New England Journal of Medicine based on the Canadian study casts doubt on the assumption that a hand-free phone is safer, and claims that it is the distraction as much as the manual operation which causes the danger. A variety of distractions may occur within a car. The driver's overall responsibility is to remain in control. On the gathering of information, I have asked that in future when the police are recording accident causation data they will include whether a mobile phone was implicated.

The Parthenon Sculptures
3.8 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their refusal to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have no plans to reconsider the decision announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage that the Parthenon sculptures should remain at the British Museum.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his appointment and assure him that I understand that the Answers that he gives are necessarily those of the Government. Is he aware—he
140
must be because I told him so a short while ago—that less than a year ago 109 Members of another place signed an Early Day Motion supporting the return of the marbles to Greece; that 89 of those Members were Labour Members; and that 10 are Members of the Government? May I suggest—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may ask suggestively that those 10 members should form a delegation to the Prime Minister to ask him to reconsider the matter. Does my noble friend recognise that the greatest loyalty one can extend to a friend is to seek to put him right when he makes a mistake?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those somewhat barbed congratulations. I am afraid that if he seeks early to drive a wedge between me and my colleagues he will riot succeed. We acknowledge that there is a strong emotional case for the return of the Elgin Marbles—the Parthenon sculptures. However, having looked at the matter again, the Government recognise that it would not be feasible to return them because they are the property of the British Museum and confiscatory legislation would be required to remove them. Nor would it be sensible because the issue of the return of works of art to their country of origin is much wider than that relating to the Elgin Marbles.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the survival of these lovely creations results from their being taken over by this country and that it is therefore very important that they should remain here?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the marbles have survived because they have been kept free from the damaging atmosphere of outdoor Athens. However, as he will recognise, the Greek proposal is that they should be returned to a museum where, presumably, that protection would continue.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that such a move would be an unwelcome precedent? If we started to return works of art to other countries, there would not be much left in our museums and galleries.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right—and I have been waiting for 14 years to say that! It would be an absurdity if great national collections around the world consisted only of works of art originating from the country in which they were located. That would be damaging not only for art history and education but for the appreciation of all forms of art.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, will the Minister accept that it gives all of us on these Benches the greatest possible pleasure to find him adorning the Front

141
Bench opposite? We have all in our time suffered a great deal of damage from his attacks and perhaps we may hope to return the compliment at some time in the future.
It also gives us great pleasure to note that the Government have not lost our marbles and, indeed, may show signs of retaining some of their own—at least for the moment. Can the Minister confirm unequivocally that the principle which underlies this decision will be applied to other works of art and that it is not a one-off decision?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his congratulation, which is somewhat less barbed than that of my noble friend Lord Jenkins—but only somewhat. I hope that I made it clear in my earlier answers that the issue of the return of all works of art to their country of origin is wider than the issue of the Parthenon sculptures. I believe that that gives the noble Lord the answer he seeks.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Bench!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, it may be time for a question from the Cross-Benches.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be dangerous to return the marbles to Athens because they were under attack by Turkish and Greek fire in the Parthenon when they were rescued and the volatile Greeks might easily start hurling bombs around again?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that I should be tempted to make comparisons between the political situation in Greece in 1816 and that in 1997.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. I did not see him because my eyesight is not very good. I agree with my noble friend that this is more than a local issue; it is an international issue. Is he aware of the existence of the international committee dealing with museums and of the general movement throughout the world to return stated objects which are carefully vetted to ensure that they are of great importance to the country of origin? Is he aware that Australia is returning objects to New Guinea; that France is returning objects to Algeria; and that North America is returning objects to South America? We alone are curmudgeons and it is about time we put that right. Our international reputation is at stake.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right in saying that the issue is much wider
142
than the Parthenon sculptures. It is true that this is an international matter in the sense that UNESCO, which we will rejoin on 1st July this year—and I hope that my noble friend will recognise the value of that decision—is concerned with the conditions in which works of art may be returned to their country of origin. However, I believe that we should wait for international action, rather than taking a one-off decision of the kind proposed by my noble friend.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I, without any barbs at all, congratulate the Minister. Does he agree that, if the principle of returning the Parthenon Marbles were accepted, every single tourist who went abroad might have to return his or her souvenirs bought in good faith?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are Questions on the Order Paper for later Answer about the return of works of art taken away from their country of origin in modern times. Perhaps we can have a more useful discussion on this matter at that time.

Unemployment: Welfare to Work Programme
3.16 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the proposals in the Labour Party manifesto on welfare to work represent government policy.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we are committed to a radical programme that tackles unemployment and breaks the spiral of escalating spending on social security. That is what we have said and that is what we are doing.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and wish to ask for clarification of one particular sentence in the manifesto. It concerns what happens to those who do not accept the options offered to them. Early party statements have been to the effect that lifelong benefit is not an option. The manifesto made the very significant qualification that:
"A life on full benefit is not an option".
It is that sentence about which I wish to ask. Is it a firm government policy?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is the Government's view that we cannot afford to leave many hundreds of thousands of young people idle. Our welfare to work programme will offer a way out of unemployment to many young people, long-term unemployed people and lone parents. It is our view that it is right to expect young people to take advantage of the help provided. We want them to have the right to that help, but with that goes the responsibility of taking advantage of it.
Turning to the noble Earl's specific question, we are considering how sanctions will be applied in the welfare to work programme. We think it right to expect young

143
people to take advantage of the help provided. We must discuss and decide the issue of loss of benefits with our colleagues in the Department of Social Security. At present there is, as the noble Earl well knows, a jobseeker's allowance regime whereby unemployed people who refuse offers of help and are penalised with a benefit sanction may receive hardship payments. We shall have to consider further whether that JSA regime is appropriate for young people in our new programme and we will be discussing how sanctions will work for those who do not take up the chance.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what plans the Government have for consulting with young unemployed people or with those who work with them and for them, such as the Children's Society, about the procedures for implementing the welfare to work programme so that the young people may more willing own it and accept it?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am very grateful for that question. It is of course vital that, before implementing this exciting new programme, we should consult widely with all interests involved including voluntary organisations, employers, training institutions and, of course, young people themselves. One of the difficulties about consulting young people is that many of those whom we wish to target with this programme are among the most disaffected in our society. Many play no part in those organisations with which it is easy to make contact. However, we shall do our very best to consult not just young people but those who are most likely to want the programme and who need to benefit from the programme.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment, as other noble Lords have done. To what extent is that policy dependent on the windfall tax?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words in congratulating me on my new appointment. Of course the new policy is dependent on funding from a windfall levy. That is now well known. The Government intend to have a one-off windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised utilities to fund the radical welfare to work programme. Those companies which are likely to be affected will be able to make representations to the Treasury and those representations have already begun. I should make it absolutely clear that those representations are not about whether or not a windfall levy is to be raised. We have made that clear in our manifesto and we now have a mandate to implement it. But it is right that we should consult and allow representations on exactly how the levy will be raised.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I join in the welcome given to the noble Baroness on her new office, although I am surprised that I am not able to congratulate this afternoon my usual sparring partner, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, on her
144
office. But perhaps there is some subtlety in relation to the Department of Social Security not answering this Question.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was in the House on 11th May 1995. On that day the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in dealing with the question of reducing benefits for 17 and 18 year-olds, asked me:
"Does he accept that not to pay someone benefit is a fine or a penalty?".—[Official Report, 11/5/95; col. 268].
As the Government appear to be threatening not to pay someone benefit, perhaps the noble Baroness will explain whether that is a fine or a penalty.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, unfortunately, unlike some people who work in government, I do not keep a diary, so I do not remember whether I was in the House on 11th May 1995. But to come back to the noble Lord's somewhat mischievous question, I think that he would be the first person to agree that it is very important to have an element of compulsion in this programme; that it is desirable to ensure that all young people who are currently unemployed, particularly those who have been unemployed for a long period of time, should be not just encouraged but given a little carrot and perhaps a tiny stick to make sure that they benefit from what is being provided.

Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 to enable criminal proceedings to be taken in the United Kingdom for breach of Article 3 of the conventions. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Pharmacists Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the immediate suspension from the register of registered pharmaceutical chemists in cases where a direction is made under Section 8(1)(ii) of the Pharmacy Act 1954. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Flather.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

145
Moved, That pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 69, Mr. W.A. Proctor be appointed an Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills in place of Mr. R. J. Willoughby.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
Girobank plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]
Hailsham Cattle Market Bill [H.L.]
Lloyds TSB Bill [H.L.]
London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bills which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent shall notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House have leave to introduce the said Bills in the present session and the petitions for the Bills shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That every such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 o'clock on Wednesday 21st May next with a declaration annexed thereto signed by the agent concerned, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the last Parliament;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the present session of Parliament be pro forma only, in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the last Parliament, and that no new fees be charged to such stages.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by Lord Merlyn-Rees—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to
146
thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
3.27 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, this is my first speech from the Woolsack in your Lordships' House, which I had the privilege to enter in 1987, more than 10 years ago. I know the distinction of my predecessors. I succeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He occupied this office for the longest continuous period—close on 10 years—of any Lord Chancellor this century. The noble and learned Lord is of high distinction. That is not in itself unusual of holders of this office—a truth of which this incumbent is only too conscious. What is unusual, however, and most becoming of my noble and learned predecessor, is his modesty—and he has nothing to be modest about.
I will remain present throughout this debate for as long as I can. But pressure of departmental business and Cabinet committee meetings will require me to leave the Chamber from time to time.
Our debate today will concentrate on constitutional affairs, home affairs, health and social affairs. I will focus on the first two. My noble friend Lady Hollis will have much to say on health and social affairs when she draws our proceedings to what is likely to be a late close.
It is less than a year since I spoke from the Opposition Benches during a debate on the constitution initiated by the previous Government. I said then that the next Labour Government would fashion a new constitutional settlement which would return power to the people. Our manifesto pledge this. We will honour our pledges.
Triumphalism is always wrong. I state the disempowerment of the whole of the Conservative Party in Scotland and in the whole of Wales only as facts. The greatest strength of the Conservative Party across this century and the last has been its resilience and its adaptability. I believe it may now be re-thinking its position on devolution for Scotland. The Labour Party manifesto, on which it won the general election with a majority of 179, pledged this about Scottish devolution:
"As soon as possible after the Election, we will enact legislation to allow the people of Scotland and Wales to vote in separate referendums on our proposals, which will be set out in white papers. These referendums will take place not later than the autumn of 1997. A simple majority of those voting in each referendum will be the majority required. Popular endorsement will strengthen the legitimacy of our proposals and speed their passage through Parliament".
The manifesto continued later:
"Following majorities in the referendums, we will introduce in the first year of the Parliament legislation on the substantive devolution proposals outlined in our white papers".
The manifesto commitments could not have been more clearly put before the electorate.
Margaret Thatcher, Malcolm Rifkind, Michael Forsyth and Ian Lang all spoke out in the 1970s in favour of devolution for Scotland. Then they and their party changed. But the Conservative Party is well entitled to change again. There would be no shame in

147
acknowledging that what was first thought by those distinguished Conservative politicians to be right was right after all. I read the weekend reports of Mr. Hague's recent speech. He argued for continued opposition in principle to devolution, without prejudice to active Conservative involvement in a Scottish parliament if it happens. I do not attack the principled logic of that position but I beg leave to question its wisdom. I ask whether the best politics from which to re-establish the Conservative Party in the new Scottish Parliament is to oppose its becoming and very being as misconceived.
My noble and learned predecessor was widely reported in the election campaign as offering the opinion that the Salisbury Convention might cease to bind your Lordships' House if the other place did not follow the conventions that are said to apply to constitutional legislation there. In raising this matter I have no hidden agenda. I make no warnings, express or implied. I say only this. With the greatest respect to my noble and learned predecessor, I believe that his customary wisdom did not accompany that opinion. The relationship between this House and the other place is discrete. The Salisbury Convention recognises the status of the other place as the elected Chamber. The procedures and conventions of the other place are for it. Ours are for us. It would, I suggest, be unwise to seek to change ours in response to any change to theirs.
The new Government are about to embark on a major programme of constitutional change. Decentralisation is central to our vision of a modern nation. Scotland and Wales are individual nations. The Government agree with the people of both these nations that the institutions of democracy and government must be brought closer to the people they represent.
The Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill was introduced in another place last week. It provides for the holding of referendums in Scotland and Wales on our proposals for a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly. The Bill itself is short. It should not delay your Lordships unduly. It defines the electorate, the text of the questions, the issues to be voted on, the funding and the arrangements for counting the votes. The referendums will give the people of Scotland and Wales the opportunity to prove to the whole of the United Kingdom the strength of their desire for the institutions of democracy and of government to be brought closer to the people.
We will publish two White Papers in the summer, well in advance of holding any referendums. Those White Papers will spell out in detail our proposals for a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly. They will provide a detailed framework for discussion among all interested parties. There will be ample opportunity for debates on the White Papers before Parliament rises both in this House and in another place.
The Government will campaign strongly for yes votes. We expect a powerful, positive response in the Scottish referendum. We will then bring forward a further Bill before Christmas to provide for the establishment of a Scottish parliament and for the establishment of a Scottish executive and for their
148
powers. This will achieve a more democratic and responsive system of government at all levels in Scotland.
The referendum Bill will also allow the people of Wales an early vote on the establishment of a directly-elected Welsh assembly. Again, following a positive response, we will introduce legislation to establish the assembly. That will be a far-reaching step which will increase democracy in Wales and ensure that Welsh interests are more clearly heard, both here and in Europe. The powers vested in the Secretary of State have built up over the years and they range across by far the largest part of the Government's functions in Wales. Yet accountability for those powers has not been exercised by any democratic body in Wales. Far from adding an extra layer of government, our proposals will democratise it and open it up. Within a framework established by Parliament, the assembly will assume the order-making and other powers of the Secretary of State and the functions of the Welsh Office. It will exercise control over the web of quangos which affect so many aspects of Welsh public life and ensure that appointments to them are fair and open, in accordance with the Nolan principles.
We are determined to see power put back into the hands of the people throughout the Union. All its citizens have a stake in reform. We will provide an elected voice to speak up for London by bringing forward legislation to provide for a referendum on a directly-elected strategic authority and a directly-elected mayor for the capital. We are aiming to issue a consultation paper before the end of July, followed by a referendum next May. We want Londoners and London organisations to be fully involved in the consultation process and we will be working closely with both as we develop our proposals.
We will also bring forward a Bill to establish regional development agencies in England to fulfil our manifesto commitment to support local economic growth. Each agency, set up to meet local circumstances and needs, will encourage inward investment, help small businesses and co-ordinate regional development.
In our manifesto we asked the British people to give us their trust. They have now given us that trust. In return, we will govern with a new spirit of openness. We will enter into a partnership with the people, governing by consent and trying to fashion consensus in a way that is both honest and accountable. We will aim at nothing less than to rebuild the confidence of a whole nation in its system of government.
A freedom of information Act was a key commitment in our manifesto. It remains central to our objective of open government. There was a good deal of misplaced press speculation recently that this was a subject on which the new Government had gone cold. Nothing could be more wrong. It remains a priority. However, we are resistant to any quick and unsatisfactory fix. We will not rush in legislation that does little more than put the existing and unsatisfactory code of practice on a statutory basis. Freedom of information deserves stronger beer. We will introduce legislation in an open and inclusive way. We will move quickly to publish a

149
White Paper. It will set out what we believe to be the way forward, but it will also stimulate others to say what they think the Act should cover. Moreover, it will state the minimum level of openness which will be in operation before the Act becomes law—a clear and early sign of the partnership that this Government intend to forge with the people. The Government will also introduce a Bill implementing the EC data protection directive.
We will also be considering how the funding of political parties should be regulated and reformed as another vital step in restoring public confidence in the nation's political system and upholding the highest standards of honesty and integrity in public life.
We will establish a special Select Committee to review the procedures of another place to make it more efficient and effective, examining in particular the handling of legislation and issues such as the shape of the parliamentary day and year.
Your Lordships will recall a number of Private Members' Bills proposing the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law which have been brought before this House over the years. Too much can sometimes be claimed for constitutional change. I do not believe that all the problems of our country can be put to rights at the stroke of a constitutional lawyer's pen. But I do express my strong personal commitment to the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into our domestic law. Now I know that there are some who think, and may say in this debate today, that incorporation involves an unacceptable transfer of power from a sovereign Parliament to an unelected judiciary. We must ensure that the convention is incorporated on a basis that does no violence to the bedrock principle of our constitution, the sovereignty of Parliament.
In this country we have an impartial judiciary of the highest quality. Our most senior judges are as fine as any in the world. What a loss it has been for far too long to the development of European jurisprudence in human rights that our judges have been disabled from making a distinctive British contribution. We must aim to take the lead in the development of human rights in Europe. Incorporation will repatriate from Strasbourg to Britain the day-to-day enjoyment of the rights to which our citizens are entitled under the convention.
Your Lordships will be familiar with our pledge to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. We shall make it good. For too long communities have felt powerless in the face of behaviour which makes life a misery. We shall deliver measures that work.
We shall create a new duty on local authorities for community safety. They will ensure that the vital work of all those involved is brought together within a co-ordinated multi-agency framework. We have long stressed that there is a need for the police and local authorities to work together and with the local community to prevent and reduce crime. This will ensure that the efforts of all are complementary, mutually supportive and, most important, wholly
150
focused on key local problems. We intend to require local councils, again in partnership with the police and others involved in the fight against crime, to agree community targets for its reduction.
The courts will be given a new power to make community safety orders. They will be made, on the application of the police and local authority, in the light of their precise knowledge of the problems of an area, and will be addressed to a named individual. The order will focus on the specific behaviour which has caused innocent people distress or fear. Those named in the orders will be told clearly what it is they must or must not do, or where they must not go. The order will be granted on the civil law standard of proof—the balance of probabilities—that the person named in the order has committed the behaviour in question. There will be firm penalties for any breach of the order, but only if the breach is proved to the criminal standard beyond reasonable doubt.
We shall also be addressing the need for greater consistency in sentencing procedures for the courts, in order to ensure that appropriately severe penalties are imposed where circumstances demand it. Our manifesto indicated that we shall be placing a duty on the Court of Appeal to lay down sentencing guidelines for the main areas of offending. We shall be extending the powers of the Attorney-General to appeal unduly lenient sentences.
We are particularly concerned about the amount of offending by young people and the ability of the criminal justice system to respond to it. We shall tackle both, as we promised in one of our five key election pledges. The multiple offending of some youngsters wrecks their own lives and the lives of those they victimise. From the outset it must be made clear to young people that they will not get away with offending. The response to young crime must be fast, consistent and effective. Young offenders must be made to face up to their responsibility for their own actions. The current system of repeated police cautions, which all too often are used inappropriately and inconsistently, will be replaced with a final warning, backed up by relevant interventions aimed at nipping offending behaviour in the bud.
When young offenders come to court they must be dealt with quickly. At present it takes far too long—an average of four and a half months—to process young offenders from arrest to sentence. The Government have pledged to halve that time for persistent young offenders. The delays we are pledged to reduce result from many interrelated causes: the social services; the police and their interaction with the Crown Prosecution Service and others prior to a decision to prosecute; delays associated with defence concerns to ensure a fair trial, which may or may not, depending on the circumstances of individual cases, be justifiable; and delay in the procedures of the magistrates' courts themselves. We are determined to secure the co-operation of every relevant agency to ensure fulfilment of our election pledge.
Disposals must be aimed at changing young offenders' behaviour. The Government want to see a system which engages young people and their parents

151
much more in confronting offending behaviour. We shall introduce a new reparation order which will require the offender to make amends to the victim or the community that he has harmed. We shall empower courts to impose an action plan order, providing intensive intervention to change young offenders' attitudes and behaviour. Youth offender teams will have an important role in planning and supervising community sentences. We shall introduce a parental responsibility order aimed at ensuring that parents face up to their responsibility for their children's misbehaviour.
A new national youth justice board will be set up to monitor and set standards for the delivery of community and custodial sentences, and ensure a consistent and cost-effective response to young offenders across the country. These measures, taken together, will have the maximum possible impact on offending behaviour and will provide the public with the reassurance and confidence they have been denied for so long. They will make the streets of our cities and towns safer for all to enjoy.
In Northern Ireland we shall seek reconciliation and a political settlement which has the broad support of both sides of the community. We shall work to build trust and confidence by bringing forward legislation to deal with terrorism and to reduce tension over parades.
We have a clear manifesto commitment to give Parliament a chance to vote on a total handgun ban. We shall honour that commitment by bringing in a Bill quickly. This will provide an opportunity to consider the risk posed by remaining handguns and whether a total ban is needed.
We have just come through one of the historic general elections of this century. The Government will use the decisive mandate given into their trust to develop a programme of constitutional change to last, not only for the duration of this Parliament, but to carry the nation strongly into the next millennium. Rights will be matched by duties and responsibilities. Civil liberties will he protected; and government will be for the benefit of the whole nation.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I join with all other noble Lords who have welcomed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to his post. I wish him well in that great office of state.
As this is my first speech from this Dispatch Box, although the noble Lord is not opening this debate for the Government today I wish to offer my warmest congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who now serves in the role I once held at the Home Office. As the noble Lord takes up his brief as Minister for home affairs in this House he may be bewildered, as I was, by the variety, range and scope of his responsibilities from animal research and dangerous dogs to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, from law and order and asylum to the highly sensitive issues of sexuality, pornography and obscenity, from the fire service and the Probation Service to European and constitutional affairs. That list is by no means complete.
152
However, I know that the noble Lord will bring great expertise to bear, as indeed he has to all Home Office affairs and issues while occupying these Benches.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I admit to one great disappointment today; and in doing so I have no wish to imply any criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not responsible for the Home Office portfolio. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has proved an outstanding advocate for his party and a formidable opponent of mine on Home Office, and previously Department of the Environment, issues. I came to admire and respect him very much, and to respect the noble Lord's work in this House. I know that that view was shared by other noble Lords on all Benches. However, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on his new government appointment.
I must confess to finding it very strange replying to the gracious Speech from a Labour Government, much of the content and language of which has been opposed wholeheartedly over the years by noble Lords now sitting on the Government Front Benches and their colleagues in another place. The subjects covered by the debate today include home affairs, constitutional affairs, and health and social security. I shall touch on each of those areas to set the scene; and my noble friend Lord Kingsland, whom I welcome most warmly to this Front Bench, will respond later for these Benches. When he winds up, I know that the House will be with him and welcome him in his new role in Opposition. I know that this will be an interesting and important debate. The list of speakers is manifest to that.
Constitutional reform should never be approached lightly and should always be thoroughly thought through. That cannot be said for some of the proposals that will come before this House during the coming months. Although the proposals were flagged up in the Labour Party manifesto, in the recent general election campaign, and again in the gracious Speech, it is true to say that there is precious little detail on which we the people can base our considered judgment. Therefore many questions will be posed to the Government in the debate today and in the weeks to follow. My noble friends on this side of the House hold very dear the unity and cohesion of the United Kingdom. We support the Government's aim of giving the Scottish and Welsh people more influence over the decisions affecting their own lives. Indeed, in office we did a great deal to achieve just that: the enhanced roles given to the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees are two recent examples.
The Government's referendums proposed for Scotland and Wales are quite unprecedented. Although, as I understand the proposals, a White Paper setting out details will be produced in the summer, any Bill before this House and another place can be amended by Parliament. Indeed, on a matter of such constitutional importance there is an arrogance about pre-empting the will of Parliament even with such a large majority. The Scottish and Welsh people therefore could end up getting something for which they did not vote. In many ways the Government seemed to be asking the Scots and Welsh to sign a contract before that contract has been

153
laid before them in its final form. At least in the 1979 devolution referendums, the House of Commons had already debated the proposals. We continue to believe that devolution would undermine the Union, weaken the powers of local government and impair the Scottish and Welsh economies. During the general election, the Labour Party was challenged to answer some of the outstanding questions. Those questions have still not been answered. Now that new Labour is in Government, there is an obligation to the people to answer those questions.
For example, will the Minister tell the House the answer to the West Lothian question? Why should Scottish and Welsh MPs vote on English matters when English MPs would be unable to vote on Scottish affairs? Why are the people of England not being allowed a vote in the referendum on Scottish and Welsh devolution when the consequences of such devolution will impact materially on people living in England? Why should Scottish Members of the Westminster Parliament be unable to vote on Scottish affairs? What will it all cost? Why should the United Kingdom Parliament vote for higher funding for Scotland if Scotland has its own tax raising powers? Why should English taxpayers, who would be affected by such a proposal, not be included in a referendum? Why treat Wales differently from Scotland?
If a Scottish parliament has legislative and tax raising powers, why are the same options not being considered for Wales? Does devolution mean the reduction in the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster, as the Liberal Democrats have suggested? Will there still be a Secretary of State for Scotland and a Secretary of State for Wales in the Cabinet? Would a Secretary of State be anything other than a message carrier between a Scottish parliament, a Welsh assembly and Westminster? Would there be a revising Chamber to act as a check and balance in the system as regards legislation?
If one party has a majority in Scotland and another in Westminster, who will be responsible for the legislative programme, and from which party would the Secretary of State come? Would Bills passed by the Scottish parliament or Welsh assembly be presented to the Sovereign for assent? Would the proposed tartan tax be levied according to where people live, where they work or where their company was located? If people were taxed on the basis of where they lived, how would the people in the Border regions who work with colleagues who live in England be dealt with? Scottish-based employees would hardly be content to see their English-based colleagues take home larger pay packets. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that companies would come under pressure to compensate their employees accordingly.
Questions about English regional government are equally important, especially if legislation is preceded by a simple referendum. Apart from the considerable fragmentation of the United Kingdom, what would be the cost of the additional bureaucracies? What would be the relationships between regional and national, regional and county, and regional, district and parish
154
governments? What functions and powers would pass from one to the other? The most significant consequence would be the lack of clout for such a fragmented United Kingdom. In such circumstances, how could the Westminster Parliament represent the so-called United Kingdom in Europe and on the international stage?
Continuing the theme of passing powers from a sovereign United Kingdom Parliament, the Government propose to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. Like the Government, we strongly support the convention—after all, it was drafted by British lawyers—of which we were founder members. However, incorporation is not necessary to ensure that cases are brought more quickly and cheaply. It is far better to reform the European institutions. That is why we have signed Protocol 11, which will result in reducing legal costs and enable cases to be heard more quickly. The danger of incorporation, we believe, lies in the transfer of power away from Parliament and into the hands of non-elected judges who would be able to strike down Acts of Parliament if in their judgment they interpreted that that was the thing to do under the convention. We enjoy the best of both worlds at present. We implement the European Convention on Human Rights without politicising our British courts. We believe that incorporation will fail in what it aims to do for the very people it purports to help. Statistics used to help the case for incorporation are misleading. For example, the number of complaints to Strasbourg in 1996 was as follows: the United Kingdom 26, compared with Austria 32, France 75, and Italy 370, all of whom have incorporated the convention.
Further diminution of power from Parliament to unelected judges is proposed by the introduction of a freedom of information Act. Including the release of documents as well as information would put at risk the impartiality of civil servants who at present are expected to give advice knowing that it is protected. It is the actions and decisions of Ministers which should he a matter of scrutiny and public record. There is a risk that particular views which may be interpreted as political could be attributed to individual civil servants. We must. of course, await the detail of the Bill.
It is in the area of the fight against crime that I am most puzzled. Over the years the Conservative Government suffered the most sustained opposition to law and order reform from those in this Government. For example, they opposed the abolition to the right of silence; tougher sentences; curfews by electronic tagging; the establishment of secure training units with an emphasis on education and training within a disciplined regime for persistent juvenile offenders; mandatory drug testing; and the annual renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act—an Act that has never been supported by the Prime Minister, the right honourable Tony Blair. And scores of other measures were opposed by this Government. Such is the Road-to-Damascus conversion of the present Home Secretary and his pursuit of the prize for "out-toughing" the Tories that the only measure yet to be considered for introduction by the right honourable gentleman is the restoration of the death penalty—and I suspect that even that is only a matter of time.

155
The record of the last Government in the fight against crime is considerable. Over the past four years recorded crime has fallen by 10 per cent.—the largest fall since records began. There is now in place a raft of measures which will enable that trend to continue and will assist the police to improve detection rates. Examples include the setting up of a national DNA database, the first of its kind in the world; the establishment of a National Crime Squad and a National Criminal Intelligence Service; the introduction of state of the art technology, resulting in vastly improved communications right across the criminal justice system; the introduction of Phoenix, a computerised database of criminal records; the introduction of Quest, a rapid search facility system; the promotion and production of CCTV camera schemes throughout the country; thousands more police officers; neighbourhood watch schemes; a massive increase in special constables; the increased involvement of civilians, freeing up uniformed police officers for operational duties; the introduction of victim support, and putting concern for the victim at the heart of law and order policy; reform of the Probation Service to provide more effective community sentences—and this list is by no means exhaustive.
There is, however, no complacency. The fight against crime is a constant challenge as the criminal resorts to more and more sophisticated techniques. We will scrutinise the Government's crime and disorder Bill closely when it is published. We support the Government's objectives of reducing delays in the youth justice system and ensuring that young offenders are punished more speedily. However, we are not convinced that the Government's proposals for doing that are necessarily the right ones. For example, proposals to have one group of magistrates to hear a case and another group to decide the punishment are flawed and would be more likely to lead to an increase in delays rather than a reduction.
Before we left office we published an extensive Review into Delay in the Criminal Justice System. The report made a whole series of recommendations to speed up youth justice—for example, removing 17 year-olds from the jurisdiction of the youth courts and giving the courts the power to caution, with conditions, those who admit their guilt. We urge the Government to give serious consideration to the recommendations made in that report.
We welcome the Government's efforts to make irresponsible parents face up to their duties. As Conservatives, we clearly believe that parents have the main responsibility for bringing up their children and for keeping them under control. However, the Government have not addressed the need to take action to prevent criminal behaviour in children, particularly the under-10s. The last Conservative Government, in their consultation document, Preventing Children Offending, proposed the setting up of local child crime teams, bringing together relevant agencies at a local level to identify vulnerable children and intervene early to steer them away from crime. Our parental control orders for those parents who refuse to co-operate would go considerably further than the Government's alternative, and the courts would have at their disposal
156
a range of stiff penalties for those parents who breached the order—for example, a fine, or even electronic tagging.
There was much public support for our policy that persistent burglars and those who deal in Class A hard drugs should receive tougher sentences. There was similar support for the same policy in relation to those who commit repeat serious violent and/or sexual offences such as rapists and armed robbers. The Government should reinstate our proposals for automatic minimum sentences and we will pressure them to do so.
The Government propose to ban all handguns. Is it wise to return to this issue so soon after the Firearms (Amendment) Act was introduced? That Act will give us the toughest gun controls in the world by banning higher calibre handguns and removing handguns from circulation. A total ban would bring to an end the Olympic and Commonwealth sport of target shooting—a sport practised by thousands of law-abiding, able-bodied and disabled citizens alike. It could possibly risk driving the activity underground. Will the Minister tell the House where the money will come from to compensate 22 pistol shooters and for those stocks still held by companies who supply the sport? Have the Government included that expense in their spending plans? Or do they intend to take the money from elsewhere? If so, from where?
I now turn to proposals in the gracious Speech on the health service and social security. Our commitment to the health service is second to none. In office we increased NHS spending in real terms every year that we were in government. This Government inherit—contrary to the lies peddled by the new Labour Millbank propaganda machine—one of the most efficient health services in the world. It is interesting to record that many countries beat a path to our door to learn about our reforms. Far from increasing unnecessary administration, our reforms removed a whole tier of administration with the abolition of regional health authorities—a measure that was opposed at every stage by noble Lords opposite. We have no quarrel with the aim of cutting bureaucracy. Indeed it is the role of those within the NHS to root it out and to move money into patient care. However, the Government's Primary Care Bill will do nothing to reduce NHS bureaucracy. Scrapping GP fund-holding and corralling GPs into commissioning groups would increase bureaucracy while the focus on patient care would be lost. That is not just our view; it is also the view of Dr. Rhidian Morris, the Chairman of the National Federation of Fund-holding Practices, who has claimed that the Government's plans would increase bureaucracy because they would lead to the setting up of 500 "mini" health authorities to plan primary care for populations between 50,000 and 100,000. We introduced GP fund-holding—which, perhaps I may remind the House, is a voluntary scheme which doctors choose to join—to improve the provision of local services and to increase the decision-making powers of NHS professionals. And it has delivered. It is important to note that any changes to GP fund-holding will impact on 60 per cent. of the population. Waiting times have

157
been reduced, more in-house clinics have been provided, and there has been an improvement in standards all round.
Every Labour Government has increased waiting lists in the National Health Service. If the Government go ahead with this Bill, not only will waiting times go up, but the service provided by the NHS will deteriorate. In addition, the NHS will be hard hit by the Government's minimum wage. At the time of the last election, Mr. Robin Cook, now Foreign Secretary, admitted that the minimum wage would add £500 million to NHS costs. That was in 1992. It must surely cost at least that today. It was very interesting to hear only today Rodney Bickerstaffe of UNISON advocating a minimum wage of £4.42.
Last week the Prime Minister boasted that the Government would shake up the welfare system. But what has the Labour Party's attitude been to welfare reform over the past five years? And what do its proposals amount to? Listening to the Government, one might think that they had been clamouring for reforms that we had studiously resisted. As Peter Lilley said last week, history tells a different story. The former Secretary of State introduced 12 Bills to target help on people most in need, to improve work incentives, to get tough against fraud and to encourage better provision for old age. Labour opposed almost every one of those Bills. In their place they made proposals which were more expensive or which created disincentives to work and save.
Even more vacuous was new Labour's response to the imaginative and far-sighted proposals to secure and improve the basic pension for generations to come which were introduced by Peter Lilley, the then Secretary of State for Social Security. First, Harriet Harman, as Opposition spokesman, savaged them as "a chilling experience", while her No.2, Frank Field, at the Department of Social Security (or is he really No. 1 in disguise?), saw considerable merit in the proposals. Then, when virtually every newspaper and informed commentator across the political spectrum made his admiration for Peter Lilley's proposals clear, the then Leader of the Opposition was forced to backtrack and admit that the scheme had some merits.
Finally and most disgracefully, new Labour, as a matter of policy, wilfully alarmed elderly voters by claiming that our proposals would mean abolishing the basic state pension—a claim which they knew to be untrue. That means presumably that they are unlikely to implement proposals varyingly described as "a breakthrough", "far-sighted", "empowering", and an example of "good government"; or perhaps by some good fortune this Conservative policy, along with so many others, may be adopted eventually by this Government. If the weekend press is any guide, it may be sooner rather than later. We wait with interest.
What of the Government's current proposals? For example, the welfare to work proposals? They are certainly laudable objectives—boosting spending on education by reducing spending on unemployment benefit. We agree with those objectives, for that is precisely what we did when in government. We cut
158
unemployment by reducing burdens on businesses, by increasing incentives and achieving sustainable development. The evidence for that is that unemployment has fallen month after month for over four years. The number of jobs available has increased and spending on education has risen.
Instead, this Government want to increase burdens on business and to use job subsidies to provide artificial "make work schemes". The aim of such schemes may be desirable, but they do not save money, nor do they create permanent jobs. How can they? Most of the money will go to the people who will get jobs anyway and so it will be wasted. Nor is there any way of stopping employers from replacing existing employees with subsidised workers or from taking the money for potential employees whom employers would have employed, come what may. Nor will the subsidised jobs last. Setting aside any possible legal problems, once the money from the one-off windfall tax has gone, then so will the artificially created jobs. To add insult to injury, the jobs lost by the minimum wage will be permanent.
As a result of the election, this House is faced with a new set of priorities. My colleagues and noble friends on this side of the House do not doubt the Government's intentions: to devolve power, to cut crime and to reduce NHS bureaucracy. But I quote an old maxim: the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the devil, as we all know, and I know in particular, is in the detail. It is the detail of the measures that will come before us that will preoccupy this House. We shall provide constructive yet vigorous opposition and I look forward. with my noble friends, to fulfilling the role of revising legislation which this great House does so well.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, because it would be inappropriate, I do not propose to fight the general election again as I am afraid the noble Baroness has sought to do. It would be wise for all of us, on whatever Benches we may sit, to recognise that the world has moved on.
We have a rolling debate, as we always do on the gracious Speech. Perhaps I should first make clear those areas about which I do not intend to speak. I shall say nothing about social affairs to which my noble friend Lord Russell may refer. Although I greatly welcome the intentions set out in the gracious Speech to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law, the House will hear more about that—though not today—from my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. He deserves the greatest credit for his part in bringing this about. As for Scotland and Wales, I prefer not to trespass, except to express my support for the proposals in the gracious Speech, on territory familiar to my noble friends Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Thomas of Gresford, both of whom will speak later.
However, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in noting the absence from this debate and from the Chamber at the moment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, now Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard. He was in splendid form earlier this

159
afternoon which will have pleased noble Lords on all sides of the House. He laboured hard and often late on Home Office affairs during his party's years in opposition. He brought great persistence and mastery of his brief to our affairs, and I say unequivocally that our debates will be the poorer for his absence from them.
I had expected to welcome the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, as one of those speaking in the debate, but instead I welcome him to the Front Bench where he now sits. His light touch, which we shall, no doubt, see again soon, is a formidable combination of subtlety and steel. I hope it will not embarrass him, but I should also like to believe that his heart was with these Benches when we debated the Police Bill and the Crime (Sentences) Bill, and when his party was cosying up a little too much to Michael Howard.
Perhaps this would be a good moment to welcome the new Solicitor-General, who was with us earlier this afternoon. For a long time, since my own days in government, I have failed to see the point of the Law Officers. Every government can get the best legal advice from the country's most outstanding lawyers simply by paying for it. The Law Officers always cause trouble when they meddle in politics, as they are often inclined to do. But if we are to have Law Officers, what greater pleasure could we have than to welcome to your Lordships' House a colleague of such character and distinction as Solicitor-General?
Perhaps I may make a suggestion to Ministers. In Parliament and elsewhere, especially on radio and television, they should soon get away from the numbing culture of the soundbite and begin to appear again to be thinking men and women, ready to listen to arguments and to deal with them on their merits. As I have already said, we are no longer fighting a general election, and thought-control by the Minister without Portfolio is not the formula for confident Ministers or good government. I totally exempt Ministers in your Lordships' House from any such strictures, but I hope that their colleagues will follow their example.
Nowhere is the approach of thoughtful inquiry more needed than in Home Office affairs. The soundbite that will resonate over the years from the previous government is: "Prison works". It came to mean, "Lock up the largest number of prisoners and keep them there for the longest possible time". There were times when the new Home Secretary, Jack Straw, showed a marked reluctance to dispute this thesis, but he now has the opportunity to think again.
The Home Secretary cannot immediately reverse the momentum of a rising prison population; but he can set a target for reducing it to manageable proportions. At the end of last week, 60,431 men and women were in prison—an outrageously large number. The Home Secretary should aim to get that figure to below 50,000 by the end of this Parliament.
I am sorry that the Home Secretary appears to have rejected an amnesty for petty criminals of the kind adopted by Douglas Hurd 10 years ago. But I hope that he will look again at the consequences for the prison
160
population of implementing the Crime (Sentences) Bill that he was prepared to see pass in its entirety on the eve of the Dissolution.
Indeed—I trust that I reflect the views right across the Chamber—I hope that the new Home Secretary will review much of the legislation passed in recent years, some of it opposed by him. Some of it he may reflect upon in tranquillity and feel that it was too readily accepted. Apart from the crime Act and the Police Act, I refer perhaps most of all to the Asylum and Immigration Act. In due course, your Lordships will want to know what amendments are being tabled.
I hope also that the Government will spare a thought for the future of the Probation Service. There was strong opposition on all sides of the House—led by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who was in his place a short time ago—to changes made in recruitment and training. Those could be easily reversed and soon.
In 1995 two debates initiated from these Benches concerned prison policy. We shall return to that subject and in particular will want to know what the Home Secretary means when he is reported as saying that he is now taking full responsibility for prisons with no more argument about what are policy and what are operational matters. Does that mean the end of the Executive Agency? If not, the Home Secretary may find himself in a worse muddle than his predecessor and vulnerable when prison escapes occur, as they certainly will. From these Benches we shall show a specific interest in prison policy, including the relationship between the Home Secretary and the Prison Service. It has worked badly so far—witness the extraordinary exchanges expected this afternoon regarding the dismissal of Mr. Derek Lewis.
The Penal Affairs Consortium—widely respected for its work—has already suggested a central aim for the Home Secretary. It said:
"Reducing re-offending by the effective rehabilitation of offenders should be seen as a central part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime".
I go along with that and would welcome it as a text for the Government to follow. However, it will only work if the prison population falls and prison regimes can again prepare prisoners adequately for their eventual release.
There is one phrase in the gracious Speech which made me uncomfortable. I refer to the promise of "measures against anti-social behaviour". I hope that I am not being over-sensitive but I believe that that is a dangerous catch-all, politically-correct description for a government to use and not one that I associate with a free society.
We shall want to scrutinise with care the Crime and Disorder Bill that we have been promised. We need to be persuaded of the justice of child curfews and that parental responsibility orders will work. We do not quarrel at all with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said today about the need to look for new forms of punishment for persistent young offenders involving community partnerships. None of us, wherever we sit in this Chamber, under-estimates the strength of feeling felt by and hurt done to victims of crime or despise new ideas—about which we may be

161
initially doubtful—to deal with the situation. But I hope that this Home Secretary, unlike his predecessor, will recognise that the role of the incumbent of a great office of state is to lead and educate public opinion; it is not to follow it with crowd-pleasing measures. He also needs to take a longer perspective than his term in office. Tackling the causes of crime requires more than a "quick fix".
From these Benches we shall keep a respectful eye on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor though, alas, he is already absent from the debate. Your Lordships will remember the excellent debate initiated by him on 5th June last into the relationship between the judiciary, the legislature and the Executive. As one would expect, he made an important speech, paying tribute to the high quality of judicial review in this country and commenting on the political impartiality of the judges. His sentiments were impossible to fault. However, reading between the lines, there was a sliver of suspicion that they contained a discreet warning to the judiciary not to overstep the mark when a Labour Government took office. We too, on these Benches, will be alert to any over-stepping of the mark, in our case particularly by the Executive. All governments, however well-intentioned and however they choose to start, from time to time abuse their power by inadvertence or arrogance. We shall be watching.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as he told your Lordships this afternoon, has a busy time ahead as chairman of the senior Cabinet committee dealing with constitutional reform. I wish he had been able to give a clearer indication today of when we may expect measures not included in the gracious Speech but to which the Government are committed.
These Benches would have welcomed legislation to provide for elections to the European Parliament on a regional list system of proportional representation of the kind looked on favourably by the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, 20 years ago and advocated more recently by the committee under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield. Perhaps the noble Baroness, in winding up the debate, will assure the House that, whenever this legislation comes, it will not be too late for implementation in the next European elections. We shall be grateful for a clear undertaking on that.
In relation to reform of your Lordships' House, these Benches are at least as committed to change as are the Government. In my view it would have been wiser to proceed in the first Session of the new Parliament rather than later. Had that been done, new arrangements could have been in place by the autumn of next year. Meanwhile, your Lordships' House will have to work within its existing composition and shape.
On Thursday of last week the Leader of the House spoke of the awesome mandate given to the Government by the British people. He said that the electorate had voted for change,
"in a most dramatic and almost unprecedented fashion".— [Official Report, 15/5/97; col. 30.]
I agree with him and see the 46 Liberal Democrat MPs as part of the avalanche for change. We welcome almost all of the proposals in the gracious Speech, even when we
162
regret the omissions, and hope that this will prove a great and bold reforming Government, moved by principle and not by ideology.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Owen: My Lords, it is 19½ years since I have been able to support the Queen's Speech, and I do so with great pleasure. The constitution is a complex and delicate mechanism and, if we change it in the wrong way, we shall undoubtedly put at risk the United Kingdom.
It is my contention that the constitutional reforms being discussed today in this House and previously in another place have been thought about and deliberated over a sustained period of time. I was first converted to the case for a legislative parliament for Scotland by the late and much lamented figure of John McIntosh in 1966, within a few years of entering the House. I supported Scottish devolution during the period of the Labour Government. I believe that it is right that it should have tax-paying powers and I hope that in the referendum the Scottish people opt for that.
The legislation will be adapted over time. It would be extraordinary if there was not to be a change on the West Lothian question—a fundamental question which none of us has been able to solve. It first reared its ugly head in the debates on Irish home rule. It was never resolved at that time and, in my view, it will take legislative devolution for Northern Ireland and Wales, as well as for Scotland, before the West Lothian question is grappled with, as it must be. It may be done by a self-denying ordinance in another place. Legislation which is judged by the Speaker in that House as being substantively on devolved questions will not be voted on by Members from another nation. But there is an intense illogicality in the situation which will not be tolerated, for example, by an incoming Conservative Government which find themselves blocked on their legislation for England and possibly Wales—if it has not by then a legislative assembly—by Scottish Members of Parliament when Scotland has its own legislation on health, education and other matters.
It is no longer possible to push this issue aside any more than it is possible to push aside the necessity for having a balanced representation from all parts of the United Kingdom and therefore a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament in another place.
These are not party political issues but commonsense questions. It would strengthen greatly the devolution legislation were the Government, with their large majority, to grapple with them. For example, they could say that for a period of time they would see how matters developed and, once devolution has gone through, adopt a self-denying ordinance under which Scottish Members of Parliament would not be involved in devolved questions relating to England and Wales. This is about power. It is about the balance of power and protecting against a situation where a government might not have a natural majority for legislation in England and Wales and want to buttress their position with Scottish MPs. This is not the right way to legislate for constitutional stability in the long term.

163
I raise another question about the United Kingdom which relates to Northern Ireland. I do not believe that we can honestly continue any longer without returning to the people of Northern Ireland a properly devolved Parliament with legislative powers. It has been just about sustainable to have to await the outcome of the peace process. But I personally believe—and I hope that it is a fair interpretation of the Prime Minister's speech in Northern Ireland a few days ago—that there is now a readiness to legislate for devolution and to grapple with this matter even if there is not (as we all hope that there will be) a dialogue on a peace settlement.
That raises another constitutional question. If we are again to have the people of Northern Ireland legislating on health, education and perhaps, above all, on that most sensitive question in the 1960s of housing, I find it very hard to believe that we shall be happy to allow that legislative power to be totally untrammelled in a uni-cameral Parliament. If it is right to have a bi-cameral Parliament for its capacity to round and revise legislation and to give time to ponder and think, it seems to me that health and education legislation and other devolved legislative powers of a Scottish Parliament raise some very important questions, some of which will have an indirect impact on other parts of the United Kingdom.
In drawing up their White Paper I hope that the Government will look hard at this question of whether or not there should be a second chamber mechanism. One way would be to use Scottish MPs in another place as the second chamber in Scotland for the devolved legislation or to use this Chamber. I believe that this matter will raise itself in a more dramatic way when we come to deal with devolution to Northern Ireland. In logic, the case for a bi-cameral legislative chamber exists for all aspects of legislation which affect the United Kingdom and I hope that we shall address that question.
I now turn to the other issues of the referendums. As the Social Democrats did in the 1980s, I strongly support the idea of an elected mayor of London. I believe that that will form a very important addition to the strength of local government, which has been much diminished in recent decades. I welcome a referendum on proportional representation. I hope that that commitment will be fulfilled. An extremely important point was made in an earlier speech that proportional representation for the next European parliamentary election should be in place well before that election. I hope that it follows the same pattern of legislation which I recommended to another place back in the last Labour Government; namely, a regional system of proportional representation. The discrepancies in the European Parliament, with first-past-the-post voting, are very great indeed. Its merits as regards a European Parliament stand alone whatever one thinks of proportional representation for the UK Parliament.
I come to the other question of a referendum. One of the most important aspects of the run up to the last election and the continuation of the campaign has been the commitment of all three political parties to a referendum on a single currency. A single currency goes to the root of our constitution. There are many aspects
164
of the European question which must now be considered in the context of the constitution of the United Kingdom. The commitment defused the issue and allowed people to realise that this decision will be taken in the fullness of time and that it will not be rushed. A referendum allows people to have confidence that we shall not be edged into a European constitutional change without us being given the chance to express our views. It will not be wrapped up in the politics of edging which has been a feature of a good deal of our approach to European legislation.
For example, I believe that a very wise distinction was made by the Chancellor when he announced a greater measure of independence for the Bank of England in that it would have independent power to keep the inflation rate set by the Government, but the inflation rate target, which is effectively also the likely outcome of unemployment, would be a decision taken by politicians. It would be a considerable and important constitutional step to give up the power to set the rate of inflation and thereby the rate of unemployment. There are political questions, not merely technical ones, as regards the single currency which, by the granting of a referendum, have now a constitutional importance which we must ponder very carefully before we embark on them.
There are other aspects of the constitution which, increasingly, I believe need to be debated in both Houses of Parliament here and then taken from the United Kingdom in a genuine spirit of trying to get agreement within Europe on the way forward. For example, I have never believed it possible for a nation to remain a nation without having the right of effectively having a veto on its foreign policy agenda. We have that in NATO by the habit of consensus. We have it in the United Nations because we are fortunate to be a veto power. If the European Union wishes to push the question of majority voting in foreign policy even further than it has done so far—and it shows every sign of not being accepted in any treaty that comes from Amsterdam—then it is legitimate to say, "We have grown used to having a veto in the United Nations. If you wish to have voting because we may be going into an enlargement to 30 or more countries, then a number of the larger countries within the European Union must be given the veto". If that were to happen I would not mind majority voting at all because one would have the safeguard that I believe to be absolutely fundamental and one could not be overridden on foreign policy. I say the same for defence.
It has never been acknowledged sufficiently, particularly by the critics of the Maastricht Treaty on grounds of so-called Euro-scepticism, that the three governmental pillars that came out of the Maastricht Treaty were a profound advance in constitutional terms on what had existed hitherto. There were hitherto absolutely no limits. There was no framework within which the European Union was to evolve.
We should look at this carefully. I, for one, am ready to see the European Union become involved in peacekeeping. The WEU is the natural forum for that. However, I do not want to see defence and peacekeeping subject to the decisions of the European Parliament, the

165
European Commission or the European Court. One of the strengths of the WEU is that it recognises the democratic check on the WEU, which is an assembly of the parliaments of the nation states. Cleverly arranged, an acceptance of the WEU with its closer relationship with the EU could be a strengthening of the intergovernmental pillar on defence and a recognition that we do not need primacy for the European Parliament in this area, but primacy for consultation among the parliaments of the member states of the European Union. Primacy for the European Parliament is only in all matters that relate to the Commission, the single market and to those aspects of economic unity, where the previous Conservative Government gave the largest expansion of majority voting. I think that they were right to do so. I do not believe that we could have had the progress that has been made with regard to the single market without that degree of majority voting. I think that we were right to give those powers to the European Commission in that important but limited area of economic trading activity. I believe that on trading matters we were right to give a European Commissioner the power, in effect, to negotiate for European Union members.
However, I wish to see the Maastricht constitutional safeguards upheld at all times. I do not like the idea of blurring the distinctions and of never having a clearly defined fall-back position. If we were to enter a debate about the definition of those aspects of our membership of the European Union, the Prime Minister might be able to achieve what none of us has been able to achieve: a wholehearted commitment to the European Union as a union of nation states with an understood limit on the degree of sovereignty to be given up. That limit would be what Winston Churchill in his Fulton. Missouri, speech called the "sinews of nationhood". These would be held within the nation. I refer to those vital, essential powers which define a nation's strengths and, in the last analysis, its capacity to make its fundamental choices on foreign and defence policy.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, it gives me very great pleasure to be one of the first to congratulate the Government on the appointment of what must be regarded as a most outstanding and talented health team on the Front Benches of both Houses. Indeed, I cannot think of a better team to have occupied those Benches for many years past. The appointments have been greeted in the health service with widespread enthusiasm and optimism.
It is clear that the health service has faced a number of serious crises and, despite the protestations of the previous Government, it is equally clear that there has been a progressive decline in morale. I do not want to "electioneer"—the noble Lord. Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, rightly admonished us—but it is recognised that there is now a wave of enthusiasm throughout the health service and an eagerness to try to support the Government to take the best way forward when dealing with the many problems which the service faces. It is
166
clear that we must not allow those great difficulties to overcome the optimism which all on this side of the House share.
The gracious Speech deals with some most important issues, the first of which is undoubtedly the question of equality of access to health care. Sadly, however we look at it, and whatever the protestations of the previous Government, it is clear that there has been a shortfall in that equality. I was saddened and surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, protest in favour of the internal market. As it happens, I am very fond of the noble Baroness. I remember distinctly at two o'clock one morning receiving an envelope from the then Government Front Bench containing a chocolate biscuit in recompense for the polo mints which had been stolen for her from the Bishop's Bar by the then Whip who had been on the Front Bench and who could not wait for the absent barmaid. I believe that I supplied the polo mints for her. I have kept the chocolate biscuit. I do not intend to eat it. It will become a family heirloom as it grows its mould.
Fund-holding is one of the key problems facing the health service. It is not acceptable for patients who are benefiting from one type of general practice to have preferential access to further health care. That has clearly happened. There is a real need to address that problem and to ensure that all patients have the best opportunity of the best referral.
The gracious Speech also refers to co-operation within the service. There has undoubtedly been a major problem because of the monolithic nature of hospital trusts. Hospital trusts are, in a sense, businesses as a result of the internal market. They need an income and are therefore in competition with other trusts which are often in close proximity to them. The consequences have been severe. I hope to see from the Government the recognition that we should start with some form, not merely of vertical planning in the health service, but of horizontal planning also. Health service trusts could co-operate in the provision of, for example, paediatric care across big cities such as London. It is ridiculous that one hospital which may be particularly good at neo-natal care but may not be so good at "adult" paediatrics cannot set up a proper service because of the competitive element. Ministers can perhaps consider that point in the near future. One could give many other examples of the need for such co-operation.
The gracious Speech mentions "decentralisation". I do not fully understand what is meant by that and I wonder whether we can be given an explanation. Although I accept that there may be need for a better spread of general care throughout the community, there is no question but that one of the great strengths of our health service has been its centres of excellence. Their development has been inevitable. Sadly, for reasons that I do not understand, the Conservative Government never really capitalised on that. They spent money in one place looking at imaging but never proceeded to promulgate centralised imaging throughout the health service.
Perhaps I may give an example from my own trust. It relates to the PACS X-ray system. We are now able to read and to report on X-rays from patients in central

167
Wales. That means that those X-rays can be examined by the best experts in the United Kingdom. Virtually any technology in the health service which is capable of being digitalised can be sent down a telephone line. With such high-speed communications, we could examine CT scans, ultrasounds and ECGs also. We could perform telemedicine and telepathology in that centralised way. Sadly, that implementation of technology is currently missing from the health service. There is a great opportunity here. This country's medical technology is undoubtedly of a remarkable standard. Indeed, biotechnology is one of Britain's best successes, yet it has been too frequently neglected. There is a need to look at how to produce these kinds of methods to improve the quality of care and at the same time reduce the overall cost of so doing.
The question of the internal market was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. There is no doubt—we have never denied it—that the internal market has produced definite advantages, but I believe that they are peripheral to the central problems faced by the health service. One of the major areas has been the lack of correct audit. We have not been able to quantify the best in care and then work out how it may be implemented to improve the quality of care to patients. Instead, audit has looked at the number of patients treated. We still have the curious anomaly in the health service, which must go, that a patient has an episode (an operation in the health service), is discharged early and, if he or she has complications, returns for a second procedure. That would not have been necessary had the first episode in hospital been of greater length. Consequently, more people are treated but they are the same patients being treated twice. That is not a method of accounting that can be regarded as acceptable.
One matter that greatly concerns me is best referral. In the health service there has always been a principle that patients can get the best opinion in a field. Sadly, the internal market has prevented that from happening. Although the Government claimed that money would follow the patient, in practice that simply has not occurred. Very seldom does one find—and this is becoming more pronounced—that one is able to apply for funding for patients who are being referred to specialist centres.
Many noble Lords on this side of the House have been consistently critical of the private finance initiative. It is not that we completely disapprove of it. Interestingly, that was pointed out in a debate on the PFI on 21st May 1996, almost exactly a year ago. The problem about the PFI is income stream. One must be absolutely assured that clinical services are not devolved to the private contractor. One of our concerns is that the approach to an initial cheapening of the cost of building may not in the long term be an advantage to the health service. There is a risk of selling off assets for short term gains. As an educationalist and professor of medicine I am very concerned about the dent that that makes on medical education. Health education is given great emphasis in the Queen's Speech, and that is extremely welcome. The idea that a real dent will be made in tobacco advertising and a food and health commission established is excellent news. One is well aware of the
168
past difficulties over e.coli and Creutzfeldt Jakob's disease. One of the problems has been the conviction of the need for secrecy and the withholding of information. Thank goodness that we now have a government that appears to be open in their information.
The most difficult issue of all is the funding of the health service. No matter what may be the protestations of the other side, this Government have been left with a very serious legacy: chronic underfunding of the health service. I see no immediate way of dealing with that, but it certainly needs to be looked at. The £1.6 billion that was promised by the Tory Government will not he sufficient. There is evidence that inflation and salary costs are bound to rise. By the end of this year a number of trusts are hound to be in deficit. That deficit is calculated to be £150 million. That is a legacy with which this Government have to deal, and it is a very difficult problem.
It is right that there should be recognition of the need for education in the health service. There is a shortage of doctors, and an undoubted shortage of nurses. One of the problems we face is the emphasis on general practice and community care—a most important emphasis. There is great recognition that general practitioners must be better informed and educated on how best to make decisions in regard to their patients. We look forward to seeing these improvements. The way ahead is difficult. There are no easy solutions to the problem of funding, but I have great confidence that this Government will begin to address it.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to say a brief word about the Government's proposals for Scotland and ask the Minister who is to reply from the Front Bench one question. I listened with very great interest to what was said on this subject by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I have never been against an elected Scottish assembly of some kind, but with two obvious provisos. First, a proper majority of Scots must want and be prepared to support it, not just a few political activists. It must be set up so that it is not just workable in the short term but stable in the long term. The last attempt in 1978 failed on both counts. I voted against it at that time.
How do the Government's 1997 proposals measure up? As to public support, I suggest that at the moment it is hard to tell. The general election vote in Scotland can be taken, on its face, as a clear endorsement, but I believe that it is an endorsement of a long-standing general idea not of a precise package. After all, the general election was about so many issues. As there would be time to look at the matter again when the referendum came along it appeared that there was comparatively little talk in the media or on the doorstep—not on the several hundred doorsteps that I visited—as to how the parliament would work and affect individuals and families or what would be the true balance of advantage or disadvantage for Scotland as a whole. In any case, the key points in the Government's plans are still not known. Perhaps they are still undecided. How can people properly assess it? For the time being, I submit that the extent of support is not

169
plain. If Parliament agrees to it, the referendum will be critical. People must know, at any rate broadly, what they are deciding for or against; they must be able to reach a clear decision which will stand for the future.
My question to the Minister is the following. When will the referendum voters know the main features of the Government's proposals on which they will be voting? I suggest that this is an urgent question. The published timetable suggests that if the referendum Bill is passed the Government's White Paper will be published at the end of July with the Scottish referendum on the 11th September. The noble and learned Lord referred to the autumn in his speech, but the published timetable suggests 11th September. Since school holidays and holidays in general end in mid-August in Scotland—in my area, they end on 18th August—it appears that the time available to absorb the details of the White Paper before voting will be brief. Three weeks is enough for a campaign—as we all now know—but surely if people are to make an informed consideration they should begin to think about it before then. That is simply not possible until we know the salient facts.
My noble friend Lady Blatch has listed a number of those facts. For example, given a Scots Parliament will there still be a Secretary of State for Scotland? What she did not ask was, if there is not a Secretary of State for Scotland, who will argue the Scots' interest within the United Kingdom Cabinet on social security, defence, taxation or foreign affairs? Many issues greatly affecting Scotland will be reserved for the United Kingdom Parliament. Who will argue the Scottish case? I do not know. I do not know if anybody knows.
My noble friend also asked: "What about the West Lothian question?". The noble Lord, Lord Owen, made some fascinating comments on that topic, as he did on others. I am sure that we shall read what he said with great care. That problem has to be resolved. It may look easy, given the balance of the present Parliament but it will not look easy for long.
How would the parliament be funded? If it is decided that it will be tax-varying, will the main funding nevertheless be by grant from a Westminster Parliament? How will that grant be fixed? The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that it will be by negotiation between the two elected bodies as partners. Partnership looks a fine concept when Scotland has, this time, voted in the same way as the United Kingdom as a whole, and when at the Treasury the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary and the Economic Secretary are all Members of Parliament with Scots constituencies. Partnership looks fine at the moment, but that position is doubtless not permanent and a future scene may be less peaceful. In any case the elected Members of the two Parliaments are unlikely to be content with the formula used at present for calculating the Scots' slice of the Treasury cake: a formula which few understand and no one explains. How will that be dealt with?
If there is to be a tartan tax, it is not just a question of who will pay it but what will be the cost to people in varying circumstances? Simply saying, as the Prime Minister has said, that that will not arise in the next five years is no answer for referendum voters who
170
have to look to the long term. In any case, who is to say that the Scots Parliament will do what the Prime Minister says? Indeed, if people vote on the present system in the way that they voted at the general election Labour would have an overall majority of only two, and who is to say that people will vote in the way that they voted in the general election?
Given the political balance at Westminster and the easy ride that the devolution Bill is likely to have there at this time, the referendum takes on a new and crucial importance. Is it really in order for us Scots to have to wait for a White Paper, published while we are on holiday, in order to know what we are deciding two or three weeks after we get back?
Launching a referendum Bill in Glasgow last week, the Secretary of State for Scotland said excitedly. "The show is on the road!". I am told that a voice in the back row was heard to murmur, "It would be easier if we knew what show".
I reiterate my question to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis: given a referendum Act, when do the Government intend to let the people of Scotland know the main facts about the proposed Scots parliament so that proper consideration can begin?
5.5 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to speak, well pleased that there is a new Government with a good majority. I would much rather that there were 146 Liberals than 46. That would have been a better set-up, but the one we have now is better than the awful possibility of a Tory Government. I used to wake screaming in the night, dreaming that the Tories had got back! No longer does that trouble me, however, and I welcome the Queen's Speech.
I will talk about a Scottish Parliament for Scottish affairs. This is an old Liberal policy. It used also to be an old Labour policy but they dropped it for a long time, until the people of Scotland reminded them of their duty. They have now brought it back. The Liberals, and now the Liberal Democrats, have been totally in favour of it. I received some old election literature of my noble friend Lord Thurso's grandfather, Sir Archibald Sinclair. Way back in the early 1920s he was talking about a Scottish Parliament for Scottish affairs.
That is what we want and it is what we need. We have a very good model for it produced by the Scottish Convention. I am very glad to see in his place the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, who had a great deal to do with it. This body was set up. The two political parties which stayed in it were the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party. It also contained a great many representatives from other institutions in Scotland such as the Church and education. Unfortunately, the Tories took no part and, for reasons I do not know, the Scottish Nationalists withdrew.
That convention examined the matter with great thoroughness and produced a blueprint which I trust this Government will follow exactly, especially the aspect that deals with proportional representation which would make for a fairer voting system in Scotland.

171
There are people, from the Tory Party and in other places, who are very doubtful about it. They do not want change. People speak of the past 100 years of Scotland's history having seen a tradition of Scotsmen going to London, to New York, to Canada, to Australia, and of their doing great things. This is perfectly true, but we need Scotsmen to do great things at home. Without a centre of power in a country, people will undoubtedly go to where the power is. All over the world one sees the drift towards the great cities. Scotland would benefit enormously from having its own centre of real political power.
Although, because of the unfortunate and total lack of consideration for the minorities, one might not think of Stormont as being a great example to follow, technically it was a very efficient parliament. It knew what it was doing. I went there a good deal after the war, my own interest being in agriculture. Northern Ireland was a long way ahead of us in terms of what farmers and modern agriculture needed. It was easy to do because everyone knew one another in that tight little assembly. In Ulster, a great many good people stood for the Stormont Parliament. They were better than those who stand for the Westminster Parliament. That was just because Stormont had some power and people could do what they wanted in their own country. I believe strongly that a Scottish Parliament for Scottish affairs will have that effect in Scotland. If it does not have that effect, it will be the fault of the Scottish people. They will deserve it if it fails, but I do not think that it will. I think that they will rise to it.
When in Opposition, the Government were too frightened of the tartan tax. I wish to goodness the Tories would stop talking about it. It failed to frighten the Scottish people so perhaps they will leave it alone now and talk about something constructive. It was put forward that there would be frightening centralisation and a tartan tax, but for the Labour Party spin doctors—or whatever they call them—suddenly to produce the answer by a two-question referendum was a bad piece of work. It was a total negation of any form of Scottish democratic control, consultation or anything else. I hope that they will not repeat it. They do not need to now. With a large majority, they have nothing to be frightened of.
Of course the English are a bit like that. I am fond of the English. I have been much among them. I intend to be among them for a long time to come, or as long as He above will spare me. They have a certain complacency about them. I was strongly reminded of that by what one of my noble friends said. He is the man with the broadest possible views. He has the best liberal instincts on everything else. He suddenly attacked me. He said that the Scots were behaving disgracefully: Scottish rugby supporters were cheering France in a match against England. He believed that no one could support anyone other than the English in a rugby match. That attitude is a little endemic, but I hope that the Government will not go too far in that direction, will consult, and remember that the power comes from the Scottish people.
172
The West Lothian question is a difficult one. I have forgotten exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Owen, said, but he meant that good practice and a little understanding could well overcome the difficulty of the West Lothian question. I think that it will. It must be resolved in the long run. Apart from the two questions, the Referendum Bill is a good document. I am against it. I thought that the Scottish people had spoken. I shall speak against it. We shall speak against it in the other place. We might even vote against it there. I do not know, but your Lordships should rest assured that when it comes to the referendum we in the Scottish Liberal Democratic Party will be pushing to ensure that the maximum number of people vote yes to both questions.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: My Lords, I shall briefly divert your Lordships' attention from the excitement and charms of devolution to another part of the gracious Speech; namely, the reference to the incorporation into UK domestic law of what were described as the main provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. I venture to offer a few observations in the light of the New Zealand experience in the field since 1990, and personal experience when I happened to find myself presiding for some six years thereafter over the court to which it fell chiefly to implement the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I hope that what I have to say will be more in the nature of a report of facts than of argument.
The New Zealand Act of 1990 is neither entrenched nor paramount; that is to say, it is an ordinary Act, enacted by no special method, and open to repeal or amendment by ordinary legislation. Originally, it is true, a Bill of Rights both paramount and entrenched was contemplated, but public doubt was generated as to the wisdom of going so far so quickly. A more modest measure resulted. The rights affirmed in it are broadly similar to those in the European Convention and most other human rights instruments, hut their scope is governed by two key provisions. One precludes any court from holding any enactment to be invalid by reason only of inconsistency with the Bill of Rights. Thus the power of Parliament is preserved.
The other—no less important—enacts a principle of interpretation. Whenever an enactment can be given a meaning consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights, the court shall give it that meaning. Thus the courts are enjoined, in the absence of sufficiently clear parliamentary intent to the contrary, to interpret Acts consistently with the Bill of Rights.
It may be said that the present UK Government have an electoral mandate for incorporating the European Convention as paramount law. There have been suggestions, however, that something rather less, somewhat on the New Zealand model, could be all that will be attempted, at least initially. So it may be of some use to say now briefly how such a solution has been found to work in practice.
In practice it has worked reasonably well. Where enforcement of the rights would plainly frustrate the purpose or scheme of an Act, that purpose or scheme

173
prevails; for example, as to suspected alcohol-impaired driving, the New Zealand legislation provides for two tests—a roadside breath screening test, and, if that is positive, an evidential breath or blood test at a police station.
The Bill of Rights affirms the right of everyone detained under an enactment to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay. It was held that that right of consultation and instruction could not be insisted upon at the roadside, for that would have stultified the efficient operation of the kind of roadside test envisaged by the legislature. Nevertheless, it could be insisted upon before testing at a police station, at least to the extent of telephone consultation with a lawyer. With the co-operation of the police and the legal profession, that appears to have worked satisfactorily and even to have improved the behaviour of suspects in stressful situations in which, to their dismay, they may find themselves.
Therefore, although not remorseless or ruthless, the more modest type of measure is certainly not toothless either. It has twin advantages. One is that Parliament, by a sufficiently plain expression of its will, can take the responsibility of overriding the affirmed rights in a particular field. The other is that the courts can give their decisions with the insurance of that knowledge. Of course, that does not automatically shield their decisions from controversy and criticism, but it would be a betrayal of the essential independence of the judiciary to be swayed by that consideration. For a truly independent judiciary is of the essence of democracy—and I venture to submit that that must mean a non-elected judiciary. To be an Aunt Sally for the media at times has to be accepted as part of the judicial role. But it is a consolation to the courts to know that their decisions are not unalterable. Nonetheless, experience suggests that they will not lightly be altered; and that, too, is healthy in a democracy based on the rule of law.
Perhaps I may give but one example. The police in New Zealand obtained a search warrant to look for evidence of drug dealing in a private property. A mistake was made in the address stated in the warrant. The police party invaded a perfectly respectable home. They found not the slightest evidence of criminality, unless the presence of a Jaguar motor car in the garage be thought to be such a sign. When it was pointed out to them that a mistake had apparently been made, the officer in charge allegedly replied, "We sometimes get it wrong, but while we're here we'll have a look round anyway." They did. There was ransacking of drawers, wardrobes and so forth. Of course, no drugs were found and eventually they left. The upshot was an action for damages against the state—not, be it noted, against the individual officers involved in the search but against the state, as the corporate or collective body responsible to its citizens for protecting them from transgression of their human rights by officers of the state.
The Court of Appeal held that if the facts were proved to have been as I have outlined, an action for compensation would lie. Whether the facts were such was never submitted to judicial scrutiny—and it may be wisely—for the government of the day proceeded to
174
settle the case for a sum neither extravagant nor derisory. I believe that it was the equivalent in English currency of about £20,000. That was followed by agitation by the police for legislative changes to preclude redress of that kind in future. The government sensibly referred the issue to the Law Commission, which made an extensive investigation. I understand that its report is to the effect that the decision was in the public interest and should stand as a precedent for the future. So an issue of public importance has been ventilated and, it may be, justly solved.
A Bill of Rights in modest form thus proves to have true value. It may be criticised as a halfway house—it will not necessarily do for ever—but perhaps it accords with the British traditions of gradualism and commonsense compromise.
5.26 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I move to the Government Benches for the fourth time since I have been a Member of the House. I have been twice on the Front Bench and twice on the Back Benches, as now. I must begin by congratulating my noble colleagues, led by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on assuming their great positions. I have made it plain to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and to most of the others that I have the highest confidence in them, not least in the noble Baroness who is to wind up the debate. She will excuse me, because I understand that the debate is to finish at eleven o'clock tonight and that it is the accepted convention that Peers over 90 are expected to be at home by that time.
I congratulate all the Members of the Front Bench, but I am bound to express a little sadness at the absence of several of those who provided such wonderful service to this House in recent years. I shall mention only two. First, the noble Lord, Lord Graham. There was a great Chief Whip, if ever there was one. At a party of Labour Peers not long ago he invited five widows of Labour Peers and afterwards thanked them for coming. That was the kind of leadership with which he supplied us and I know that his example spread through the whole House. I must also mention the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who during the past 10 years brought distinction to every high task with which he was entrusted. There are other noble Lords and I must express my sorrow at their absence.
Whenever I see the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, occupying the position of Leader of the Opposition my mind goes back to his grandfather who was Leader of this House when I first came here. He built up the modern House with Lord Addison and that service will never be forgotten by those of us who were then Members.
I listened, as usual, with the utmost pleasure to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am pleased to think that someone who I called "the angel of light" has now been liberated from the servitude of darkness so that she will be able to be much more herself in time to come. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, expressed thoughts about penal reform much more eloquently than I can, and I can say no more.

175
Before turning to the subject of the debate, I should pay my tribute to the national leaders. It can fairly be said by everyone that Mr. Major:
"He nothing common did or mean
Upon that memorable scene",
for seven long years. Mr. Tony Blair is the most explicitly Christian Prime Minister we have had since Mr. Gladstone. I hope that many years hence it will be said of Mr. Tony Blair, just as the great great grandfather of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said of Mr. Gladstone when he died, that he kept alive the soul in England.
I turn to the subject of the debate. The House will not be surprised to know that I wish to concentrate on the subject of penal reform. In my eyes, this is an extremely critical moment in the history of penal policy, indeed, perhaps the most critical moment ever. For four years, we have suffered under an evil doctrine, the doctrine referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that prison works and that it will work much better if it is made nastier and lasts longer. That is the official doctrine under which we have suffered for the past four years. It is very different from the doctrine of previous Conservative leaders. I am so glad to think that we shall have Mr. Douglas Hurd, soon to be Lord Hurd, in this House. He is a recent Home Secretary of the utmost distinction and has recently become chairman of the Prison Reform Trust. It is not possible to imagine a greater contrast between the views of the Prison Reform Trust and those of the late Administration in that area.
However, I turn to my own views. I take some confidence from the thought that this Government have a very strong Christian flavour. I mentioned Mr. Blair, but there are half a dozen other members of the Christian Socialist Society. I suppose that no Government have ever had so many ardent Christians, although most governments have a majority of members who would call themselves Christians.
And so, we must build hopes. One must perhaps be of rather a hopeful temperament to build them, but nevertheless, I insist on building hopes. Your Lordships may ask what Christianity has to do with it. After all, there have been notable penal reformers who were humanists. In this House I think of Lady Wootton who I helped to introduce in this House. I remember the difficulties there were in finding an alternative form of words to suit her. She perhaps did more for penal reform than anybody else at that time. Then there is my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I am sorry that he is not to be the Home Office Minister, but nevertheless I congratulate him on his new appointment. My noble friend Lord McIntosh is a strong humanist and a fine penal reformer.
Therefore, I am not saying that you must be a Christian to be a penal reformer, but I do say that if you are a Christian, you can draw special inspiration from the teaching of Jesus Christ because he said:
"I was in prison and ye came unto me … Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me".
That is the special inspiration possessed by Christians, and so we must hope for the best.
176
In practice, what am I talking about? What do the words mean? As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, implied earlier, if the present state of affairs continues, under present plans, the prison population, not so very far hence, would be 80,000 whereas in 1993 it was just over 40,000. Therefore, it will have doubled in a relatively few years. That is one aspect of the matter and life will be made more uncomfortable for all.
I know that other noble Lords visit prisoners beside myself, but I visit them twice a week. I have said before and I say again that one cannot but be aware of the contempt with which recent policies have been viewed within prisons, not only by prisoners but by the staff themselves. The staff do not know what the guidance given to them amounts to. Everybody in past years has always agreed that the guidance must include reform or what is now called rehabilitation. That message must be spelt out clearly. I know that that is not the only element of punishment. There must be deterrence and to some extent retribution and prevention—keeping people out of harm's way. There are other elements. But we should cease to be a Christian country if rehabilitation was no longer one of the main ideals of penal policy. It has been discarded in the past few years. I hope and pray that we shall see it renewed in this new era.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, it would not be a debate of any sort about prisons or people without a contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for 27 years and I know that the noble Earl has outstayed me by a number of years. But it has been a very unusual occurrence if I did not follow him or if he did not follow me in a debate of this kind. There was a moment before he entered the Chamber when I thought that the spell would be broken and he would not be in his rightful place but of course he is, and he is welcome as usual.
I too welcome to the Front Bench the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. We have come to admire her brains, her beauty and her contributions, which are always of great clarity and interest. We have been privileged to have her in this House and now she is on the Government Front Bench where she will add her brains and beauty to those of the other noble Baronesses who have been promoted to the Front Bench.
I wish to add only a few words because of the length of the list of speakers for today's debate. We have heard some interesting speeches already which have been very well informed. In fact, I would say that, up until now, they have been brilliant speeches.
Some Scottish Peers are to speak, so I shall speak only briefly on the subject of the referendums for Scotland and Wales. As I understand it, all political parties referred to the referendums and they all promised that there would be referendums on the future of Scotland and Wales. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he thought the Bill would go through your Lordships' House quite quickly. I beg to differ. I think that we are more likely to be here during a night to discuss that particular problem, which will affect so many people.

177
I remember a long time ago or it seems a long time ago—when we sat all night discussing a health Bill. I was speaking at quarter past seven in the morning, having intervened in the debate throughout the night. The only good thing that I remember about it was that, from somewhere, we were given the most excellent breakfast when we finally finished. But it was a long night and if Scotland and Wales think that they will get away with anything less than a whole night, I think that they have another think coming.
I am afraid that I have a personal question for the Minister. Who will be able to vote? In other words, would a Sassenach widow of a Scotsman be able to vote? It is rather complicated but I expect that my noble friend and her advisers would be able to sort that one out.
So much was said in the Queen's Speech and there is so much that we all need to say. But I should like to say a few words only about education, which seems, according to the Prime Minister, to be one of the foremost problems which the Government are to face. It seems to me that there are too many colleges and too many seats of learning and of higher education. I mix quite a lot with 16 to 22 year-old young people. They do not wish to go on being educated. They would prefer to be let loose and work their way around the world, coming back with the knowledge of other places and other people. Such youngsters do not want to sit at desks and be taught for an extra four years. Of course there are exceptions, and I am sure that the Government will, in their wisdom, decide how many of those young people need to have a formal education when probably they only want, for example, to be a plumber, a bricklayer, a roadsweeper or something that does not necessarily require qualifications. I hope that the Government will look at the matter. From what I have heard, it seems to me that such young people would prefer to go out in the world, get a job and earn some money.
From the meetings that I have attended, one of the problems at school these days seems to me to be truanting and absenteeism from school. I should like to know what the Government intend to do about that problem. The people to whom I have listened are all experts in their own fields but they do not seem to have any answer. When I was chairman of a very large juvenile court, as it was called in those days, it was very difficult to know what to do with the young people who had got into trouble and who had, unknown to their parents, flouted the law. Such youngsters appeared in front of me and I had to try to tell them that that was not the proper thing to do and that they should get back to school, which of course they did not do. It was very difficult to find a way to make young people become educated because they did not want to be; they wanted to be out on the streets, burgling or going to other places. Of course, that obviously led to drug taking and frequent flouting of the law. I took the precaution of always having the parent involved in court. I never heard a case without parents and I used to deal with about eight cases a day.
178
I was privileged for two years to be president of a manufacturers' organisation for the whole of the north of London. That was a most interesting job and, during that time, I met a great many people. There was a system of apprenticeship, not necessarily for youngsters who wanted to be solicitors or those who wanted a higher education. Apprentices were employed so as to offer young people leaving school the opportunity to see whether they would like to join that particular manufacturing industry. At that time, it seemed to be a great success; indeed, I would commend it. If one can get the heads of manufacturing on one's side to give jobs to young people, that is almost half way to reducing unemployment among the young.
The Government promised in their manifesto and elsewhere to provide employment. However, if they take youngsters away from their homes, it is imperative also to arrange for other people to give them homes. I say that because homelessness is one of the problems of unemployed people. Young people become lonely and soon get into trouble. The worst experience in a young person's life is to be given a job but have nowhere to live. I happen to know a little about the situation through my work with the charity that my late husband and I started which helps young people to find a home, even for a short time.
Today we have been told that the Government will refuse to allow advertising for tobacco products. We will lose a great deal of money if we do that and much interest. The sphere in which they have apparently decided to stop tobacco advertising is in sport. Many of us are trying very hard to reintroduce sports and games throughout the country for children from the age of four years upwards. If parents do not take young children to see sports, much of that good work will be lost. I would certainly vote against restricting advertising in sports. I know that it is very expensive because I was on the IBA for about five years; indeed, the expense of advertising can be tremendous. Again, through my experience, I do not believe that young people take any notice of advertising when it comes to tobacco products. I am quite certain that that is true. They are influenced perhaps by a teacher who is seen to smoke and whom they admire or, indeed, by the young people who are the heads of their school who like to light up a cigarette as soon as they leave the school building. There is also the influence of parents. They are the ones who can influence young people into realising that smoking is wrong. That is the only way that we can stop it if we are inclined to do so.
I must finish with an apology to the Minister. The wheelchair in which I am sitting is the only one in the whole of your Lordships' House from which one can make a speech in this Chamber. However, it is so uncomfortable that I am afraid I literally cannot stay for very much longer. I apologise in advance.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow a person of brains and beauty. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, will forgive me if I express the hope that there will be no delay to the referendum legislation which has been put forward. The

179
noble Baroness reminded me that it was an occasion in the early hours of the morning in this Chamber which strengthened my commitment to the principle of home rule. There were 12 noble Lords sitting in the Chamber debating the future criminal justice system and the penal policy of Scotland under the Scottish crimes Bill during the last Session. Of those present, four were Scottish Peers. I suggested that that was an advertisement for Scottish home rule and for a Scottish parliament but the then Lord Advocate pointed out that such a chamber would not have the advantage of the advice of the Law Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, with his usual vigour, was present in the Chamber but the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, as sensible people, had gone home to bed. It struck me that that was not an appropriate place or time to be discussing matters relating to Scotland which could be properly and fully dealt with in Scotland.
I welcome the Government's strong commitment to the principle of home rule. I also welcome the statement that was made last week by Sir Wyn Roberts, the former Member of Parliament for Conwy and the longest serving Minister of State in the Welsh Office. He expressed his full support for a Welsh Senedd with legislative powers. As a Welshman, Sir Wyn understands that when you are tackled hard and you are in the mud, you let go of the ball. I contrast that with a statement made on behalf of the Conservative Party by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, certainly an angel of light, as I know, but still advancing the arguments of darkness.
In Wales there was a whiff of English nationalism about the Tory campaign and people reacted by pushing the Conservative Party back over the Marches into England. We have little cricket, no village greens and the hills are too steep for bicycling. I hope that the Conservative Party will rethink its position entirely on devolution both in Scotland and in Wales. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that a White Paper will spell out in detail the proposals of the Government on Wales. He said it was a far-reaching step. I hope he will forgive me if I say that it is not far enough. We on these Benches feel that the Government have adopted perhaps the least popular system of devolution in Wales by way of a compromise with old Labour stalwarts in Wales. We shall in due course argue that a Welsh assembly must have the power to develop and implement policies on the matters with which it is entrusted. Without the power to institute primary legislation—which is denied to it by the proposals of the Government—a Welsh assembly is bound to give effect to the legislative policy enacted in Westminster, just as the Welsh Office does at the present time. Although the Government say that that is all right because a Welsh assembly will enact secondary legislation, as a matter of law, as your Lordships will know, secondary legislation must be within the compass of the primary legislation that has been passed.
At present, if one wants to take the status quo, the Secretary of State for Wales has a place in Cabinet, the Welsh Civil Service has access to Government departments to influence the legislation that is to be passed at Westminster, and Ministers for Wales in either
180
House may put down amendments to primary legislation. What the Government have not spelled out and what they must spell out, if primary legislation is kept in Westminster, is the power the assembly will have to place its own desired policies to a hostile Whitehall department?
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, like many of your Lordships, referred to the West Lothian question. That is a mantra as meaningless as the tartan tax. It is just a slogan, a meaningless phrase trotted out by way of some sort of opposition. If it has any meaning, I want to pose the Westminster question: it is this. If the Government do not give primary legislative power to Wales, why should 500 English Members of Parliament legislate on such matters as the Health (Wales) Act, the Education (Wales) Act, and a Welsh Language Act? Why should they play their part in doing that when there is a democratic, elected body which should be charged with that power?
Without taxing powers, the Welsh assembly is in the pocket of the Treasury. As was rightly said by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who will fight the Welsh case if the Secretary of State for Wales ceases to have any existence under the Government proposals? It is not acceptable that the priorities for spending by a Welsh assembly should be dictated by central government. If we are to have devolution, let us have it. Those are reservations to which I shall no doubt return on many occasions. We, from Wales, shall not in any way delay or obstruct the referendum legislation. More than that, we shall campaign vigorously for a yes vote, as did Welsh Liberals in 1979.
Wales, it is said, is a community of communities, a country of minorities, linguistic, economic and geographic. What happened in 1979 was that the opposition to devolution carefully played one community against another, led, I have to say, by Labour Members of Parliament of the old persuasion. Not only did they contribute to the fall of their own government at that time, but they continued to lead the Labour Party into the wilderness where it remained for some 18 years.
The Western Mail proclaimed on 23rd March 1979 that the Labour Government proposals of that time were,
"tailor made for the Labour Party caucus in South Wales".
All of us in north Wales shuddered with apprehension. Then Leo Abse campaigned on the basis that,
"The English speaking majority will be condemned to he strangers in their own land".
The people in south Wales felt that the wild gogs would come down from the north and inflict their language upon them, which not even the Welsh speakers of south Wales understood in any event.
What is essential to resolve these conflicts between communities is—I hope your Lordships will forgive me for mentioning the phrase—proportional representation; that is, fair voting. We hold the Labour Government to the commitments given in opposition that they would ensure that in their proposals for a Welsh assembly there would be a form of proportional representation which would ensure that the disparate communities in Wales—who only unite at Cardiff Arms Park when England are

181
playing—would work together, and that the different parties would work together. I trust that the Conservative Party, who had 19 per cent. of the vote in Wales and no seats, will join with us in arguing for proportional representation at the Welsh assembly.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I, too, offer my congratulations to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. When he appeared before me when I was sitting in a judicial capacity he did his work most efficiently and competently. Now that the roles are somewhat to be reversed, I hope I shall do as well as he did.
If the Prime Minister's undoubted art of advocacy has been achieved by emulating his pupil master, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and if the Prime Minister's formidable powers of persuasion have been derived from the same source, as well as his outstanding ability to tune into his audience, then we are indeed most fortunate in the new appointment to this great office.
Quite recently I chanced on a reference in The Times of 25th September 1963 to an address given to Members of the West German Federal Court in Karlsruhe by Lord Dilhorne, the then Lord Chancellor. He said,
"If I were to be asked what I thought was the Lord Chancellor's chief job, I would tell you, without hesitation, that it was to preserve the independence of the judiciary, to make absolutely certain that judges of the land are completely independent, and to protect them from every attempt, however indirect, to undermine that independence".
A similar note was struck by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in a lecture given by him in 1986 when he observed that he—that is, the Lord Chancellor—
"is in the business of defending and preserving the independence and integrity of the judiciary. If he does it well, then he is a good Lord Chancellor, whatever his other defects. If he does it ill, whatever his other qualities he is not".
I am sure that those sentiments are fully endorsed by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg.
I intervene in this debate on two counts. The first is to draw attention to an important lacuna in the Government's programme for reform in the field of criminal law. This relates to the mandatory—that is, the automatic—sentence of life imprisonment for murder. Time and time again this House with the concurrence of the Government, then in Opposition, has endorsed the proposition that the mandatory life sentence should be rescinded. It has supported the recommendation of your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment by subsequent amendments to criminal justice Bills and, impliedly, by support of the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of one example. In the Criminal Justice Bill 1991, two former Lord Chancellors, the then Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and five Law Lords supported the amendment to abolish the mandatory life sentence, which amendment was carried in this House by a majority of nearly 100 Members. The life sentence
182
should be at the discretion of the judges, as occurs in many other serious offences—indeed, in some offences more serious than some murders, for example, attempts to explode bombs in support of terrorist activities; the persistent arsonist; the multiple rapist, and so forth. It has been long accepted by this House that murder is not a uniquely heinous crime despite the protests of the Conservative Government. That is simply because we have no categories of murders. We had them at one time, but they did not work, and your Lordships may remember being reminded in past speeches what Lord Conesford said when commenting on the Homicide Act 1957. He said that if you wish to dispose of your wife and not suffer the penalty of death, you must not shoot or drown her but you should stab her, strangle her, poison her or set her on fire and you will get away with it.
In addition, murder does not involve the requirement solely of an intent to kill. It is also encompassed in an intent to do really serious bodily harm. Thus, as every first year law student knows, murder covers a wide variety of situations from the terrorist killing to the so-called mercy killing.
Indeed, trooper Clegg, the soldier serving in Ireland with the Parachute Regiment who shot dead the driver of a stolen car and was properly charged with and convicted of murder, was released after two years. That itself destroys the validity of the uniquely heinous crime approach. Moreover, the Clegg case established, if it were required to be established, that the decision on how long a person should stay in prison is a judicial decision to be made by a judge in open court after hearing evidence and listening to argument, and with a right of appeal. The embarrassment occasioned to the Government by the Clegg case demonstrated how wrong it is for a politician to perform a function which is essentially a judicial function.
I trust that the Government with their vast majority will have the courage of their convictions as disclosed when in Opposition and that their anxiety neurosis of being thought soft on crime has now disappeared. If the Government in answer to my plea should assert that there will be no government time for the appropriate legislation, I should be grateful for an indication as to what will be the Government's attitude to another Private Member's Bill which I shall happily promote.
The other matter that I wish to raise relates to our sentencing policy. I shall endeavour to show that it is in a thorough mess. Over the past few years we have been subjected to almost annual criminal justice Bills preceded by much political rhetoric with the result that great confusion has been created as to how best to provide an effective penal system. Public perception is subject to wide mood swings by reason of being buffeted by party political contests and by a media which largely confine themselves to the result of a single phrase or sentence without bothering to investigate the factors which produced the result or the context in which the phrase or sentence appeared.
As recently as 1990 the Government's penal policy concern was whether and how the courts could be induced to curtail the use of imprisonment, both by

183
reducing sentencing lengths and by making even more use of alternatives to custody. The Government produced a White Paper in 1990 entitled Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public wherein it was stated:
"Nobody now regards imprisonment as an effective means of reform … imprisonment can he an expensive way of making people worse … most crimes are not violent … punishment in the community is likely to be better for the victim, public and offender".
At the time considerable publicity was devoted to criticising the judiciary for being too tough. The judges sent too many people to prison and for too long. Apart from Turkey, they were apparently in this regard the worst offenders in Europe. Therefore in 1991 an Act was passed to make imprisonment the sanction of last resort. The Government sought to do so by providing that a judge must not take into account any offence other than the offence actually charged and one other offence. When sentencing he must ignore outstanding offences except one. He must ignore offences the accused wanted to be taken into consideration. He must ignore the accused's record and even his reactions to non-custodial sentences to which he had previously been sentenced. At that time I said it was putting judges into blinkers and that it would not work; and indeed the 1993 Act had to return to judges their discretion.
In 1993 at the party conference, Mr. Howard, the then Home Secretary, rallied the party faithful by saying that he anticipated,
"more convictions and longer sentences—more people will go to prison. I do not flinch from that … no longer shall we judge our system of justice by a fall in the prison population … let's be clear—prison works".
At another party conference in 1995, Mr. Mawhinney, the chairman of the party, exhorted the public to write to judges when they were dissatisfied with sentences. They were told that that would have an effect: to increase the length and incidence of imprisonment. Indeed, in this new, harsher climate, the prison population has increased during the three years of Mr. Howard's reign by 50 per cent., from approximately 40,000 to approximately 60,000.
In the debate on the address on 20th November 1995, I drew attention to Mr. Howard's proposals that because in his view judges were not tough enough, in future provision would be made for minimum sentences and there would be an extension of the automatic sentence of life imprisonment. I accused the Government of playing politics with the administration of justice.
In a speech in that debate on behalf of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to whose sincerity and integrity I should like to pay a special tribute, also referred to the Home Secretary's proposal in respect of mandatory life sentences for serious violent and sexual offences on second conviction, and stiff minimum sentences for repeat burglars, and dealers in hard drugs. He said:
"If the Home Secretary means what he said at Blackpool in early October, then he is in for a great shock when he comes to this House. Those measures would not only be wrong in themselves but would he wildly expensive, would increase the prison population from the present 50,000 to at least 70,000 and probably more than that. I do not believe that such measures could get through this
184
House. Even if a whipped majority in another place insisted on them, I do not believe that they would survive the considered view of your Lordships".—[Official Report, 20/11/95; col. 215.]
Subsequently, he no doubt learnt to his surprise that with difficulty bricks are sometimes made with "straw"!
Some six months later, on 5th June 1996, in a debate initiated by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, then shadow Lord Chancellor, on the relationship between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive, the noble and learned Lord doubted that Parliament could ever be persuaded to put the Home Secretary's sentencing proposals on the statute book. He echoed the views of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He said:
"The Home Secretary's proposals are ill-judged. To put legislative straitjackets on the judges' discretion to sentence for serious crimes is almost always a mistake. The Home Secretary has already put the prison population up from 40,000 to 55,000. These proposals, if implemented, could easily push the prison population up to 80,000 or more. The present Home Secretary gives every impression of playing politics with the administration of justice".—[Official Report, 5/6/96; col. 1256.]
When the Bill was introduced in the other place, there was no resistance from the Opposition to those proposals. It was only when this House came to consider minimum sentences that, thanks to the energetic powers of persuasion of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which may cost him dear, the Opposition proposed an amendment that restored to the judges their discretion. However, the Opposition were not prepared to provide a similar or any amendment in relation to automatic life sentences. As I understood the position, that was because they were satisfied that the judge had the necessary discretion since he fixed the tariff; that is, the period that the defendant has to serve in prison by way of punishment and retribution. That attitude sat ill with the observation made on 27th January on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said:
"The sentencing regime for which we contend should, as many noble Lords have said, be open and transparent; but it is nonsensical to invite a High Court judge to say, 'I am sentencing you to life imprisonment. By the way, you can expect to serve 18 months'. That is a perversion of the system. It will bring the whole system into disrepute".—[Official Report, 27/1/97; col. 1063.]
We now have, despite the views of the noble Lords to whom I have referred, the albatross of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 around our throats.
On 10th April 1995 there was sent to The Times to mark the centenary of the submission to the Home Secretary of the Gladstone Committee's report on prisons an impressive letter with very impressive signatories. It stated, among other things:
"We think the time is right for an overview, on the scale of the Gladstone Enquiry, to propound a sound authoritative penal philosophy for the 20th Century".
The letter went on:
"Over the last two decades the United States has shown the tragic and counter-productive results of mixing competitive party politics with such policy debates and thereby inflaming public opinion. This is a field where the national interest demands that bipartisanship should be striven for, even while legitimate party differences are debated".
The letter stressed once again that it was essential to provide a mechanism to address these important issues of criminal and penal policy dispassionately, authoritatively and constructively.

185
I entirely agree with the concluding observations of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Professor McConville in an essay written some two years ago where they stated:
"Crime and punishment are central and pressing issues for our times. From developments in other democracies it is worryingly obvious that public sentiment and political contest about them can result in inflammatory, unproductive and wasteful outcomes".
I accordingly invite the Government to make provision for a comprehensive reassessment of a rational penal policy, and thereby help to restore the much-needed public confidence in the system.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I warmly welcome the constitutional proposals in the Queen's Speech, which reflect the commitment of the new Government to their wide-ranging programme for constitutional reform in order to modernise the institutions of government and to meet the needs and aspirations of people at the turn of the century. I intend on this occasion to concentrate on one of the proposals at the heart of this programme; namely, to bring about devolution to a Scottish parliament.
I greatly welcome the fact that the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill announced in the Queen's Speech on 14th May was introduced in another place on 15th May. The speed of its production is proof indeed of the importance that the Government ascribe to devolution and of their commitment to honour their pledge to bring government closer to the people.
I spent five weeks of the election campaign as part of the team on the battlebus of my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence, Mr. George Robertson. We travelled the length and breadth of Scotland visiting key constituencies that the Labour Party was fighting to win and others that we were determined to hold. The results are of course now history, but that experience gave me a unique opportunity to witness the depth of feeling about a Scottish parliament. There was a calm assumption that it had to happen. The words of my old friend the late John Smith rang truer than ever in my head—it was simply "unfinished business". Do not let anyone try to tell you that the Scottish people do not really care about a Scottish parliament, especially now when, as is suggested, they have a secure Labour Government in Westminster and will not be so keen. The Scottish people care, and care deeply, about a Scottish parliament.
Everywhere we went, when all the other issues were raised about which people were passionately concerned—unemployment, the health service, the education system, pensions and so on—there was always an underlying assumption, a sine qua non, that there had to be, of course, a Scottish parliament.
Why then, some people ask, have a referendum at all? I believe that in spite of the overwhelmingly strong demand for devolution reflected in the election results in Scotland, where the two political parties pledged to devolution took 66 out of the 72 seats and the party supporting the status quo took none at all, it is still wholly right that people living in Scotland should be
186
consulted specifically on such an important single issue to establish beyond doubt that there is public support for a parliament with tax varying powers in Scotland. Such support will strengthen the legitimacy of the proposals and should be taken into account when the proposals are considered by both Houses of Parliament.
I have studied the referendum Bill, which is of course now available, and I shall reserve my detailed comments on it for the appropriate time when the Bill is before this House, but there are some observations to be made now in the context of the Queen's Speech. The commendable speed with which the Government are moving is both to fulfil their commitment to bringing forward legislation as soon as possible and also to allow sufficient time for preparation for the referendum to be held by the autumn.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor indicated in his speech opening this debate, the Scottish Conservative Party seems to be conducting an internal debate on its stance on devolution. It is sincerely to be hoped that it will change its position, but even if it does not, it is still to be hoped that the Conservative Benches in this House and in another place will not stand in the way of the referendum Bill. After all, it simply gives voters in Scotland the opportunity to vote specifically on the proposals to establish a parliament. In the context of the referendum Bill, it is the principle of consulting the people of Scotland which is to be considered, rather than the Government's plans for devolution. There will be time for that during the passage of the main devolution Bill.
I make this point now because I note that in another place last Thursday Mr. William Hague seemed to indicate the Opposition's intention to seek to introduce special thresholds for voting in the referenda. I have to say to the Conservative Benches opposite that that would be a most unfortunate path to follow. I think people would consider that erecting voting hurdles in referenda, which do not exist in other elections in Britain, was merely an attempt to obstruct and they would rightly react adversely to such manoeuvres.
I have also to say to the Benches opposite that in the first days of this Session paranoia seems to be stalking the Conservative Benches. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is not in his place at the moment, I am sorry to say. On two consecutive days last week (Hansard col. 17, 14th May and col. 34 of 15th May) he conjured up the dire imagery of the sword of Damocles. If noble Lords on the Conservative Benches act to obstruct the democratically expressed will of the people, the sword in question will not be that of Damocles, but one of their own making on which they seem intent on impaling themselves.
The track laid out in the Queen's Speech for the journey towards a Scottish parliament is carefully planned and long promised. First there is a referendum Bill, with a White Paper published well ahead of the referendum to be held by early autumn. The White Paper, which will set out the detailed plans for the parliament, will reflect the tremendous work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, described earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and of which

187
my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford was an outstanding co-chair. By patient consultations over a wide spectrum of Scottish opinion, as befits a topic of momentous constitutional change, the convention produced its impressive consensus on much of the detail for a new parliament. Following a positive result in the referendum, legislation to create the Scottish parliament will immediately be introduced and, when passed, preparations will be put in hand for a Scottish parliament to be up and running by the year 2000, almost 300 years since the last Scottish parliament met.
As someone who has supported devolution for Scotland from my school and university days, I share the excitement that is felt by all those who have campaigned for a Scottish parliament. It is a great and noble venture in which we here are privileged to be able to play a part. Let us try to do so in a non-partisan and generous spirit in the best tradition of this House. To do so would only reflect to its credit.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, first I wish to offer a few reflections on the reform of your Lordships' House. In my view, the Government are aiming at the wrong target. One of the great strengths of this House is the diversity and variety of its membership, and the knowledge and experience which exist of virtually every walk of life. Hereditary Peers contribute to that strength. They also bring the element of youth. We should be less representative of British life without them.
Diversity is of growing importance in your Lordships' House because there is much less of it these days in another place. When I was first elected to another place in 1964, there were knights of the shires, manual workers, men and women with a very broad experience of life. They, alas, have virtually disappeared. With great respect to another place, membership of all parties these days is much of a muchness. That is not good for a representative, balanced Parliament. Furthermore, I should hate to see this House reduced to a wholly appointed quango. Worse still, if we were elected, we should very soon be in conflict with another place, especially when the Government were unpopular or near the end of their term.
As the Government appear bent on reform, we have to be realistic. I suggest to the House that it would be better to extend the leave of absence principle. Peers who do not attend regularly could be given leave of absence automatically and that could apply to both hereditary Peers and life Peers. "Regularly" would have to be defined and provisions would need to be made for sickness absence and for other good reasons. There could be a right of appeal to a committee of the House, possibly the Committee for Privileges. The proposal could in time, I believe, deal with the Government's main concerns about the present composition of the House. It would mean that the House would be composed of Peers—hereditary and life—with the time and the wish to attend regularly.
I have not taken advice on it, but I assume that a proposal of that kind could be introduced by the amending of our Standing Orders. That would save the
188
Government both time and trouble. I hope at least that the Government will give consideration to such a proposal. As they do not intend to act in this 18-month Session, I hope too that they will consider setting up a committee composed of all parties and the Cross Benches to consider reform. If an agreed solution could be reached, so much the better. I should emphasise that I speak entirely for myself, I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the matter with my colleagues since the beginning of this Parliament.
The second point I wish to mention is the pre-legislation procedure. I warmly welcome the proposal in the gracious Speech for the publication of draft Bills for consultation before Bills are introduced in Parliament when, of course, they are set in concrete and it takes a lot to change them. I have advocated something on those lines for many years. It was proposed by the previous government so I hope that there will be quick implementation of that highly desirable proposal.
There has been some reluctance in the past on the part of governments to adopt a process of that kind. They feel that it would slow up the process of legislation. I do not believe that it would. Consultation beforehand could well iron out some of the difficulties which arise so that the eventual Bill would be much more an agreed measure than if it were published without any effective consultation in Parliament. I therefore welcome the proposal. It will improve the quality of legislation and the effectiveness of both Houses of Parliament.
Finally, I turn to the reform of the social security system. My first words must be to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, on her appointment. All those of us who studied these matters in the last Parliament know of her considerable commitment to social security and her deep knowledge of the subject. I feel sure that that will stand her in good stead in her new responsibilities in the Department of Social Security.
I welcome the Prime Minister's emphasis on further reform, though I am a little sceptical as to whether those words will be followed by effective deeds. I say that for two reasons. First, the Conservative Government introduced many reforms designed to reduce the burden on future generations and to concentrate resources on those most in need. Virtually all those reforms were opposed by the Labour Party when in opposition. I live in hope, but am somewhat sceptical. Secondly, we heard disgraceful scare stories during the general election campaign that the Conservatives intended to get rid of the basic pension. They were wholly untrue and wholly unwarranted.
I hope that the Government mean what they say. More reforms are needed and it is important not to lose the momentum that the Conservative Government built up so effectively.
6.32 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I do not understand that the gracious Speech foreshadows any legislation in the field of adult criminal justice in Scotland. I am delighted at that. Contrary to the suggestion of the noble

189
Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I have not come down from Scotland to sit into the reaches of the night to criticise such legislation. Over 17 months of the last Parliament legislation on criminal justice in Scotland added no fewer than 526 pages to the statute book in Scotland. That is larger than the Glasgow telephone directory and not as interesting.
Happily, the last of those statutes to receive the Royal Assent—the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997, extending to 109 pages—eventually contained the provision that most of the Act was not to be brought into force before the new Secretary of State for Scotland laid appropriate orders before Parliament. As my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said, it is an albatross of the equivalent English Act but at least it is in a state of suspended animation. I earlier compared it to Moby the whale who lay in that state on the banks of the Forth for a few weeks before being dispatched. I hope that that Act will be dispatched in a similar fashion.
I express the hope that the Secretary of State will not lay any orders before the House bringing any part of that Act into operation until he has had an opportunity to consult widely in Scotland. The whole thrust of the Bill that became the 1997 Act was populist and misconceived—for reasons already explained partly by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and partly by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. I shall not attempt to repeat or even summarise the criticisms made in this House and elsewhere of the provisions contained in that Act. I say only that when the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to re-examine it carefully, he will find that it was not properly thought through. Many of its measures were going to add significantly, dramatically and quickly to the prison population in Scotland. Scotland's gaols, like those of England, are already overcrowded.
Most notable in the Act were the provisions that became Part III. They were designed to scrap the early release system introduced into Scotland on 1st October 1993 after study, consultation and agreement extending over five years. Other provisions in the Act would have increased the prison population within one or two years. The provisions regarding mandatory life sentences and mandatory minimum sentences were contained in Part I of the Act. However, unlike in England, another set of provisions contained in Section 13 would increase greatly the sentencing powers of the lower courts, in some cases to double and in other cases, taken along with the early release provisions, to quadruple their present powers. That would have an immediate effect upon the prison population which would begin to rise around six weeks and one day after those measures came into force.
Those measures, taken along with the provision in the Act to give the Lord Advocate a more extensive right of appeal against sentences thought by him to be lenient, would undoubtedly have led to an increase in the prison population not only directly, but also indirectly. One must recognise the fact that when provisions of that kind are put onto the statute book they inevitably affect the thinking and attitudes not only of members of the public, but also of those who are sentencing judges. They cause
190
a drift upwards in sentencing and introduce a harsher culture. That would be unfortunate for Scotland for Scotland has an even greater propensity than England to send its citizens to prison.
In my view therefore the Secretary of State would be well advised to ask his civil servants and others to assist him in making sound and reliable estimates of the likely costs of each and all of those measures. I ask whether we really want to drive more people into our already overcrowded prisons. In Scotland the annual cost per prisoner is around £27,000 per head. Do we want to incur that kind of expenditure for thousands of extra prisoners? That is what the Act would bring about. Should we have to find the capital to build several more prisons by the turn of the century? If the millions required for that exercise can be found, should not they be spent on positive initiatives? For example, it would cost approximately the same to put one policeman on the beat for a year as to keep one person in prison for a year. I am sure that most people would rather have thousands of extra policemen on the beat because policemen help to prevent crime as well as detect it.
Furthermore, if there is money to be found, let it be found to support the initiatives mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Longford; namely, to provide some rehabilitation for prisoners. That is hardly available at the moment in Scottish gaols which are bursting at the seams. In particular, we need rehabilitation for those who are addicted to drugs. My strong impression sitting in court each day, reading criminal appeals and applications for leave to appeal and dealing daily with bail appeals, is that more than half of the petty crime in Scotland and much of the serious crime is committed by people who are trying to raise the wherewithal to purchase drugs.
Before I leave the 1997 Act I should point out that it contains measures that are helpful in some ways—indeed, one or two might even reduce the prison population. For example, Section 4 provides for extension of supervised release orders and Section 5 for restriction of liberty orders. I hope that they too will he looked at.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke of governing by consent and of fashioning a consensus. My plea to Her Majesty's Government is to follow that advice: to pause and to think. I ask the Government to return to the traditional method of reshaping and reforming criminal justice in Scotland, whether in relation to criminal procedure, criminal evidence, prisons, post-release supervision or alternatives to prosecution.
What the Government ought to do is appoint well-qualified persons—maybe led by judges, but maybe not, but bodies of experienced people from the police, from the prisons, courts and social services and others—to take evidence, to study it and to reflect maturely about it before making well thought-out and properly costed recommendations. It need not take long. The Sutherland Committee, which produced the report on appeals, took less than two years. In England, a committee which sat under the noble Viscount,

191
Lord Runciman of Doxford, took less than two years to produce the report which your Lordships debated in 1993.
If the Secretary of State for Scotland were to set up such studies now, then the fruits of their work would be available to guide the members of the new legislative assembly which it is proposed to set up within a year or two in Scotland. My fear about devolved legislatures is always this: they become hyperactive. They have to be seen to be doing something. It may be that in the field of criminal justice they would be tempted to act before they had thought enough about it. I believe that the Government could greatly assist and give a real birthday present by providing the assembly with the fruits of such studies.
I heard with some dismay the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor talking about possibly extending the right of appeal of the Attorney-General in respect of lenient sentences. I do not know about the history of such matters in England, but in Scotland these appeals have rather an unhappy history. The very latest one, which was the first appeal in Scotland against a sentence imposed in a summary case, was something of a disaster for the Crown, as several others had been. The Crown abandoned it at the last possible moment.
The real problem is consistency in sentencing. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned that. I believe that the time may be ripe for Government Ministers to approach the Scottish judiciary once again. The basis for providing guidelines already exists in Section 118(7) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The mood may have changed since this matter was last discussed with previous holders of the office of Lord Justice General and Lord Justice Clerk.
If the European Convention on Human Rights is to be incorporated into domestic law, as has been suggested, then we need to look carefully at some of the provisions built into the convention itself and into the protocols because some of the cases recently decided in Strasbourg have serious implications for legal aid, the rights to representation and the introduction of the so-called principle of equality of arms. If these measures are to remain in their present terms we may face unacceptable delays and costs in criminal justice.
I conclude with two positive suggestions. The Government should finance in Scotland at one of our universities an institute for the study of criminal justice so that there may be a permanent body which can study this matter and receive representations. It needs to be looked at constantly. I also suggest that the Government do something that we did informally in 1979 when we had to face the consequences of a strike in the Scottish courts. Through the Lord Advocate—it is very easy to do in Scotland—the Government should consider an informal amnesty in relation to crimes that do not involve violence or attacks on the property of persons because at the moment the Scottish courts have a serious backlog problem. The fiscal service is seriously under-resourced. I am sure that some of these matters can be dealt with in that way.
My last word is this. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland and Her Majesty's Government to use the unique opportunity they have, as a result of the recent
192
election, to take criminal justice out of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, called "competitive party politics". That is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, when, in what future historians will describe as a fit of absence of mind, the British electorate transferred political power to the party opposite, I was tempted to think that my role in this House had come to an end; that there was no point in taking part in debates when one had a triumphalist government with a vast majority determined on a set of policies for which they claimed to have a mandate. I thought that it was time to go home.
But then temptation arises. Can someone who has spent his life teaching about the British constitution and who is then confronted by a government proposing a series of measures—all of them ill thought out and most of them extremely damaging—refrain from pointing out at least some of their weaknesses?
At this late hour—it is almost my bedtime—I do not propose to go through the whole of that list. Time will give opportunities for that to be done. So I propose to limit myself to the Bill on the two referendums which we have before us in printed form where there is no room for speculation.
I approach the question of the pre-legislative referendums with an assertion of principle; namely that one of the features of our century has been the wide acceptance of the principle of national self-determination—to which President Woodrow Wilson was probably the first world statesman to give voice—but which has governed most of the world ever since. A nation which feels that it wishes to govern itself rather than be governed by others is generally speaking nowadays thought to be entitled to make that decision. Therefore, if a referendum had been proposed for Scotland or Wales giving those two nations their independence, it would not have been for English Members of Parliament or indeed for the English as a nation, to deny them that universally accepted right.
It may be that our friends in Scotland have not appreciated that, south of the Border, there would be a great deal of sympathy for the idea of an independent Scotland particularly if combined with the rebuilding of Hadrian's Wall, perhaps by the Private Finance Initiative, which would solve many employment problems for a long time to come.
Let us think of the benefits of this complete separation. Mr. Robin Cook would no longer be able to make an exhibition of himself in the Locarno Room of the Foreign Office thus bringing down the status and dignity of British foreign policy. The lugubrious countenance of Mr. Gordon Brown would no longer confront us on our television screens. These are all gains. I sometimes wonder whether Mr. Alex Salmond, who fights very hard to get support in his own country, is aware of the popularity he enjoys in ours.
However, what we have is not a referendum on Scottish or Welsh independence but a referendum on devolution. Devolution is not the same thing. It involves

193
a change, not merely in the arrangements in Wales or Scotland, but in the entire United Kingdom. It involves a change—the noble Lord, Lord Owen, went into some useful detail on this—inevitably in the composition of the Westminster Parliament, its procedures and allocation of powers. It involves important financial questions—perhaps not overwhelmingly important, but important nonetheless—which affect the whole of the United Kingdom. Indeed, even in the early stages, it will be the taxpayers of the United Kingdom—not the Scots taxpayers alone—who will be asked to pay the costs of the referendum and the initial costs of setting up the Scottish parliament or the Welsh Assembly. Surely that is not something which the electorates in Scotland and in Wales have any right to impose on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom as a whole.
The point is that if one wants to have a pre-legislative referendum on devolution, the only appropriate body to be consulted is the electorate of the entire United Kingdom. I make no judgment on whether or not it might be an advantage to change our institutions. There may be something to be said for legislative devolution. As has been pointed out, we would not then have late nights in this place—I shall not participate in many in any case—as happened on the details of Scottish criminal legislation. There may be very good reasons for wanting change. After all, in the past some changes have proved to be on the whole desirable, but we cannot have change which is imposed by two minorities, the Scots and the Welsh, on the rest—on the vast majority—of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom who do not live in Scotland or in Wales.
It seemed to me that when the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, was talking about the tremendous excitement which the Scots feel about having a parliament and all that kind of thing—no doubt the noble Baroness feels it; no doubt many Scots feel it also—although that entitles her to support the Scottish National Party, it does not entitle her to say that the institutions of the United Kingdom—
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I intervene only because the noble Lord mentioned me although I have many thoughts about what the noble Lord has already said. I think that the noble Lord is in fact making out a strong case for Scottish devolution, but I will not have it suggested that I would be at home in any party other than my party, the Labour Party. I put it to the noble Lord that he is completely misunderstanding the difference between devolution and independence and I am afraid that he is showing very little understanding of Scotland or its people.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness has confirmed exactly what I was saying. She argues—I understand her argument—that what is important is to understand the Scots whether they are members of the Labour Party or of any other party. She says that we must understand the Scots. I try to understand them. However, what the noble Baroness does not see is that something which is to change the
194
constitution of the United Kingdom means that we must understand the whole population of the United Kingdom, not merely one part of it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggests that a referendum be extended to the people of England, can he tell us what alternatives he thinks should be put before the people?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I cannot see why we should not have precisely the questions that appear in the present referendum Bill: "Do you wish to have a parliament in Scotland? Do you wish it to have tax-varying powers? Do you wish to have an assembly in Wales?" I cannot see any fault with those questions. I find fault only with the people to whom those questions are addressed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that a decision will be taken by the elected representatives of the whole of Britain, with information being available about the wishes of the Scots? Does the noble Lord accept that the elected representatives will have a decision to take?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, if it is a matter for the elected representatives, why do we need a referendum?
6.55 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, had some considerable anxieties about the election and its outcome. I confess that I, too, had certain anxieties, but of an entirely different character. My anxieties were based on the fact that the former Prime Minister and his government had given a great deal of attention to the matters of Northern Ireland—more than any of their predecessors over a long period. Indeed, much progress had been made, at least in setting out some kind of structure or basis upon which talks could take place involving the British and Irish Governments and the various democratic political parties in Northern Ireland. My anxiety was that any incoming government might not have quite the same impetus or commitment with regard to attending to our long, difficult and, some would say, entirely intractable problems.
However, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is continuing in his anxiety, I have been much reassured by the comments and the statements made by the new Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, and by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr. Mowlam. Indeed, I am reassured not only by their words. We in Northern Ireland have come to judge politicians more by their actions than by their words—and I am reassured by their actions in coming to Northern Ireland where the Prime Minister delivered a particularly fine speech which left many people right across the Province much reassured that the peace process will be continued and, indeed, built upon.
That leads me on to some of the concerns mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who spoke of the principle of consent or self-determination as outlined by the former Democrat President, Woodrow Wilson.

195
I found that interesting because, by background, Woodrow Wilson was an Ulster Scot. Indeed, as far as I am aware, no president of the United States came from family stock more recently settled in the new world, apart from Andrew Jackson, who was, I think, the seventh President of the United States. All four of Woodrow Wilson's grandparents came either from Scotland or from the north-east of Ireland, so not only was he the son of an Ulster Scot, but I feel a certain kinship with him because, like myself, he was also a son of the Presbyterian manse. One must remember that Woodrow Wilson's presidency extended throughout that particularly fraught period of Irish history when Irish Republicans wanted to seek independence and Irish Unionists wanted to stay within the United Kingdom. When asked for his support for the principle of national self-determination being adopted in Ireland, Woodrow Wilson was cautious. Indeed, I believe that he often referred not to "national self-determination", but to the fact that the people most involved should be the ones to decide. Where there was division, as in the case of Ireland, Woodrow Wilson was most content that there should be a degree of administrative division and that the people of the north-east, who manifestly wanted to stay in the United Kingdom, should be allowed to do so.
That principle was clearly accepted by the previous government because the principle of consent was a foundation of the entire approach taken by the former Prime Minister, John Major, who regarded it as entirely appropriate that in the outcome of any political discussions there would be a referendum—a referendum in Northern Ireland, not a referendum in the United Kingdom as a whole. There would also have to be a referendum in the Republic of Ireland because any change in the constitution of Northern Ireland would require the people of that jurisdiction to have their say. However, as far as I am aware no one has suggested—not the noble Lord or any other Member of your Lordships' House—that when there is a settlement in respect of Northern Ireland (which is an integral part of the United Kingdom) there should be a referendum in the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps in passing I may indulge in some boyish chiding and say that I noticed that when it was suggested that there should be a referendum, Northern Ireland was not included as part of the jurisdiction which should have that referendum although we still regard ourselves as very much a part of the United Kingdom.
Therefore, I believe that it was accepted by President Woodrow Wilson—but I suppose that that must remain uncertain since he is not here to confirm or deny it—and it was certainly accepted by the previous Conservative Government that it was entirely in order for part of the United Kingdom (as long as it was a proper jurisdiction) to have its own say. It was also accepted that the rest of the people of the United Kingdom would be glad to afford that other part any assistance that might be required to put things properly in order. Therefore, I am enthusiastic—and I am encouraged and invigorated in a somewhat stuck peace process—that we have a government who are prepared to take up the baton and
196
to work and to build upon the foundation so surely laid by the previous government and the previous Prime Minister who put so much effort into it.
I want to see devolution for Scotland and Wales moving forward, not only because I believe that it is right and it will be evidence of the will of the people of Scotland and Wales, but because the momentum and constitutional dynamic will create an engine of progress for Northern Ireland. If there were to be devolution for Scotland and Wales it would be extraordinary indeed for Northern Ireland to have a statute book and yet no legislature of its own. It would have a local government that had even less accountability and power and yet nothing between it and Westminster. It would have quangos galore, far more per head of population than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, but no possibility of a more accountable government that governed with the consent of the people. I want to see devolution for Scotland and Wales because it is right, but I also want to see it because I believe that it can move Northern Ireland forward.
I am also delighted to see the Government's commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights being incorporated into domestic law. One of the only matters on which the political parties have thus far been able to agree in many years of talks has been the need for a bill of rights in Northern Ireland and that the easiest way of doing it is to incorporate the European Convention. If there is something on which we have found it possible to agree in Northern Ireland surely your Lordships will not disagree with it in this Chamber. Such agreement is so precious in Northern Ireland that, surely, it should be taken as an example of something upon which we can combine.
I regret that two matters have not been included. I trust that it is only in this Queen's Speech and in this Session that they have not been included. The first is the absence of a commitment to proportional representation for Westminster elections. The second is clarification of the funding of political parties. As to the first, one has the peculiar situation in Northern Ireland that every other election is by PR/STV—local government elections, assembly elections and even the European elections—whereas in every other part of the United Kingdom there is no PR. In Northern Ireland we have proportional representation. One would have enjoyed it and found it an encouragement to positive and constructive voting at Westminster elections—something of which one has not seen much evidence in past elections in Northern Ireland. I think that that would have been a great encouragement. I hope that it will not be long before we see indications along those lines. We have seen indications that the question of the funding of political parties will be addressed. That is a positive matter.
I make one appeal. Where one has devolution, or in the case of Northern Ireland a clear regional identity—but at this point without devolution—one is likely to have regional parties. I hope that the issue of the funding of political parties will not be looked at solely in so far as it affects this Parliament but also in so far as it represents regions, particularly those that have separate forms of government.

197
Finally, in Northern Ireland in the medium term one is looking at political progress. I know that all those in your Lordships' House share the desire for progress. But in the immediate future one has the marching season, parades and all of the divisiveness that may be evidenced there. I welcome the indication that the North Commission report will be fully implemented. I hope that that Bill will come before your Lordships' House soon. But in advance of it can the Government indicate that the views and recommendations of the commission on parades that is already in existence will have, if not the force of law, certainly considerable force in the mind of the Government? When it comes to policing, anti-discrimination and so forth, these are matters on which progress can be made in conjunction with the political progress that I know all of your Lordships wish to see and that I now know, with more certainty than perhaps was clear before the election, the new Government also wish to see.
7.4 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, although like many others to begin with I was a supporter of devolution for Scotland in the 1970s, in the more recent past I have expressed grave doubts about the proposals that have been made for a devolved parliament or assembly. There are two main reasons for this: first, the cost of yet another tier of government; secondly, the conviction that the Government's proposals, as I understand them, will not work because they have never squarely faced up to the West Lothian question. That will lead inevitably to increased friction and dissatisfaction with the Westminster Parliament and thus, in a few years' time, to an overwhelming demand for outright independence. Alex Salmond has said as much. I do not think that there is anything else on which I agree with him. But I do agree with him about that. We are sailing into very dangerous and uncharted waters. One of the very worrying aspects is that many people in Scotland see devolution as a universal panacea—an answer to all of their problems. It is not. I do not believe that anyone in Scotland would be happier or better off if Scotland had its own Parliament. I fear that disappointment is inevitable. The union of the parliaments has not served Scotland badly.
The Labour Party won a huge majority in the election, fought on a manifesto which in many respects did not differ radically from that of their Conservative and Unionist opponents. One of the areas on which they differed most radically was the question of devolution. We must assume that the wish for a devolved parliament in Scotland is much stronger than the previous Government could ever have been made to believe. Surely then, we should not oppose either the referendum Bill or the subsequent Bill, if the Scots vote for it in the referendum. I believe that we should concentrate on trying to persuade the Government to amend their proposals so that they have a better chance of working.
In common with many others, I have tried and tried to think of solutions to the vexed West Lothian question. At the end of the day I can see no solution to it except
198
in a federal context. I rather believe that that was the solution preferred by the Liberal Members of the Constitutional Convention. If the domestic affairs of all four countries were dealt with by national parliaments the West Lothian question would disappear like the proverbial snow in June. The problem that may arise is that while I believe Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland probably want their own national parliaments, I do not feel so sure about England. After all, the English stand to lose the inestimable benefit that they have enjoyed for nearly 300 years of having their country run by Scotsmen. However, I believe that they may change their minds fairly soon if the other component parts of the United Kingdom have their own parliaments. I ask the Government to expand the referendum Bill to include a referendum in England, for I do not believe that it would be good business to foist a national parliament on an unwilling England. I believe that it should be a referendum for the whole of England with no nonsense about regions.
I am aware that the referendum Bill has already been published. Indeed, I have a copy beside me. But that does not mean that it cannot be amended at Committee stage in either House. I ask the Government to think very carefully about this matter. If they will not do that, alternatively they may introduce an English referendum Bill as soon as time can be found for it. Although we have not yet seen the White Paper setting out the devolution proposals in their final form, the proposal is that foreign affairs, defence, finance and social security should remain within the remit of the Westminster Parliament. Why social security? That seems to me to be a domestic matter that should be dealt with by the national parliaments. It would be one less bone of contention between those national parliaments and Westminster were that to be so.
If that were so, what would the Members of the Westminster Parliament do with themselves three or four days of the week out of five—twiddle their thumbs at the taxpayers' expense? I wonder whether a proportion of the various national MPs elected by their fellows in the same party political ratios as they had themselves been elected could form the Westminster or United Kingdom Parliament. Alternatively, a number of MPs, possibly one per Euro constituency, could be elected at the same time as the Euro MPs. They could sit next door when necessary, say one day a week, while the rest of the time their Chamber could house the English Parliament. In that way you would save a lot of salaries and a new parliament building, while preserving the traditional venue for the English Parliament—surely rather dear to their hearts. You also save the necessity for a fourth tier of elections. I am afraid that the normally apathetic electorate will not turn out in any great numbers for yet another set of elections, particularly in bad weather.
What I am not clear about is what it is envisaged that the role of this House will be regarding devolved legislation. Will it come here for scrutiny or are the devolved parliaments to be single-chamber? Perhaps the Minister could clarify this when she comes to wind up.

199
I can only hope that the Government, in spite of their huge majority, will listen to suggestions, face the problems which present themselves, try to find solutions to them which will work, and take the necessary time to do so. I hope they will put the unity of the United Kingdom before anything else, otherwise they will go down in history as the Government who destroyed it.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, we have had some brilliant speeches in what has been a very interesting and fascinating debate. Some of the most valuable contributions have been on the constitution, but I think now is the time for a change of bowling. I make a special plea on one aspect of the gracious Speech which I mentioned briefly at Question Time. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Speech as a whole. It is just what the country needs. It will lead towards greater prosperity in years to come, certainly in the next five years.
I want to try to ensure that disabled people have a share in that prosperity. They have always been at the back of the queue; they have always been relatively neglected. I am very disappointed that despite a list of fine Bills, which I support enthusiastically, there is no provision for improving the situation for disabled people.
We have debated the Disability Discrimination Act at great length. The House knows how disappointed some of us were with its provisions. It is run by the National Disability Council, which has no powers of enforcement. All it can do is advise the Minister, which means that the Act is almost a dead letter. If it cannot be enforced then it has no real meaning to disabled people, nor to employers, nor to the providers of the various goods and services. What was presented by the Tory Government when they were in office, provided very reluctantly and under great pressure, was a vehicle—but a vehicle with no engine. We have to provide that engine.
The description of the Act looks good and sounds good; in fact, it is no good because of the lack of authority. We must therefore have a commission with power and one which is able to enforce the law regarding disabled people.
I was very disappointed with the answer of my noble friend Lady Blackstone. As I said, I warmly support the Bills in the gracious Speech. I recognise that not everything can be done with one magic stroke. Of course I recognise the difficulties, but I repeat that disabled people are all too easily squeezed out. It is too easy to say, "Let us deal with them later on". I hope the Government will not do that in relation to a commission.
My noble friend Lady Blackstone says that the Government are pressing ahead with discussions to see how the Act can be improved. But it cannot be improved without a commission and a commission needs primary legislation. Changing and improving the Act, welcome though that may be, is simply not enough. Admittedly, the Government will not find it easy to find time for additional legislation but they should bear in mind that
200
the disability lobby will be profoundly disappointed with their refusal to mention a commission in the gracious Speech.
I am very glad that my noble friend Lady Hollis will reply to the debate. She does not need to be reminded of her own views on the need for a commission and will be more aware than I am of the Government's dilemma in not being able to do everything at once. But this goes to the central point. The Government made commitments in opposition. The present Opposition will be only too glad to jump on them if every single commitment is not met overnight. I repudiate such an approach. The Government, however, will be faced with the problem of how far, how fast and how comprehensively they can move.
I understand the problem. But disabled people must be given a high priority. Above all, they need this commission. I hope that my noble friend is able to reassure me tonight that my noble friend Lady Blackstone's response at Question Time was an initial response and something on which to build. I would like a specific commitment that there will be primary legislation for a commission.
Regarding the Act, I did not like the way the last Government excluded those who worked in firms employing fewer than 20. They were quite wrong to do that. I hope that my noble friend Lady Hollis will be able to assure us that the matter is being dealt with by the new Government. I do not think that it requires primary legislation. I see my noble friend shakes her head. I hope that we can have a specific assurance in that regard.
The first important comprehensive Act affecting disabled people was in 1970, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, piloted by my great friend Alf Morris in another place. It became a very important Act, making a provision as of right for certain facilities to be given to disabled people by local authorities such as adaptations in the home, meals and telephones. Since the passing of that Act, it had always been accepted that such provisions were given as a right until a recent court case involving Gloucestershire County Council. The case went to the Court of Appeal which, wisely and very reasonably in my view, ruled that the Act said that where a need was assessed that need should be provided for by the local authority and that need should be recognised as the ordinary word, "need". When need was identified, the provision should be made regardless of the resources. In other words, the council could not plead lack of resources. Under the Act it had to make cuts elsewhere and give disabled people the provisions.
On appeal to the House of Lords, the Law Lords, in their infinite wisdom, changed the Act. By a narrow majority they decided that resources had to be taken into account. By that monstrous decision they changed the requirement in the Act from a duty to a discretionary power. So all local authorities can now say, "We lack resources. We are short of money; ergo, we cannot provide disabled people with what they need". I hope that if my noble friend the Minister finds time she will be able to reassure us that new legislation will be introduced to restore the situation to what it was

201
understood to be from 1970 until recently by everyone—except the Law Lords—who had read the Act and by the Court of Appeal which understood the Act.
I have a PS to make. Echoing what was said earlier, I regret that there is not just one Minister for disabled people. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for ensuring that no fewer than three marvellous Ministers have responsibility for disabled people. Tom Clarke did a great deal for disabled people when he was shadow spokesman. Nevertheless, if there were just one Minister he or she would be a focus for disabled people who could straddle all departments. It is more than a nomenclature. It is an important symbol to disabled people and to the public. I hope that the Prime Minister can be persuaded to think again and to appoint one Minister for disabled people.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, when I first entered your Lordships' House, I was advised that a good occasion to make my maiden speech would be in the debate on the gracious Address. That was because I could either comment on something that was contained in it, or alternatively point out something that was missing from it. This is my maiden speech from this side of the Chamber—a place which I must confess I hoped never to find myself. But I believe that advice still holds, and I have to note with some disappointment a number of omissions from the Government's legislative programme.
There is a serious constitutional issue involved in the failure to mention a Bill to introduce maternity leave, paternity leave, additional rights for part-time workers and a selection of all the other social regulations that are such a burden to our competitors in Europe. Instead, the Foreign Secretary lost no time in announcing to Brussels that, without getting a single concession in return, we would give up our opt out on the social chapter and sign up to future European directives that would impose it on us. If the Government think these matters are such a good idea, why do they not make them part of our domestic law, passed by this sovereign Parliament? If by chance the Government should later discover that they are wrong—as they have had to admit that they were over nearly everything that they espoused since they were last in power—then, so long as it was legislation passed by Parliament, it could be changed. This is because no one Parliament can bind future ones or pass irrevocable laws. To change a European law, however, we need the kind co-operation of Brussels, France, Germany and Italy, to say nothing of Greece and all the other countries whose Governments are in thrall to their trade unions. Having the bureaucrats of Brussels do their legislative task for them is just a way for Her Majesty's present Government to make sure that Parliament will not be sovereign over the unions ever again.
Then we come to another proposed diminution of the powers of this sovereign Parliament. I mean the Scottish tax raising assembly, or parish council as the Prime Minister has contemptuously described it. I have no
202
intention of making a Second Reading speech jut now but the referendums Bill also gives rise to a number of unanswered questions. Why are the Scots and the Welsh being asked to buy a pig in the poke and vote "Yes" or "No" when they do not know what exactly they will be getting and what they will have to give up in return? Why not legislate first and then ask them if they like it? Why are they going to have the referendum based on what by then will be a register that is half way out of date. Why are temporary expatriates being excluded—that is, persons domiciled in Scotland or Wales in the technical legal sense of the word, but temporarily resident in England or indeed anywhere around the world to where, having got on their bikes, they have exported their talents? Indeed, why are the English being excluded when, with a piece of breathtaking effrontery the Government are proposing that they shall pay the major part of the £8 million cost of the referendum and a further £40 million for setting up the assemblies, both of which are in fact intended partly to protect the Labour Party from the local nationalists. No taxation without representation! How many nursery school places or job creation schemes for youngsters would £48 million pay for?
That brings me to the subject of law and order. To reform the Crown Prosecution Service to convict more criminals is something we can all applaud. Police on the beat and not pushing paper are something we can also all agree with—even though some of the regime of paper pushing was imposed in the interests of civil rights—civil rights of the criminals, not of the public. Fast track punishment of persistent young criminals sounds all very well, but fast track to where, I ask myself? I had 20 years as a magistrate in juvenile courts. What we do not need is a fast track to more conditional discharges and ineffective probation orders, which hardened young criminals regard as, as they put it, "getting off".
I recall the present Government's opposition to our proposals for secure training centres for persistent juvenile offenders which were to provide education and training within a disciplined regime. Now the Government propose to bring in what one newspaper described as "Chain gangs for juveniles". We will examine the proposals with interest when the Bill is published, but I hope that it will deal with such questions as who is going to supervise all this graffiti scrubbing; what will happen if the juvenile fails to co-operate; and whether this punishment will be cost effective. The idea is not new. Some 450 years ago, minor criminals in Florence were sentenced to scrub the pigeon droppings from the cathedral.
Still on the subject of being tough on crime, there is no direct mention in the Queen's Speech of the subject of longer minimum prison sentences for persistent drug dealers and other criminals. Locking persistent criminals up ensures that they are out of the public's way for a long time. The party opposite vigorously fought against our proposals in the last criminal justice Bill. Having adopted so many of our policies for the purpose of getting themselves elected, I am disappointed that this is one that they have not. There is in fact only one passing reference to the drug trade as part of a general context at the end of the Speech, but I welcome the initiative

203
announced by the Home Secretary over the weekend. Now they have the chance to get tough on crime, they do not tell us what they are going to do about adult criminals instead, except for their manifesto promise to have the Court of Appeal lay down more guidelines and extend the Conservatives' idea of the right of the Attorney-General to appeal against lenient sentences.
The Labour Party concentrated a great deal of misinformation during the election campaign on the subject of pensions. Despite that, the Queen's Speech gives us no idea of what the Government are going to do about the ticking time bomb of the inevitable bankruptcy of the state scheme. Indeed, there is no mention at all in the speech of pensions or pension reforms. One can applaud the appointment of Mr. Frank Field, the new Minister of Social Security, as being a person who is not only an expert on the complexities of social security, but as one who takes a realistic view—someone who "dares to think the unthinkable", in the words of the Prime Minister. The question unanswered in the Queen's Speech is how to reconcile Mr. Field's favourable view on the Conservative scheme for private pensions with a minimum guaranteed by the state for the next generation, with the vague manifesto pledge merely to "encourage" private pension schemes. Apparently, the Government are not going to try. The Minister said in a television interview on Saturday:
"I am hound by the manifesto and not by what I said previously".
I have to say that the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to promise that he will not remove tax relief on pension contributions is hardly an encouragement, and I sincerely trust that he will keep the point in mind when he announces whatever tax increases he is proposing in his July Budget.
The Government's plans on trade union law are interesting. There is not one reference in the Speech to trade unions. The words simply do not appear. It reminds me of the curious incident mentioned by Sherlock Holmes in The Silver Blaze; the dog that did not bark. However, this omission itself also raises an important constitutional issue. The Labour manifesto made a passing reference to,
"rights and duties going together".
I am disappointed to see that the Queen's Speech contains no definition of what the duties of the unions may be. In particular, I am disappointed that after the latest series of fire brigade strikes in Essex the Government are not offering in the plethora of consultative papers that they are proposing at least to examine the possibility of banning strikes in essential occupations in return for the employees being entitled to mutually binding arbitration with a statutory guarantee of full funding.
Yet another serious constitutional issue has arisen over the new powers given to the Governor of the Bank of England. In their manifesto, the Government did make an oblique and opaque reference to,
"reform of the Bank of England".
What they did not say was that within five days of taking office they would hand over the vital economic power of fixing interest rates to an unelected quango having no responsibility to and not answerable to
204
Parliament. It is now announced that that abdication of power is to be given statutory force, presumably to clear the way for entry into a single currency.
The Chancellor, during the election, said that if elected he intended to "hit the ground running". What he did not say was that he would hit the ground running away from his responsibility always to control interest rates. The significance of this step is this: in just two weeks in power the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given up one of his key functions to the Governor of the Bank of England.
The Foreign Secretary proposes to hand over irrevocably to Brussels powers that could easily be exercised by Parliament and to follow that by surrendering our veto in four major fields. The Government propose to siphon off other powers of Parliament to Scottish and Welsh assemblies and English regional assemblies. The proposal to have a strategic authority for London with an elected mayor will remove from Ministers and Parliament responsibility for control of the police, fire and ambulance services and London transport.
Those are just the thin end of a very large wedge. In fact, all of those proposals and the modification of the agenda for Prime Minister's Questions in the other place have only two objects in view. The first is to diminish the powers of this Sovereign Parliament. In the Queen's Speech, this was described as "decentralisation". The second is to enable Ministers to shuffle their responsibilities on to others. Instead of answering awkward questions, Ministers will be able to hold up their hands and say, "It's nothing to do with me, guv". Your Lordships will need carefully to scrutinise all plans to cede the rights and powers of Parliament to outsiders—and here I am not merely referring to Brussels.
After so much criticism, I should like, in conclusion, to offer some congratulations to the party opposite. It has been given a great trust and considerable power by the British people and we all hope that it will exercise them wisely and well. I congratulate all the new Ministers on the Benches opposite on their appointments, especially the Whips who have the hardest but the best job in your Lordships' House. I wish them all success. In particular, I wish well the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, who is responding to the debate, for she showed me enormous kindness when I first joined your Lordships' House. This House has a reputation for courtesy, politeness, reasoned debate and co-operation between the parties, something that the other place may now be able to emulate with the influx of a large number of women members. I know that I can speak not only for myself but for all my colleagues in saying that the Government can rely on that attitude continuing while—for the short while. I hope—we remain in opposition.
7.35 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, it is very significant and important that Northern Ireland is at the top of this Government's agenda, as it was in the last. The common approach of all parties to the problem

205
continues to be of great support to the people of our Province. The Prime Minister's visit on 16th May, his first official trip outside London, and his well publicised speech endorse his commitment. It was an excellent speech. In it, Mr. Blair recognised the outstanding work of John Major and he pledged to continue to build on that foundation. The Prime Minister said:
"There are times when to calculate the risks too greatly is to do nothing; there arc times too when a political leader must follow his instinct about what is right and fair".
I decided to speak today for one reason. I wanted to make sure that before allowing his instincts to come into play the Prime Minister considers certain additional facts which were not contained in his speech. His instincts may have been to return power over the rate of inflation to the Bank of England and to accept the Social Chapter. But, as he said about Northern Ireland:
"This is not a party political game or even a serious debate about serious run-of-the-mill issues. It is about life and death for people here".
And that includes the deaths of service personnel serving there, as was Corporal Restorick when he was murdered.
I have no intention of quoting dozens of statistics and facts, but it is important to bear in mind throughout four points. First, the IRA's campaign has gone on for 27 years. Today that campaign is run by people who have grown up in that environment of violence almost from day one of their lives. Secondly, in Northern Ireland only 10 per cent. of planned IRA incidents actually take place. Intelligence and security measures deter 90 per cent. before they occur. Between 7th October last year and 13th April this year there were 41 major attacks on our security forces. From that, one can realise the number that were actually planned. Thirdly, we have had two recent security force tragedies; the murders of Corporal Restorick and Constable Bradshaw and several civilian tragedies. Other incidents where shootings took place and where explosives were detonated had been intended to kill dozens of our soldiers and police.
The last fact to remember is that it is the quality of our security forces—the police backed up by the Army—which is holding the situation in check. Highly professional operations, such as the recovery of the deadly Barrett sniper rifle and the arrest of the active service unit in South Armagh, are good examples of what I mean.
While referring to the Mitchell talks, the Prime Minister asked:
"Why has decommissioning been so difficult to tackle successfully?".
He refers to the distrust between the two communities. I accept that as part of the problem. However, Sinn Fein/IRA said that they wanted to go to the talks, and it would have entailed handing in only a token number of weapons to have bought their way in. Knowing the size of their armoury, we must look further as to why they did not trade a few obsolete weapons for a seat at the table which they apparently wanted. I would argue that they had no wish whatever at that time to attend talks. That is because they have nothing to contribute to
206
democracy and absolutely nothing to say beyond their four or five-minute standard answer, which we hear on television every time they are interviewed.
The Prime Minister then asked in his speech:
"What today is the aim of IRA violence? Is it a united Ireland? Is it to defend the nationalist community? Is it to force a way to talks? Do they hope for a loyalist backlash or a security clampdown?"
Since none of those suppositions is justified, I ask a second question: why do they not stop?
I believe that the Prime Minister should consider who he is dealing with. Sinn Fein/IRA is the answer. Some people may wish to believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA are separate. The facts are that Sinn Fein, predominantly Adams and McGuinness, has two places on the IRA army council. That is a minority of two out of seven. While Adams does not have control over the IRA, contrary to what they say, Sinn Fein has a great deal of influence. That is shown by, for example, the cessation of activities, including beatings, intimidation and so on, for three weeks prior to the election to maximise the Sinn Fein vote. It is now continuing to control that violence until after the council elections which take place in Northern Ireland on Wednesday. I am convinced that it will try to do so also until after the general election in the Republic on Sunday, 8th June.
Therefore, we are dealing with Sinn Fein/IRA. Its members do not cease using violence because they do what suits them and no one else, and I might add that they have always done so. They feel that time and time again violence has prompted a small movement in government policy. I give just one example. After the Canary Wharf bomb incident there was an immediate reaction of setting dates for talks.
For the vast number of low-level activists, the IRA culture is a way of life. They depend on the IRA purse for a living. That living is earned through organised crime, intimidation, fraud and protection rackets. Why would they wish to lose a livelihood of 27 years just so that two Sinn Fein representatives could attend talks when their only aim, as the Prime Minister stated, is unattainable, their only stated aim being to achieve a united Ireland in the shortest possible time.
They will not cease to use violence because the IRA culture cannot survive without it. How many people realise that the everyday brutality which occurs in our Province is predominantly against their own community; for example, the everyday type of occurrence of three masked thugs with baseball bats breaking into a house and dragging outside a 16 year-old boy and then slowly and viciously battering his legs and arms to pieces? Why? Only by the use of terrorism can the IRA culture of crime continue.
At that level, one is not dealing with romantic Irish patriotism but with cowardly, criminal thugs who do not do anything for the good of anyone else, including Gerry Adams, let alone a British Government.
There is one other consideration which should have a bearing on the Prime Minister's instincts. Many will be surprised by what occurred in the election in Northern Ireland. Why did so many people vote for Sinn Fein two weeks ago and why will they do so again in

207
Wednesday's council elections? The reason is the so-called "democratic deficit" or dictatorship and rule by the Civil Service in Northern Ireland. Some say, "But your Ministers come from the United Kingdom Parliament and are democratically accountable". To bear out my point, I should like to quote from the Hayes review, a report on staff deployment in the Northern Ireland Civil Service dated 22nd April of this year.
I shall quote four isolated phrases in Section 4, which may come as a surprise to people who were junior Ministers in Northern Ireland. Section 4 deals with the constitutional position of Northern Ireland Ministers and it states:
"In Northern Ireland as distinct from Great Britain … it is the Department and not the Minister which is the legal entity".
Again, in another paragraph, it states:
"In Northern Ireland, the Departments are themselves the corporate bodies".
Later on it states:
"Accordingly the six Northern Ireland Departments do not have political heads".
Further on it states:
"In common parlance, they are described as the 'Minister for' but it is not always understood that this is a courtesy title".
That is perhaps quite surprising. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, may not be too unhappy about no longer having responsibility for Northern Ireland when all he would have had was a courtesy title.
Peace talks are aimed at rectifying that. However, after 27 years, you cannot expect local accountability at the level of the Northern Ireland Office to occur in the short term. The Prime Minister could act now, however, just as quickly as he has with Prime Minister's Question Time, by returning to the district councils some of the powers taken away from them years ago. Today, the district councils are capable of and willing to work together and they have shown that in several places. The vast majority of nationalists oppose violence. Recent polls have shown that to be true. But their votes for the peaceful constitutional parties seemed wasted in the face of Sinn Fein/IRA violence and lack of political accountability. Incidentally, the same can be said for the vote for those parties close to Protestant or loyalist paramilitaries. In addition, the fact that John Hume got so close to Sinn Fein meant that a vote for Sinn Fein became more acceptable, or perhaps one should say less unacceptable.
The Prime Minister said also that there may be only one opportunity given to a new Government to offer a way forward. I remind your Lordships that there will shortly be a new government in the Republic. Perhaps that presents a doubly good opportunity for a way forward. May we all hope that the new Government have the conviction, courage and determination to build on the Prime Minister's excellent speech in Armagh and that we shall move towards eventual peace in our Province.
7.47 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I wish to talk about the new Government's proposals for criminal justice, social policy and for the constitution. But first,
208
we should take a quick overview. Thank goodness we can look forward to a period of government which should be optimistic and socially inclusive and, indeed, blessed with the need to demonstrate that they were worth electing and possibly worth re-electing. Otherwise, on the face of it, we know who will be back. But that might be a bit of an assumption. It seems to depend what the members of the Conservative Party decide to do with themselves. If they get it wrong, a large number of voters will be looking for a new political home. The crisis theory of social work suggests that real change occurs only during a crisis. I believe that that scenario may fit.
Before I appear to be giving the new Government an open endorsement, I feel the need to run over what happened in Scotland on 1st May. Apart from the Conservative Party achieving a zero percentage of seats, albeit based on 17 per cent. of the vote; the Government won 76 per cent. of the seats based on only 47 per cent. of the popular vote. That latter percentage has an interesting effect when set against the proposals for a proportional elected Parliament. It was disappointing for the SNP to poll 22 per cent. of the vote and yet achieve only 8 per cent. of the seats. The Liberal Democrats scored a well-proportioned result—13.9 per cent. of the seats based on 13.1 per cent. of the vote. That is a remarkable but not necessarily appropriate achievement of proportionality under the essentially corrupt system of first-past-the-post.
I conclude that the new Government have quite a good mandate to administer Scotland. I am sure that they will be pleased to know that. They were fortunate to win some more rural seats, so I am hopeful that there will be less of a bias towards the industrial central belt and more understanding of the rural and remote areas. I look forward to encouraging a further legislative visit to crofting. It is in the remote areas that the greatest improvements can probably be made—by a bold government with a clear understanding of this subject which may, at first, appear peripheral.
Having said that, I should now like to turn to the criminal justice Bill, which seems to be called "crime and disorder". I should like to have it confirmed that this Bill does not try to attempt to alter the law of Scotland. Tackling Scottish measures on the back of an essentially English Bill is always an inadequate way to amend Scots law. I hope that the proposed fast-track—from offence to court appearance—will not jeopardise the legal process, and not lead to injustice. I certainly applaud any effort to bring accused persons to court in the shortest realistic period. In the case of the young, that will be most beneficial, both to the accused and the victim; and to the wider society. The connection between offending and judicial disposal is always worth stressing and reinforcing. My only caution lies in the occasional merit of being able to examine what the accused person has done in the intervening period after being charged. That is the informal equivalent of a deferred sentence.
The measures to protect children, lower the age of criminal responsibility in England and place responsibility for their children's behaviour with the parents seem to be sound, and regrettably necessary,

209
measures. There is a substantial need to re-establish standards of parenting and upbringing, which have become both lax and vague in recent decades. I am a firm believer in the need to get people to re-examine their approach to family management. I see no harm in the Government giving clear advice about absolute minimum standards in the form of legislation. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness, who will reply to this debate, will agree with me that the current crisis of lawlessness among children and young people can only be reversed by the efforts of all adults and not just, for example, parents, teachers or policemen. Respect for the law will only return when the reason for its existence is seen to be worth while. Getting people to understand the benefits of accepting the law is a central task.
I hope that any review of the social security system and social policy will conclude that the focus must be upon three major areas, and must be effective. I define those areas as being: young unemployed males, young single mothers and the long term unemployed. The first need to develop new attitudes to the kind of work that they are looking for and preparing for; the second, the young single mothers, need help and encouragement within the context of their inexperience to bring up the families that we probably wish they had not had while so young; the third, the long-term unemployed, need to grasp the helping hand of training and begin to believe that they will work again.
Finally, and inevitably, I turn to the proposals for the development of the constitution. I believe that this will ultimately lead to the creation of a federal Britain. This is the only real British solution to the central problem of the Union as we know it. The problem to be overcome is no less than the domination of the British Union by the English state; that is, by its sheer scale and voting power. The risk of returning to the democratic deficit and colonial-style minority government is too great for Scotland. I put it this way. Scotland is either a sovereign political entity or just a region of Britain. I believe that the vast majority in Scotland want to exercise their sovereignty within the United Kingdom, but not on the existing terms. A domestic parliament will begin to meet that desire.
It is to be hoped that these developments can be welcomed by all partners in the British Union. Failure to do so will encourage the alternative solution: that Scotland should pursue its own sovereign path outwith the British Union. The first beneficiary of devolution will be the Scots Law. I do not believe that this Parliament is capable of doing justice to its development. It is so little understood, and forever regarded as the other system. A Scottish parliament will have the Scots law central to its heart. That, alone, I suggest is sufficient to justify its creation.
I should like to go back a little so that your Lordships will understand where I am coming from. When the Union Commissioners met for their first substantial discussions on 22nd April 1706, the English Commissioners made the following proposal of substance:
"That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland be for ever United into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain.
210
That the United Kingdom be represented by one and the same Parliament".
They also proposed that the English Act of Succession would apply to the United Kingdom.
On the 24th April, two days later, the Scottish Commissioners, drawn from the Parliament of 1705, presented a radically different proposal of four points. First, that the succession should be as per the English Act; secondly, that there should be reciprocal exchange of rights and privileges between the two kingdoms; thirdly, that there should be free trade between the two kingdoms and the colonies; and, fourthly, that all laws and statutes in either kingdom were to be compatible or repealed.
The Scottish proposals dealt with the major problem of the Dual Monarchy—or the Dynastic Union: the co-ordination of Her Majesty's Governments in England and Scotland. The Scots were offering to accept the Hanovarian succession in return for free trade, the end of war and a treaty of friendship; together with the repeal of English discriminatory legislation, such as the Navigation Act and the Aliens Act. That was clearly a demand for a federal union. The Scottish proposals were rejected out of hand and an incorporating union (the Union that we know) was the only proposal allowed to be discussed.
I believe that we should bear all that in mind as we come to make the next steps in the development of the British Union. Ignoring the will of the people of Scotland will only perpetuate the inherent unfairness of the Union. I wish well the Parliament of 1997 in this respect.
7.57 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech to introduce devolved government to Wales. As is well known to many of your Lordships who hail from the Principality, I am not a new convert to this concept and have long wished to see the return of democracy to Wales, either through a return of power to local government or, better still, the creation of a Welsh assembly with the power to govern in Welsh matters. Before my noble friends on these Benches decide that I should be denied the vote on the second count of having joined the certifiable, the insane, perhaps I may explain why I hold these views.
There exists in Wales a political problem known as the "democratic deficit"—a name taken from a learned paper written by Kevin Morgan and Ellis Roberts and published in 1993. That name is now used by the press and has even entered the portals of the Welsh Office. This deficit has come into being through both external and internal factors. Anglesey, Aberystwyth and Angle are a long way from London and even further from Brussels. As real political power moves ever eastward, Wales becomes further isolated and that isolation must be seen in the context of the centralisation of the power that, over the past 18 years, has been taken from local government. That process did nothing to reform the excesses that existed in a small number of local authorities, but rather left local government with a raft of statutory duties and little contact with the people who were called upon to vote for it.

211
The power to govern in Wales has been substantially handed over to quangos which now number 188 and handle some 30 per cent. of the Welsh Office budget.
Quango appointees greatly outnumber elected councillors. Some put the ratio as high as 3:1. To believe that quango appointments are made on a politically neutral basis would be naïve. One may well ask, why does the system work? The only answer that I can find is the generous nature of the English taxpayer. Of those who oppose change I ask, would the English electorate consent to live under a similar regime?
The case for change is self-evident. To turn the clock backwards would achieve little. The fundamental changes to Welsh local government have been too great to do that and are now working well. Let us look to France and to Germany where regional government works well and let us remember that new concept that came with the Maastricht Treaty; namely, subsidiarity. Why should it stop east of the Severn?
My enthusiasm for a Welsh assembly should not be taken as a lack of respect for the magnificent achievements that a succession of Secretaries of State from both parties have brought about in the creation of what is Wales today. The Wales of tomorrow requires a different touch. I hope I may give two examples. I refer to the economic development of the north and west of Wales and the hard political decisions that are necessary which can be made only in Wales. They will not be made by a government in Westminster. The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 in creating unitary authorities made a half-hearted attempt at providing for that level of administration that concerns police, fire, health and health and safety services. A Welsh assembly could so easily encompass this in a manner far more beneficial to the community which is served rather than by the artificial units created by the Act.
The pros and cons of an assembly have never been far from debate at any time since the failed referendum of 1979. The "con" argument has always been dominated by the cost of the assembly. I understand that the additional cost over and above the transfer of existing costs is thought to be minimal. I ask the Minister to put on record what this cost will be.
If the Government wish to gain assent at the referendum, the White Paper must be radical. It should not only state what powers are to be given to the assembly, but also argue the case for the powers that will remain with Westminster. There is in Wales a considerable cultural diversity and if the assembly is to gain the confidence of all this must be reflected in the manner in which its members are elected. This diversity is better represented by local authority boundaries than by parliamentary constituencies. To this end the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 should be revisited as there is a good case for increasing the number of authorities. The case for PR is unarguable in the context of a Welsh assembly.
There are two major problems which I hope the White Paper will address, both of which may well have defeated the legislators of the Venetian Republic. The first is how to reassure if not protect rural north and west Wales against the political and economic ambitions
212
of the south. The second is even more complex. If the assembly is to be other than an expensive talking shop, in which case it will be rejected, it must have the power to reject Whitehall legislation where a commonality of law between England and Wales is not in the interest of the Principality. I give an example as regards much of recent legislation concerning education. It has been announced that the nursery voucher scheme will not now take place in Wales. If such a power was given to the assembly, how would it prevail when the government of the day in Westminster do not represent the political will of the Welsh? Your Lordships will recall that a problem arose with a few local authorities in the 1980s when they tried to take such powers upon themselves. In the case of a Welsh assembly, Westminster would be giving it just that power.
I hope that the Government will be brave enough to offer that at some time in the future the assembly could be given the power of taxation. If we have a lesson to learn from attempts to reform local government, it is that to give representation without taxation leads to bad government. To separate the vote from the wallet is indeed folly. For the assembly to have no financial responsibility other than to prioritise the spending of a block grant will always add a divisive political dimension to the allocation of moneys.
If, as I hope, the assembly comes into being, future Westminster legislation will be drafted so as to recognise the power of the assembly. However, existing legislation has given to the Secretary of State the power to make orders which require the consent of Westminster. If the responsibility for such secondary legislation passes to the assembly, there will he cases where the commonality of law is broken in a manner not intended in the original legislation. I cannot share the opinion expressed by my party during the election that a Welsh assembly calls into question the integrity of the Union. History has shown us that all too often a rigid and unchangeable constitution brings about its own downfall. If our constitutional arrangements have anything to fear, it is from Europe and not from Wales.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate she will say what the Government will do to redress the "democratic deficit" in Wales if the referendum does not gain an affirmative vote, for the Government must have a fall back solution, and that solution should be known. How all embracing is the commitment in the gracious Speech
"to govern for the benefit of the whole nation"?
Over the past 20 years, and perhaps longer, we have witnessed the ascendency of the urban voter over the rural voter. All recent legislation that concerns the rural economy and rural culture has been dominated by urban attitudes. We need look no further than recent environmental legislation and the national parks. What will the Government do to protect the rural minority, or will the minority interest be always subjected to the urban desire? Is the rural minority similar to, or unlike, other minorities? I should like an answer to that for by far the greater part of Wales is rural. If the assembly is in turn to govern for the benefit of the whole Welsh nation, it will have to have a duty placed upon it to protect the rural interest.

213
By now my noble friends will be convinced that I should be denied the vote on the third count of having joined the criminal class. However, I believe that we best protect our institutions by allowing them to develop if they are best to serve our countrymen and country women. A Welsh assembly is just such a development and with it we may see the return of those who succeed in the community—I do not mean that success is governed by money—to the service of local government. That is a great tradition which we are in danger of losing. The referendum offers the Welsh a great opportunity. Let us grab it with both hands and argue about the detail later.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, we have been saying pleasant things about each other this evening, or at least most of us have. I wish to join in and congratulate the new Government Front Bench. It is always pleasant to see a government in all the fresh dawn of first confidence. However, life goes on; government is difficult; and that moment is seldom recaptured. While it lasts it is right for all of us to take pleasure in it.
I wish also to congratulate what one could call the new Opposition Front Bench. I have listened to what they have had to say, both last Thursday and today. I detect a new spriteliness, a new vigour and a new interest in life which may perhaps come from being able to speak their minds more frankly now that they are free of the trammels of government. They, too, deserve the congratulations of this House. I do not wish to leave out the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I see the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, on that Bench. In the previous Parliament the noble Lord earned the gratitude of this House on, I believe, a permanent basis for his defence of the independence of the judiciary.
Therefore I start by congratulating everyone on almost everything. One thing I hope the Government Front Bench will recognise is that this House has a genuine purpose in trying to master the real difficulties of constitutional reform and that when questions are put which may be difficult to answer or when amendments are tabled which may be difficult to resist it is the intention, certainly on the part of noble Lords on these Benches, to improve the legislation and that there is no intention of blocking it or wrecking it.
I was struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, said about her experience in Scotland. I was in Scotland during the election campaign; I was not in a battle bus. I am quite sure she is right. There is a basic will among the Scottish people to have what can properly be called a Scottish parliament. When considering the first piece of legislation, the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, we should start from the point that the electorate in Scotland made its position absolutely clear. Having said that, one looks at the difficulties. The difficulties are as clear in the referendum Bill—it is only a first example—as they are in constitutional reform generally.
The point of all constitutional reform is to change the rules by which important relationships are governed. It may be useful to consider the constitutional reforms
214
immediately ahead of us as well as those which will arise later in the Parliament in terms of changes in relationships by considering what one might call the counter party to each specific reform.
There is a striking counter party to the referendum Bill. The striking counter party to Scotland is Wales. We have not as yet had a justification for separating the idea of a parliament for Scotland from an assembly for Wales. These are not terms of art. France has an assembly with much the same powers as the Parliament that we have in this country. Those terms are indications of esteem. The esteem given to the proposed devolution for Wales is not in parity with the esteem given to the form of devolution proposed for Scotland. If there is a sense in which Scotland is a nation and Wales less fully a nation, that is utterly unacceptable to the Welsh people. What does Scotland have as regards nationhood that Wales does not have? The answer is Scottish law. Scotland has a system of law which Wales has not retained. On the other hand, as is shown in the referendum Bill, the Welsh language is held to be much stronger than the Scottish language. The Welsh people are to be allowed to answer the referendum in their own language; but, as proposed, the poor Scottish people will have to answer the referendum in English.
The issue applies not only to Scotland and Wales but also to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is at the heart of the West Lothian question. If we are to move to devolution for Scotland because we know that that is what the Scottish people want and therefore we should not resist it, is it right to set up a system in which we have three devolutions from the United Kingdom Parliament, and one non-devolution in respect of England, in which each system is essentially different from the other? In the long term, can it be acceptable to go from a parliament for Scotland down to an assembly for Wales? One has the Welsh relationship. the English relationship and the Northern Ireland relationship. As put forward, the scheme does not provide an answer to those relationships.
One then considers other relationships. What are we to do about local government in Scotland and Wales? Let us consider the shift of power as regards Scotland because it is clearer; we understand it better. We have an important shift from powers exercised essentially by the Westminster Parliament through the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office up to Edinburgh. But will it not be natural for there to be also a change in the power relationship between the new Edinburgh parliament and local authorities in Scotland? My friends in Scotland tell me that they are not well satisfied with the state of local government in Scotland; they do not think that it is good local government. Some of them think it natural to give powers to Edinburgh and reduce the powers discharged by the local government. I do not know whether they are right. However, it is clear that the relationship with local government has to be examined.
So, too, does the important relationship with the Treasury. If the Scottish people say yes, the Scottish parliament will have the right to additional tax revenue. What relationship will that have to the direct grant from the Treasury? Will the Treasury be entitled to say, "Now

215
that they are taxing themselves that much more, they do not need so much money from us?" Would that be intolerable? I dare say that it would be intolerable to the Scottish people. But would it be intolerable to the Treasury which is harder hearted than the rest of us? The Treasury relationship will have to be right. The answers are not immediately obvious.
There is the relationship inside the parties. During the election campaign, an interesting point was made by the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister. He said that the Labour Party was committing itself not to increase taxes in Scotland in the new Scottish parliament in the course of this Parliament. But can he deliver that promise? There will be a Scottish parliament. That Scottish parliament will have a majority, perhaps a coalition. It may need a coalition because it will be proportionate. That majority will have a leader. I do not know what he will be called—perhaps the prime minister of Scotland. He will not be answerable to anyone in a political party in London. If that parliament wishes to raise taxes in Scotland, and the Scottish people and Westminster have given it the power, he will not be answerable to the leader of the Labour Party—whether he is Prime Minister in London or whoever he might be. Conflict inside parties may, and almost certainly will, arise.
As regards Europe, do we look forward to a Europe of the regions? Many people would do so. Do we look forward to a Scotland which will deal directly with Brussels as regards fisheries? Will a Scottish parliament be content to have Westminster decide that Scottish fisheries should be common to the whole of Europe? That will be a difficult issue. If we had a Cornish parliament, it would not be agreeable to the Westminster Parliament giving away Cornish fish to Spanish fishermen.
On Europe we also have the problem that any claims that Scotland might have to a direct relationship with Brussels are also claims that can be made by Catalonia, Lombardy, the German Länder and Corsica—claims which might well be resented and resisted by our other European partners.
These problems of relationships come immediately to the surface as soon as the Government have the courage to confront constitutional reform. Some constitutional reform is now no doubt absolutely necessary. But the reason why governments refrain from constitutional reform is that it is exceptionally sensitive and exceptionally difficult. I hope that in our debates in this House the Government will recognise that it is our awareness of these difficulties and this sensitivity rather than any rejection of them which may make us difficult on occasion in supporting their legislation.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to congratulate my colleagues on the Government Front Bench on their ministerial appointments. It is also a great pleasure to welcome the Speech, which is one of the most radical of gracious Speeches. It has a quality about it that will strongly appeal to millions of people who have just cause to complain of Conservative
216
policies over the past 18 years. This Speech has been a long time coming, but it gives to millions of people a glimpse of the sun, as did the gracious Speech of 1945 and, I suspect, 1906.
The first aspect to which I wish to draw attention is devolution to Wales—a matter close to my heart. The setting up of a Welsh assembly to improve the way Wales is governed and to strengthen the unity and cohesion of the Welsh nation has been an aim of Welsh politics for over 100 years. Many of us in the House today have worked persistently over the past few decades to establish such an assembly. In particular, I must mention the contribution of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, who has been one of the pathfinders.
I followed very carefully the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. In Wales it has been a long and slow journey to get where we are. Those who know the Labour movement in Wales will also know that it has been necessary to make difficult compromises; and there have been disappointments. So against that background I have not the slightest doubt that the new Government's commitment to the setting up of a Welsh assembly is of the greatest significance in the long history of the Welsh nation. I believe it opens the way for constructive work for Wales, in Wales, in the years ahead. It can be the basis for further development if such development is shown to be necessary or desirable.
I therefore thank the Government for giving devolution a top place in the timetable in fulfilment of the promise in the manifesto. It is fulfilled in the referendum Bill introduced in the Commons on the first day after the opening of the new Parliament. I believe that the proposed Welsh Assembly is well within the reach of the Welsh people. Given a strong lead by the Government and with the co-operation and good-will of those who believe in devolution, I believe that a Welsh Assembly is also within our grasp.
I sincerely hope that the Conservative Party in Wales will come to adopt the positive approach towards devolution, to a Welsh assembly, that was eloquently expressed in this House this evening by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. I thought his speech a substantial contribution to the debate in Wales. Here we have the voice of a Conservative Peer speaking for devolution. I therefore hope that fresh thinking will emerge within the Conservative Party within Wales.
I now turn to another part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland. There is in the tragedy of Northern Ireland, as ever, a challenge for the whole of the United Kingdom. I greatly welcome the paragraph devoted to the Province in the gracious Speech. I note that the paragraph omits the word "compromise". But there can be no trust and confidence without a willingness to compromise on the part of all the parties in the Province. The paragraph then emphasises the Government's determination to seek reconciliation and a political settlement which has broad support, working in co-operation with the Irish Government. At the same time it recognises the anxieties, the concerns, at some well-publicised features of life in the Province, such as tensions over parades, discrimination in the workplace,

217
confidence in policing and protection of human rights. I trust that progress can be made in all these areas of concern.
I acknowledge, of course, that the last Conservative Government took many of these matters very seriously. But the new Government is in a position of great strength in another place and authority in the country. I hope that all the parties in Northern Ireland will take account of that fact and will begin to work together in common harness.
I welcome the promise of a Bill to incorporate into United Kingdom law the main provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is already a signatory. These are the basic rights which belong to and should be enjoyed by all people, whatever their colour, religion or race. Looking back at our various debates on the subject one can see how the position has gradually changed beyond one of reluctantly ratifying the convention in 1951, to granting individuals the right to petition Strasbourg in 1966, and to the promise of a Bill in this Session to incorporate the convention as part of our law. It is not only in Northern Ireland that that promise will be welcomed. I believe it will also be welcomed right across the rest of the country. It is of practical importance to all citizens and will at the same time enhance the country's reputation. We are most fortunate in this House to have among us the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to whom we are hugely indebted for leading us towards the goal of incorporation of the Convention for several decades. I now look forward to seeing the Bill to which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is personally committed.
There is one final matter that I wish to mention briefly which is not unrelated to basic human rights; it is, at least, related to civilised life. During recent years there has been a worrying tendency for some health authorities to decide who is to have access to modern medical technology and who is to be denied it. Given the ever-growing demand for better health treatment in the light of what new medical and scientific discoveries can make available, is there not a need for the whole subject of access to expensive, sophisticated medical technology to be looked at by an ad hoc committee so that a new strategic direction can be given by Parliament to the National Health Service as to what Parliament expects the NHS to provide? Or is it right that judgment on access to such technology should be left to the managers of the different local authorities in their own communities?
The gracious Speech has been a long time coming. Expectations in the country are very high. The new Government have immense authority, but also great responsibilities. Experience shows that government is never easy. However, I trust that this Government will not be diverted from its central task of implementing the manifesto commitments.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, like sitting on this side of the House, the subject of Scottish devolution is by no means new to me nor to many of your Lordships. We have been here before in various
218
combinations and I remember a time when the Labour Government of Mr. Attlee was opposed to a Scottish parliament and was indeed dismissive of the whole idea. In fact, there was more support for it in those days from the Conservatives. My father was a founder member of the Scottish covenant movement which petitioned for a Scottish parliament and which received a million signatures, including my own. That was in the late 1940s.
Since then we have had a very long time to sit down and think seriously about what is actually involved. Since then we have also had the European Commission and Messrs. Kohl and Chirac who, I imagine, would quite like to split Scotland from the rest of Britain on the well-known and tried principle of "divide and rule". However, they might not be so keen on splitting Bavaria from Germany or Brittany from France.
It would be churlish of me not to congratulate the Labour Party on their spectacular victory in the recent election. But I will say this: if they are going to give parliaments to Scotland and Wales and later to the English regions—which I have heard suggested—they may be dividing England up as it was divided (as we remember from our history books) in Anglo-Saxon times into Mercia, Wessex and the rest. Furthermore, they are marching bravely into the heart of Europe which they imagine they can influence, though many of us are quite certain that they cannot. If the Labour Party are going to give yet more powers to the European Commission and the European Parliament, it seems to me that it will be not only your Lordships' House which may be in danger of becoming redundant; we shall not have much left to do here in either House of Parliament. Perhaps we might turn the whole place into a museum or a Japanese hotel like the large building across the river.
Back to Scotland. We have not yet found the answer to the West Lothian question. I feel that Her Majesty's Government might possibly award £1 million from the lottery for someone who could find the answer. I am not sure that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, did not come close to it this afternoon, but we should have to think about that and bear in mind if we have a federation that England is so much bigger than Scotland and Wales. England would be very much the preponderant partner in the federation and it might be difficult.
We are in a situation today where a large number of senior Ministers are Scots. We have in this House the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, there is also the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and a few others. There is a formidable team from north of the Border. I believe that people may well be saying, and I hear that they are saying that, not content with ruling England, the Scots also want their own Parliament to legislate for themselves without southern interference. As a Scot resident in England, I have heard that more and more often in the past few weeks.
Apart from the West Lothian question, other questions arise. My noble friend Lady Blatch put one: is Scotland to continue to be over-represented in the House of Commons? Also, we must look to the future. Let us suppose that a Labour Government were elected

219
which depended on Scottish votes, but they were in a minority in England. Would that Government be able to legislate for England on matters which were to be reserved to the Scottish Parliament? I gather that Scots law is, as we heard this afternoon, to be devolved to the new Scottish Parliament. Will such a Labour Government who are in a minority in England be able to pass Acts concerning English law, relying on the support of Scottish Members of Parliament? If not, how are they to govern at all?
I am sure that on this side of the House we will be constructive about the matter, even those of us who disagree with what has been done and think it is a disaster. However, we shall try to do our best not to obstruct the elected government. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government could help us by providing answers to questions which baffle me and my noble friends. I hope that the Scottish people will have these serious issues put before them clearly. It seems to me that many people in Scotland fail to grasp the seriousness of the matter. They want to remain in the union but they also want a Parliament which will inevitably have many of the trappings of sovereignty and will, incidentally, be very expensive. Who will pay for it?
I believe that if the Scottish people want a real parliament, they should support the SNP. Independence or the status quo are and always have been in my opinion the only serious options. I hope that they will come to understand that and will reject the Government's proposals in the referendum.
We should remember that when we are considering important constitutional change we are not just legislating for this Parliament, with its large government majority in the other place, but for the foreseeable future. I imagine that the proposals might work in the short term. They might work for longer on the supposition that the Labour Party would win election after election with overwhelming majorities. As that is highly unlikely, these measures will in the course of time come under increasing and mostly, I believe, hostile scrutiny, especially in England. I very much hope that, in their own interests, the Scottish people will reject them.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I thought I would be the third to speak about Northern Ireland today hut I am the third and a half because I listened with interest and care to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who has a deep knowledge and understanding of Northern Ireland affairs. I wish to speak about the beloved Province to which I belong. It has long been a wonderful part of the world in which to live, with friendly, intelligent people, always humorous and sometimes wise. Unfortunately, things have been getting much worse over the last 18 months. Small and large communities are at loggerheads, sectarianism and hatred are rife and there seems little chance of things getting better in the foreseeable future.
220
It is time for a fresh look and to understand what has been going wrong. I therefore heartily welcome Dr. Mowlam as our new Secretary of State. She is not new to Northern Ireland but I shall not be surprised if it takes her a little time to get to grips with the situation.
I believe, indeed I know, that fear is the root cause of the present distrust and suspicion between communities. Unionists believe that the Government have been giving way to encourage Sinn Fein to join talks and they are fearful that by guile and subterfuge they will find themselves pushed towards a united Ireland. Nationalists and republicans are afraid of attacks on individuals or communities by loyalist paramilitaries, and I much regret that they have justification. They are also afraid of what the IRA will do, and it should be remembered that the IRA have murdered more Roman Catholics than Protestants in the past 30 years. Almost all nationalists now believe that the failure of the ceasefire in 1994–95 was the fault of the former Prime Minister, John Major. They also fear for the future.
These fears have been encouraged by fudges and statements with double meanings. The framework document is a good example and no attempt has been made to counter the false propaganda about the ceasefire put out by Sinn Fein. Those remarks were put together before the Prime Minister spoke in Belfast on Friday afternoon. It had been my intention to offer one piece of advice to the Prime Minister and to Dr. Mowlam. It was to do nothing which would increase the fear in any section of the community in Northern Ireland but rather seek to dispel it. Church leaders and many others have been making every effort but a lead from the Government was required. On Friday, the Prime Minster gave such a lead. He spoke plainly and simply and I can almost feel that the clouds have started to lift and that there is hope for the future where formerly there was little hope.
The Prime Minister's speech was wide ranging and laid out plainly many matters of doubt. Particularly welcome is his request that Articles 2 and 3 in the constitution of the Republic of Ireland be amended. To the IRA those articles give authorisation and legality. The Prime Minster made plain that the Government would respect the wishes of the people in Northern Ireland. That is very important. He gave the IRA one more chance to renounce violence for good and to make it possible for Sinn Fein to join the other democratic parties in talks. He also made plain that if the IRA does not respond quickly there will be no place for Sinn Fein and the full weight of the security forces will press upon all terrorists. It is such plain speaking for which we have long been waiting.
In one respect the Prime Minister's speech raised a doubt with unionists in general. He may not know that the framework document was written by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin. It was intentionally written in a convoluted manner and the Northern Ireland Office should have known better than to accept it. There is a widespread wish in both parts of Ireland to develop useful working relationships on all manner of subjects and I have no doubt that in an atmosphere of peace those will quickly develop. Perhaps after a few years it may be helpful to formalise some of them, but I believe it

221
would be the kiss of death to start by setting up formal bodies with executive powers. They are unnecessary and would send a signal to unionists that joint sovereignty is on the way.
Recent fears have been increased by foreign intervention in the affairs of Northern Ireland, particularly from the Republic of Ireland. That interference has multiplied in the past few years and is much resented by unionists, to whom it is totally unacceptable. It is the secrecy of it that is so disturbing and the general perception has been that the Northern Ireland Office obtained the agreement of Dublin before taking any initiative. That is a shocking state of affairs. If the Prime Minister can control that interference and Articles 2 and 3 are amended, there is real hope that the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic will progress in an atmosphere of mutual trust.
Perhaps I may give one piece of advice to the Prime Minister and to Dr. Mowlam; that is, they should carry on as they have started. But they should not give too much attention to the advice they will receive from the Northern Ireland Office. They may become confused and lose their direction. They must do what the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, suggested; that is, they must start to fill the democratic vacuum. I hope that they will quickly start to give additional responsibilities to our local councils.
On Friday the Prime Minister gave an indication of his determination to help Northern Ireland to go forward in peace. I welcome that most heartily, as indeed does everyone in Northern Ireland except perhaps those who have a continuing interest in terrorism. He has made a good start. I wish the Prime Minister and his Secretary of State, Dr. Mowlam, God speed in their efforts to bring a genuine peace to Northern Ireland.
8.42 p.m.
The Marquess of Bath: My Lords, while I am delighted by the Government's intention to introduce a measure of self-government for both Scotland and Wales, I am concerned that there are no plans to follow that with a reappraisal of the constitutional status of the English regions unless there should be some demand in evidence that that may be desired. I feel bound therefore to claim that interest for the inhabitants of Wessex. I am hopeful that there will be similar demands from all of the other English regions. I should like to think that the UK might now be approaching the time when devolution will be introduced on an even wider scale, and that the intended legislation on behalf of Scotland and Wales will set a pattern for what may later be applied elsewhere.
The appeal of devolution is that it offers a region far greater control over its own quality of life while encouraging the cultural diversity between different regions in a manner that will individualistically enhance the lives of those who dwell there without interfering in the concept of a broader based UK sovereignty under whose aegis the macro-economics and the defence of the realm will continue to be organised on their behalf. Such emphasis upon
222
individualism would be felt as a balancing counterpart to the ever-increasing centralisation in the way that our lives are run.
At this point in time, when we stand on the brink of fuller co-operation with Europe, it would be a move greatly appreciated by the other nations whose regional structure is already significantly stronger than our own for this country to present itself in terms of the more pronounced geographical definition of the English regions while furnishing them with new political responsibility to enhance their emergent status. In that way it will prove easier for us to emerge in a constitutional shape that will enable us to guide rather than to hinder the formation of a European political union yet to come, in the forefront rather than following in the wake of a movement which I anticipate will be shaping our identity over the coming half century.
It can certainly be argued that the English regions do not even know where their own boundaries should be drawn. But the heartlands are where those identities have been best preserved. I should like to think that those could be made the distinct nuclei around which the concept of their re-emergence might be encouraged. Prior to the proposal of any specific legislation on behalf of the English regions, I am hoping that the Government will initiate a consideration of these matters within the county councils responsible for the welfare of those heartlands.
In the case of Wessex, I believe that the Government should invite the county councils of the five counties which constitute central Wessex—the county councils of Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire, Berkshire and Hampshire—to meet together to discuss and determine the areas where their quality of life may be collectively improved with a view to realising a greater sense of cultural fusion and economic welfare. Each of those counties may be expected to host such assemblies on a rota basis. I hasten to add that that would not constitute an additional tier of government; it would be the councillors already elected within those counties who would have the right to attend the assemblies. It would be only at a later date, if this Government chose to set up a Wessex witan on an official basis, that there would be a requirement for councillors to be elected to it direct, replacing existing county council elections.
Once the Wessex witan was already functional, at a later date—perhaps five years later—the areas which surround central Wessex would need to determine whether or not they wished to proclaim themselves as lying within the borders of Wessex or the borders of a neighbouring region whose heartland I am anticipating will have acquired similar political identity at the same time as ourselves. I am foreseeing that a future map of England will include the following regions: Wessex; South Thames; North Thames; Trent and Anglia; Middle England; Lancastria; Yorkshire and Northumbria—a total of eight regions in all.
The process of determining whether a particular segment of a county belongs here, or there, should only be made after establishing the preferences in a series of local referenda.

223
The case for determining the precise borders of Wessex is as delicate as with many another region. There are areas of West Sussex, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire. Gloucestershire, Devon and Cornwall where I would certainly wish to be guided by local feeling before proclaiming that they should be included within the Wessex identity. Being half Cornish myself, I know that Cornwall proudly proclaims its separate identity, even from Devon. But if the region were to be presented as Wessex and Cornwall, with special emphasis on the Cornish people being firmly in control of their own quality of life, I cannot predict where they might finally elect to stand, as a separate region or in association with Wales and Brittany or in association with an extended Wessex. But these I regard as problems which lie beyond the establishment of a political heartland for Wessex.
A problem which perhaps worries us most of all concerns whether the creation of these regions might incur additional taxation to be levied in surplus to that which is under the strict control of our central Government. The regional assemblies will indeed require funds to finance their useful activities. I am wondering whether a system might not be possible where each of these assemblies might receive a per capita and per hectare rebate from the inland revenue which has been collected throughout the United Kingdom as a whole. This sum would be theirs to spend as they might wish in lieu of funds which would formerly have been at each county council's disposal.
The concept of an England regionalised will stand in total contrast to what we were beginning to become; an England which had lost its empire while failing to identify a role in the world which it now could play. The creation of a separate parliament for Scotland and an assembly for Wales will certainly be steps in the right direction. But I sincerely hope that this Government will not miss out on such a unique opportunity to make catalytic decisions that will ultimately bring both Britain and Europe into the 21st century.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in spite of the greatest recorded drop in crime over the past three years since records began, everyone would still be delighted if the new Home Secretary succeeds in further reducing it.
Recently there has been a spate of multiple rapes by children. One case was on a foreigner at Little Venice. There have been several others reported in the press involving children as young as 12 and victims even younger. I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the behaviour of these young rapists, behaving in an utterly unnatural way for their age, have been influenced by the sex and violence seen on video, film, the Internet and "top-shelf' magazines, which may be they cannot buy themselves, but which they can certainly have made available to themselves.
Violence in the media has been reduced over the past year or two, but even now there is hardly a Hollywood film without its ration of sex and violence. Years ago it did not seem necessary to be explicit in detail; perhaps playwrights were better then. If this Government are
224
going to reduce crime, they should take a careful look at the effect of pornography and violence on influencing the behaviour of young and old alike.
The Home Secretary has talked about greater measures of punishment for the young, but experience has shown that more subtle means have more effect. One such initiative already happening is that of the presentations to young tearaways of the "Prison Me, No Way" initiative, when prison life is explained to the mothers and sons who end up in tears at the thought. The young frequently promise to desist from crime. At the end of one session, one mother was nearly sick at what she had seen.
Yet by the year 2000 there is likely to be 10,000 teenage criminals. The effort to improve the situation must be made through all the agencies—the social services, housing, youth and drug agencies, and so on. For the Home Secretary to talk of severe punishment was just election talk.
Having said that, there is an inability to punish the very small core of very young offenders who know that nothing can be done about them in the last resort, yet this small number is responsible for a very large proportion of the crime and the distress that it causes. I have no doubt in my own mind that where a young child is a perpetual criminal, the cane should be reinstated to the armoury as a punishment of last resort.
As regards fast track punishment, as I understand it the stipendiary would determine guilt and the magistrate would pronounce sentence. This will actually lead to more delays. I believe that the views of the Magistrates' Association, which actually knows what goes on in the courts and how they operate, should be closely listened to.
I am very sorry that the Government intend to further penalise pistol shooters. I must declare an interest as I have a pistol that will not be affected by the present Act, but will be by the proposed Bill. The shock and horror of those who witnessed the appalling events at Dunblane is fully understandable. But that horror should never have been allowed to be an excuse for action which was devoid of logic. The 1996 Act was strict beyond reason and ensured that no one could keep a pistol outside a gun club. It left no room for the pistol owner to take his pistol outside without committing an offence.
Pistol shooting is an Olympic sport. The requirements for safety have been fully satisfied and more. Any new legislation will be purely to punish pistol shooters rather than to promote safety. Mr. Blair has said that this Government is for all the people. There are 60,000 innocent and well-disciplined pistol shooters who are also part of the people. They should be allowed to practise their sport and not to have it outlawed. This is all on account of one man who lied to get his certificate and where the police utterly failed to do its duty within the existing controls of the time. Had Hamilton needed two referees, writing under separate cover, as required now, he would never have got his licence.
The likely result of denying any access to the sport of pistol shooting is to drive it underground. It is not known how many guns are being imported illegally, but

225
there is every indication to suspect that they are coming in for the particular use of those who are involved in the drug trade. Already anyone actually wanting a pistol can easily obtain one in a very short time, so that the withdrawal of legally held pistols will not stop another massacre in the future by anyone determined to do so.
The police are going to have to build target centres for their armed response units to practise. The Army will also need to practise. It would make good economic sense for civilian clubs to be allowed to use those ranges for their sport.
Yet there is no saying that a policeman or a soldier may not go berserk with his pistol. I remember in the Army in Egypt one trooper lost his cool with the dhobi wallah; that is the laundryman. So he got his half-track out and drove it backwards and forwards across the dhobi tent. I suppose on present form the Government would withdraw all half-tracks from the Army. Will the police and the services be allowed to retain side arms?
The present occupation of the insane seems to be to put needles in the food on the shelves in supermarkets. If a family gets killed by them, will the Government close all supermarkets?
However, I do have some sympathy with the Government over the control of airguns. The use of almost every waymarking sign in the country as a target by air gunners indicates just how many are taken out into the countryside. There have been countless cases of the misuse of airguns.
Nothing was said in the gracious Speech about the Government's previously stated intention to open the moors to public access. I must declare an interest. Only 16 per cent. of walkers actually want open access, but the right granted to them will extend to every egg collector, saboteur, air gunner, long dog man and other layabout. The moors need a great deal, and long and late hours, of management in the form of heather burning, bracken control and vermin control. There are difficult problems to tackle, such as the menace of tick. If an influx not so much of walkers, but of vandals, near to the towns—those areas most enjoyed by walkers—drives off the management, the unmanaged and unchecked heather and bracken will soon deter the hardiest walker; tick will flourish; and wildlife will disappear. So much will come from Mr. Blair's statement that he would like to protect wildlife. Indeed, 55 per cent. of walkers already run their dogs off the lead to range the moor. Alternatively, the sheepmen will overstock with sheep and turn the moor from heather to grass.
Before the Government succumb to the political wishes of the vociferous rambling minority, they must try to find out and to understand how the moors are managed or they will do them irreparable damage and make them much less attractive to the 84 per cent. of walkers who just want to walk the footpaths. The Government can legislate when they wish and how they wish, but they cannot legislate against the inevitability of nature. There is a lot more to it than just transferring political rights from the occupier.
226
I have never bought a lottery ticket, but one thing that I think that the Government could do to advantage is to limit the size of the prizes. I really cannot see the point of prizes of many tens of millions of pounds, which would probably be beyond the ability of most people to manage, when they could be limited and spread so that a larger number of people could benefit.
Unemployment has been dropping over the past few years by some 5 per cent. annually and the jobs have largely been sustainable. That has been particularly visible in the north-east with the inflow of industry, such as Samsung. Unemployment fell from March to April by 51,000—these are all sustainable jobs. Whether we shall remain an attractive venue for foreign investment when we have the social chapter remains to be seen.
I am sorry that the wealth of the utilities is to be squandered for short-term employment for the young. It would seem so much better if the utilities could be put on notice to invest that wealth, thus creating further wealth, more real jobs, foreshadowing more tax receipts from future profits, and causing training by the necessity of increased labour demand. The economy and infrastructure of the country would then be that much better off as a result, leading to further genuine and sustainable employment.
Much has already been said about Scotland. I do not look forward to devolution, but if Scotland and Wales are to govern themselves, it is imperative that England should have the same privilege. Why should England he ruled by the Scots and the Welsh—over-represented as they are? That is the only way, to my mind, that the West Lothian question can be resolved. I hope that the vital questions that were set out by my noble friend Lady Blatch will be answered.
Inflation has hit the target. Unemployment is showing one of the greatest drops since records began. The pound is strong. Britain is bequeathed to the Labour Administration in a much better state than ever inherited by any government before; and with all that Mr. Blair says that he has to undo 17 years of maladministration. Oh dear! If things now go wrong, as they have with every other Labour Administration, the Government cannot blame their predecessors. We know that their intentions are good, like the road to hell. But I genuinely hope that they will succeed better than I fear may be the case, given their policies.
I am interested in the success of UK Ltd, regardless of who is in power. I was sad when the Labour Party jeered when my noble friend Lord Cranborne expressed our feeling that we wish success to the Government. It is sad that they do not understand that it is possible to put the welfare of the country before politics.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, as I rise and survey your Lordships' House, I am reminded of the story of the visiting preacher. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will not object if I relate that story. A visiting preacher at a local church found that attendance was sparse during his sermon. At the end of the service, the visiting preacher asked the church officer whether the church had failed to advertise the

227
fact that he was speaking. The reply came, "No. but somebody must have leaked it." I fear that someone must have leaked the fact that I am to speak in tonight's debate.
With one and a half exceptions, I have listened to every speech and, as the debate has evolved, I have noticed that one of the features of it has been that all noble Lords have offered their congratulations and good wishes to my noble friends who, in the Christian term of my noble friend Lord Longford, have been "promoted to glory" on the Government Front Bench. If I do not add my congratulations I fear that that may be interpreted as meaning that I do not wish my noble friends well. I do wish them well and I offer them my sincere congratulations, but I must put that in context. For a fair number of years, I was a director of a professional football club in Scotland and I do not care to relate the number of managers to whom I gave my wholehearted support one week only to see them sacked the following week. I mention that only to put my congratulations in context.
For me, this gracious Speech is something of a watershed. I am sure that no one present will be surprised that I have chosen as my subject the legislation for the establishment of a Scottish parliament, the forerunner of which will be the legislation to conduct the referendum. I must at once thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale for their kind references to me and to my work with the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I am very grateful for those kind remarks. In the Scottish Constitutional Convention lies the blueprint for the establishment and creation of a Scottish parliament. I know that my friends in government will take that blueprint and use it as the foundation on which to build the superstructure of the parliament for Scotland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, opening the debate on behalf of the Opposition, said that the Conservative Party was strongly in favour of the preservation of the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, ended her speech by saying that the unity of the United Kingdom had to be placed before all else. On both counts there is nothing between us. The Labour Party holds very dearly the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom. The debate is how one preserves that unity and integrity. Those who argue that devolution will lead to a break-up should study more closely what has happened in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is already broken up. I argue that devolution will bring it back together again.
I relate one or two facts. One hears that confession is good for the soul. I did not particularly enjoy the general election campaign. If I have not enjoyed the real thing I have not enjoyed the replay of the campaign in some speeches today. It is not my intention to replay the general election campaign, but it must be emphasised that the Conservative Party now has no seats whatever in Scotland nor in Wales. It has no European parliamentary seats in Scotland. Of 1,600 elected local councillors in Scotland, only 14 are Conservative. They control no local authority in Scotland or, as I understand it, in Wales. I do not gloat when I say that; I say it to
228
emphasise that the United Kingdom has already broken up. I was delighted to hear the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. I urge Conservatives seriously to consider ways in which they can bring about again the unity and cohesion of the United Kingdom to which we are all committed. I would have preferred a direct move to legislation, but that is not to be. We are to have a referendum. I give a commitment to campaign in that referendum for a double yes vote in relation to the questions to he asked of the Scottish people. There are no "ifs" or "buts" about it.
During a fairly long political career—my great ambition for 30 years has been that a Scottish parliament should be created—I had begun to believe that my political life would be lived in vain. But the gracious Speech now gives a clear indication and provides great hope that my political life in one respect—the creation of a Scottish parliament—will be fulfilled. I was delighted to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Owen. He paid tribute to the late John Mackintosh and the part he played in the development of the debate on devolution. I watch with interest as the queue begins to form to take credit for the creation of a Scottish parliament. I do not consider that I am worthy to join that queue, but I should like to add three names to that of John Mackintosh. One is my lifelong friend Alex Eadie, former Member of Parliament for Midlothian. The second is the late John Robertson who in his parliamentary days was Member of Parliament for the Paisley constituency. The third name may surprise your Lordships. Although we have parted company politically, I still want to place on record my gratitude to Jim Sillars.
When 25 years ago the four of us—the three I have already mentioned and myself—wrote a pamphlet on a parliament for Scotland we were to begin a debate that took all of us by surprise. Usually, when one writes pamphlets one has a single print run and one must buy 98 per cent. of the copies to give the impression that it is a bestseller. We had three print runs of that pamphlet and could not satisfy demand. During the general election campaign and since I have received countless requests for copies of the pamphlet. It was that which began a debate that has stretched across all political parties and no political parties in Scotland. It resurrected the whole question of a Scottish parliament.
The referendum Bill will soon be before another place. Having passed through the other place, it will come to your Lordships' House. I leave a suggestion with my noble friends on the Front Bench. It is time for innovation. I would like us to do something meaningful in relation to the referendum. We have become bogged down in this country: every vote that is cast has to be cast on a Thursday. It is outrageous that in the elections to the European Parliament the people of the United Kingdom vote on a Thursday but the votes are not counted until Sunday because that is the day on which the rest of Europe votes.
I am grateful to my friends in another place for the urgency with which they have introduced the referendum Bill. Had it been delayed, I would have argued that we should have had a two-day referendum—on Saturday 29th November and on

229
St. Andrew's Day, Sunday 30th November—campaigning on the slogan, "We bring Scotland's Parliament home on St. Andrew's Day". To the eternal credit of my friends in another place, the process is being speeded up even more. In addition, I suggest that polling should take place from 9 o'clock in the morning to 6 o'clock at night, with the results declared on the Monday to be followed by publication of the devolution Bill itself.
An exciting time lies ahead. I see in the gracious Speech the fulfilment of a long-held desire on my part. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, referred to the democratic deficit in Wales. The democratic deficit in Scotland is even more exaggerated. There are 1,600 elected councillors, 72 Members of Parliament, eight European MPs—1,680 elected representatives for a population of 5.5 million. Statistics have shown that, per head of population, Scotland is the most under-represented country in Europe.
Those who argue that a Scottish parliament will mean that we are over-governed should look at what has happened to Scottish local government in the last three reorganisations. In 1974 the number of councillors was reduced from 6,000 to 3,000. The 1995 reorganisation was unwanted in Scotland. Part of the reason why the United Kingdom has broken up is that unpopular legislation was forced on an unwilling population. It did not happen in England. When the commission of inquiry was established in England to examine reorganisation of local government and the report was put before the Department of the Environment, no reorganisation took place. Explain that to the people of Scotland. There was no inquiry in Scotland; just reorganisation. The poll tax was introduced in Scotland as an experiment. When it became England's turn to have the poll tax, the whole thing was withdrawn. Explain that to the people and then answer the question: what has led to the break-up of the United Kingdom?
The question is not whether devolution will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom but rather whether devolution will repair an already broken United Kingdom and satisfy the desire of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, and, I am sure, every Member of your Lordships' House, to preserve the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom.
One thing is absolutely certain—the status quo is not acceptable. When William Hague went to Scotland at the weekend someone should have told him that time had moved on since he made that speech as a 16 year-old. I understand he is about to get married. For that reason alone, he will need to learn that you have to surrender power gracefully. The one thing Westminster has to understand is that it will need to surrender power with the greatest grace possible.
9.20 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is interesting to hear the Scots complaining. They have complained quite a lot. They are over-represented, under-taxed and
230
over-subsidised. We in the UK who are Englishmen—our country goes from John O'Groats to Land's End, to the shores of Loch Fyle, to the eastern coast of East Anglia—as my noble friend Lord Beloff said, have a say in the future of the UK. We should not be pushed about and encouraged into an unattractive English nationalism. That is what, for want of a better word. Celtic whingeing is likely to do.
That is not what I was going to say in my speech. What I was going to say is that I move in relatively high Tory circles. Note the use of the word "relatively". It is interesting to note that Mr. Blair is given considerable good will by those high Tory circles. That may not be surprising, as when he went to address the Eton College Political Society its president said to him, in the way that young men do, "Mr. Blair, sir, judging by your views you could be a Conservative", to which Mr. Blair replied, "I have got to change the Labour Party first". That was two years before he became leader of the Labour Party.
It seems to me that the present First Lord of the Treasury is now probably the most powerful man that England has seen since Oliver Cromwell. I say that because he has created the Labour Party in his image as a method of making him Prime Minister, and he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Now he has become Prime Minister he does not have the people who when Mrs. Thatcher became Prime Minister—the Carringtons, the Pyms, the Whitelaws of this world—had been more senior Cabinet Ministers than she had been when the previous Government were in power. He has no peer pressure in his Cabinet. He has just a praetorian guard of close acolytes. I should remind your Lordships what Tacitus said of the praetorian guard: "Quin custodiet ipsos custodes?", or who guards the guards themselves?
I do not in any way make any accusation of impropriety, immorality or lack of patriotism of the present first Lord of the Treasury. In fact I would do the exact opposite. I totally concede that he is as honourable a man as it is possible to have in English politics: I totally concede that he is a man of enormous integrity; and he is a great patriot; but he has greater power in England than any man since Oliver Cromwell. So perhaps he could be described as Lord Protector in a wart-free zone.
That brings one therefore to the danger of having someone so powerful. If we look at an Act of Parliament it starts:
"Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the … consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled".
That was saying that the British Parliament was a balance of Whig power. The problem that has arisen, and which has now become worse with the present First Lord of the Treasury, is that the balance of the English constitution has been totally destroyed.
The chief executive has nicked the powers of the Sovereign. The House of Lords, because it no longer represents real power, has been emasculated. The party machine does not allow the House of Commons to think. The present vast number of Labour Members of

231
Parliament are not allowed to think. We have only to see what happened to the Left-wing lady—I cannot remember her name—who was not allowed to answer a question asked by a journalist during the election campaign. The powers of the Labour Party to deselect are horrendous.
If I were Mr. Blair I should have done exactly the same had I thought I could get away with it. I do not blame him. What I am coming to is the essential need to reform this Chamber. My remarks are addressed as much to my own Front Bench as they are to the Government Front Bench. In 1979, I wrote to Mrs. Thatcher saying, "Dear Prime Minister, many congratulations on being Prime Minister. Will you please reform the House of Lords because unless you do so one day there will be a Labour Government"—I thought that they would arrive a little earlier—"and they will do it sillily?".
The proposition of a silly reform of the House of Lords is high on the Labour manifesto. Therefore, I am urging my own Front Bench to use their residual powers to try to persuade the Labour Government, Her Majesty's present advisers, to put forward a serious reform package which will enable me, as a hereditary Peer, to leave these red Benches without minding. But if I have to leave these Benches because the party opposite has produced a reform entailing the disenfranchisement of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, but the continued enfranchisement of Lord Kagan, had he still been alive, that would be very silly.
It is essential for the health of our body politic that there is reintroduced to it the checks and balances of a Whig constitution. The words at the beginning of an Act of Parliament show what that should be. However good, Christian or patriotic, if you have too much power it goes to your head and you do not remember that when the Roman consuls had a triumph they had on the back of the chariot a lictor who said, "Remember you are only human". I also wrote about that to Mrs. Thatcher. She said, "I will always remember the lictors", but I do not believe that she gave them a thought from the day I wrote it until the day she left.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, having inflicted a speech of almost 20 minutes duration in the corresponding debate last October, it will probably come as a relief to your Lordships to know that my remarks tonight will be comparatively brief.
After remaining undisturbed for so long, it seems likely that in the future the composition of your Lordships' House will be radically changed. Like other noble Lords and, I may add, knowledgeable members of the public, I cannot fully appreciate why we are to meddle with one of the country's institutions which works rather than with the many which do not. Indeed, persons from all walks of life with whom I have discussed this matter have, more often than not, expressed respect and admiration for this House and confirmed how it has accurately reflected public opinion on a wide range of subjects which we have discussed here.
232
Unfortunately, many others are ignorant or prejudiced. In recent months, I have observed how media presentation of your Lordships' House has been either deliberately misleading or downright mischievous. In this connection, I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Tenby that a committee should be set up to examine the public relations of this House. I fear that it is not only timely but necessary. The talk of reform is in the air although no reference is made to it in the gracious Speech.
I believe that we should talk not so much of reform as of modernisation and would therefore hope for some element of compromise in the solution, possibly along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in The Times newspaper a few months ago. But if that is to be the case, and even if it is not, there is one aspect of the hereditary peerage which cannot be ignored any further if it is to enter the 21st century with either credibility or connection with the society in which we live; namely, our denial of women's rights. Whatever the logic behind the abandonment of female succession in the late Middle Ages, it is now both abhorrent and wholly unsuited to the modern world. The Victorian attitude towards women, which was brutally summed up in the couplet,
"Perhaps a little needlework or perhaps a little reading,
But always remember you arc here just for breeding",
is outrageous and outmoded. Furthermore, I still deplore those reference books that state "Heir: None", and then go on to list daughters.
As your Lordships know, there have been failed attempts to address that issue in the past. Two of those were initiated in the past five years by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to whom I willingly pay tribute for his endeavours. Some have shrunk from supporting them as they wished to avoid any legislation involving the hereditary peerage being presented for debate.
But legislation of some sort or another is coming and, if it is coming, then let it come to some moral purpose. Whether or not a hereditary title continues to hold some parliamentary connection, it will still remain a legal rank and privilege with power to affect our community in a variety of ways. The fact that women are excluded, solely by virtue of their sex, from this power and privilege is both absurd and wasteful, as well as being very probably illegal under European law.
Of course, the fiercest reformers in this field would like to see primogeniture irrespective of sex introduced for any hereditary position, but even I can see the distress and material disarray that would be caused by the dispossession of eldest sons who have lived their entire adult lives in the service of an assured inheritance. It is possible that this would be a proper measure for the next generation. But for the present I believe a more acceptable compromise that would address the problem with the minimum disruption would be to confirm all peers in their titles on a given date, the 1st January, 2000, for example, and from that date to deduce their successor according to the rights of heirs general; that is, according to the same laws of succession as currently govern the Crown.

233
In addition, I would suggest that heiresses, under this system, to those peerages which have become extinct since the Second World War might be permitted to petition for the right to them. That would have the benefit of immediately introducing 20 or 30 women into the peerage, and, under the present circumstances, into your Lordships' House. I recall clearly, the recently expressed wish of both the main political parties to have more women playing an active part in politics. That gives me an opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, whom I believe I can justify describing as my friend, if not my noble friend, on her translation to the Front Bench.
Surely the answer which I have given today is no more than common justice even if the hereditary peers are sometime in the future to be excluded from this House. After all, our privileges then would be no different from those currently enjoyed by the Irish peerage. I hope that we, as a body, are permitted to continue serving this country, but I know that such a thing cannot and will not be if we persist in remaining an institution that specifically denies the basic rights of more than half the population.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, some years ago—I think it was in 1981—I introduced into your Lordships' House a Bill entitled the Constitutional Referendum Bill. Its object was to ensure that any major constitutional change—for example, the abolition of the House of Lords or a second Chamber in Parliament—would be the subject of a referendum.
On Second Reading, my Bill was strongly attacked by my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Eccles in speeches which carried their combined eloquence and authority. The grounds for their criticism were that referenda were contrary to British political practice and liable to undermine Parliament. My Bill was subsequently sunk without trace. It seems that now things have changed. Referenda on constitutional matters are accepted by all parties for Europe and are proposed in the gracious Speech, in this Parliament, for devolution and even for London government. I am sure that your Lordships will forgive me if I feel just a little satisfaction at being in some small way a pioneer.
Although the reform of your Lordships' House is not included in the gracious Speech, when in due course the Government's proposals are formulated—and if they conform strictly with the manifesto—I think that the overwhelming victory which was won at the last election will be the equivalent of a referendum. But if there is to be any major change in the powers and method of composition of the second Chamber which is not set out in the manifesto, I think that a referendum should be held.
So far as concerns devolution, I am strongly in favour of a parliament for Scotland and an assembly for Wales. When I was a boy, a much loved Presbyterian minister, the late Mr. Davidson, spent much of his spare time when I was in Edinburgh showing me that marvellous city and teaching me Scottish history. In the High Street,
234
I could never understand why the parliament there was occupied almost exclusively by lawyers. I think that anyone of Scottish descent would welcome the knowledge that Scotland will have its own parliament. I do not believe that that will mean the break up of the United Kingdom. I deplore the English nationalism which is becoming so strong. The ties of blood and history are far too strong to allow any break up to take place.
The creation of the greatest achievement of these islands, the Commonwealth, was shared by men and women—statesmen, soldiers, administrators, traders, settlers and scholars—from all the four races over the past four centuries. But in the changed circumstances of Great Britain I believe that the time has come to restore the sense of self-government to the historic nations which form part of it. I would only say that a Scottish parliament must have power to levy taxes within acceptable limits.
As far as London is concerned, I have always felt that the abolition, as opposed to the reform, of the LCC was a decision inspired more by party political prejudice than by sound policy. It is obvious that London, like all the great cities, needs such a strategic authority and should have a Lord Mayor elected by popular vote. I have only two caveats. The first is that this must not affect in any way the present status of the Lord Mayor and the Corporation of the City of London. Secondly, the idea of an elected mayor should not be extended to towns in general. I am thinking particularly of towns like Colchester where, to my personal knowledge, the present system of drawing the mayor from the longest serving councillors has been an incentive to able men and women to become councillors and to devote their time and talents to the wise development and administration of the borough.
Therefore, I think that the constitutional proposals contained in the gracious Speech are ones which I would support, subject to the provisos that I mentioned earlier. There is only one that I should like to add and it is one that I wish had been included in the gracious Speech. I should like to see the length of a parliament reduced from five to four years. I am not always keen on American political precedents, but I think it is right that the Executive, as in America, should he elected every four and not every five years. After all, as has been said, we have an elective dictatorship and five years is a long time to have the same dictator in power. That would have prevented the long, dreary and bilious year of the last Government and might also have prevented the disaster which the Conservative Party suffered at the recent election.
9.40 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on a statesmanlike and interesting speech. I congratulate the Government on a famous victory. It was indeed a famous victory. In the London Borough of Brent, from which I come, it was taken as proverbial among Labour Party members that the Labour Party would never gain Brent North. It simply goes to show that never is a short time in politics.

235
I congratulate my opposite number, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, on her success in changing places, but which is Philip Swallow and which is Professor Morris Zapp is a question on which I shall not venture an opinion. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on his accession to a post from which I look forward to hearing him many times. I wish also particularly to congratulate three people on their success in this election: Melanie Johnson in Welwyn Hatfield, Gisela Stuart in Birmingham Edgbaston and Ben Bradshaw in Exeter. In saying these things I do not speak in any party spirit. I believe those results contribute to the ideal of a nation at ease with itself. I believe they show that the Conservative Party is not the worst loser at this election: that dubious honour, I think, is reserved for the Daily Mail.
I remind the House that there were two winners at this election. Doubling one's party's seats is, I think, by any criterion, winning. Where our two parties agree we have, as near as makes no difference, a two-thirds majority. Where we do not, we have an alternative source of ideas, and that is a greater power than is often allowed. Our aim in this Parliament is constructive opposition. In uttering those two words together I am setting up a see-saw. Everyone will appreciate that whether a see-saw is up or down depends on the people on both sides and not just one.
I wish to respond to one or two remarks that have been made during this interesting debate. I listened with a great deal of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I shall read what he had to say with care. I was reminded of the remark of the Institute for Fiscal Studies on present spending plans,
"If these plans are met, they are likely to have serious implications for the NHS".
All I ask at this stage is that the Government will consider as they go along the possibility that that remark might be correct.
I express my full agreement, and that of these Benches, with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said about the mandatory life sentence for murder. If he introduces the Bill of which he spoke, we on these Benches will support it, and I hope to be involved in that process. But uncharacteristically the noble and learned Lord made what I think is the only error I have heard him make in speaking in this Chamber. He said that in another place the principle of mandatory minimum sentences was not opposed. It was opposed from our Benches from beginning to end but because in another place we are not always able to put down our own amendments, we were able only to make that opposition effective by voting against the Second Reading, which we did.
Constitutional reform has taken up a good deal of today's debate. I listened with particular interest to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who I believe did not understand my question: if the English are to vote on devolution, what alternative is to be put before them? It must be understood that after this election the status quo is no longer an option. A cause which is not able to win a single seat in either Wales or Scotland is not a viable cause. I do not think that the Conservative Party's result in those countries was a just result. If any
236
Conservative says that, I shall agree with him. However, they pick the rules. If you are challenged to a duel and name your weapons, and you choose pistols, if you belatedly discover that your opponent is an Olympic shot it is too late to say that that is the wrong weapon. If there is to be a referendum involving the English, the choice must be between devolution and separation. That will concentrate the minds of the Conservative Party on the fact that those are two very different options.
Speaking as an Englishman, I believe that the union of our countries has immeasurably enriched what is otherwise a somewhat in-turned English culture. Were the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to succeed in his ambition of rebuilding Hadrian's Wall, and if the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, and her compatriots were prepared to extend hospitality to me, I should think long and hard on which side of that wall I wished to be.
It is sometimes discussed as a question how far a government should reverse the legislation of their predecessor. I was brought up, as it is possible that the Prime Minister was also, on the precedent of Mr. Churchill's decision in 1951 not to reverse the bulk of the legislation of the Attlee Government. I stress the words "the bulk"; I need only mention the word "steel" to show that that is a relevant consideration. It is almost unknown for a government to reverse none of the legislation of their predecessor. There is also quite a substantial difference between 1951 and now. The reforms of the 1945 Government enjoyed a great depth of popularity in 1951. In 1951 the Labour Party polled a higher percentage of the vote than the Conservative Party, and a higher percentage of the vote than it polled in 1945 or 1997. That thought may have given Churchill pause when he considered reversing his legacy. That is not the situation today. At this election the Conservative Party scored a lower percentage of the poll than since the election when my great grandfather replaced Sir Robert Peel as Home Secretary—and I repeat as Home Secretary, not as Prime Minister.
Nevertheless it is true that one should think twice about reversal. I believe that there are three cases in which one can legitimately consider reversal. The first is if the distaste that one feels is such that if one tries to come to the Dispatch Box to defend the measure the words simply stick in one's throat. Experienced Ministers may tell me that one should not feel that too often. That is fair enough, but if one never feels it one ceases to be a human being. The second is if the measure is a roadblock between the new Government and everywhere to which they wish to go. The third is if the measure creates so much mess that the Government cannot afford—I use the word "afford" in its literal sense—to continue it.
There are two measures which seem to me to meet all those criteria. The first is the deprivation of benefit from asylum seekers, on which the noble Baroness and I have fought side by side. The second, on which we have also fought side by side, is the restriction of housing benefit for single people under 16 to shared accommodation, of which there is not enough to go round in the whole country, and what exists is in the wrong place. If the noble Baroness has to discuss that with the Treasury—and everything has to be discussed

237
with the Treasury—she might ask it to consider whether the cost of not reversing that measure might be far greater than the cost of reversing it. One must save money, but one does not do so by wasting it.
If there is to be co-operation, it is a good idea to have it with recognition of the difference as well as the similarity. The noble Baroness's party and mine sometimes seem, like England and the United States, to be divided by a common language. Since we often want many of the same things, the fact that the reasons for which we want them are somewhat different is not always understood as it should be. If that were understood, co-operation would be easier. I am reminded of a former American colleague who told me that he thought many of his compatriots believed that if you woke up an Englishman suddenly at three o'clock in the morning the affected English accent would drop off and he would speak "good, red-blooded American". When I do business with the party opposite I am occasionally reminded of that story.
I do not need to remind the House of our dedication to the control of the executive. But when we come to the need to control secondary legislation, we mean it. The noble Baroness may tell me that it is not as important as achieving social justice. If she does, I shall tell her: if you achieve one without the other, you will be lucky if you keep it five minutes. That must be understood.
We look forward to other measures to control the executive: the incorporation of the European convention and in due course, and, I hope not too long delayed, a freedom of information Act. I heard on television the Prime Minister addressing the new parliamentary Labour Party in Church House. It was a magnificent occasion; however, I did not have the impression that the need to control the executive was particularly high on the Government's mission statement—which is why other methods of controlling the executive must be thought about.
Here I touch on a number of points about which I believe the noble Baroness and I may agree in many areas. We on these Benches always tend to dislike what we think of as "top down" measures. We do not like using the state to enforce a particular pattern. There was an unfortunate moment early in the general election when it looked as though the election might be fought between a party that thinks married women with children should stay at home and a party that thinks they ought to go out to work. The view of these Benches is that personal choices of that sort are not proper for the state to make, but it is the state's business to make it easier for people to take whichever of those choices they wish to make.
That is why I hope that this Government will be dedicated to the defence of child benefit. If we look at the finances of families in real poverty, child benefit is crucial. I hope that will be remembered. When we come to discussing, as I am sure we shall many times, issues arising from the debate on single parents, I hope it will be understood that their right, if they choose, to stay at home and care for their children, just like their right if they so choose to go out to work, will be defended.
238
I understand that Mr. Frank Field was speaking in his private capacity when he talked about "developing peer group pressure on single mothers to find work". Were that to become government policy, the noble Baroness might find that she was the one being subjected to peer group pressure; and in applying that pressure I might perhaps find some unexpected allies.
We are also much concerned on these Benches about what may be described as treating people as though they were plasticine, forcing them into a particular mould because it suits the state's convenience. I cannot help wondering whether there is something of that behind the Government's new welfare to work proposals. At first sight they appear attractive. However, when we realise that they are very largely modelled on what the last Government did for 16 and 17 year-olds—a compulsory programme making provision backed with a benefit sanction—then we begin to see some of the snags that might possibly result.
I was a little disappointed earlier this afternoon not to receive the assurance that I expected that the words "full benefit" in the Labour manifesto implied a continued commitment to the existence of a safety net. I had understood that that was the party's commitment during the election. I am not usually in the habit of trusting government, but perhaps on this occasion I have done it too much. If the Minister can assure me that my original interpretation was right, I shall be delighted.
The Government's proposals seem to me to rest on two quite serious misapprehensions. One is the notion of a dependency culture. I believe that that is imaginary. May I ask in this context that when it appears on 5th June or perhaps earlier, the noble Baroness will look at the users' report, The Citizens' Commission on the Welfare State, which is about to be published by Care in the Community. She will find that the users say that one reason why a dependency culture does not exist is that benefit levels are simply too low to be attractive. The Department of Social Security has always viewed itself as a honeypot surrounded by benefit-seeking wasps. It occasionally overrates the attractiveness of its own benefits.
The second reason why it is a myth is the extent to which, even if work is less well paid than benefit, people regard work as part of their identity. As one person put it, without it they are just a statistic. There are many things seriously wrong, most of them in the area of poverty traps. I hope to address them on 3rd June and will not detain the House with them now.
The other serious misapprehension, as stated by the Prime Minister in another place last Wednesday, is this:
"We have reached the limits of the public's willingness simply to fund an unreformed welfare system through ever higher taxes and spending".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/5/97; col. 65].
I do not know how the Prime Minister knew that, but I am rather inclined to prefer the 11th Report of the British Social Attitudes Survey. It said:
"Our survey results indicate that support for the welfare state per se remains very strong, all the more so because it is based on perceived self-interest as well as altruism".

239
The point about self-interest is vital. Since the last election, 8 million people have had a spell of unemployment. The reason you can—more than you could before ask taxpayers to pay for unemploymentis the same reason for which they buy lottery tickets. "It could be you". That is a powerful motive.
When we consider the provision that the Government are bringing in, there are warnings from the 16 and 17 year-old programmes. First, we must consider what happens if the provision is not there. There must be a safety net provision continuing benefit until the programme offered by welfare to work is actually available. Secondly, we must be sure that even in times of Treasury stringency—which occur in all governments—it will be a genuine quality programme. I remember the employment training course which offered a course in carpentry when it could not afford any wood. That was not just conservatism, it was part of the illness of government. No government can hope to be immune from it so care should be taken on that front.
The Government must also allow people to judge for themselves whether or not provision is adequate, especially where they are dealing with childcare, where the opinions of the child as well as the mother must be listened to because otherwise it will not work. I remember the example offered by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, on the youth training case of the young man who wanted to work with animals and was sent to work in an abattoir. That again is part of government. If coercion is used to back that kind of action the result will be trouble; for example, if we send a pacifist to work in an arms factory, it may be a black day for hawks.
The proposal for a forced programme, even if it is one with a choice, backed by a benefit sanction is a proposal for the introduction of peacetime conscription. That is not necessarily always wrong. But when we had peacetime conscription it was backed by the vital safeguard of medical examination. For instance, a young man was interviewed in last week's Big Issue. His mother was a schizophrenic who would not take her medication; his father became violent and he himself became an alcoholic. It is no use conscripting him to a training programme; he is not able to do it. Therefore, if he is given a benefit sanction, he will only steal. That is why I say the programme must be backed by medical examination. If there is no such provision in the Bill when it comes I shall table an amendment to provide one.
Finally, it is a matter of human dignity. I agree with the witness for the Church Action on Poverty hearings from which the Churches' report resulted, that the Department of Social Security should not have the power of life and death. We should not withdraw from people who are, at worst, bloody minded a basic protection which the state extends even to Rosemary West.
10.2 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in my stuttering beginnings on the Opposition Front Bench I cannot hope
240
to match the compression and clarity of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. First, I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his appointment. He not only bestrides this great House of ours as a politician, but has also reached the pinnacle of his profession. From the bottom of my heart I wish him the best of luck in his position of high responsibility.
I congratulate also the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. She has a testing time this evening, being the holder of a portfolio of social affairs but having to range over such a large number of subjects. I should like also to say how delighted I am that the Lord Privy Seal, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, reached his high office. I remember him, in another world, as a distinguished Commissioner. After a period—I suppose one may say—of being relatively in the wilderness, he has come storming back and I wish him too the best of luck.
We have had a long day and a varied debate. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I shall not touch on every issue raised. However, I want to begin by congratulating the Government on the contents of the gracious Speech. I say that because, if one contrasts the contents of the gracious Speech with the contents of the Labour Party manifesto of 1983, one cannot help but be struck by what a long way the Labour Party has travelled in the past 15 years. That manifesto, (memorably named as the longest suicide note in history) became a legend in post-war British political life. We were to abandon our nuclear weapons; come out of the EEC; re-nationalise a wide range of industries; and redress the imbalance which apparently had occurred between management and labour as a result of the reforms of my noble friend Lady Thatcher in the early 1980s.
When one reads the gracious Speech today, what a remarkable contrast that makes! Why has it come about? It has come about because my own party has made its policies the nation's policies; and the only way the Government could get elected was to adopt those policies which had become the nation's policies. I wish the Government the best of luck, but I hope they realise that they are the trustees of something we have created.
I make one exception to that. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, reminded us that the policies on devolution were not Conservative, but Liberal policies. I am very glad to concede that because they are the one part of the gracious Speech with which the Opposition will take real issue with the Government in the coming month. We recognise that constitutionally, under the Salisbury convention, we are bound to vote for those measures which were in the manifesto both at Second Reading and at Third Reading. But Members on the Benches opposite should not be under any illusion: we shall fight very hard for every amendment in which we believe. I am sure that Members opposite would not wish otherwise. Our main energies are going to be concentrated on the measures for devolution and perhaps, depending on its shape, the proposal to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights in our law.
These devolution measures are not new to our country. They were first fought over by Mr. Gladstone and Joseph Chamberlain in the middle of the 1880s.

241
The problems were as intractable then to those great minds as they are today. They were re-fought just before the First World War, notably between Mr. Asquith and Mr. F. E. Smith and in later days between Mr. Callaghan and a Member of his own party, Mr. Tam Dalyell from another place.
It would be foolish to pretend that these issues are simple to solve because they are not. I was very struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, said when she referred to the Sword of Damocles, which, it has been said, is hanging over some of my noble friends who sit behind me—namely, the hereditary Peers. I would like to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, who I believe made the remark in good humour, that whatever Sword of Damocles may be hanging over my noble friends, it will not deter them from doing their duty as indeed it did not deter in times past their ancestors from doing their duty as well.
Before I discuss, in more detail, the devolution legislation, I should like to say something about the nature of the constitutional discussion which has taken place today. It has been dominated by two instruments, the referendum and the idea of extending judicial power in our constitution to control the Executive. In principle, we have no objection to either; but, remember, these two instruments have become more prominent because the Executive has steadily gained power over the legislature. It has ceased to become parliament controlling the Executive, and it has become the Executive controlling parliament. The one thing I do not see in the Government's proposals are proposals to change the balance between the Executive and the legislature in our nation. If that balance of power were changed, we might have to rely less on these other measures. I hope that speedy consideration will be given by the Government to looking into the ways in which in both Houses the powers of the legislature can be increased so that the Executive is more accountable. In those circumstances, it might be less needy to rely on referendums and, indeed, less necessary to extend the powers of the judiciary in the future.
Several important questions arise in relation to Scottish devolution. I do not expect the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to be able to answer them all tonight. Many noble Lords have referred to them. There are two central issues. The first was raised most forcefully by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. It is the question: is it really fair to ask the people of Scotland to take a decision about their future without having before them the legislation, properly amended, upon which that future will be based?
The second question relates to majorities in the referendum. Incidentally, I was most struck by the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie: that he agrees with everything in the referendum Bill, except for the two questions. I am at a loss to discover what else is in that Bill apart from those two questions. Is it really true that if there is a turnout of 10 per cent.—to take a ridiculously low figure—with 5 per cent. plus one in favour, Her Majesty's Government will regard that as legitimate grounds for
242
proceeding with the devolution Bill? I have perhaps chosen a ludicrous figure, but it might happen. How would the Government react?
We have heard nothing about an issue which exercised enormously Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Asquith. I refer to the division between reserve powers and those powers which are devolved. And who is to pay? Mr. F. E. Smith once said, memorably, in a debate in 1912, "Everyone but those that want them". Will that be true in this case? We need to know where the burden of taxation will fall. That is important to England, as well as to Scotland.
What about the judicial systems? What will happen if a devolved Scottish parliament exceeds its constitutional power? Who will decide whether or not it has exceeded its power? Will we need a new constitutional court? Who will choose who serves in that constitutional court? What will be its relationship to Scotland, to England, to Wales and to Northern Ireland also? What if a devolved Scottish parliament passes a measure and the Westminster Parliament passes a measure and those two measures contain rights and obligations for private people which conflict? Which system of law decides which set of rights and duties prevails? Which court will decide such matters? From the point of view of the individual citizen, those are all crucial issues which need to be considered.
I quote again Mr. F.E. Smith who said that between union and separation, there is no middle way. If the referendum gives Her Majesty's Government a fair wind, it is the Government's responsibility to prove Mr. Smith wrong; because if Mr. Smith is not proved wrong, the whole basis upon which the country has been structured for hundreds of years will fall away. I say to the Government, "Do not underestimate the responsibilities that you hold on this issue over the next 18 months. They are enormous and we will hold you accountable if you do not live up to them"—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way; but may I ask him not to engage us just yet in arguments about how this country has been structured for several hundred years? He will have plenty of time to do that later.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I certainly would not wish to offend the noble Earl although I have clearly done so, and I apologise to him. However, where constitutional issues are concerned, I believe that we should be slow to make change. After all, our constitutional history is one of continuity, not of sudden breaks. We would do well to remember that because it has served us well.
I listened with great interest to noble Lords who raised the question of Wales. One wonders whether the Welsh people ought also to have the option of having a similar kind of devolution to Scotland. It has been said by some noble Lords that they do not want it; but how do we know that they do not want it unless we ask them? Even if it turns out that the Welsh want a different form of devolution, is the form of devolution proposed workable? As I understand it, primary legislation will be made in the United Kingdom Parliament and

243
subordinate legislation will be passed by the Welsh assembly. However, as the noble Baroness is well aware, primary legislation in this country is now made in inordinate detail. It is one of the weaknesses of our constitutional system. What will be left for the Welsh assembly to do? If that assembly is to have a meaningful role in making subordinate legislation, a completely different kind of statute law for Wales must be produced. Therefore, to legislate jointly for measures that incorporate both England and Wales will no longer be feasible if the Government are to honour their commitment to Wales. Much thought will also have to be given to that matter.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, will forgive me if I do not deal with his remarks on health in great detail. He said that vertical and horizontal planning in the health service was of the greatest importance. He also spoke about CT scans, ultrasound and telepathology (if I pronounce them correctly). I am afraid that he is well above my cruising level. However, I wish him the greatest luck in convincing his own Government of the importance of those measures. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, accused the previous government of underspending on health. With great respect to the noble Lord, I believe that that is an unfair accusation having regard to the statistical record. Moreover, given the enormous leaps in medical science, with which he is much more familiar than I, he will be aware that it is a demand that will never be completely satisfied. But we on these Benches shall be watching very closely the level of expenditure on the health service. After all, during the election campaign we were accused of breaking our promise in 1992. We shall be looking very carefully at what the Government do in this area to ensure that their promises to the electorate in 1997 are not broken.
I also listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, about Europe. I should like to make two comments. I deal first with proportional representation. Whether or not proportional representation comes about in the 1999 European parliamentary elections, I hope that it will not be based on the regional list. In another world I had some experience of the regional list. I do not regard it as a satisfactory method of electing members to the Parliament. The great difficulty is that no individual elected on the list has responsibility for a specific piece of territory.
My experience is that those members who are elected on the list spend the next five years making sure that they retain the same favourable position on the list that they had before. They do that, not by spending time in the Parliament or by helping their constituents, but by spending most of their time dining out their party leaders to make sure that they are given preferential treatment. Whatever else we do in the European elections of 1999, I urge that we do not choose the regional list system. It may be that some version of the German system which mixes single constituencies with added members is feasible. I do not know. I much prefer the system that we have already.
244
My second observation is about the pillar system of which he spoke. I entirely concur. The pillar system has proved to be a good innovation and it will endure. One area about which I am less happy is the democratic control of pillar two and pillar three, because there is a tendency of Government Ministers to account neither to the European institutions nor to the national institutions. As a result, areas which are crucial to individual rights like asylum, refugee status, immigration and all of those which touch on foreign affairs and the individual, are almost unaccounted for. Given the fact that the pillar system is likely to endure, we must find new ways of making intergovernmentalism work democratically.
My Lords, I have now been speaking for 18 minutes; time has marched on, and I will take my place on the Opposition Front Bench. I reiterate that we shall stand by the Salisbury convention and its principles, but we shall amend in this House with as much vigour as we can muster.
10.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, your Lordships will not misunderstand me when I say that it gives me particular pleasure to reply to this debate and to thank noble Lords for their good wishes to my noble friend the Lord Chancellor, to the Front Bench team and to myself. I would like on our behalf to thank all those who have taken part in an interesting, rich and vigorous debate. In particular, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and congratulate him on a most elegant début from the Opposition Front Bench. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for his welcome of the gracious Speech on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
Your Lordships will understand if I start by talking about health and social security before attempting to reply to other concerns. Before doing so, I pay a very real and heartfelt tribute to my predecessor Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—always well informed, always quick thinking and unfailingly good humoured. As for the third party to our social security debates, Lord Russell, he is famed equally for his erudition and for his 16th century anecdotes. We have had one tonight, but perhaps less of the other. The thought that he is no longer alongside but opposite me on your Lordships' Benches fills me with appropriate trepidation. I know, however, that, like me, he is seeking to renew the welfare state so that it springs those who can and should enter the labour market back into the world of work, but also treats with decency and respect those who, for whatever reason, must remain on benefit.
The Labour Government have inherited a divided Britain. Since 1979 the divide between rich and poor has not only widened in income but also in life chances and in opportunities. We are today a more unequal society than any country in the OECD. To be poor in Britain today is not only to be work-poor and therefore cash-poor but also to be exposed to poorer health, inadequate housing, sub-standard schools, unsafe streets and a squalid environment. To be poor is to be excluded not only from the graces but also from the very decencies of life.

245
Looking at this landscape during the war, Beveridge said, "Want, squalor, disease, ignorance and idleness are common enemies of us all—not enemies with which we may individually make a separate peace, escaping oneself to personal prosperity while leaving our fellows in their clutches. That is the meaning of social conscience: that one should refuse to make a separate peace with social evil". We are one nation. The Labour Government of 1945 swept to power because ordinary, decent people who remembered the 1930s said, "Never again. We are one nation." They built a welfare state and founded a National Health Service. Indeed, some of your Lordships in this House were in that 1945 Parliament and helped to build that new society. Fifty years later we face no less a challenge: to renew our welfare state and to rebuild our health service in a society where we live longer, where women work, where family structures have changed, where rights and responsibilities must again be reconnected; but together we can do it, and we will.
Reform of the welfare state is at the heart of the Government's agenda. The past decade has seen the welfare bill rising and rising from £50 billion in 1979, adjusted for inflation, to over £92 billion in 1997. Whereas social security spending took £1 in every £5 of government spending in 1979, it now takes £1 in every £3. Social security expenditure has nearly doubled in real terms, yet it has not made the poorest better off. It might be more defensible if it had. Instead, we know that they are poorer then ever they were. How come?
I accept that some of the growth in social security has come from the growing number of elderly people in our society who claim benefits to which they are rightly entitled. They are valued members of our society. However, the ratio of our elderly to our working-age population has now steadied, ahead of most of Europe.
The unacceptable and deeply worrying growth in our welfare budget has occurred for a very different reason. It is because welfare money has been spent in the wrong way on the wrong things. It has subsidised our economic and social failure rather than built economic and social opportunity. Spending on "failure" benefits, which are unemployment driven, has tripled in real terms—from £10 billion in 1979 to over £30 billion today. We are all paying the price: our taxes are the equivalent of an extra 11p on the basic rate of income tax since 1979 to subsidise failure.
The real price of this failure, however, is born not just by the taxpayer, not even especially by the taxpayer, but above all by those lingering on benefit. We have trapped too many people, especially young people, lone parents, and the long-term unemployed into an unwilling dependence on benefit when they would much rather be in work and independent. For we know, and they know, that the only path out of poverty is work. The Government's welfare bill has too often funded failure. We can see the evidence of that failure around us.
One of the fastest rising sectors of welfare expenditure has been in-work benefits. The result is a welfare system that subsidises the employer who pays low wages rather than the unemployed. It is ironic that
246
the only thing the Conservative Government nationalised was the employers' wage bill. We all own a bit of that. Of course there is a role for in-work benefits for those marginal to the labour market—the long-term unemployed, or disabled, or those with many dependants. The basic schemes will continue under this Government. But they will be underpinned by the floor of a minimum wage. In that way, in-work benefits will meet the real need of the claimants rather than subsidising the exploitative employer. Those who do not now pay a living wage will have in future to pay a minimum wage.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the Minister say what the minimum wage should be and what is a living wage?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that we are setting up a low pay commission which will make recommendations to us based on consultation with all the employers and employees concerned.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister give way, because it is an interesting point? Is she saying that the Government will be bound by the commission's recommendations or be advised about the level of a minimum wage?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we shall be advised by it, but I understand that we will take the advice extremely seriously.
A second example of unwise government expenditure, wasting welfare moneys, is that the Conservative Government deregulated private rents and in a decade housing benefit in real terms more than doubled to £11 billion today. Landlords did not invest that extra rent, courtesy of the taxpayer, but pocketed it. Meanwhile many tenants on housing benefit found that they could not afford to work as they lost 93p in benefit deductions from every pound in wages. We trapped them because we spent welfare money on the wrong thing, subsidising the greedier private landlord's rent rather than investing in the supply of socially rented housing which would help drive down rents. We will release council house receipts, add to the supply of social housing and to the wealth of the country, and thereby begin to spring that trap.
Again, during the past 18 years we have used benefits to subsidise inertia, to encourage passivity. I know that the previous government produced a few pilot schemes in their last year of office, but it was too little, too late. For years we have allowed young people and lone parents to face a decade or more on the dole. We have left them to linger there. We know that they want to work, full-time or part-time according to their family responsibilities. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right in saying that we must work with the wishes and choices of lone parents. They want to own their lives. But today's welfare state discourages them from working. Too often it is not financially worth coming off benefit; for others it is financially risky to do so. Tomorrow's welfare state will be on their side, offering training,

247
reskilling, education and child care; it will provide bridges for them to a decent future. Because too many people have lingered on twilight benefits for too long, they carry the poverty of their working age into a poverty of old age. A quarter of all pensioners now depend on income support, though not all of them claim what they should. We will get help to the poorest pensioners. We will also ensure that people at work today have a good second pension to lift them off poverty in retirement.
But if we are to renew the welfare state, as I believe we must, we must restore faith in its integrity. So we have to take firm action to counter fraud. Fraud not only wastes money, it wastes good will. If people believe the welfare state is being abused, they will be tempted to abuse it themselves. None of us, certainly not people on benefit, can afford a culture of fraud and fiddling. Our actions will not only allow money to be used more wisely, but will mean that those who rightly will continue to depend on benefit will receive their entitlements without stigma and with dignity.
Our first step will be to bring forward, in the first Session, a Bill which will pave the way for the modernisation of social security delivery. This Bill will make changes in two main areas. First, it will introduce changes designed to simplify the process for making decisions and hearing appeals. Some of the current processes were developed before 1948 and much was introduced before the advent of computers. The complexity of the system confuses both claimants and the staff who have to operate it. It also constrains the design of new technology to improve service delivery. We will improve customer service through faster, more accurate decisions. We hope that as a result the system will be less prone to error and easier for public and staff to understand. The simplifications will pave the way for the developments of more effective benefit processes and of supporting technology to improve the delivery of benefits and make the system more cost effective.
Secondly, the social security modernisation Bill will contain a range of measures which will improve the procedures for the collection of National Insurance contributions. A key element of these proposals is further alignment of tax and National Insurance contributions arrangements to reduce burdens on business. We will also streamline the procedure for collecting them by introducing a new and more appropriate financial penalty regime for the Contributions Agency following on the success of regimes operated by the Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise to combat tax evasion. This is a well-balanced package of measures. In the delivery of benefits it will make the system more cost effective while enabling real improvements in customer service. The proposed measures on National Insurance will reduce burdens on compliant businesses while getting tough on those who evade paying contributions which are due.
Let me turn to another area of social security; that is pensions and divorce. The House will know the commitment of your Lordships—in particular, the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady O'Cathain, on the Conservative Benches, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the Cross Benches, and
248
the greatly missed Lady Seear on the Liberal Democrat seats—to pension-sharing on divorce. Together, we overcame government opposition to pension sharing. That measure now has all-party support around this House. It will lead to fairer financial settlements at divorce and allow a better income, particularly for women, in retirement. The previous Government's consultation paper has been widely, and rightly, welcomed. In that, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, gamekeeper turned poacher, played no small part. I am determined that despite a heavy legislative programme ahead, we shall not let slip the previous Government's date to implement pension sharing by April 2000.
I turn now to health matters. The Government are committed to abolishing the NHS internal market and taking steps to ensure that all patients have equal access to high-quality care in accordance with their need.
The problems of the NHS internal market require early action. The Secretary of State has already put this in hand through programmes of work, first, to see how resources can be distributed across both secondary and primary care, to ensure that they fully reflect local population needs and operate as fairly as possible; secondly, to tackle two-tierism, to ensure that fundholders do not enjoy unfair financial advantages, and that non-fundholders' patients do not suffer disadvantage; and thirdly, to tackle, the current paper-chase—cutting down on the flow of invoices, streamlining the existing system and learning from good practice on longer-term contracts.
Moreover, the private finance initiative in health has been dogged by a lack of progress since its introduction in 1992. The Government will introduce a Bill at an early opportunity to clarify the powers of NHS trusts to enter into those agreements. The legislation will unblock the PFI in health, enabling major hospital projects to proceed without delay.
The Government are committed also to introducing a ban on tobacco advertising. Smoking is a complex and difficult issue. A ban may be the single most important step that the Government can take to help to reduce the number of people who smoke and to prevent youngsters taking up the habit. However, we recognise that that is part of a well thought out overall strategy to tackle the greatest single cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK. That is why we announced a White Paper on wider measures to reduce tobacco consumption.
I turn now to the other issues raised by your Lordships in the course of the debate. With some 35 speakers, your Lordship will understand that I cannot reply to all questions. Indeed, to reply to the 36 questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, alone would take 20 minutes. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will permit me to write.
I turn first to the constitutional issues raised by your Lordships. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, emphasised that in her view, devolution undermines the Union. That position was stoutly attacked and our proposals stoutly defended by my noble friends Lady Ramsay and Lord Ewing in splendid speeches

249
which emphasised that devolution is not independence; that, indeed, devolution is the best and only way in which to repair a Union of the UK long now under strain. The lack of Conservative MPs in Scotland and Wales does not suggest that the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, are widely supported by Welsh and Scottish people, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, suggested.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to the West Lothian question, as did the noble Lord, Lord Owen. Scotland retains a major interest in Westminster matters. Therefore, it is right that it should keep Scottish MPs, especially when we come to discuss the dispersal of UK resources. The UK Parliament will continue to have full responsibility for the overall interests of the UK and it is essential that Scotland's voice is heard at Westminster.
I was asked why Wales should be treated differently from Scotland. The reason is that Scotland has a different legal system to which the devolution proposals should conform.
I was asked whether we would reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster. No, we shall not. I was asked whether there will be Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales at the Westminster Parliament. My Lords, yes. I was asked who will pay the tartan tax. That will be determined by residency, as will the question of who will be entitled to vote, including the right of Peers. I hope that noble Lords will accept from me that other and detailed questions which have been raised tonight must await answer in the White Paper.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked how the voters would know the details on which they will be asked to vote. The White Paper will be published in the summer, well in advance of the referendum in the autumn, and we have every reason to believe that the voters will be well informed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister in full flight but, although the hour is late, I have a question about the White Paper. The Minister said that the latter would be published in the summer. I gave dates in my speech and, when people return from their holidays, my suggestion would give them three weeks during which they could study the document. Does the noble Baroness consider the time she mentioned to be adequate?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I cannot confirm the dates at this stage; indeed, I do not believe that they have as yet been decided.
I should like to throw back a question to those Members on the Opposition Benches, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Should the electorate favour the plans for a Welsh assembly and a Scottish parliament, do the Conservatives intend to contest such elections? Alternatively, is their abhorrence of what we propose such that they will stand aloof? It would be helpful at some stage to have an answer to that question.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked whether there would be a minimum vote requirement. That does not exist in any part of the UK's constitution. Given the
250
interest and the high turnout at the general election, I cannot believe that that question is other than a hypothetical one.
I turn now to some of the points raised about the Welsh assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked why Wales would not have primary legislative powers. The assembly would take over the current powers of the Welsh Secretary of State and make the secondary legislation determining how policy would be implemented in Wales. It would also democratise Welsh quango government which the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, vividly described. Again, if the vote in Wales is "no", then obviously we would have to consider the matter. However, we believe that question to be hypothetical.
The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, asked for reassurance against the domination of the whole of Wales by South Wales. Yes, we are proposing an electoral system with a degree of proportionality and area committees to ensure that all interests are considered. We are not proposing a talking-shop for Wales: it will have a budget of £7 billion and very real responsibilities in health, education, social services and economic development to make a difference to the people of Wales.
I was also asked about Northern Ireland by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. I welcome the remarks made in that connection by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice and by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. The internal arrangements within Northern Ireland, including a devolved assembly, are part of the agenda about the talks on the future of the Province; but they will be held within a comprehensive framework of relationships with Northern Ireland, the Republic and Westminster.
In addition, on constitutional matters, there were a number of contributions on the question of the fate of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked why measures to reform this Chamber were not brought forward earlier; the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, asked why they had been brought forward at all and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked that the House should be reformed in such a way that would send him away happy. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, spoke about a system that would make our daughters happy. The proposals have not been put forward in the first Session because of the pressure on legislative time, especially for constitutional reform. That pressure is immense but we shall introduce the Bill as soon as time permits.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also asked about elections to the European Parliament. These will take place during the summer of 1999. I can tell the noble Lord that elections of MEPs to the European Parliament will eventually be subject to proportional representation, but we cannot yet confirm the timing of those changes. They will need some consideration and I doubt that such electoral changes will be in place in time. Of course they may be, but I rather doubt it.
Questions were also raised about the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked whether that simply meant a transfer of power to non-elected judges. I believe that many of

251
the questions and concerns of the noble Baroness were answered by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, drawing on his experience of New Zealand. At present, British people who believe that their human rights have been breached have to go to Strasbourg. However, with incorporation they will be able to argue for their rights before our courts. Parliament will remain sovereign; the courts will continue to interpret and apply the law which will now include the rights and freedoms protected under the European convention. In response to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I can also confirm that incorporation of the convention will apply to Northern Ireland.
Finally on this matter I was asked whether the freedom of information legislation would imperil the independence of the Civil Service. We believe that it will strengthen the workings of government. We are committed to preserving the impartiality of the Civil Service. A White Paper will detail our proposals.
I move to Home Office questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, scorned our proposals. I have to say that a Tory record in which crime has doubled since 1979 and in which the number convicted has fallen by a third is not a record I would wish to be proud of. The noble Baroness asked about the position on handguns. That question was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. We believe that the firearms Act does not go far enough. We believe that all handguns should be banned but we are committed to a free vote. Is the Conservative Party? Part of the money needed for that measure is already built into our spending plans. It will cost an additional £19 million, bringing the total sum to £166 million.
I was asked whether the Home Secretary's taking full responsibility for prisons meant the ending of an executive agency. It does not but it means an accentuation of ministerial responsibility in terms of a Minister answering questions rather than a civil servant. I was asked about sentencing by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Sentencing policy will form part of the crime and disorder Bill. Consideration is being given to the Court of Appeal having a duty to produce sentencing guidelines for major offences, as it already does for rape and drug cases. We shall of course consult with the senior judiciary on this. As for the mandatory life sentence for murder, I am sure we shall return to that subject.
I am mindful of the time and I move on to health. I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, whether the Labour plans would increase bureaucracy. On the contrary, we are not only concerned that the 60 per cent. of the population who currently enjoy fundholding should continue to have a quality health service, we are also anxious about the delays that the other 40 per cent. experience. We believe that reforming the internal market will save £1.5 billion for patient and pensioner care. It is worth reminding ourselves that waiting lists and waiting times are rising. Meanwhile, in the past year, 37 of 100 health authorities were in deficit and 111 of 425 trusts were in debt. As with law and order, if I were the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that is not a record I would care to boast of.
252
I turn to questions raised on the DSS and welfare to work proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, scorned the ability of the welfare to work scheme to create jobs. What would the noble Baroness prefer to see, an ever increasing spiral of disaffected young people who are not even employable, or the offer of a chance for real and worthwhile job experience and training leading to recognised qualifications which hope will take them into permanent jobs? The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, talked about the wealth of utilities being squandered in getting young people back to work. We come from different worlds. I believe that the true wealth of this country lies in the skills and abilities of its people which our programme of welfare to work will muster.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, knows that we have inherited policies on housing benefit, asylum seekers and other matters that I, alongside him, resisted as strenuously as I could. He will also know that the savings from those programmes have been built into the previous Government's expenditure plans which we have inherited. To mitigate the effects of those proposals we shall have to find savings elsewhere in the DSS budget. We do not yet know whether we can do so. If we can, we shall, but no decisions have yet been taken on that. What will happen to young people who do not take part in the new deal? The new deal offers young people a real opportunity to better their prospects for finding work. We are not offering them the option of remaining permanently on full benefit.
My noble friend Lord Ashley referred to disability. We are committed to comprehensive and enforceable anti-discrimination legislation. There are several Ministers—two in the DfEE and myself in the DSS—with particular responsibility for that. As he will know, we shall pursue their rights actively.
To conclude, welfare issues are close to the heart of any Labour Government. We created the welfare state; we created the NHS. That 1945 Government built institutions that were widely admired and widely copied and put down deep roots. We cherish them and we glory in that inheritance. But we must reform the system. The welfare state has taken the strain of long years of social division, public squalor and economic failure. The policies of the last Government interlocked to increase the costs of welfare while at the very same time they increased inequality, poverty, dependency and division.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. The noble Baroness gave a rather alarming statistic. I should like it confirmed if she will do so. I understand that the noble Baroness is looking for £1.5 billion worth of savings from the NHS as it is run at present. Will she confirm that figure?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that was the figure I gave. If I have mis-stated the figure, I shall write to the noble Baroness. We cannot continue to fund failure. I just ask your Lordships to remember that under previous Conservative administrations the number of people dependent on benefit doubled from one in 12 to one in six; one in five households of people of working

253
age are not in work; one child in four is growing up in a family on income support; and one quarter of all Europe's poor live in Britain today. Children are born in poverty, live in poverty, and then pass on poverty to their children as they move into an impoverished old age.
The knee-jerk response of the previous Government was to cut already meagre benefit payments to their already poor claimants in the forlorn hope that they could contain the growth in expenditure caused by their own economic and social failure. We can do better. We must, and we will. As Beveridge said—no opting out into private pacts with social evil. One nation; a society not divided; one that does not create outsiders or allow
254
outsiders to become outlaws. As Beveridge said, that is the meaning of social conscience. Together we will renew our health service and rebuild our welfare state. I am confident that all noble Lords around this House will want to join us in that enterprise.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Baroness Gould of Potternewton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.
House adjourned at eight minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Zairean Nationals: Asylum
  Zairean Nationals: Asylum